RELIGION AND THE IRISH REVOLT

New Zealand Tablet, 21 July 1921, Page 37

RELIGION AND THE IRISH REVOLT

The following letter to the editor of the Otago Daily limes recently appeared in the correspondence columns of that paper, being a reply to published statements of a certain local P.P.A. parson:

Sir, To my letter of the sth inst. Mr. Griffith replies by pointing out that as Mr. Elliott has left Dunedin it is cowardly to produce the evidence which so completely destroys his case. This may safely be left to the common sense of your readers to deal with.

. Mr. Griffith goes on to say that Mr. Elliott would welcome a public discussion “where the people may have both sides and decide where truth lies.” Had I known of this in time I can assure Mr. Griffith that I would have been present at the meeting of the 4th inst. Mr. Griffith has himself to blame for my absence. When Mr. Elliott urns in Dunedin about March last I obtained, by a strategem, two tickets on the face of which it was stated that the bearer was “vouched for.” I attended that meeting in company with Mr. J. Robinson, of South Dunedin. At the conclusion of Mr. Elliott’s address questions were invited. Mr. Robinson immediately put a question which the speaker passed aside with the remark that Mr. Robinson was deputed by the “Roman Church” to put the question. No answer was given. Why ? I then put three questions, all of which were adroitly side-stepped, and on my attempting- to put a fourth Mr. Griffith intervened and refused to take any further questions from me. If the P.P.A. desires a full and free discussion here was an opportunity with all the advantages of a sympathetic chairman and audience. Does not all the evidence point to the conclusion that the methods beloved by the P.P.A. are those of the closed door and the carefully selected audience? In his attempt to refute the evidence contained in my last letter Mr. Griffith indulges in a series of unsupported statements such as should not deceive a school boy. If his contentions are correct, let him produce his authorities. His unsupported word is no betteriffian my own. To what I have previously said in reply to Mr. Elliott’s statement that “the Irish question was at bottom a fight between the Church of Rome and the British Empire,” let me add the following:

1. Eleven Anglican bishops, together with a number of Nonconformist divines, have denounced the actions of the British Government in Ireland (vide report in Otago Daily Times). 2. The Right Rev. William Temple, Bishop of Manchester, has made a strong denunciation of British rule in Ireland, in the course of which he states that it seems that when we conquered the bodies of Prussians, Prussiamsm conquered our souls.” (See Pilgrim for April, 1921.) 3. A committee of 150 distinguished Americans, including high dignitaries of all Churches, senators, Labor leaders, writers, and men and women prominent in the social and civic life of America, appointed a commission to inquire into the facts concerning Ireland. Here, in part, is the report of the Protestant members of that commission: -“Outside of a part of Ulster, Catholics and Protestants live in peace and harmony, and their political opinions are not primarily a matter of religion . en n . Y lster . religious bigotry is not spontaneous, but is artificially stirred up by those whose economic and political interests are served by dividing the people.” (See report m New York Nation and Stead’s Review of June Mr rea e « W “'.r te that 1 P roduce authorities. Mr. Elliott and Mr. Griffith do not. etc Again, those I quote are “dupes of Rome.”— am etc., >

Harry Murrow.