Sunday Sports — Why Not ?

Observation Post, Volume 1, Issue 22, 16 October 1942, Page 2

Sunday Sports — Why Not ?

(By “The Gadfly.”) I wish to preface this little article by emphasising that the views expressed are entirely my own, and that their publication in “The Observation Post” does not imply that they have the endorsement of the Editor, or of the Military Authorities; nor is it intended even to suggest that they have their commendation or approval. The ideas submitted are simply those of one man, who believes they -are worthy of consideration. I think there is nothing more depressing or distressing than to see hundreds of uniformed men who, on a Sunday in this city wander aimlessly about our streets, with nowhere to go. nothing to do? nothing to see, and no one to meet, and I consider that it is high time that something was done to alter this lamentable state of affairs. I am not unmindful of what is already being done. There is the A.N.A. with its atmosphere of homely comfort. There is also an occasional concert, with its fine-spirited amateur artists. These are all to the good. But are they enough? Do they fit the need that exists? I think not. There remains much more to be done. I advocate Sunday sports for soldiers. I submit that there should be Sunday boxing matches, wrestling bouts, cricket games, bowls, and many others. There should be Sunday indoor games, such as card tourneys, darts, skittles, yes! and crown and anchor, too, if the men desire it ! OPPOSITION EXPECTED. Of course there wo aid be opposition from certain sections of church people. Nevertheless, I consider that the sports on Sunday should be. established. After all, the men in uniform are being trained for war, and I have yet to learn that I war pays much respect to, or has a very ' great regard for the observance of the Sabbath in the manner that many of its self-apopinted defence ■■ demand from soldiers at home. Some years ago, the'Waipawa U.S.A, staged a Sunday reunion and sports meeting, for its . . members and their wives and families, and it was an unqualified success, special traiflh running, and the attendance was far in excess of the most sanguine expectations. Of course there was opposition from certain people, and a vigorous newspaper correspondence resulted in. the columns of a daily which had a wide circulation in the district. Three of the Sabbatarians were particularly active. One, who signed himself “Sabbath Day,” declared that the benefits which Sunday observance. had procured for the noonle had been bought by the sufferings and the devotion of generations ot devoted men and women. Another ■>i-;ned himself “Real Freedom,” and stated that he was led from above <•<> oppose any broadening of the nW.’/ on Sabbath Day, while the t' l ' a Mr. R. C. Macfarlane, who p , o be particularly pugnacious, c!.-. : ■ that church people had the right ■ n fid er themselves spiritual n w — en . and to enforce the observer ■ I entered the lis 4 -" bi defen-o of the actiot? of the Assoemtion in holding the meeting on a Snnd» --nd as mv letter anticipates to the full the objections that can be brought forward against

»sports meetings on Sundays for sol- ■ diers, I purpose submitting it, and I ask readers of the “Observation Post” to make their own views public through the columns of their own paper. I ' Here is my letter:— (To the Editor) Sir, —I desire to express my thanks to those correspondents who have commented upon my first letter dealing I with- sport on Sunday, and if space is I available I would like to reply briefly I thereto. It is noticeable that none of ■ them has attempted to deal with the ( subject from the point of view of I the right of the individual to freedom i of conscience and freedom of action. ; In fact, some have expressly declared, in as many words, that such right does i not, or ought not to exist, and that to the writers, as members of an organised body of Christian worshippers, a special commission has been given, to impose their will upon all those who do not believe as they do. This is a very dangerous mental attitude for anybody to adopt, and if carried to its ’.logical conclusion would lead to persei cution and the worst forms of religious ! intolerance, resulting in the absolute negation of all forms of mental and physical liberty. “Sabbath Day” declares that the benefits of Christian civilisation have been procured by the sufferings and sacrifices of generations of devoted men and women. True! But who caused them to suffer and to undergo sacrifice? Was it not those people of that day who mistakenly believ- , ed that they were quite within their rights in interpreting what they thought was Divine law, not only for themselves but for all mankind? Were not the persecuted made to suffer solely because the churches of the day denied to them the right of freedom of conscience? Is it not then unpardon- ! able on the part of the sufferers that, having won for themselves, through tears and blood, the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, they should now adopt the same attitude as those who formerly harried them and should say to those outside their fold, “We believe this is —whether you believe it notyou must do as we do, or we will condemn you?”. Having gained liberty for themselves, they would bind their fellows in chains. As for “Real Freedom,” who declares that he is content to let Christ lead him, it is sufficient to say that in so doing he is exercising his moral judgment and following the dictates of his conscience. He is at liberty to do so, and the liberty of conscience which he claims for himself he cannot consistently deny to others. Referring to the letter appearing over the .name of Mr. R. C. Macfarlane, I propose ignoring absolutely the personalities it contains, pausing only to remark that even the strictest Sabbatarian ought to know that there is never any excuse for not being a gentleman. With regard to his remark that “There is but One who adjudicates on spiritual matters and the clergy are least likely to usurp the . . . duty of the vine, ’ ' one wonders if he is really serious. If the clergy do not “adjudicate,” by what process of mental activity do they arrive at the decision that ’ the action of certain individuals- is wrong? Surely I am right in giving I them the credit of weighing all the evidence, taking all the facts into con- I sideration, and finally coming to a de-

vision! And if that process in its entirety is not adjudication, then I am at a loss to know what other word describes it. His claim that it is right that the personnel of the churches should act as a spiritual police force is the most vicious and dangerous principle that could ever be enunciatd, for it presumes that one body of men, solely because they believe * certain things, have a right to attempt to force those beliefs upon their fellow men. Against that monstrous principle (if it is not a profanation to call it by such a name), I contend that there never did, there never will and there never can exist any church, or any man, or combination of men, posessed of the right or the power of binding or controlling the piinds or consciences of men without the previous consent of those whose minds and consciences are to be thus controlled or bound. So long as man is a rational being, just so long will he believe in accordance with the evidence submitted to him. He cannot himself impel his judgment to believe, for belief is not an act of volition of the will; it is swayed by the evidence and will be moved, by that alone. Man’s will is freenot even Deity can compel it, and for man to assume to do so is an unwarranted impertinence and an act of colossal folly. And so I say that the way a man chooses to enjoy himself or make life interesting on Sunday (or any other day), so long as he does not strike at another’s life, or liberty, or property, is that man’s own individual affair. The fact that one’s neighbour is offended by the sight of what he thinks is impiety or even wickedness, does not give him the right to interfere, either personally, or through his church organisation, nor is it within his right to move for a law ordering his neighbour to conform to his idea of what is goodness, piety, or perfect Christian doctrine. Well, there it is. As I say, I consider it _ anticipates anything that can be mid against holding sports meetings on Sundays. What do you think? —

Fear, selfishness, greed or the scrounging spirit, and hatred are the colddiard facts which kill even the most perfect of our plans. ' So it boils down to this — plans for improvement are to succeed they must find a compelling reason for ordinary human beings; to be prepared to accept changes and they must find an antidote to fear, scrounging and hatred. Is it possible to find such a reason and such an antidote? Where? I was reading the other day a little book by some author named Mark. It seems the Hero of his book, not a very big book by the way, had some friends, but when things looked dangerous they deserted Him—Fear got them, but He went on His way for He was mightier than fear. It seems, too, there were also other people who were afraid because He wanted them to change their religious ideas. Others were the slaves of jealousy and hatred, and there were the scroungers too, notably one who received “30 pieces of silver” for be fraying the whereabouts of , Mark's Hero. And near the end of- the little book there is the scene where the solitary Hero is doing battle with all that Fear, Hatred, Jealousy and Selfish ii can bring against Him. But His position is hopeless for He is nailed hand and foot to a Cross. Nis Name also had been written there, “Jesus of Nazareth.” . There is another chapter after that which seems to suggest a Victory over all these things. It would be great news, but could it be true? After that I was reading some letters, ■ one of which mentioned how representatives of two nations which previously had refused to co-operate had allowed their ideas to be changed and were now ! learning to work together as one. The i reason given was this:—“But now in ! uhnst Jesus ye that once were far off ! we made nigh in the blood of Christ. 1 tor He is our peace who hath made both one . . . that He might create in Himself of the two one new man. ” 7 F .i.°.' n a ter of -St-Paul to the LINGTON, NEW ZEALAND

To-day millions, yes millions of men and women are finding that in the same Jesus Christ there is the antidote to their own personal fears, greed, hatred, and selfishness. And they have begun to work together for a truly Christian Order of Society. They find in Christ’s battle and sacrifice the compelling reason for so ‘ acting and they find love, or self-sacrifice to be thb true motive for living. They find it to be much more satisfying and more powerful native than greed or’ hatred and so forth and moreover it leads on ..to working and planning together J Do : you know of any other antidote or of any sufficiently compelling • other motive to lead human beings to accept changes for the benefit of all? Must not Christ and reallv practical planning go together? /