Nunc Dimittis

Well, we know now, The great Oxford Union has said so. The Victoria College Debuting Society has substantiated the matter. We must "return to religion" If we wish to solve our present discontents.

Forty-four students of V.U.C. (including most of the S.C.M.) have said so; forty have denied it; and about eleven hundred have refrained from voting. By the democratic principles which govern debates, however, the decision of the forty-four becomes an eternal truth. The great philosophers, sociologists, and scientists have not worked in vain, for a solution has at last been reached—the only solution. We must return to religion.

Dross or Gold.

And which religion are we to return to? Mr. Freeman asked this pertinent question in his opening speech for the negative; Mr. McCulloch, from voluminous notes, had attempted to define religion as embracing all beliefs, and, in a well-constructed speech, pointed out that a separation between the dross and the gold in religion must be made. Mr. Freeman naturally wanted to know which religion contained most gold and least dross; if he had to return to religion he wanted to know which system of beliefs he should embrace—would it solve our discontents if he became a Holy Roller or a British Israelite, or must he become a Christian or a dancing dervish?

Miss Justine Smith, ably supported by Mr. McMurray, in one of the most effective and pleasing speeches of the evening, supplied the answer. Mr. McCulloch and Mr. Treadwell had advocated a return to a vague sort of religion, but Miss Smith made an eloquent and convincing plea on behalf of Christianity.

To the Mount.

So we must return to Christianity, to the Sermon on the Mount. Mr. Renouf eloquently advocated a return to Christ; Mr. Bowyer conjured up a picturesque scene depicting Christ on the cover of "Cappicade"; Mr. Ongley presented a few outworn Aquinate proofs of God's existence, and appeared entirely undisturbed by the fact that his speech was entirely irrelevant.

Anyway, Christianity is the solution. But is it the only solution? The motion says so—and thus the labours of socialists, anarchists, fascists, communists, philosophers, and scientists are rendered null and void by a four-letter word. Mr. Lewin was the only speaker for the negative who brought up this point, in a vehement speech which was placed first by the Judge, Dr. A. G. Butchers. Mr. Freeman, whose brilliant reply would easily have placed him first, was lowered to third place owing to his over-stepping the time limit.

And, we may justly ask, how can a return to religion—a purely personal relationship between man and a superior being—possibly affect amoral institutions such as sovereign states, property concepts, capitalism, and tanks? There is every reason to believe that traditional institutions such as these do have some small effect in increasing world problems. Miss Sutch, in a vigorous address; attacked the Church strongly from this basis, and Mr. Meek, who appeared rather exhausted, continued the attack on organised religion.

"Salient's" prizes for the statements made during the debate which were worthy of inclusion in the "God Defend New Zealand" column, have been allotted as follows:—

First Price—Mr. Foley.

We still read Shakespeare and Bacon; doesn't this show that any institution which has lasted through the ages in good and right and worthy of all men to be believed? (e.g., prostitution?) Second' Prize—Mr. Renouf.

No man who does not know and acknowledge God can be just to man. (e. g., J. S. Mill?)

Third Prize—Mr. MacDonald.

Not until the last capitalist has been liquidated will be and a solution to our present discontents.