Neither for Nor Against

As neither a Communist nor an anti-Communist may I be allowed to give an opinion on the Russian film which was banned by the censor? The review of it by D.L.F. did nothing but give an account of what the makers of the film hoped it would say—not what it really did say.

The film was no more prejudiced than certain "Marches of Time" I have seen recently—in fact many scenes in the two were remarkably similar, but with a different commentary attached. When one saw scenes of school children engaged in peaceful pursuits they were labelled Americans in the American film, and Russians in the Russian film; and when tanks were shown trundling over hills they were labelled American in the Russian film and Russian in the American film. (Correction—in the American film there were two shots of trundling tanks . . . one of Russian tanks attacking Freedom and one of American tanks defending Freedom).

But the real value of the film lay not in uncovering any brutalities of American police in Vienna, not in revealing notings and discontent provoked by "American Imperialism" (for the riotings and discontent are only too prevalent on both sides of the Iron Curtain). Neither did the value lie in showing us the enormous number of Soviet signatures attached to the Stockholm Peace Petition (for the very reason why more of the Western world will not sign the Peace Petition is just because the signatures are too Red). The real worth in showing this film would be to open the eyes of the general public to the enormous amount of propaganda which is fed to us—in showing them that the Russians say the same things about us as we say about them, using practically identically the same scenes to say it. For this reason I feel the film should not have been banned. It may have helped to balance the fanatical anti-Communists who digest every word our newspapers and Government have to tell them about the Russians—balance them not by showing them what good fellows the Communists are, but that we use exactly the same lures to draw public opinion into our net of anti-Communism. (Of course the fact that no theatre would have been caught dead showing a Russian film is no excuse for banning it.)

Technically, the film was very poor indeed—bad print, bad sound track and very long and uninteresting shots of speaker after speaker talking in peculiar languages, with a barely audible English commentary in the background. I was surprised after Russia's rapid advance in earlier films that this one was not more slick.

Anonymous

(For obvious reasons. . . .)

1.	The Communists are gaining ground even in New Zealand and I'm afraid for my skin.
2.	in the meantime the Emergency Regulations have not yet been repealed.

[Anon. can rest easily—the Emergency Regulations weren't that sweeping.

—Ed.]

Who is This Clot?

We wish to draw your attention to the deplorable state of the lighting in room Al. It is high time fluorescent lighting was put in this room. At the moment we find it impossible to read under the desks during lectures, the result being that we are exceedingly bored! We have to choose between ruining our eyes or going to sleep. Surely it is high time something was done about it.

On behalf of all decent students we appeal to you to see that action is taken immediately.

—Save our Eyes.

A Critique of Munz

Dr. Munz's letter in your issue of July 12 made disappointing reading. It was a painful surprise to sec a university lecturer arguing with so little regard for common logic and descending at times to straight-out sophistry.

Dr. Munz, with a fine disregard for the realities of the situation, argues as if the Rationalist historian studies the Gospels in a purely objective fashion and is, therefore, in a much better position to arrive at the truth than the Catholic or orthodox Christian, hamstrung by dogmatic preconceptions. That the Rationalist has his preconceptions too is clear from Dr. Munz's own statement that although he is not an expert on the subject of early Christianity, he prefers the opinions of Loisy, Klausner and Schweitzer to those of other scholars. Why, we ask, does he prefer the views of these scholars?

Surely because they are in harmony with his Rationalistic pre-conceptions. No historian, be he Christian or Rationalist, can study the Gospels in the cold objective fashion of one discussing, for example, the dates of an Egyptian dynasty. Christ is too challenging a figure for that. It is, therefore, a piece of dishonesty on the part of the Rationalist to adopt the pose of complete historical objectivity and refuse to argue with the Christian because the Christian refuses to admit that the Rationalist arguments are cogent.

In several places Dr. Munz makes bold assertion do duty for argument—a familiar fallacy known as begging the question. Thus, he asserts that the belief that the Christian faith and reason cannot contradict each other is unfounded—a proposition he will have some trouble in proving. Dr. Munz disdains to offer any proof.

Again he asserts that Loisy and Dollinger had good historical reasons for disagreeing with the Popes. Good reasons in the opinion of Dr. Munz. But at least in the case of Loisy he has admitted that he is not qualified to give a worthwhile opinion, since he is a "non-specialist" in that field.

In another passage Dr. Munz insinuates that Catholicism teaches that the end justifies the means. Insinuation is more effective than bold assertion and it has the advantage of leaving one with the option of declining to offer proof if the insinuation is challenged: "I never said that!" Here is the passage that the reader may judge for himself whether my charge is justified: "Frankly I do not like these propagandists ruses. They remind me too much of the maxim that the end justifies the means. No doubt your contributor considered himself well justified in his misrepresentations, because they were a means, in his eyes, towards supporting Catholicism."

Since Dr. Munz, on his own admission, knows so little of the beliefs of the Primitive Church he is certainly not entitled to assert that the doctrine of transubstantiation does not faithfully represent these beliefs.

—"Logician"

Evasion Again

Mr. MacNeill seems to miss the point. Did not the Peace Council here object to conscription? Why not in the Soviet? It is easy to say that the Movement condemns all war propaganda but is not insulting, irrational condemnation of the Western powers dangerous to Peace? Why not condemn that sort of thing on both sides? Surely the banning of the Stockholm Appeal, which has its faults, is not sufficient ground for expulsion of Yugoslavia by Itself? Most of the signatures to the appeal come from Communist controlled states where the Party is in power—the figures (22,000,000 Communists, 750,000,000 signatures is, therefore, not impressive).

The question of Lithuania, Estonia, etc., remains unanswered. So does the question of gifts of Soviet arms to North Korea.

—Buffalo Bill.