page 40

Some Lies and a Challenge

Since the war, there seems to have been a revival of interest in Religion. Whether we consider the destruction of the Caliphate or the vague theorising of the Theosophists with their new Messiah, the Ku Klux Klan in the U.S.A., or the P.P.A. in New Zealand, the cry that Christianity has failed or the Lambeth appeal for Unity, the Soviet and Mexican attacks on religion or the religious revival in France, the Anglo-Catholic movement in the Church of England or the Eucharistic Congress with its million attendants in Chicago, it is evident that there has been an increase in thinking about Religion. At Victoria University College, the revival has taken the shape of the introduction of debates on religious topics.

Now, such debates are of value when they are conducted without bigotry, and by persons with a good knowledge of facts. Of bigotry, the writer has seen just a little evidence, but of a good knowledge of facts, either of history or of present day affairs, on the part of the debaters, no evidence whatsoever.

For 3,000 years or more men have argued about religion, and each man seems to think that his own particular beliefs are correct in all respects, even though, in the great majority of cases, he has given no time at all to the study of religion. Nor is University life and thought free from this valour of ignorance.

Here, at Victoria, a lack of knowledge of Christianity is no bar to a confident discussion of the Impossibility of Christianity; a complete ignorance of Buddhism is the cause of its more than favourable comparison with Christianity. The Genesis account of creation is held to be an integral part of Christian belief (even by a judge of debate); the doctrine of Evolution is held to be incompatible with the idea of the immortality of the soul; Christianity is described as responsible for the break up of the family.

One student is sure that H. G. Wells is a better authority on religion than some cleric who has given his whole life to it; another believes that God is not omnipotent because there is evil in the world; a third accepts the pretended marvels of Spiritualism while denying the miracles of Christ. Then it is confidently stated that Christianity is dying out (though it is numerically stronger to-day than it ever was); that some of the more popular essayists, like Dean Inge and L. P. Jacks, are properly representative of Christian opinion; that a Bishop in a church council 1,400 years ago declared that woman had no soul; that woman under the mediaeval church was in a worse position than at any time under paganism; that a cardinal who had recently left the R.C. Church admitted the impossibility of Christianity; and so on, ad nauseam.

Now, there has recently been published a most fascinating book, having nothing whatever to do with religion in any way, which no person who wishes to be up-to-date and to have a mind free from silly beliefs and secular superstitions should leave un page 41 read. Hardly anyone will read through the thousand or more fallacies described in the book without finding more than one in which he has always believed. The work referred to is "Popular Fallacies Explained."—Acherman. As stated before, it does not include religious topics.

It is even more desirable that many of the local debaters should read some of the numerous books dealing with popular delusion as to Roman Catholic faith and practice or with the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Critics of religion display a strange unanimity in attacking the Catholic faith. How many non-Catholic students or members of the Faculty of Victoria University College can read through the following list of fallacies without finding one at least which he or she has always believed to be true? Here is the list:—

That the church withheld the Bible from the people.

That there was at one time a female Pope.

That the Middle or Dark Ages were really as bad as they are generally painted, and that their condition was largely due to the church.

That the church is, or was, generally opposed to science.

That the church authorised the sale of indulgences, or that an indulgence is a license to commit sin.

That the Spanish Inquisition was instituted by the church and that it was one of the most inhuman institutions that the world has seen.

That the Massacre of St. Bartholomew was authorised or approved by the Pope or church.

That several of the important doctrines of the church at the present day are not discernible in the writings or teachings of the early Christian Fathers.

That Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries because of their immorality.

That one Pope issued a bull against a comet.

That Catholics believe the Pope can do no wrong.

That Catholics pay money to have sins forgiven.

That Catholics believe that all non-Catholics will be damned.

That Catholics worship the saints or images of the saints.

That nuns are frequently detained in convents against their will, or that it is impossible for a nun to leave convent life if she wishes to.

That the Jesuits taught that the end justifies the means.

And numerous others of which lack of space will permit no mention.

Some of these are continually thrown up against the Catholic debater, though any person interested in learning the truth will soon discover that they are merely old lying slanders whose complete refutation exists in many books.

Now, if any of the readers of this article believe that any of the above slanders are true and is prepared to defend his views, the writer will be pleased to take the negative. To make the matter interesting, it is suggested that a judge of the debate be appointed who will give his decision purely on the nature of the evidence adduced, and that the loser shall pay some suitable forfeit such as agreeing to refrain from speaking on page 42 religious topics for one year, or crawling on hands and knees twice around the college, or some other equally intellectual penalty.

To many minds religion or relationship to God, is the most important thing in the world, but religious controversy should not be indulged in by those who are, like many debaters, ignorant alike of history and present day facts. Bigotry is born of ignorance and slanders must inevitably produce bad feeling. Why cannot debaters keep in their minds St. Paul's advice to the Ephesians: "Wherefore putting away lying, speak ye the truth every man with his neighbour; for we are members one of another."

Catholic Student.