Christianity Fails.

Christians are funny people, In the same breath they deplore the irreligion of the age, they protest that Christianity "lives on" with its lustre and influence undimmed. Your correspondent, F.C. falls into this contradiction. Deploring the apathy of students to a "definite attempt to interest students in the search for spiritual truth," F.C. falls back on the merely historical fact that Christiantiy has struggled through 2000 years of existence, drawing the inference that "what was good enough for our fathers is good enough," etc. This, of course is black reaction.

F.C. labours the point that all young social reformers should consider Christianity. The answer to this is easy: most have. Most of these people, he will find, have gone through a religious phase, or at least been familiarised with religious teachings. For them, the solemn hocus-pocus of God-seeking no longer suffices. The reason for "this unrest" is plain. If we are at all thoughtful, our attentions are to-day riveted on the social problem. We are in need of a clear lead. Christianity—or any other religion—fails in its treatment of social problems, fails to give such a lead, because it is shot through with the point of view of subjective idealism, which denies or minimises the existence of material (and therefore) social problems in favour of the existence of God and the individual religious experience.

Despite its 2000 years, the current ineffectuality of Christianity in the face of the social problem, to say nothing of its influence as a social narcotic, force the conclusion that Christianity has outlived its time and usefulness. "We no longer need that hypothesis"—it constricts and misleads us. It results in the futile confusion of social and political naivete typified in the fantastic Christian attitude that the conflicts between capital and labour will disappear through the growth of love and mutual understanding. One would like to carry this theme further—to show how a religious view of things always results in a perilous misinterpretation of social issues.

The statement of the former Commissar of the Soviet Union is interesting. One wonders by whom and in what circumstances the statement was made, and from what source the quotation was gleaned. Because all other observers, among them Max Riske, inform us that religion is a dead force in Russia—dead because it no longer has the active support of the State and its propaganda machine.

—Lazarus.

Rime

(Dedicated to the author of "Time.")

Often
On Friday nights
"Smad" is short a few inches—

So I
Write a pome
On Life and Death
Or Art and the Absoloute
—anyway Something Big—

Good vague stuff
High-flown and capitalised—
A few dots—splashed here and there—

It fills the space—

—Old Mother Aitch.

Cowardly Killing.

Without questioning the right of students to form any sort of club they please so long as it is interested in something, may I express my horror and disgust at witnessing during Tournament time the emergence from some mouse-hole in the College of a clique which calls itself the Rifle Club? Apart from the gross spirit of professionalism which this so-called sport has acquired from the pot-hunting notoriously associated with it, shooting does not appear to be a fitting pastime for any but military trainees and those private citizens who are physically disabled from taking part in any more violent form of recreation. The thought of healthy men neglecting healthy exercise to spend their Saturday afternoons lying on their stomachs among the crocks and cripples in order to practise the most cowardly among the arts of killing is no less than nauseating especially at a time like the present, when hope for the future is bound up with the eradicating, or at least the discouragement, of the warlike spirit. How can we dispose the ape and tiger to inanition if, while giving lip-service to the principle "mens sana in corpore sano," we suffer this form of sadism to fasten parasitically upon the student body and stand complacently by while little knots sneak away into remote places where they can practise with impunity a technique proper to the gangster, the assassin, and that cold-blooded killer, the sniper? Rifle-shooting as an amusement is brainless: as a recreation it is useless. In no way does it foster the corporate interests of students. As a preparation for war of the modern kind, in which men move in vast numbers, it is negligible. If any student thinks fit to waste his time in this silly, futile, hole-in-the-corner method of shirking, it is his private affair. But the queenie business does not merit inclusion among the officially-recognised sports of the Colllege.

—I. M. Disgusted.

Drunkenness a Virtiue?

In the last number of "Smad an appeal was voiced to the Executive to give this paper more support, lest the "undoubted talent" of subscribers to its columns should be turned to "baser issues." May I state that if the Tournament number of "Smad" is representative of this talent I can scarcely conceive of its being turned to baser issues? Judging from the general tenor of the articles of Tournament—more especially of the social side—drunkenness is a virtue of which to be proud. Does it not strike you that there is something radically wrong in the make-up of a man who can cheerfully brag of his college's prowess in drinking bouts?

As an admirer of all that is clean and straight in our College life, I cannot refrain from voicing a protest against the general spirit of coarseness expressed in these articles. Had the remarks even been witty, it might not have been so bad; but for sheer brawling beastliness I find these articles hard to beat.

"Smad" may consider itself representative of student opinion in such matters, but I assure you, Mr. Editor, that there is no small number of students who are ashamed to think that such lewd, public-house humour as appeared in the last number of "Smad" could for a moment be considered to express the general tone of the College. The profoundest need of the world to-day is for clean, strong personality, and yet "Smad" would have us believe that the poverty of character exemplified in the Tournament articles is typical of the best talent we have in our universities. I for one cannot let such an implication go unchallenged, because I consider it not only unjust but also inadvisable that the general estimation of our universities should be biassed by such a belief.

—Sybil Williams.

Social Editor Replies.

I regret that our gentle reader, Miss S. Williams, should have been caused pain by what she has been pleased to call "the general spirit of coarseness" in last week's "Smad."

But perhaps, had Miss Williams been able, as we were able, to experience the marvellous hospitality, the prevailing goodfellowship, the extraordinary kindness of Otago, her dainty reserve, her acute sense of decorum, and conservative (some would say. narrow) judgment of tournamenting students would have been quite unequal to the task of writing the harsh, though harmless, article which appears over her name.

For the mention of taverns, of alcoholic consumption (institutions not necessarily wicked), and for the mention of hilarious excitement in "Smad," we cannot and do not make apologies. But we would refer Miss Williams—God bless her—to all those other souls who, with us, enjoyed the Otago Tournament.

They will forgive her, and treat her gently, for "she knows not what what she does."

—Social Reporter.

Concerning Convention.

I see we still have at least one narrow-minded mid-Victorian among us. I see no reason for the outburst of indignation by "Shocked" in a recent issue of "Smad" because some people decide to break away from the ties of convention and wear shorts on the tennis court.

I expect "Shocked" has been to athletic meetings, football matches, hockey matches, bathing resorts and the like, but so far I have not seen any outbursts on the subject of displays of "angular limbs" on the football field or hockey ground.

The whole question appears to be one of petty convention. Because flannels and stockings have been worn in the years past, "Shocked" thinks they should always be worn. However, this does not mean that this is the best attire or the healthiest. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of health, shorts are by far the best. Long flannels to a large extent prevent the pores of the skin from exuding moisture as is natural after violent exertion.

Where, may I ask, is the offensiveness in legs? You see plenty of them at the beach, so why condemn them on the tennis court? Further more, there are very few of these "angular limbs" about now; in fact, most of those I have seen were far from angular.

The only probable drawback against the practice on the Sabbath is that wives may have some difficulty in getting their husbands to church.

Gandhi.