The “Crusader” Again

In the August issue I dealt with what I considered to be the weakness and insufficiency of the policy of the “Crusader,” in so far as it is concerned with the emancipation of the workers. In reply the Editor wrote (August 26th) :

  “The writer, in his opening sentence, says that we believe in the power of the ethics of Christ to overcome all the difficulties and to combat all the evils which trouble mankind. That is just what we don’t believe. The ethical system of Christianity by itself is a trunk without a head, a tree without a root. Christianity is based on attachment to a person of transcendent authority. When it is detached from this foundation, it loses all its distinctive characteristics, and becomes, what its adversaries declare it is, an impossible dream, a set of barren principles.”

As a matter of fact, I am still of the opinion that my statement of the “Crusader’s” attitude was a fair one, but evidently Stanley James thinks not. May I, however, quote from the “Crusader” itself (September 23rd) on this point, asking it to be noted that the Editor does not dissociate himself or the journal from the opinions of other writers in it? Mr. Wilfred Wellock, a regular contributor, writes, under the title “The Way Out,” as follows :

  “Labour needs the lead of people who are prepared to take the straight road to the new world, to adopt a revolutionary programme based on the ethics of Christianity.”

And again :

  “How magnificent it would be were Labour to stand four square on the principle of service and co-operation, and fight a General Election with such slogans as ‘The Meek shall inherit the earth. . . ‘ “

Comment on this is not required.

Incidentally, to return to our opposition to the “Crusader” policy, I repeat, the militant and not the meek will inherit the earth.