The Birmingham age-herald., 1915-03-17
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Sunday Movies


 I To the Editor of The Age-Herald
 I don't thing the public should be mis-
 led as to the attitude of those who op-
 pose the operation of Sunday shows. I
 am not member of the Pastors union;
 l think understand their motives. Those who are not so zealous in preserving the i sacredness of the Sabbath would have
 the public believe that it Is pure ''cussed-
 ness on the part of the pastors who are
 opposed to Sunday shows. They lose | sight of the main grounds of opposition,
 and to try to make it appear that it is
 lack of sympathy for the poor and needy ] It ought to be we'll known that no class l of men gives more to the needy and suf- fering than the pastors, and might say
 that the bulk of relief for such causes
 usually comes from the churches. Every
 real Christian Is opposed to needless
 Sabbath desecration and the Sunday l shows have been looked upon not so much
 as a measure to relieve the poor and needy, as 1t is a move or entering wedge I toward a wider field for Sabbath desecra- | ton.
 1 This view is supported by the fact that | the''wedge' has made progress during
 the past week. as as the time for opering and closing has been extended an hour each day. This last move seems to be a direct blow at the church, as very few | church services are through by 12 o'clock. and many from now will begin at ' o'clock.
 | Now. many of Us are curious to know why the proprietors of these shows, seem- | ingly so generous and self-sacrificlng, are not willing to give one of the legal l pr q If l,a 1faf I of the poor. Why take from the Lord
 the only day that He has set apart for l Himself to be hallowed and kept sacred ?
 A day for meditation and worship. I know from personal observation that l there are more people on the streets any 1 day in the week than on the Sabbath day. 1 Why not devote the proceeds of Satul- days business to relief of those who seem | to be so near the hearts of the proprie- I tors of the shows? This, it seems to me, | would be entirely consistent. I do not | know that there is any credit in giving 1 to the Lord that which is tis by divine l right In this connection the lplic would | like to know how much the operators get l for their Sunday work. If they are sin cere, I am sure they do not mind telling us As to the crowds attending the shows I yesterday, l chanced to be in town be- l tween the hours of and 8 D. m and | passed in front of three of the shows. i! The first, as is usually the case, had 1 good crowds standing in front on the 1 sidewalk. The next two, both together, | had less than half q dozen standing around, and at one I saw no one in front and while I fingered a moment. saw only two persons emerging from the show
 room. Of course, I could not judge of the crowd inside. for I uid not see in- side and have not in the space of four years. with possibly one exception. Now, to make my position clear, will say that if "the OK is in the ditch''- and I suppose no one will deny that he is-and would to God could get him out and that Sunday or the Sabbath day is the only day that can be used for his relief, by all means l say. use it, and get him out. But I want to emphasize the question, is Sunday the only day, and must it be secularized in order to relieve those in distress? Why not let the merchants and other lines of busi ness operate on the Sabbath for relief of the needy? Personally, I am not so much opposed to picture shows on the Sabbath as to some other forms of amusement In fact, I thinA they could be made-by eliminating some now in use -one of the most innocent .orms of amusement or Sabbath breaking. But let us be careful. At the r te we are going we will soon have no tod nor Sabbath. D. D. REEVES. Birmingham, March 15, 1915