The Waterbury Democrat., 1934-10-06

noculation would have occurred to mar the moral fibre of the communicates"
 Home training, school train. ing, and church training do not amount to much when Frank B. Parsons passes upon them. He is a learned judge, but is his verdict to be accepted when he Is not logical enough to examine what the three agencies which he condemns undertake to. do :? Do they undertake to ...'immnn- ize" their subjects? Quite the contrary. 1t is because they know that their children are not immunized against evil centa cts. that they insist that the young people keep away from the mov- ies which corrupt. 4
 The purpose Of education is to enlighten the mind and develop the moral sense, so that the will will be strong enough to. resist evil, and prompt to the perfor- nance of duty. The Creator alone can immunize the child against evil. lie did not do so. He gave us free viii. MT Par sons quarrel should be with Him, not with the human agen- cies that strive to make men choose good and strive against evil. Mir Parsons may refuse to accept the doctrine of free will, and to undertake his conversion would be to open an endless ar- gument and to write oneself out Ian egrsgious ass.''
 In opening his letter he speaks of 'tthis spontaneous demand for censorship" If the demand is "spontaneous'' the cleries should not be too sharply condemned for trying to meet it. And 1t is rather gratuitous te assume that they should wait and learn how MT Parsons. would have them meet it. U. 34gfa
 , Our critic tells us that "it is necessary to know the seamy side of life's existence" He probably does not intend us to understand that he is condemn ing us for accept the facts of "life's existence" What he wanted us to understand is that life has it's seanly side, and that the young should know sotne- thing about it.
 His scholarship and command of English are not triumphantly in evidence when he writes: If church adherentsF and their spir- itual advisors want to apply the thumb-screw of authority, they should extend the scope to em- brace the sources from which they en1anate. for it is apparent to all that our municipalities are the breeding nests that stimulate the movie, companies to, make films that are true to life"
 Read the quotation just given, and look back to the letter and read it in It's context, then tell us what MT Parsons means by ''the source from which they em- anate." To what does his they" refer? Possibly his they" refers to ''the flln1s." That's quite a distance, and a man who "knows how to write the English lan- guage," would hardly require his readers to retrace their steps quite so. far. And then, after making the round trip, we are left to wonder whether we. have grasped his meaning or not. Good English indeed!
 Mir Parsons is keen to learn why ecclesiastics condemn the films and not the daily press. The one is a tleast as bad as the other. Both are bad enough. But the daily press does not spe- cialize in spreading evil before its patrons. The people want to know all the news that's fit to print. They get it and occasion ally they get some that's not fit to print. The portion which is distinctively evil is not published in order to satisfy 8 vitiated de- mand. The comparison between the press and theaters Is unwar- ranted, at least in one that is able to distinguish between pulp fishing an evil act and traffick- ing in evil for the profit it yields and for nothing else.
 But why go further? As a juggler in big words Mir Parsons is paramount. Which is tanta- mount to saying that his produc- tion is 1t for gazing rustics, not for those who have access to the dictionary. As a critic of clerics he merits no further notice"