Life, 1906-03-01 · page 28 of 46
Life — March 1, 1906 — page 28: what you’re looking at
What you’re looking at
This page contains reader letters defending Life's editorial stance on divorce, plus satirical commentary on related social issues. **"A Show Fur" cartoon**: Depicts a shabbily dressed figure—likely representing poverty or the working poor—commenting on wealth distribution. The satire criticizes hypocrisy around charitable giving. **Main satire ("Why Not?")**: Mocks the Catholic Church's claim to regulate marriage while ignoring broader moral authority. The examples describe clergy interfering in secular financial disputes (cheating, wage disputes) and claiming church profits from compensation—absurdly extending religious jurisdiction beyond matrimony. The satirist argues if the church regulates one civil matter (marriage), why not all? **"Light in Asia"** section: References Chinese Minister Yin-Tch'ang's criticism of foreign missionaries in Asia, characterizing them as self-interested and culturally offensive. Life appears sympathetic to anti-missionary sentiment. The page exemplifies *Life* magazine's turn-of-century progressive stance: questioning clerical authority, supporting secular governance, and critiquing imperial missionary enterprises.
📄 Transcribed text from this page (OCR, searchable)
Machine-transcribed from the original scan — historical spelling and the odd misread are preserved.
Ts EDITOR OF LIFE Dear Sir > As a subscriber and admirer of Live, Itake the liberty of pointing error in your editcrial to you { this week's Lire, the edi- tion of February 8, 1906. In your editorial on divorce, you say : * Those of our clerical brethren who maintain that itis cer- ty that divorced per- seem to have extraor- dinarily little Ye that belief, The at se recorded sayings the Christian world bases its standards of conduct, spoke no word that warranted such acon whic Teacher, on wh clusion,and if one desire of the Creator is clearer is the purpose that His human he mated.” than another, creatures shoul Now, if you will please read Matthew xix, 9, also Luke xvi, 18,1 think you will find a decided difference between Christ's words and your refer enceto'Hisw Fes, 6, 1906 cited authorize The only on the ground of adulter: texts divorce They do not forbid remarriage to the inno- cent party in such sage quoted above from vorced persons’ ases. In the pas- Lire, *di- nould read “innocent divorced persons."'--Ep. Newros, Pa We guess yes. A sHow FUR, -LIFE- FAR LIFE: Your edi on divorce, in the D issue of February 8th, is right to the point! The best thing the writer has seen on the subject Your views are broad-minded, sympathetic and If the church has any i tor, why should it not be used in ruling that the all never join in wedlock men and women fluence at all in the mat- clergy 8 whom they know to be mismared? (0, yes, they often k That may sound fantastic to some, perhaps, bu ght end of the question for them to handle, Divorce should not concern them at all, excepting where they have knowingly joined two who are unfitted for life together. Mr. Flagg’s pictures, on page opposite editorial ned, illustrate my point exactly Sincerely, wt) is the WS. Brooxtys, N.V., Feb. 7, 1904, Light in Asia. WN TCHANG, Chinese Minister at Berlin, seems to have clear ideas, Many Americans will agree with him in this matte The holiest feelings of our people have been ignored and abused by the missionaries, most of whom are demor- alized men looking out only for their own material advantages. ‘The foreign missionary is, and always has been, not only an impertinence from the very nature of his trade, but a tactless affront to the religion of’ his Of late years he has outdone record. yer, a menace to interna- victims. even that political d tional peace. unkind things of these misguided, but sometimes -- possibly —- well-meaning mischief-makers, but it does seem, how- that the Chinese treatment of these invaders is almost a nece: inly brutal, but missionaries are impervious to hints. Why Not ? $ long as the church claims the exclusive privilege of regulating He has become a Live has no desire to say ever, is cert: the laws of matrimony, why is it so modest as to stop at that point ? Why not be consistent and take up other matters, as follows: contract with Richard Doe, ceeded in cheating Doe out of an was called in to decide the ter, After his fee had been paid he excom- th culprits and applied the $50 to the John Smith m $50. A clergy: municated church. Margaret Brown discharged the cook, who g to $t2, The Bishop of the Diocese was away, but his assistant performed the operation. He declared that 25 per cent of the $12 belonged to him, and the rest to be equally divided between the Sunday School and the foreign missions. claimed wages amounti THE MARCH Ha(I)RE. The Presbyterian Synod met yesterday to con; sider the case of the Panama Canal, It was recommended that Congress pass an appropriation covering the services of each member of the Synod, after which they intimated that something might be doing, Compromising Connections. OTHER, if I should die Pan would 1 go to heaven “Yes, dear, I think so.” “If you should die, would you go to heaven?" “Why, my dear, I hope s« “Well, L hope so, too. It would be awful for me up there to be pointed out as the little girl whose mother was in hell.” B all means let us rotate. That is to say, after we've raised hob a few years and exhausted the soil some- what, let’s go in and raise standards while, and build of business honesty it up again. Progress. RIGG American corrupt 1 know it It’s getting so that our cities are more and more Grices : Why, if won't be long before all the honest men will be in jail, The Source. “T DON’T see where all those peo- ple get their money.” “Visit the poor, and you'll know.”