CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2820, 11 July 1916, Page 7

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS

t THE CASE FOp THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS. , ' (To tho Editor.)" Sir,—On behalf -of the Society of Friends in tho North Island, we desire to express our appreciation of effort which Parliament has.made to deal with tho granting of exemptions to members of certain religious denominations for service under tho proposed Military Service Act, and particularly where tho effort has been made in recognition of tho principles which our society has so long upheld in regard to war and war service. We believe, however, that tho limitations proposed, which give the right to claim exemptions to a small proportion of; our fellow Christians, .but deny the same to those who hold views equally well founded with our own, totally set aside : tho principles which are to us so dear, in exempting only those who aro members '■ of certain religious bodies. Our belief is founded on the Divine Guidance of tho Holy Spirit in the individual, and that this spirit works in , thim irrespective of .qreed or church membership. . Wo also believe that free- ■ x dom 1 from the scourge of war will bi> brought about through the faithfulness of those individuals who live nndei- the guidance of that Spirit, and that at this time many in this land have been so guided. Faithful adherence to these beliefs lias brought untold suffering in the past, and wo feel that to simply exempt a few descendants of those who won for us tho principle of religious liberty and tho right to live in accordance, with the leading of our conscience has the effect of denying the principle which was so dearly bought, and makes a pretence of religious toleration which doe 6 not exist. Wo desire a more just and equitable provision for all those who can rightfully claim a conscientious objection to war and war service. - In this belief ,we would respectfully Bubtuit:-r \ ; - 1:' That there' aro usually many evidences of a true conscientious belief such as an impartial tribunal could accopt as proof, but that where any doubt exists, the benefit of such should' be given to tho applicant—as is hold-to be the rule in other legal matters (e.g., vrcriminal prosecutions). : *«,' 2. That the preservation of conscience as a recognised basis of moral conduct is of suoh supreme importance to every community that immeasurably greater danger exists from destroying such than from the possibility of a few dishonest applicants gaining exemption under its cloak. , ' In the matter of alternative service which tho proposed Act provides for thoso to whoni exemption from nlilitary Bcrvice is' granted, - wo would earnestly niako the following representations:— ■ 1. The individual alono can decide whether it be right for him to accept or reject the ■ proffered service. No organisation/can havo any right to bind its members in sucli' a matter, and no attempt is made to,do so by, or on behalf of, the Society of Friends. ; ■ ,2. It is held by some that raen -iybo accept alternative, servico aro genuine •conscientious objectors, and that , those who cannot do so aro mere obstructionists. .Wc submit.that such is an absolute misjudgment. of tho case, and is probably duo to an entire niisunderstand.mg of tho basis of objection.. . ; 3..The conscientious objector.who takes his stand upon the Christian position in opposing all war cannot logically accept nny system of militarism. Ho cannot be ■ batisfiod with merely safeguarding his individual person, far loss with acquiescing in the establishment of,:the military service to which ho is.opposod, or-assist in. any way .'in the harmonious administration of militarism for other people. He is not so much, concerned with the nctual nature of tho,service imposed"as its final use and purpose. It is not merely killing to which the conscientious objector takes exception, for there are numerous, duties which, he, could, take up under such conditions in non-combatant branches of military, service, but everyone is now prepared ■ to, admit that, & man who' objects'to .'killing ought, also to'refuse to kill by proxy.. ' '• War is not wrong meiely' because men's lives are destroyed,-vital though that consideration is. It is.wrong beoause it is the denial of the worth of the individual) because it is the one great method -by which social betterment nas been retarded by engendering in the life of every nation a spirit of domination, of bitter--nnest and .of fear.* It "places ' insuperable obstacles, in the path of thoso whose greatest, desire is tho true welfare and co-operation, not only .within the nation, but among the nations. The "Book of Discipline of the Society of Friends contains tho .following reference to this matter of service:— ft "Our conviction of :tHe.unlawfulness of \ war to the Christian, which prevents us from giving the military service to our country gladly rendered by many, should specially call us to voluntary service in other .ways, even, at the oost of much

personal sacrifice. Those who devoto themselves with public spirit to tho building of national character, tho shaping of righteous policy at home or abroad, or the manifold tasks of local or central government, are doing work of liiglr value for the Kingdom of God." In time of war it .is. useless pointing 6ut to the conscientious objector that as a citizen he ought to accept any duty imposed upon him -by the State - unless you can afford him evidence that the State has in the past, or intends m the future, to impose duties upon all'its citizens for purposes of Eocial reconstruction or peace organisation. - To force good works-upon men in order to administer militarism is .repellant to every conscientious objector. -This is so, not merely ljecause it contributes to the establishment of militarism, but is even more doplorable becausS it denies tho spirit of l'ree service. Service to one's fellow-men, if it means anything, implies a spirit of sacrifice which is '.only worth ■ while liecause it is freely given. We havo no evidence of a desire by our Government for real national service other than military service, and the only thing attempted so far has been the inlliction of a punishment for refusal to do what one knows to be wrong. The natural alternative to military ser- . vice is civil service, yet the avenues of civil service are deliberately closed to those who cannot take part in military work. Under the Defence Act tho natural alternative to 'training for military service would havo been training for civil service, yet again tho avenues of training were deliberately closed against those « boys who objected to militarism even though their work or energy had gained for them right to free places in secondary schools. U T e claim that tho life service of every conscientiouslman in his ordinary avocation.is of inestimable value to the nation That to remove him from such work' as he has taken up from a sense of- vocation or special fitness and placing him in some other- sphere for the.sake of punishment for right-doing is a most disaA trous policy. Lord Roberts, speaking in'the House of. .Lords on July 6, 19U, referring to tho soldiers and men of Ulster, said: "It is useless at such a juncture to invoke the authority of tho constitution, to. raise fine points of law, or to threaten pains and peiialties. Such things matter not ono jot when men's consciences " aro aroused." Surely if such ah eminent .militarist can recognise claims of conscience as supremo.in a political issue of that nature, such claims iu matters of basic religious principles held by Christians for nineteen centuries cannot bo ignored. Signed at Wellington on behalf of Auckland, Wellington, Hawke's Bay, and Taxanaki Friends,—Alfred Goldsbury, cleTk, Wanganui; John Holdswortli, Swarthmoor, Havelock NorEli, H.B.j Margaret Holdswortli; Ernest 11. Wright, Auckland; Edward H. Dowsett, Birkenhead, Auckland; E. J. Flewellen King, Greys Road, Hastings; William IT. Gilliver, Urenui; Egerton Gill, Auckland; John Rigg, Wellington. - ■ ■

QUAKERS AND OTHER PACIFICISTS. Sir,—lt is really difficult to understand liow ultra-pacificists can find it in their "ixmscionco" to let others suffer and even dio for them ami theirs. In tlio name of religion and of Christianity, I asV. How (xin .it be possible to justify such an attitude? What the Bible and Christianity stand for is certainly not peace at any pricc, but rather righteousness, cost what it may! I can find no official declaration on the part of tho Socicty of Friends

(Quakers) against participating directly or indirectly iu.a righteous war—defensive or even offensive. How could they, even on "inward light" grounds, .seeing that they attach sncli importance to tho literal words of Jesus? "I como not to- send peace but a sword." "Ho tlut.liath no sword, lot him sell his'garmeut and buy one," etc. Pacificism was no part of the original creed of the Society of Friends, and the noblest and most intelligent of them havo always recognised that, where and when moral issues wero at stake, duty demanded fighting and even dying for a good cause! Their creed would otherwise bo. not merely a "snivelling hypocrisy," but also a complete renunciation of all that is of the essenco of Christianity . and of Bible-teaching! Does not Christianity, and everything that can call itself religion worthy the name, stand for self-sacrifice? AVlmt, then, about your Quaker, and such as he, who as a rule so loudly profess their loyalty to Jesus and the Bible? How can they have the effrontery to call themselves disciples of Jesus, and deliberately refuse to follow His example in the.matter of self-sacrifice? The doctrine of non-resistance attributed to His inculcation (no doubt by interested or ignorant verbalists or. literalists) was intended (presumably!) for tho more selfish of His professed followers, not for Himself. - .He did not resist "evil" when crucified! He could easily have shirked, and so liave escaped the great sacrifice! • That is the only logical conclusion that the so-called doctrino of -nonresistance involves for certain Quakers and for all peace-at-any-price pacificist Christians! The fact is that some so-called Quakers profess to attach supreme importance to Jesus and the Bible—and yet are (as it has been quite justifiably put) "Christians only so far Christ agrees with them!" Suoh Quakers and Christians cannot dispute that thero is "a place in human affairs" for force; "that police protection is right and noceseary," and yet .they have tho conscionceiess effrontery to believe (?) that what is right for others is wrong for*them 1 ' The' fact is that only barefaccd and cynical sophistry, or a naive "innocence abroad" can account for non-resistance or pacificism "wtfete Cas Tii tho_ present war) moral issues—justice and righteousness—are at stake. In a recent publication by John W. Graham, H.A., nn exponent of non-resisting. Quakerism, wo find the following: "No honest interpreter can pretend that, in daily lite, wo even begin to obey literally suoh commands as to give to" everyone who asksus, and to lend freely without security. We are aware that that would bo wrong. It would soon Teduco society to confusion and ourselves to poverty"! Yet, apparently, tne doctrine of "ronvesistance" to evil (attributed to Jesus) forbids tho author and such as he to dofend their country, their homes and hearths, nay, the very lives of.their own women and children! This is surely a shirker,kind of Biblical interpretation! One can readily imagine with what profound scorn Jesus—tho Friend of Manwould ■ pronounce on such shirking and shirkers and I would respectfully invite your correspondent,, "Chas. B. 1.," to give his earnest consideration to the (natter before again parading his supersensitive conscience "m the public eye"! .'Here is a sound and rational and com-tnon-sense citation from Isaac Pennington, a representative' Quaker, and friend of George Fox:—'"l speak, not against any : Magistrates or peoples defending themselves against foreign invasions or making use of the sword to suppress tho violent end evildoers within their borders, for this-the present state of things may and doth- require."—l am, etc., H.M.