"SNIVELLING HYPOCRITES."

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2822, 13 July 1916, Page 6

"SNIVELLING HYPOCRITES."

Sir,—l havo been looking out for a conscientious defender of the .conscientious objector. • Naturally, then, when I found in your issue of July 10 a letter by a university graduate, 1 said:."Ah! Now we shall hear the other side of the story logically stated." Howevor, I was disappointed, for "Chas. B. J." puts forward no argument calculated to convince those who, like myself, aro possessed only of "common" sense.

"Chas. B. J.'i says that if ho wore a "sporting" manMio would bet his bottom dollar that he has more right' to his views than the. member of Parliament who described conscientious objectors 1 as "snivelling hypocrites" has for his. This assertion is not followed by argument, and, therefore, "in my opinion, is not worthy of consideration. "Chas. B. J." says some objectors may he fanatics, cowards, etc., but he would not judge his fellow-man. The spirit of toleration is good, but are there not limits beyond which it ccases to bo a virtue? Will your correspondent tell us what he supposes would now have been, our position had, say, the Belgians and. the Russians ado'pted tho atfitudo of the conscientious objector when tho war began? If there were no 6uch aggressive spirit as that of Prussia in the world, these saintly objectors might safely found a polony of their own somewherb apart, but under present conditions they would be in serious danger of being brutally handled. Knowing this, they continue within the domain of the man behind tho gun, but they appear to see' 110 reason why that gentleman should not treat them as desirable citizens. Though "Chas. B. J." professes to object to one citizen passing judgment on another, he tells us that though he used to believe that the soldier typo was one of the highest types, of manhood, he jiow knows that ho was then quite wrong. Tho infereiico is that he also "knows" that very many of his fellow-citizens are still quite wrong. ' This "knowing" is an ethereal business. Most of its less mobile fellow attributes of'superstition have been overtaken and destroyed by advancing knowledge, but this colourless ghost still continues to crystalise men's minds. As to Christian principles, it appears to me that the conscientious objector picks out those parts that he is predisposed to agree with, for did not. Christ say: "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?—l am, etc., J.E.H. AVereroa, July 7, 1910.

Sir,—l have read in your issue of today tho letter of "Chas. B. J.," and noto, his observation:—"lt is just possible that the charge of 'snivelling hypocrite' may bo simply a chargo levelled by ignorance against knowledge." Theory and sentimont aro all very nico in tho abstract, but they accomplish nothing iu restraining actual physical dangers. Every man who gives his services to G"ht in the present groat war against what really is the actual physical operation of tlio German ideal, risks his life so that persons of the calibre of your correspondent may live in peace and contentment. Instead of your correspondent representing himself as standing for knowledge in contradistinction to ignorance, it is just possible that it may be simply a charge levelled by knowledge arising from fact, against conceit arising from false .knowledge, as typified by "Chas,, B. J„" appears it so to.—l am, etc., ' ONLOOKER. Wellington, July 7, 1916.