THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
* VIEWS,OF A FIGHTING BISHOP "RIGHTS" AND TREATMENT I America is now facing the same war problems and experiencing the t'iuuo situations, ethical, military, and social, as her Allies from time to lime were called upon to solve. Just now. the American Press is analysing tjie question of exemptions and the rights of the conscientious objector. Tne following, from the "Outlook," is quite an interesting exposition of the ca6e against tho conscientious objector, as stated by a fighting bishop.] Leonidas Polk, who served in the Confederate army as a major-general and was killed on the field of battle, was perhaps the American best entitled to the name of the "Fighting Bishop." Yet, if vigour of pen and a clear conception of tne fundamental questions of morality can be considered in part as entitling the owner of these qualities to such a designation, Bishop Cooke, of Tennessee and the Methodist Episcopal Church, .certainly has a right to share honours with the famous Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana. The Rev. Frederick Lynch, secretary of the Church Peace Union, asked Bishop Cooko for his personal attitude towards tho conscientious objector. The reply to this invitation comes to us througn the editor of'the Alethodist "Advocate journal," tho official organ of tho Methodist Episcopal Churcn in the Central Southern States.
Bishop Cooke, after saying that wo as "Christian men must do our Christian duty in matters of State with all gentleness and mercy, yet so that law and order shall not be contemned," declares :\ , "Permit me', to say that, in my judgment, some things siiould be stated frankly and without confusion of thought about so-called rights of conscience which operates only oue way—that is, to the interest of the individual claiming them. It if not ungenerous nor is it without histor/ical ground to say that rights of conscience are too easily" manufactured by sophistical minds who are always conscientious enough to let others bear the burdens, the hardships and sufferings of life while they enjoy its benefits." •■ •
The whole question of the conscientious objector under present social and politiI cal conditions is not, believes Bishop Cooke, a Church question at all. It is a State question, and belongs in the domain of government. Those who say that the question whether one fights or does not fight is the same as the question whether one obeys God or man, according to Bishop Cooke, start with a false philosophical premise. "No Government has the right to compel a man to do a wrong thing. But are all wars wrong?' Wars of hate, wars of aggression, wars of expansion of wealth and plunder, are wrong'. But wars of defence, wars punishing evil-doers, are not wrong. The police powers—that is, the moral forces of the universe—are not wrong. The right to live is not immoral. ■ It is not wrong to prevent a murderer from killing ; my wife and children, or to prevent a-dehumanised fiend from setting fire-toe city. But if the conscientious objector insists that the question is 6olely one of obedience to God, then the question arises: Shall, he obey God in this,one particular onlj—'that is, of not going to war—and- he be the sole judge of what is righteous war, or shall he also obey God down the whole line? . . .
"Upon what moral principle grounded in the constitution of things, then, does the conscientious objector take his stand? Universal reason will demand that the conscientious. objector shall base his moral contention, upon universal moral principle's.. Ho is not a moral standard .for- the race. He cannot, therefore, establish his opinions upon individualistic notions of right and wrong, which notions -would also shelter head-hunters, -Mormon .polygamists, and many moral and political • infamies like tho German War Code or the Zimmerman Note to Mexico,..hut upon, principles valid for all time for all men under all conditions and in ail .'places.. Does he take his stand, then, upon, an assumed law of God which' is nowhero expressed? Very well; then upon what moral law of God, expressed or unexpressed, does he assumo the further right to appropriate to himself, to exercise and enjoy for himself, tho results of war, which are brought by the sufferings and blood of others who lay down their lives for the sake of freedom and civilisation? No man has a right to be a thief."
The Man Who Will Not Die. Certainly, as Bishop Cooke says, the man who profits by the sufferings of others while at the same time he refuses to share in those sufferings is morally a thief of the worst kind. Bishop Cooke outlines briefly iu his letter the issues which have forced tho United States into the present war and the sacrifices ot those who are. destined to give their lives for our country. Ho says: "They die that our institutions might live. But the conscientious objector will not die; He will not die for any of these principles, nor will he suffer one hour of agony nor endure a pin-prick. He is opposed to war—to any war, even though in defence of all that God in the development of humanity has slowly evolved in history and made the heirlooms of the nations. - But ho is perfectly willing to enjoy all the benefits-social, political, cultural, commercial, or others—that these men have won or preserved for him at the cost of their own blood and suffering and death. For if all war is wrong, upon what moral principle does the ■conscientious objector' wipe tho bloody spot of guilt from his own hands by simply objecting to war while he enjoys the benefits of war? Is tho re--ceiver of stolen goods less criminal than the thief? Is such a man a conscientious objector at all? I insist that the conscientious objector's conscience shall go down the wliole line, and not stop ju6t when and where he pleases." "He will not go to war, but is willing to enjoy the results of war. He will obey God at one end of Hie line, but i»noro Him at the other. It seems to me that one should either do the killing or stop the eating, or both. There is no substitute in morals. But is it possible in any way conceivable for the conscientious objector to disentonglo himself from his moral twistings if he remains a citizen of a Government which demands his support for value received? Upon what moral principle everywhere valid is this assumed right based? It is very evident that the conscientious objector cannot ploy fast and loose with the laws of God and man at the same time, and plead conscientious scruples when it is his pleasure and interest to do so. Conscientious objectors to war like tlte Quakers do riot do so. They do not play ball with conscience. that way. They ilo their part where the Government desires that part shall be done. But our American variety of objectors, and English 100, will ngt do anything but blandly receive the benefit! of others' hardships, sufferings, and death."
How Should He Be Treated? Bishop Cooke's conclusion concerning Uiu treatment which the Government should mete out to tlie conscientious objector is eminently sound. Ho ■ says: ••Should such persons he punished, be put in prison, or interned? JNio! Government has no right to punish a man for his opinion. It seems to me, therelore, that the simplest way to deal with this difficulty.' various and complicated as the uutstions are, is: Let the Government respect the •conscientious objector s.opinion, thus giving him all benefits ot doubt, but at the same time let the Government severely insist that he shall take the full consequence of his opinions. If hero is sincere, he cannot object to that. Let him be deprived forever of all benefits of war, of ull political and social and civil rights. 'If any man will not work, neither shall he eat.' He has no inherent right to these political and civil privileges. lie was not born with them. He does not inherit them. He does not obtain them because lie is a human bciii", but on the ground that he is a citizen of the United States. They are polifical grants. The power that gives has the power and right to take away. Let the objector, then, hold to his opinions, but. let him also abide by the, consequences of his opinion. -The hair must go with the hide. . . . Tho consciou-
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19171013.2.33
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 16, 13 October 1917, Page 7
Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,404THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 16, 13 October 1917, Page 7
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Dominion. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0). This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.