RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 258, 19 July 1918, Page 6

RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

.Sir,—.Mr. Guy Portor, in his letter, tears somo of my words from their context, and labours to get out of them a meaning they wero never intended to convey, a meaning also out of harmony with my former letters. So far from the Stats not needing to "consider" conscience, and thus being indilferent to it, L distinctly stated in my first letter, in vour issue of July 8, that it wos the God-ordained duty of the Slate to protect rights of consc.ence. It certainly gets beyond its legitimate jurisdiction when it Attempts to coerco conscience, but it may legitimately protect, conscience. To illustrate, say, by Mr. Porter turning Mohammedan. The Stata would havo no right to prevent or coerco him, for he has tho -right (as far as tho community is'concerned) to follow any religion ho believes to bo the truo one, provided, of '.ourse, that in so doing he does not infringe 1 pon tho equal religious or conscience rights of others. But should tho community set upon Air. Porter to thrash or kill hiin for turning Mohammedan, so far from the Stato "not" needing to "consider it" (to quote Mr. Porter's own words), it would certainly be its duty to restrain tho populace and protect Mr. Porter in the exorcise of his rights.

Let me remind Mr. Porter that the Now Testament enforces the morality of the Seventh Commandment in its strietC'.'ic form. Tho Saviour's teaching brings us back absolutely to the Eden plan of one man to one wife (Matt. 10, •t-9). The apostles reinterate the saino teaching (1 Tim. 3, 2; 1 Cor. 6: 8, 9). The question, Sir, is uofc whether tho State has the right to go to war, or even adopt conscription; the question i 6: Has the State the right to conscript conscience? The Christian will gladly render |fche State numerous duties; but when civil government comes into conflict with conscience, when the requirement of the State clashes with what -the Christian believes to be the requirement of God, then ho must .-.ay, in the words of the Apostle Peter; "Wo ought t6 obey God rather than men" jAots 5, 29).

It-is obvious that there is a world of difference between the adulterous-eyed bigamist,' breaking the Seventh Commandment and invading hia wife's rights, and' tho peaceable; .law-abiding citizen, who conscientiously believes that taking part in warfare or bloodshed is out of harmony w.th Gospel principles. The .defence of European lights and the defeat of the Germans does not require every man being forced indiscriminately into the trenches. Had the Allies idone this and neglected man power for other vitay interests, the Germans would long ago have won (he war. Every true Christian will desire to give his country the best service he can. Participation.- in warfare or- bloodshed the Chr'stian's conscience may forbid, but he would gladly serve his country in whatever ways he conscientiously can. Here the wisdom of tho American Government is manifest iu providing a very /urge variety of lines of non-combatant service. The conscientious objector is thus given a chance to bo loyal to h ; s country and at the samo time loyal to his God.—l am. etc., A. L. KING. Wellington.