CONSCIENCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 261, 23 July 1918, Page 6

CONSCIENCE

Sir,—Mr. A. L. King says it is (he "duty of the State to protect rights of conscience." In other words, "it is the duty of tho State to allow any act. or omission on tho part of any citizen whose alleged conscience approves of such act or omission." Anarchy! According to Mr. King, the duty of a Government, is not to govern, but to allow. He quotes, "Wo ought to obey God rather than men." Just, so! Choose the lesser evil (or tho greater good) by all means, but don't squeal if the lesser evil is still an evil or tho greater good precludes obtaining the lesser good. Mr. King wants it both ways. Up avoids explaining why conscience should excuse one illegality and not another, and why. if conscience need not consider the State, the State rieed consider conscience. . He virtually says: "Heads I win, tails you lose." I ask him. "If conscientious bigamy is penal, why not conscientious shirking?" and he replies with three texts, not one of which has anything to do with the case. Matt, xix, 4-9, relates to divorce, which is surely not the sime thing as bismmy, and if taken literally would prohibit'surgery; I Cor. vi, 8 and 9, condemns adulter, which has nothing to do with bigamy where bieamy is lc;*nl; I Tim., iii., 2, applies only to lyishmis, and even then is cnuivocal and may only V>»r celibacv. Not one of these texts helps Mr. King to' prove that a deliberate lawbr°altev should not bo punished. If the lawbreaker thinks that he stands to profit, on the whole by'his illeeal action, that, is his business. Let him take his profit-and his loss, too—like a man. How pleased the conscientious objector must bo that all the Allies are. not of his wav of thinking. And if Mr. King mtiY call mv conscience spurious, why should not the State consider the consciences of many conscientious obiectore equally so? This miestion also is for the second time of