RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 263, 26 July 1918, Page 6

RIGHTS OF CONSCIENCE

-e (To the Editor.) Sir,—ln reply to Mr. Guy Porter, kindly allow me to ,say- here what I intended to say in my first reply to Mr. Porter, but omitted for sake of brevity— that while there is such a thing as genuine conscience, yet conscience is no mad dog kind of afl'air. For instance, a man follow a religion the teachings of which included the committing of theft, violence, and murder, while the Stale could not interfere with his mental processes or the thoughts of his heart, it would be perfectly legitimate for the State, in its prime duty of protecting the rights of each individual in the community, to restrain tho man in question from actively invading the rights of his fellows through tho carrying out of his evil deeds. As I have stated in previous letters, true conscience will always respect the rights of others in the community. Thus a man may be an Anglican, Koinan Catholic, Buddhist, or any other religion, and so long as lie does not interfere with the equal rights of others, tho State has no right to interfere with him, and must protect hjm in his rights. Mr. Porter strenuously objects ,to my limiting in any way the authority of the State, but tho following shows that there is such a limitation, and here I in turn want to ask Mr. Guy Porter a question ot two. Suppose the State_ were to make a law commanding its subjects to commit bigamy. Will Mr. Porter tell me whether, in his opinion, I ought to submit and commit bigamy, though my conscience is decidedly against it? In Matt, xix, t-l), Christ brings us back to the original Eden plan, a/id hence excludes divorce, and for the same reason bigamy musf be excluded also. It is they "twain"—not they "three or four''— "shall bo one flesh." I. Tim. iii, 2, does not permit a bishop (or elder) to have more than tmo wife at once, and I. Peler, v, 3, says that the bishop or elder must be an "example to the flock." However, so 1 understand these and other Scriptures (Ephes. v, 28-33, etc.), and I conscientiously object to committing bigamy, even at State direction.

Further, touching on limitation of civil authority,- will ,Ma\ Porter kindly read Daniel iii, and tell me (especially in view of their wonderful deliveranco by Divine power from the fiery furnace) whether Shadrach, Jleshach, end Abednego did right in' refusing compliance with the Chaldean decree to worship the golden image, and whether civil government hero exceeded its lawful limit?

In reply lo youv correspondent's second question, 1 may remark that I have nothing; at all lo say for tnc tliirlter; Init your correspondent's reasoning: is erroneous if applied to (ho true conscientious objector, between whom and the bigamist only a spurious comparison at best can be made. The comparison is more fairly indicated liy the following:—lf ior anyone else may have a genuine conscience in refusing to commit bigamy becausc I believe it' out of harmony with the principles of Christ, why amy not another Christian have a genuine conscience in refusing to participate in warfare or bloodshed for the same, reason? In conclusion, allow mo to correct Mr. Porter's further misrepresentation of my position, and reiterate that "the State has a great, well-defined, and lawful sphere," and may rightly ask of its subjects numerous duties. That is no. "anarchy"! When the State's demand clashes with a requirement, of God, the Apostolic rilling is, "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts, v, 29). —1 nm ' CtC " ■ A. L. KING. July 24.