RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 95, 16 January 1919, Page 6

RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS

Sir, —Your article in to-day's issue Objectors—will surely aronsci interest in the important question with which it deals—disonfranchisernent of electors. Whatever may be said for or atainst- /diserfranehispment as a punishment for the breach of the law of the country, nothing can be said in favour of discriminating on the. Hsis of tho rp.licrions 'iftVnfs

or the objectors. If ouee the pri»> ciplo is admitted that a citizen may' be exempt from the penalty of t.ho law because he holds certain religious beliefs, we stand in danger of being overwhelmed by the bigotry and intolerance of the Middle Ages. It will surprise many people if the churches accept this favoured treatment, and will disgust not a few if members of tho clergy are prepared to sit on this inquisition of the twentieth century." Surely, if the. State is not going to put the law into operation against certain objectors the only fair way is to distinguish between those who aro honestly* opposed to military service (on whatever grounds), and those who ace merely shirkers. If the State once allows itself to apply a special law to people of certain religious beliefs and to disenfranchise tliose who cannot hold these views (but who aro just as honest in their objection), what remedy but force does it leave to these latter?

You say in your article: The board will concern itself only with religiouß reasons for objecting to serve. No scruples based on any other ground than that of religion can under the Act be considered. No atheist can profess religious scruples, and the agnostic who wishes to establish them may have an interesting case .to present. However strict tlio moral code followed by any objector, and however faithful he lias been in the observance of it, unless that part of the code which guided him in his objection to military service was based oh religion, the board, it is contended, will not be within its in recommending his removal from tlio list.

That such words can be truthfully written about one of our laws shows how far we have drifted from moral and British traditions. —I am, etc., THOMAS A. HUNTER. Wellington, January 15, 1919.