PROFESSIONAL PROTESTATIONS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIX, Issue 1734, 25 September 1917, Page 2

PROFESSIONAL PROTESTATIONS.

PROFESSOR HUGH MACKENZIE has put up a great fight in the Wellington press in opposition to the exemption of the clergy for military service—and particularly against exempting the Marist Brothers. His epistles have attracted a good deal of controversy/ In a recent letter'

I' ~ I he writ os; “Am I right in stating that the clergy of certain churches, claiming direct apostolic descent from Jesus, ask to be exempted from military service? Is that disputed? Their high calling and function, it is (as has been hitherto generally believed) to follow the example of Jesus and to inculcate, not only the propriety, but also the necessity, of following that example on all men! Is that disputed? Do they not insist that it is the duty of the true disciple of Jesus —the bona tide variety of Christian —to sacrifice himself for others? Is that disputed? Nay more; they expect (if not demand) that married men with small children be called to fight and die for ‘them.’ and for our fellowmen generally, while ablebodied-un-married exponents of the Gospel of the sacrificing Jesus enjoy the privilege of staying at home to pray and to proclaim the ‘obligation’ on the laity of following the example of Jesus? Is that disputed? Here is the position in which I am likely to find myself, if the war continues for another year: —I shall, in all probability, have three sons (out of a family of seven, surviving, upon whom I have spent every shilling ever earned) taken from the university or college to fight for their King and Country. If they fall in battle I shall'not be entitled to a single copper ■ in compensation for the money expended on them! Had I expended my hard-earned money in ‘raising’ bullocks instead of boys, I would (thanks to an indulgent National Government) be on the highway to fortune as a meat-exploiter! Had I invested in land instead of a family, I should be on the high-road to fortune as an exploiter of human food generally, and possibly human beings as well! Had I, instead of bringing up and educating a family, saved money and invested it in (he ‘goodwill’ of a ‘pub,’ I might, with some reason, be regarded as entitled (o compensation, if my business hours were reduced! If again, I had saved all the money expended on my family and invested it in the War Loan I (am)'any ‘mine’ there might be) would enjoy comparative wealth for the rest of our lives at the expense of, and by the exploitation of posterity! But, as my wealth consists of the lives of my family, it becomes a mere pawn in the hands of the National Government! That is what my labours of a life-time stand for. Con that be disputed? Sir Joseph Ward expects me to contribute to the revenue of this Dominion in direct taxation’exactly the same amount as a bachelor or celibate with precisely the same annual income. Is that a square deal? Is it not rather a shameless imposition and a cruel injustice? I suppose 1 must consider it a privilege that my boys should be called upon to play the Christ for young able-bodied unmarried clergymen. Is it conceivable that Jesus would stand by and contemplate with equanimity the fathers of young children, or mere youths sacrificing their lives for Him? Is it?”