R.S.A. AND PACIFISM

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22921, 18 January 1940, Page 4

R.S.A. AND PACIFISM

TO THE BDITOB OV THE FBESS Sir —Your correspondent, "R-S'-A., Member," asks why leaders of the. churches do not say whether the British Empire is engaged ma righteous struggle or not. The answer is that, while the Church speaks authoritatively on matters of *»»* f™ morals, she does not always see fit to speak on questions of fact apart from faith and morals. For example, the Church may declare whether it is ever permissible for churchmen to take part in war; but, unless a clearly defined principle of faith or morals were at Fssue she will probably not declare whether her members should take part in any particular war. The Church has from time to tune used the phrase "just wars." Pacifists assert that there can. be no such thing as a "just war," especially m the present day. Those of us who are. not pacifists presumably believe that there are circumstances in whiph men ought to be ready to fight. This does not prevent some of us from seeing the complete futility of war; nor does it make us fail to realise that one of the dangers of war is the rousing of emotion r alism arid * false sentiment among masses of people. An instance of this isf'to be found in Mr H. W. Wilkinson's remark about pacifists: 'l'd export these people in the same way as we do our mutton"—a statement which would be rude and unkind if it were not so obviously hysterical. Now, we militarists, are none of us immune from infection with precisely the same military (or is it miliary?) fever that has raised the temperature and roused the ire of Mr H. W. Wilkinsonu That is one of many reasons why i am glad that there are such

people as pacifists and that I can number many among my friends. They have a sobering effect on some of us hot-heads, and even if the reverse were true, my militarism is not sufficiently Prussian to make me want to forbid them free speech. If I had a little more courag*, a little more logic, and a great deal more charity, I might even be a pacifist myself. But not until after the war, unless Mr Wilkinson promises not to buy a refrigerator.—Yours, etc., CECIL E. B. MUSCHAMP. St. Michael's Vicarage,. . . January 17, 1940. .'

TO THE' EDITOB OF THB PRESS Sir,—The happenings at the openair meeting conducted by the pacifists on Friday evening, as described by the Rev. R. P. Taylor in his letter to the Returned Soldiers' Association, make it obvious that we have come to the parting of the ways, and that a decision must be made now if we are to maintain the principles of democracy, freedom, and civil liberty in this country. On the one hand democracy means rule by the majority. It is particularly pertinent at the present time to emphasise that the only way the

will of the majority can become known, and can be brought to bear peacefully on the rulers, is through open expression of opinion. On the other hand, a no less essential element of democracy is the protection of minority opinion. As Lord Parmoor said

during the last war: "The supreme test of civil liberty [isj the determination to give full protection to an unpopular minority at a time of national ex-

citement." This is not merely because enlightened men have always seen that the protection of the individual conscience is a great good in itself. It is even more important for society that minority elements should be protected in the expression of their opinions. It is

only in this way that progress can take place. New ideas come to life in the minds of a few, and after long years of expression may be accepted by the majority.. To stifle them at birth means that no progress can take place. If the ideas of the minority are false they make no headway when freely debated; if they are true they win acceptance, to the good of the majority. J. S. Mill has, of course, once" and for all enshrined this truth

in words: "But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." —Yours, etc., L. A. EFFORD. January 17, 1940. j

TO THB EDITOB OF THE PBESS. I Sir, —"R.S.A. Member" evidently thinks that it is quite easy to distinguish betwen a righteous and an unrighteous struggle. May I suggest that this distinction is not always as easy as it sounds? But even supposing that this distinction can be clearly made and that one side can be definitely labelled the guilty party, I still feel that we must look for a methc * whereby righteousness will be upheld. Many people are inclined to think that pacifists are mere passivists, content to sit still and do nothing, but let the forces of evil have their way. The pacifist, however, seeks to turn the enemy into a friend, since that is the only real way of overcoming an enemy. The Christian Pacifist Society has drafted peace terms, the immediate application of which it suggests as an- alternative to war. This seems to me much more constructive than the pursuit of a method which has failed in the past.—Yours, etc.. W.M.S. January 17, 1940.

TO THE BDITOB OF TUB PRESS. Sir, —As an independent, peace-loving member of the community, who has regularly attended the Christian Pacifist Society's meetings in Victoria square, I wish to endorse the Rev. R. P. Taylor's comments upon the conduct of certain of those who were present. During the last two Friday evenings I particularly noticed that these movements to quash the meetings com-

menced and gained impetus when the police were conspicuous by their absence. •

Taking these incidents in conjunction with similar ones recently reported elsewhere in New Zealand. I think it is high time, in the interests of freedom, common decency, and democracy, that the authorities make it quite plain that no person, in uniform or out of it will be permitted to constitute themselves a local Gestapo.—Yours, FOR TRUE FREEDOM. January 17, 1940.

TO THB EDITOB OF THS PRESS. Sir,—l see a point of humour in rather a gloomy question in "Internationist's" letter, when he says Mr Wilkinson was undemocratic and unBritish in saying, "Export the pacifists the same as mutton." Since 90 per cent, of our New Zealand mutton goes to England, it certainly would be unBritish. No! Though ambiguous, probably, I think Mr Wilkinson's utterance the most British, though he might have substituted say, scrap iron, for mutton, the latter being a valuable commodity in sustaining life. _ In conclusion, to quote Mr Chisholm, "Let the other fellow have his say," I would suggest they have it in a seclusion where they will not be molested, nor annoy the opposition.—Yours etc., EX-SERVICJi'. January 17, 1940.

■TO THB EDITOB 09 THB PRESS. Sir—The letter from "R.S.A. Member" is one that demands the attention of all the churches. Hundreds of people I know want to be advised upon the official attitude of the various churches to the war. As a Presbyterian I want to know where the church stands. Let us have an official statement of the position.—Yours, etc., ' MAC. January 17, 1940. •