CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26121, 25 May 1950, Page 4

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION

FIRST MEETING OF COMMITTEE NINE ORGANISATIONS HEARD 1 (New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, May 24. Religious and other interested organisations presented their views on compulsory military training to the Conscientious Objection Committee to-day. This was the first meeting of the committee. Representatives of nine organisations gave evidence. Judge Archer, the chairman, opening the proceedings, said that the committee did not wish to inquire into any organisation’s justification of its creed nor did it wish to determine whether it was acceptable as a creed. “Without equivocation the Apostolic Church is definitely opposed to war,” said Pastor C. C. Scadden. “We believe as a church that it is against the command of the Lord to take up arms under any consideration or to take part in war service.” Mr R. Hardie Boys, a member of the committee, asked the witness if members would take part in medical service. Pastor Scadden replied that they did not want to take part in any form of military service. An Act of Parliament compelling military service imperilled conscience, said Mr A. H. Dowsett. for the Society of Friends in New Zealand. His organisation believed that to submit to compulsion would be to surrender the Christian ideal. His society had taken an active part in voluntary relief work since the Franco-Prussian War. All Jehovah’s Witnesses had conscientious objections, said Mr C. Clayton. As a body. Jehovah’s Witnesses did not attempt to influence or advise on conscientious objection, but it was a recognised fact that their very teachings were that the wars of this world were not of God. Therefore. Jehovah’s Witnesses could not participate. If any adherent wished to make a stand on those beliefs it was all right. Jehovah’s Witnesses would, not be prepared to undertake non-combatant service. There would be between 250,000 and 300,000 preachers of his faith in the world, and upwards of 1000 in New Zealand. Mr Clayton said. He knew of several 18-year-old youths in New Zealand who devoted many hours to preaching. The Christadelphian Church was represented by Mr J. J. Morgan and Mr A. T. King. They said that although members of the church were unable to take any position under military control they were prepared to work under civil control, in hospital work, for instance. Their attitude was that once under military authority a man could be shifted from non-combatant work to other work. Although members of the Open Brethren were not able to take up arms they were willing to undertake non-combatant service, said Mr J. C. Tilyard. There were some, of course, who would take no part at all. Generally belief and teaching wore opposed to military service. If, however, a member did go to war he would not be withdrawn from the church. Expulsion From Church Representing the Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement. Mr G. H. A. Kuhtz said that members of the church could not serve in any capacity. Immediately a member went into camp or bore arms his fellowship was severed. “By an Act of Parliament in 1917 we are exempt from all military service and training in peace or war,’’ he said. It was better to leave the matter to individual conscience than to hide behind church membership, said Mr W. J. Hughes, representing the Christian Church of New Zealand. This was the case with his church, yet members were 100 per cent, conscientious objectors. The same view was taken of non-combatant service, although they would undertake anything apart from military duty, such as fire-fighting. Members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church were prepared to do anything they possibly could in a noncombatant direction, whether military or civil, said Pastor R. J. Burns. The church objected to combatant service on religious grounds, but it had never objected to going anywhere, even to the front line as stretcher-bearers or in any non-combatant sphere.

Mr O. E. Burton, representing the New Zealand Christian Pacifist Society, agreed that a proportion of men used conscientious objection as a cloak for their real reasons for not serving. However, an unconscious motive was a difficult one to assess. If a man accepted service against his conscience he was doing himself very serious harm. Bitter opposition to conscientious objection from families sometimes forced men to do what they ought not to do. Any man applying as a Christian Pacifist as a conscientious objector would have to be a member' of a church, so that besides evidence of his sincerity from the society the evidence of a minister from the objector’s own church would be taken. The committee will sit again to-mor-row.