CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO MILITARY TRAINING

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 172, 21 April 1928, Page 13

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS TO MILITARY TRAINING

Sir, —May I crave space in which to answer one or two points contained in a letter on the above subject, and appearing in your Saturday's issue, over the signature of Ronald S. Watson, C.l'’. Mr. VVatson writes what is, in many ways, a beautiful letter —not lancing a certain pathos—and evincing a pained solicitude for myself and a desire to correct my sadly erroneous conception of Christian duty and character; and I fully appreciate the njotives ot —shall I say?—an erstwhile comrade-in-arms! But he also claims to be answering a letter of mine dealing with this subject which appeared m your columns some few days ago, and. Sir, I submit that he has not answered me at all. He commences by making a personal confession, to wit, that he >s not a pacificist” (we assume that he is only temporarily camouflaged),, and then goes on t£> tell us that what be has seen on active service has taught him to realise '•‘how natural it is for some men ’ who have had experience of the actual horrors of physical warfare to he perverted to pacificism. We may agree That it is "natural” without thereby asserting that it is "right." As further evidence in support of his assertion (which has not, by me, been assailed) ho makes a quotation from a recent. book written . by Canon Sheppard, which. states thar "when youth is again being taught the glory of war," and when "admirals and generals are offering tips” to them, to ensure the more efficient waging of the next one, then "it is well to remind ourselves that In reality war is a purely bestial and devilish affair,■ etc. While we may agree with Canon Sheppard that, under circumstances• such as ha contemplates, it would be necessary to present both sides ct the question for the consideration of youth, yet we can not refrain from pointing out that by his use of hectic adjectives and a sweeping generalisation he neutralises the force of his dictum, which, in any case—with all due respect—we cannot accept. War may be—and often is—"bestial and devilish” in the methods of its waging, but is not "purely so in its essential character, as is wen known bv all thoughtful men and women. Were those gallant ones, whose memory we keep green bn every Anzac commemoration, beasts and devils, it so. why do we perpetuate their memoiv and the memory of their deeds, and endeavour to impress them on the. mindsof our children? We think of them as little less than heroes, who have—as we love to say—made the supreme sacrifice possible to a man: evincing a love - than which none greater is possessed by men. Cleai]y then, war cannot be "purely bestial and devilish" in its essence when it brings out and develops.•charactci.istKS for the possession of which no price .is too great to pay! But. further, m "reality, ’ war is not as described by Canon Sheppard. In "reality" war—not confining it io its merely physical manifestations—is an eternal principle, by means of which alone progress is possible. As a bird, strenuously opposing the resistance of the all-enveloping air, is able to raise itself from the earth and fly exul tingly in the blue vault of heaven—and without that resistance must remain feebly hopping on the face of the earth—so man—body, soul, and spirit, by courageously meeting in unending war the forces that oppose him and in sorrow, pain, travail, and agony, ultimately overcoming them—makes his way upward, marching over the bodies, of the slain—"the stepping-stones of his dead selves" included—to "higher things . . In my letter 1 propounded certain questions. One was as to whether Jesus Christ was such an One, as would have a special regard for those who, for any reason would refuse to defend the weak, and another, as to whether He Himself would have permitted His beloved mother to be wantonly injured and insulted, without doing Ris best to protect her? These questions Mr. Watson did not attempt to answer. Had he done so, the whole tenor of his letter would, of necessity, have been different; for there is only one possible answer, and that is no—a thousand thimes no! With regard to the three young men referred to in my letter; they merely represent a type —an objectionable type—of something miscalled manhood. Mr. Watson may assure us that he can vouch for them; he may even glorify them into supermen, and depict their sufferings for righteousness (?) as reminiscent of the sufferings of Christ, leaving us still unconvinced. "Bv their fruits ye shall know them," and it still remains true that he who selfishly sets his “life” or his "conscience,” cr anything that is his—because it is his—above all else, shall infallibly lose it. Thinking as he does, one may expect that Mr. .Watson will never again add to his signature the mystic - letters, "C.F.” —once an object of pride to him, but now recalling only mis-spent effort end perverted vision. And further, if the tail of the Presbyterian Church —i.e.. General Assembly—succeeds in wagging the dog, the 99 per cent, of its )ay members, then we must expect to bid a sad adieu to the gallant Presbyterian padres whom we learned to understand and love under conditions which exposed the very soul of a man to the gaze of his neighbours, nor look in any future ordeal by battle for the presence, inspiration, and support <xf Presbyterian chaplains, who will have become as extinct as the mythical dodo!—I am etc., H. B. GOERTZ, C.F. The Vicarage, Eastbourne, April 16. i Sir,—l think it is a pity that so much pum.cilj, eai «... i . ■ ..ev. Dr. Gibb and his pacifistic views. The majority of Presbyterians take little notice of his periodical bursts on the subject. However, I agree with the views expressed in your leading article that when he speaks as he does it is apt to put Presbyterians as a whole in a wrong light, as far as the general public are concerned It seems to be a pity that his time and pnergy cannot be devoted to promoting the general welfare rather than to travelling around the country to appear on behalf of a sorry minority whose views, if carried into effect, wou’d moon the destruction of the British Empire. The remedy for the alleged injustice which the Rev. Dr. Gibb professes to fight against is simple: If ho and his friends are not satisfied to submit to the laws of the country in which they live, let them chose an environment which will permit them to put their revolutionary ideas into practice. If, as Rev. iJr. Gibb says, it will not he long before his views are those of the majority of Presbyterians, then I can assure him that when the time arrives I for one will no longer be a Presbyterian.—l am ,etc„ B. R. WEBSTER. Wellington, April 18. Sir, —There has been so much correspondence in your columns lately regarding compulsory military training that I hesitate to add to its volume, but nt it seems to me that I have views which have not been touched upon bv others I venture to do so. For the reasons which have been frequently expressed by others 1 believe in the compulsory training of our youth to enable them to be not altogether unprepared should the necessity arise. I am proud that I have a son who is subject to this law and who recognises the advantage and justice of it, but. at the same time, I fully recognise the justice of the objections of » conscientious objector if he is- really u genuine conscientious objector. I very much object personally t.o our system of taxation npd to the compulsory income tax, which takes away too large a proportion of my hard-earned income Tf I do not devote too much thought to the public services and privileges I enjoy I can quite easily persuade myself that this taxation is unjust, because it H forced upon me. »mi become a conscientious objector. If a conscientious objector in really conscientiously opposed to military training he will not object to undertaking any other description of training or work, even if more strenuous, which may benefit himself or his country so

long as it has not the military taint or anything to do with war. Apart Irom all thoughts of possible future wars, or possibilities of many of the British Dominions being over-run by Asiatics and othei coloured races who may no, have the same scruples as to war, any voting citizen or his pacifist elders surety canno) object to our youth being made physically tit, strong and clean in the interests of the Dominion und its future generations May I suggest that all the difficulties with the conscientious objectors might .be overcome by offering them an alter native which would be equally beneficial to the community and themself es. When they arrive at the age when they now , undergo military training they should be entitled to elect whether they would prefer to take a course of strenuous training in Swedish physical culture, ambulance work and such other exercises as may be conducive to their physical fitness and discipline, so that they may be led from the laxity and slackness so general at present among our vouth. If really conscientious they would not object if this training was somewhat more exacting than the milltary training. . Such serious-minded youths would no doubt prefer that thenleisure hours during training should be kept fully occupied by religious exercises and 1 the study ot pacifist principles. To foster their excellent predilections arrangements could be made for their attendance at lectures and religious services not less than three times a day, conducted by pacifist clergy- <> rjig tne hours when the boys were not engaged in their physical exercises. They would thus be fully imbued with the arguments and principles of their faith, acquiring a logical support to th'eir arguments and beliefs, while acquiring in another direction the same advantages as those who acquiesce in military training. Thus their trainin'’ might be a little more • exacting than that of the cadets or territorials, but would at the same time render them equal physical fitness and congenial opportunities for study of their theories.—l am, etc.. PRO PATRIA. itisborue, April 16.