What is Pacifism?

Dominion, Volume 27, Issue 184, 3 May 1934, Page 11

What is Pacifism?

Sir, —Kindly allow tne space to advance this controversy over pacifism at least one step. Hitherto, your correspondents have, it seems, been wrangling over the possibility or otherwise of reconciling’ pacifism with common sense or with Christianity, or with both.

In the first place, pacifism does not require to be reconciled. In the second place, it is not common sense. It is uncommon sense, and in essence is higher than tlie realms of common logic. It is not. therefore, a vacuous ideal nor an unproductive virtue, for it has already attained a secure foothold in reality. The world must sooner or later become reconciled to pacifism. It should be a foregone conclusion, surely, that since we all think differently both pacifist and militarist —in spite of their violent opposition—should respect one another’s opinions. . * ,

I am, or. more truthfully, try to be, a 1 Christian ; but I do not fly to Christianity for support to my pacifist opinion, although I certainly consider I could. Pacifism can stand on its own feet if Christendom will not recognise it as the sharpest-edged facet in the diamond of Christianity. I do not know what are Mr. Bramwell Scott’s ideas of heaven or hell, but this I know, that the pacifist is not seeking his pathway to heaven; he is seeking peace on earth and goodwill to all men. and in this he is admittedly and unashamedly an extremist. Mr. Bramwell Scott’s hypothetical question: What would you do if an invading navy were to force entry into Wellington harbour? This, surely, is an absurd question to ask a pacifist, yet, for the sake of clearness, it must be answered—and directly, not as hitherto rather indirectly. A pacifist would not fightHe may interpose his body between the attacker and the attacked for all the good that would do; he may do many other things instead, but he would count it less of a crime not to kill in defence of his own in wartime—l emphasise those words “in wartime”—than he would to kill. Surely it must be clear if I lay claim to the title of pacifist that I would not kill in any circumstances. From the point of view of common sense. I know this is anathema, and aH that is pernicious, but “common sense” is a term nf degrees. What is common sense to-day is folly to-morrow. Now comes the question of cowardice, of fear of death. If a pacifist is worthy of the name, lie is prepared to face not only odium and persecution but also death for his ideal. In conclusion, may I remind my militarist friends and foes (I would rather they were all ray friends) that if pacifism is not an aspect of truth, then it will die and the way of all untruth: but if it is of truth, then you may perseouto. rifUcule and scofr until you are blnok in .the face —it. will chance nothing. What is true will live, therefore why discuss anything in bitter- ' ness.—l am. etc.; GARD PATERSON.

Wellington. April 29. “The Kine-dom of Good” writes: — “■Mav T state that war is being continually wage'd among all competitors in every wnv? The whole of creation groans and suffers under the competitive system. When it ceases its eternal vigilance, then comes the end. . .