CHURCH AND WAR

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 112, 7 November 1935, Page 8

CHURCH AND WAR

TRAINING .IN SCHOOLS

ASSEMBLY DISCUSSION

DIVERGENT OPINIONS

A discussion took place at the meeting of the Presbyterian General Assembly at St. John's Church last evening ■on two sections of the report of the public questions committee, first, respecting the attitude of the Church to war and the proposal that the Presbyterian Church should unite with other Churches in making an urgent and united appeal to the nations of the world to stand by their obligations under the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris, and, second, that the controlling authorities should be informed that the Assembly does not approve of military training in Presbyterian Church schools and desires them to arrange for some other type of disciplinary training. Very often the debate rah off the main tracks and became a discussion as to whether speakers were pacifists or militarists. By a majority vote both clauses were carried. The committee's report was brought forward by the Eev. J. T. Macky, as convener. ' Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Balclutha), said that there was no need for the matter to come up at all. There was no one in New Zealand who wanted war. A voice: Yes. "Well, you must have extraordinary acquaintances; get rid of them. I venture to say that no one outside a lunatic asylum wants war,"-relied Mr. Malcolm, who went on to say that no member of the Cnurch could give the question • the consideration given by the statesmen at Home. Such matters should be left to the State, and the Church should attend to its own work. Armament makers. Mr. Malcolm went on to ridicule suggestions that armament manufacturers had ever endeavoured to influence, statesmen or to foment wars. In his' opinion it was England's plain duty to «e-arm most fully and completely. Should England fall far behind' other nations in strength of armaments New Zealand's membership of the British Empire would not be a moment's purchase. "Does anyone believe that a race in armaments will produce peace?" asked the Rev. J. A. Allan (Riccarton). "The lesson of the pre-war years was that a race in armaments leads inevitably to war." Mr. Malcolm had said that it was a parcel of-lies that armament manufacturers had exercised any influence in producing war, said the Rev. R. Inglis (Wellington). He should read the report of the Commission of the League of Nations on that subject. It stated that representatives, of armament manufacturers had been buttonholing members of the Disarmament Conference and that they had been bringing influence to bear in almost every country in the world to promote the sale of arms. Had Mr. Malcolm ever herd of Zaharoff? He was a man who was notorious in that connection. Mr. Inglis said that as a Christian, he was a pacifist. Mr. Malcolm, he thought, would make a splendid Tory politician. SCHOOL TRAINING REALLY COMPULSORY. Mr. Macky said that though compulsory military training had been abolished some time ago, military training in secondary schools was to all intents and purposes compulsory. It was a very regrettable thing that boys at schools should be imbued with militarism. Discipline was very necessary, but military training was riot the only form of discipline. The Church could not go to the Government and say that there should be no military training in schools, but it should say that there should be no military training in its own schools. The Rev. J. R. Blanchard (Wellington) said that the Presbyterian Church stood on a platform of the abolition of military training. To that principle the Assembly stood committed, and for the Assembly not to say that it disapproved of military training in its own schools would be absurd. It had been suggested that the abolition of military training in the schools would lead to their disruption, but there was another view of that: that parents would be faced with the necessity of making the decision whether their children should go to schools where military training was compulsory or to schools where it was not. The argument was double-edged. The Rt. Rev. Principal John Dickie (Dunedin) said that the first persons to be consulted were the parents of the children at the three church schools, for either the schools would be disrupted, or such a resolution as might be passed would be quietly passed by, and it was unwise to pass resolutions which had no import. It was nonsense to say that voluntary military training made anyone warminded. The carrying of the motion would do serious harm to the church schools and would shake the loyalty of a large number of young men and young women. He moved as an amendment that the two clauses should be deleted. EXTREME PACIFISM. The Hon. J. B. Gow (Opotiki), seconding the amendment, said that he believed that there was among the Presbyterian clergy a sprinkling of extreme pacifism. There would be no freedom today had men not enjoyed the privilege of standing up for freedom and right. The motion would not only disrupt the church schools, but would do great harm to the Church. The Rev. A. C. Watson (Christchurch) said that he, like Mr. Blanchard, was a member of a church board by whom the question had already been discussed. He was not a pacifist, though he honoured those who were. The question was not one of pacifism, however; it was a question of whether there should be military training in schools. If military training in secondary schools, then why not in primary schools? The great point was that at their most impressionable age children were being led to think that there was no possibility of avoidance of war. Military training was to prepare the mind for war, and it was useless to say that it was anything else. . NO ACTUAL DEFENSIVE VALUE. The idea that the root of military training given boys at school would be of any use at all in the defence of their country was absolutely absurd, said the Rev. J. D. Smith (Dunedin). All that could be achieved was disciplinary training, and no one proposed that that should be taken away. He was in favour of disciplinary training, but not military training of boys. Nothing would be lost in schools if the motion was carried. Mr. Rowntree (Christchurch) said that if the church schools were going to be disrupted by the abolition of military training, then it was time they were disrupted. The Assembly could