WOULD NOT BEAR ARMS

Evening Star, Issue 18334, 23 July 1923, Page 10

WOULD NOT BEAR ARMS

NOE HELP THE WOUNDED. RELIGIOUS OBJECTOR IN COURT. “ Why not, let him serve in the Ambulance Corps?” asked Mr J. W. Poyntou, S.M., of a father who appeared at the ; Auckland Police Court this week in sup- , port of Jus son’s application for evemp--1 t ion from military training on religions grounds. '■ Because he would be assisting the military,” replied the father. "‘And you wouldn't help a wounded soldier as he lay bleeding on the field?” queried His Worship. 'Not in so far as it comes under the military authorities. It would bo helping the man in uniform.” u You are bringing your boy up in a very bad way. Christ did not distinguish between soldier and civilian, lie helped both. If you saw your wife being violated by a foreign soldier, would you take an axe and cut off tho fellow’s head?” “I believe wo are in God’s hands.” Captain Redmond, who appeared for the Defence Department, asked if tho father had not himself been a volunteer years ago. “ Yes,” replied tho father, “ but that was before—before-; ” “Before you saw the light!” suggested the magistrate. (Laughter.) It was an altitude contrary to the law, continued the magistrate. Young men were not compelled to handle arms. If they served in the Medical Corps they bore stretchers and rendered succor to the dying and the wounded. It was an unreasonable attitude to adopt. “ Do I understand it is useless my proceeding, sir?” asked Mr Hanna, who represented the applicant. Mr Poynton, S.M., intimated that he had his mind made up on tho matter. Our militarism w r as not aggressive—it was purely defensive. When a man said he would not help a soldier wounded in tho defence of his country, then that man was subscribing to a belief that was injurious to the community. It would never do to encourage such a view. If a young man objected to fighting ho could help the wounded and follow the teaching of Christ. According to tho New Testament there was neither Jew nor Gentile—all were brothers. To refuse to help a uniformed man "was anti-social, and therefore wrong. It was fanaticism, irrationalism. “ I won’t grant exemption. It is entirely at a magistrate’s discretion to do so, but I don’t think it possible to reconcile this standpoint with common sense.” In explaining the reason for the application, Mr Hanna said that the applicant belonged to a religions body known to the military authorities as the “ Testimony of Jesus.” The body had no name otherwise, hut it was world-wide in membership, and its tenets had been subscribed to for centuries. Those of this denomination believed that those who lived by the sword would perish by the sword, and that to undergo military training was contrary to the teaching of Jesns Christ.