THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17198, 19 June 1916, Page 9

THE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR

10 THE EDITOR. Sir, —May I ask you to publish the enclosed cutting from a recent issue of the “ British \\ eddy.” Ic is the finest thing upon the subject of the ‘‘conscientious objector,” who pleads Christian conviction as his excuse for military sendee, that I have read for a long time. Headers should carefully note tho iast sentence of the cutting enclosed.—l am, etc., BRITON. (Enclosure.) Rev Dr Pirie, Nairn, in tho courso of a line sermon on “ The Conscientious Objector,” said: —‘‘I frankly confess that I see what commends itself to my mind as the spirit of Christ very much more in tho ir.;ui who is ready to sacrifice himself, to lay ' aside tho thought of his own ease and comfort, and face hardships and dangers and death, in order that ho may go out to fight for the defence of his country, and for tho protection of tho weak; fight-for'the love of humanity, for the sake of justico and in the interests of righteousness and freedom. I say there is more of the spirit of Christ in tho man who does that than there is in tho man who sits at home, because bo is too much of a Christian to light, and allows his country to bo dishonoured, and tho cause of injustice and wrong and infamy to triumph, without seemingly tho slightest seruplo and without one spark of shame being kindled in bis soul. And the Reason that ho gives is that he a follower of Jesus Christ. . . . The Lord Jesus would never ask Ris disciples to do anything that would bring shamo and dishonour upon them, and I can honestly say, speaking, I believe,* as I do, from the Christian standpoint, that had I been a young man of the age -fit- for service in this awful crisis in our country’s history and in .the life of the world, I would have brought a deep stain of dishonour and shame upon myself if I had not gone to fight against the enemy who is waging war not only against countries and nations, but against tho most sacred interests of humanity, and against the very principles which Christ came to establish in tho world, and who lias done and is doing more, to destroy man’s faith in the religion of Christ than any liostilo movement which lias ever been known in Christian times.”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—May I be allowed to say, ill reply to Miss Baughnn, that in tlio nature of things it- is impossible to judge the measure of any person’s sincerity. Men of all creeds and no creed may conceivably bo as sincere as any Quaker in their conviction against taking life. Mrs Cunnington champions the Socialists. 1 plead for humanity the right to decide, each man tor himself, in this matter. The difficulty your correspondent raises can only ho over‘como by giving all freedom. There can bef'no other way. No man or set of men can decide upon the genuineness or otherwise of another s convictions. I agree that the most deplorable feature of the business is the crime committed bv the Military Service Bill against the highest and most precious of the attributes of the State, freedom of conscience. No emergency, however serious, will excuse a. nation in breaking this fundamental law of the universe. No words of mine can fully express my detestation of the action of those who have been for months past forcing young men to enlist by moral and financial pressure. It is tragic to reflect that in this fair land of our adoption wo are contemplating gaoling some of tho best of our sons because they will not violate their conscience.—l am, etc., MM. ENSOM. Sumner, June 1(5. TO THE EDITOR. Sir. —For the benefit of one of your contributors to the conscientious objector problem, may 1 be permitted to quote a recent, writer in a Rationalist magazine:—“John Stuart .Mill lays it clown that ‘No one pretends that actions should be as free as opinions.’ He claims for tho individual the fullest liberty of opinion, but when that opinion is translated into action it must be subject to two conditions—(l) ‘ In not injuring tho interests of others,’ and (21 in ' each person bearing his share of tho labours and sacrifices incurred for defending the society or the members from injury and molestation. 1 ” A recent- monograph by Mr TV. L. Davidson says:—“ Where, however, a man’s conduct infringes on tho interest and rights of others, society may rightfully step in and suppress him, and society must also insist that each- person perform and discharge his obligations as a social being.”—T am, etc., “RATIONALIST.