RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17396, 6 February 1917, Page 7

RELIGIOUS OBJECTORS.

MEN DRAWN IN BALLOT. ' APPEAL FOR EXEMPTION. At the, sitting of the First Canterbury Militarv Service Board in Christchurch yesto'-day two cppeals on the ground /of religious objection were heard. 'Mr J. S. Evans, S.M., was chairman of the board. THE RICHMOND MISSION.

The first ease was that of Theodore Gibbs, law clerk, who stated that ho was twenty-one years of age and a ttember of the Richmond Mission. He did not believe in killing his enemies. The Chairman: What is the Richmond Mission? Appellant: A religious body banded together to worship the Christian ideals.

Appellant asked that his case should be adjourned until such time as the Government would consider the position of his Church. The chairman said that appellant was not a member of a constitutional church, the 'body in question being a few individuals who held a religious belief, but it did not come within the meaning of the Act. and could not be recognised with other bodies which were constitutional. To suggest that appellant was going make these grounds a ground of appeal was absurd. To take up such a position was not" the way to meet the German menace.

Appellant said a petition would be placed in the hands of the Minister of .Defence praying for exemption on' behalf of the religious denominations so constituted as the one of which he was a member.

The chairman said the appeal would be dismissed, but appellant's petition would bo placed before the proper authorities, and if favourably received he would receive the benefit of it, otherwise ho would be recommended for the non-combatant service. THE PLYMOUTH BRETHREN.

The second ease was that of Marenus Rugsted, a jobbing carpenter, of Fendalton,. who said he belonged to -the Plymouth Brethren and did not believe in killing his fellow-men. The Chairman: Would you object to a non-combatant's duties?

Appellant said he would not mind carrying munitions, but he objected to killing. . -The Chairman.: Well, what is .he difference between you killing a. man and carrying munitions to be used for the same purpose? On the face of what you say your objections are very thinlv conscientious.

The appeal was dismissed and appellant was recommended for tho .ioncombatant .service.