COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19748, 22 September 1927, Page 14

COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE.

Sir.—lf New Zealand and our Empire had been untrained in 1914, we New Zealanders would now all be slaves, or at least under the foot of our foes. Why should a few ministers, and especially a student for the ministry, forget Jesus' teaching, "He that hath no sword let him sell Ins coat and buy one," or the apostle's teaching, "Obey nance of man for the Lord's sake." Why not have these ministers go to the foe ? Why not go and teach the grasping, unjust nations to cease from training? Britain does not go to make war, but to defend. Ministers who will not defend their country should give up the pulpit. The magistrate was quite justified in pointing out less dangerous work (quite needful) for those afraid to h&ndlo arms. It is b\> being prepared that we keep our foes from over-running our fair country. M.D. Sir,—-The letter signed "Defence" implies that Quakers supported the late war. Those few who did went to the war regardless of their religious teaching, or went on being told that it was a war to' end war. Others did ambulance work or war victims relief work, simply to alleviate the suffering. If they had supportthe war, they would have enlisted as ordinary soldiers. Many others, rather than appear to support the war in anv way, declined to do any work in connection with it, and many were sent to gaol in consequence. A message issued by the general meeting of the Society of Friends in New Zealand last Easter shows that Quakers fully support anv genuine conscientious objectors to military training, and do not desire anyone to train for war. R. W, E. Pum-JBV. Sir.—Mr. F. L. Sharp, secretary of the Religious Liberty Association, states that to enter upon a course of training which obviously purports to fit men to take up arms for the express purpose of killing i(i war is practically a denial of the principles for which, as Christians, we stand. Han it not occurred to the minds of religious conscientious objectors that military training, as it is today, is purely a means ot preparing our sons to defend our country in case of need ? In the event of our country being invaded by a foreign Power, would Christians care to see our women and children exposed to danger, while our menfolk did not fire a shot in their defence ? Surely it is more the act of Christians to prepare themselves, by military training, to defend their country like men Mr. Sharp states that ho belongs to a denomination that has, for over 50 vears, declared themselves noncombatants. During the last war manv of our sons gave thair Jives in the defence of the women, children and all that they held dear, and are we to understand that the male members of Mr. Sharp's denomination were content to go about their ordinary duties, without lifting a finger toward assisting our noble lads, but, instead, allowed themselves to benefit by having their own lives protected, in company with our womenfolk ? Not, one man, 1 feel sure, who is now, or has been, through a course of military training, has any wish whatever to take the life of any man, but in the matter of defence, the killing of an enemy is at times inevitable. A SOLOJEfe.