“A MISCHIEVOUS SENTIMENT"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18674, 2 October 1922, Page 7

“A MISCHIEVOUS SENTIMENT"

“MY COUNTRY EIGHT OR WRONG.” TRENCHANT PULPIT CRITICISM. . Under the title of “My Country, Right or Wrong.” the Rev. Hector Maclean preached a stirring sermon touching trenchantly on several aspects of the present, Near East; ■. crisis to a. large congregation in St. Andrew’s Church last night. Hia text' was taken from Acts 24-16: “A conscience void of offence towards God and mane always,” You are all aware, lie said, of; the source of my title to-night. They are words used by the Leader of the 'Opposition in his speech supporting the action of the Cabinet in wiring to the British Pritne Minister , pledging the manhood of this country if hostilities broke out in the Near East. They are so extraordinary that I am surprised they did not create a bigger sensation than they appear to have done. Beyond a letter or two in the pacers questioning their morality, and a leader in one paper endorsing the attitude they imply, not a word has been said. In Parliament.: itself, except for the Labour Party, they . soein to have been accepted as the 'highest • expression of patriotism. So far as 'I, know no church court has drawn attention ' to the doctrine contained in them. It may be that there has been a disinclination to question the validity of the statement of a responsible person like the Leader of the Opposition when the country, and the Empire were face to face with another serious crisis. But crisis, or no crisis, the sentiment is wrong and, mischievous. It is the negation of tms patriotism, and not the affirmation of it, and as a minister of the Church of Jesus Christ and as a citizen of this dominion I feel it a duty to challenge it. It is not my intention to say anything l here about the right or wrong of "the present situation. One thing becomes clearer every, day. We ordinary people are not qualified 1o pronounce definitely on this matter. Wo are back in the bad old days of suppressed information. We are told the issue at stake is the freedom of the Straits. And yet. the Prime Minister holds information which wo are not permitted to know, and ihe implication is that, the real difficulty—the matter which makes the situation so . dangerously critical is not bound up with’ ■ the neutralisation of the Straits or the safeguarding of the sacred soil of Gallipoli, but with some cause, the nature of which 1 is hidden from us. If we go to war what shall we ho fighting for? Will it he to. keep Turkey out of Europe, or to defend the oil wells of Mesopotamia, or to breakMoslem power in India? Before wo are committed to another hell of bloodshed and suffering wo ought to he told clearly. This point is at least plain. Everybody who counts is committed to the principle of keeping the Straits free—even the head of the British Moslems is in frank accord with that idea. Why then should Britain be alone in the determination to fight on that issue? Has she interests to conserve with which her former Allies have no concern? there are matters of which we have the right to be certain before we allow ourselves to ■ be rushed into a war for the making. of which we have no responsibility. But, leaving that matter aside, let us ; 'ook at the general principle of “My Couh- 1 try Right or Wrong.” However hesitant we may be in this particular application of : the principle for the sentiment itself wo can have nothing but abhorrence. The logical ending of such a position is what in; the last war we fought as Prussianism. It is the supremacy of the State carried to its extreme limits. It is the contradiction of personal freedom in matters of con- ■ science. It is the demand for men who, realise that a thing is wrong to give their lives to perpetuate that wrong. It is, the,, old doctrine in a new guise, which by the ’ grace of God and the sacrifice of millions , of lives, the civilised world repudiated in the Groat War. It is the doctrine .that,! might is right On the lips of the Leader” of the Opposition it is called “patriotism.'’ If you gave it its right name you would ; call it inhuman and brutal; By this prin- : ciple you could justify every war of aggres- , sion that has taken place since the world’ began. We used to blame the German people Ist cans r they allowed themselves 'td ‘ bo hoodwinked by their Junker loaders. We ought to turn round, now and in the light of this now principle praise them'; for being loyal to their country whether it was right or wrong. The sooner we tee ’ where this doctrine leads us the better for us all. Mr Maclean concluded a brief examine tion into the nature of true patriotism br saving; “The officialdom of the Foreign Office is not our country, and we will not die for it. In so far as bungling there—or avarice or injustice—places the country in a wrong position, as patriotic men and women it is our duty to criticise it, to repudiate it, and to bring it to book.” . . One cannot help feeling that the cry of . Empire has become a fetish which asks for blind worshin on the part of its devotees. ■ From tho point of view of real patriotism, there must exist a place and a function for conscientious objection. There are other loyalties than loyalty to our country, lie are members of a great many “social organisms” (if we can use, that metaphoiq, rnd each of these has claims upon us. . .. h it is time that our legislators realised that) there is a great body of the people whom they represent and.are supposed to lead who arc beginning to feel a new consciousness of a world-wide order to which they must he loyal as against all wrong national action It may be that that new consciousness has had its best expression - m the League of Nations. But apart from that League altogether it has been stirring m i men’s minds and hearts. There must always j be room for conscientious objection on the ,! grounds of humanity. . . . , Touching finally on the Christian at I dude ■Sir Maclean said:. “My country right m;■ niv country satisfying my Christian tour - science. My country wrong is my fleutiug nw Christian conscience. So then. , the principle, ‘My Country, Right or Wromr.’ is an affront to Christian, loyalty. There'rnust also he room in connection with all decisions and actions of Government or Parliament for conscientious objection, on. Christian grounds. It may be only right to noinc out that these conclusions are : likclv to bring the holders of them into ; conflict with the civil law. Tliat happened in tho last war; it will happen again. Unhappily our State is net built on the prm- ■ ciples which admit of the validity of such conclusions. When it comes to war the unfortunate thing is that what rules is not Christian practice or principle. It is the ; cohesion of the old wolf-pack. And (hat is. one reason w*hy we should do our very host ; to eliminate the war-spirit from our midst. ■; Jingoism sweeps away all the higher motives which guide .and control men and nations.”