WOULDN'T BEAR ARMS

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16186, 24 July 1923, Page 9

WOULDN'T BEAR ARMS

NOR HELP THE WOUNDED. “Why not let him surve in the Ambulance Corps?” asked Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., of a father who appeared at the Police Court in support of his son’s application for exemption from military training, on religious grounds. “Because he would be assisting the military,” replied the father. “And you wouldn’t help a wounded soldier as ho lay bleeding on f the field?” queried his Worship. “Not in so far as it comes under the military authorities. It would be helping the man in uniform. “You are bringing your boy up in a very bad way. Christ did not distinguish between soldier and civilian. Ho helped both. If you saw your wifo being violated by a foreign soldier, would you take an axe and cut off the fellow's head?” “I believe wo are in Cod’s hands.” Captain Redmond, who appeared for the Defence Department, asked if the father had not himself been a volunteer years ago. “Yes,” replied the Lather, “but that was before—before—” “Before you saw the light!” suggested the magistrate. (Laughter.) It was an attitude contrary to the law, continued tho magistrate. Young men were not compelled to handle arms. If they servod in tho Medical Corps they bore stretchers and rendered succor to the dying and the wounded. It was an unreasonable attitudo to adopt. “Do I understond it is useless my proceeding, sir?” asked Mr. Hanna, who represented the applicant. Mr. Poynton, S.M., intimated that he had liis mind made up on the matter. Dur militarism was not aggressive—it was purely defensive. When a man said he would not, help a soldier wounded in the defence of his country, then that man was subscribing to a beliof that was injurious to the community. It would never do to encourage such a view. If a young man objected to fighting lie could help tlie wounded and follow the teaching of Christ. According to the NW Testament there was neithor Jew nor Gentile, all were brothers. To refuse to help a uniformed man was antisocial, 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 tho reason for the application, Mr. Hanna said the applicant belonged to a religious body known to the military authorities as the “Testimony of Jesus.” Tho body had no namo otherwise, but it was worldwide in membership, and its tenets had been subscribed to lor 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 Jesus Christ.