Public Opinion

Southland Times, Issue 24497, 26 July 1941, Page 9

Public Opinion

INQUIRER.— A single man is allowed £52 a year. If a man and his wife are both in receipt of age benefit they are allowed a joint annual income from all other sources of £52. If the wife is not in receipt of age benefit or any allowance an income of £l3O a year from other sources is allowed before any cut is made in the husband’s age benefit.

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS Two more letters appear in your issue of Wednesday upholding conscientious objectors. F. C. Burgess is greatly concerned and makes much ado because the Returned Soldiers’ Association has taken the matter up. He complains bitterly that a lot of correspondents adopt pen-names conveniently forgetting that a lot of his own supporters do the same. It would be more enlightening if next time we had the address. It is a great pity that a lot of the objectors were not as conscientious about other teachings of the Bible as they are about taking up arms. The other correspondent signs himself “British,” which is nothing more or less than hypocrisy, and goes on to say that England’s great leader, Mr Churchill, upholds Christianity and on that account was divinely favoured over the evacuation from Dunkirk. Yes, the hand of God was used to save those who went to kill the aggressor. This correspondent then quotes the evacuation from Crete as another miracle. It is not the cowardly objector that God is working miracles for, but the forces fighting for liberty, freedom of speech and freedom of worship. These privileges are not obtained by turning the other cheek to Hitler. Finally he quotes thait well-known song, “There will always be an England.” If these words are going to hold good we can thank God for the fighting Forces and cry shame on the conscientious objectors, for if their principles were the law of the land England would be a German vassal state tomorrow. DAIRY FARMER.

Three letters condemning the attitude of conscientious objectors appear in your issue of Monday. They are all written by defenders of the Christian religion, but it cannot be said that they are marked by any of that spirit of charity which upholders of the faith like to claim as a virtue exclusively their own. Charity is always “Christian’ charity with them, but where is it to be found in the bitter criticisms appearing in your columns? Nowhere is there displayed a spirit of tolerance or a desire to understand the other man’s point of view. Instead, the hand of the persecutor is revealed and we are reminded that with all qur boasted high ideals the tyrant is still alive in our midst. A war is on and certain men are obdurate in their objection to performing military service: accordingly, they are “fair game” and must be made the objects of obloquy and scorn and have insults and vituperation heaped on them. Do we as a people gain in moral stature from this sort of thing? I think not. The conscientious objector may be a coward in the physical sense—though thir. is by no means a fair inference from his views—but who will say that he is a moral coward? Would his critics suffer vehement criticism and social ostracism with a like fortitude? Let it be remembered that men and women have in the past suffered to the point of death for their opinions and that humanity has often been the gainer from their sacrifice. After all, refusal to engage in military service is a purely passive offence. No one is hurt by it. It does not follow that because a man is of a good type for the fighting services that he is bound to be a good citizen in time of peace—and it is peace that is the normal state of civilized man. This plea that we should take a more tolerant view of conscientious objectors does not carry with it any endorsement of their viewpoint. The obligation of the citizen to give service to the State in a defensive war like the present seems to be clear cut, but the measure of personal sacrifice can never be justly apportioned. The people who are asking that conscientious objectors should be made to fight are for the most part well outside the conflict. Not being called on to fight themselves they enjoy the security that others, fight for. The suggestion of H. R. Wilson that objectors to military service should be asked to disclose their records m public worship is quite pointless. It is not necessary to profess a religious belief to have a conscience. A fairer test would be to ascertain whether the objector has been identified with a peace oiganization such as the League of Nations Union. Attachment to such a body would at least indicate sincerity. TOLERATION.

In your issue of July 12 there appeared a report of a sitting of the Armed Forces Appeal Board at Gore. It is far from satisfactory for those now overseas doing their bit, and for those of us who are waiting to follow them to see so many conscientious objectors earning their livelihood at the expense of those who have 100 per cent. British blood in their veins, which is saying the May I mention the comment made by Mr Haggitt during the hearing of one appeal. “I am not inclined to crossexamine witness,” he said. May I ask why? Was not it his job to do so? Perhaps Mr Haggitt will explain the reason for his statement so that there can be no misunderstanding. What the Government should do with those who will not defend their country is to confiscate all their property, no matter what it is. Their money should be taken to assist the war effort and they should forfeit all their civil rights. Then let them go, for they would have no stake in the counti-y and nothing to fight for. Today

the Government is buying up land for our boys when they return. Now is the time for it to take all land and property, no matter whether freehold or leasehold, held by anyone who is not prepared to defend his country as any loyal British subject would. ENGLAND EXPECTS.

In your “Public Opinion” column recently various criticisms have been expressed, some adverse to conscientious objectors. One can only, in charity, assume that lack of knowledge is the main cause of what must be otherwise considered spiteful comment. The inference of some of these writings is that, all conscientious objectors are traitors, cowards and even criminals, taking up an illegal stand against the Government. Is it not a fact that in this country the law allows every man called up for military service the right of appeal on various grounds. If his appeal is sustained by a competent board, or tribunal, set up by the Government to sift the evidence for the appeal, how can it be said that he is a traitor and a criminal worthy of deportation? In the criticisms levelled against conscientious objectors it appears to me ,the implication is that appeals against military service originated since the present war broke out. This is not so in all cases. I have no brief for conscientious objectors in general, , and certainly not for pacifists, but I wish to state a few facts about the Christadelphian attitude against military service. This religious body’s teaching and belief has been uniform and consistent in its attitude towards war for more than 90 years, as can be proved by literature extending over that period and proclamation from the public platform. During the American Civil War members of this body were granted exemption from military service and during the World War ,of 1914-18 they were granted exemption by the British Government and also by the New Zealand Government. Before the present war began the Christadelphian body applied for exemption from military service and later was granted exemption, offering to do work of national importance under civil authority at the discretion of the Government. The Christadelphians have always believed that there would be such a war that is now raging in the world. It has also been stated that conscientious objectors are not churchgoers, and do not fear God or honour the King, and that they should be disfranchised. This, however, does not apply to Christadelphians who, daily, attentively read and meditate on the Word of God, who have regular I services for worship and fellowship on the first day of the week. They also honour the King as the head of the Empire in which we live, obeying scrupulously the laws enacted in His name. They only subordinate his authority to that of a Higher Power, who has commanded us to seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness. Disfranchising religious conscientious objectors would be no penalty, as Christadelphians do not vote in parliamentary or any other elections. J. P. GRAHAM.

(Because of pressure on space a section of this letter, explaining the Christadelphian attitude in detail and with Biblical quotations, has been omitted.)

There has been much correspondence in the papers lately about conscientious objectors and teachers being dismissed because war is against their idea of what is right in the sight of God. Most of the correspondents would treat these objectors to war in much the same way as objectors to Hitler’s regime in Germany have been treated, that is, they would take away their power to earn a living or cast them into prison. Some would even flog. Now, sir, why are we at war? Is it not that we may have freedom—freedom to worship God in the way we each think right? And I contend that worshipping God is not merely standing up to sing or kneeling down to pray in church. It is rather the carrying out in our everyday life what we believe God would have us do. Conscientious objectors are being persecuted for this. I say, and say emphatically, that every person born has certain rights and this right of conscience is possibly most important of all. To my way of thinking it is appalling the way freedom is being taken from people in New Zealand, and yet we are supposed to be fighting for this very freedom. I think New Zealand should take a leaf out of England’s book. I understand that even today in the midst of war any person may get on his soap box in Hyde Park and say what he likes. I, sir, am not a conscientious objector; neither am I a great church goer. But I think we cannot fight too hard for freedom, and that therefore we should let the other man have his. FREEDOM.