INCONSISTENT "CO.'S."

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1707, 4 August 1919, Page 11

INCONSISTENT "CO.'S."

MR L. M. 15ITPS VIEV/S. i Home remarks on the inconsistency of the beliefs .hold by sonic who claim to have conscientious objections to iniliitary sen ice were made bv Mr 1.. M. Ilsitt, M.P., in his address' at the univoiling of the Durham SI reel .Methodist Church Roll of Honour last evening. Pacifists, said Mr Isitt, were an extraordinary combination of religionists and irreligionists, loyalists and disloy'alisis, of mere shirkers and honest 'doubters who proved their courage by ithe way in which they faced " their [hardships. They had a jumble of contradictory and varying arguments. They [said that war was'hateful and wicked | —that it was opposed to the spirit of ■Chris;. The Church agreed with them. ißut, I'c-n, the pacifists came to this ; conclusion: "If our enemies seek to I enslave and destroy us, if they seek Ito enslave, destroy or outrage other 'men, women and children —even if they aim at world-eonquest— if we have been l followers of Christ, wo must disband iour armies and navies, we must meet | hate with love, and leave the issue to Cod." That was a big proposition, and ihe personally had so little doubt as to j what the result would be that he would | need a clear call from the Living Cod j before be would be prepared to adopt tha.f attitude. The Church had had no such call, and he contended that their I belief in God should go hand in hand with common sense. He believed Christ's teachings that a Christian should never give way to revenge, but nowhere could he find any utterance by Christ which would justify him in standing by while a ruffian outraged a child. | lie would risk losing the inheritance of ! Heaven anil enduring the sufferings of iHell before he would do that. Such an ! interpretation of the Divine will would [smother every chivalrous instinct he ihad in his heart.

The men who offered these interpretations had no special claim to intellectual distinction or enlightenment, and they were often inconsistent in their own actions. They failed to put the same literal interpretation upon other Divine commands. When asked to accompany a man for a ,ile did they offer to go with him twain? Or, when their coat, was taken did they offer their cloak also? Here in Christchurch did they meet hate with love? Were not some of them the most eager to jdaee Labour laws on the statute Book and so compel employers to pay a living wage? That was all right, but it was not meekly yielding. If it were un-Christlike and wrong to resist the murders and thieves anil ruffians of a foreign nation, surely it must be equally as wrong to resist oppression at home.