FOUR APPEALS HEARD

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 86, Issue 65, 18 March 1942, Page 4

FOUR APPEALS HEARD

CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION DECISIONS OF NO. 3 BOARD Objection to bearing arms on the grounds that taking human life was contrary to Chri tian teachings was the basis of appeals lodged hy four reservists and heard befor** the No. 3 Armed Forces Appeal Board at a sitting in YVc.nganui ji**terday. Two appellant* were Methodists, one was a member of the Church of Christ, Wanganui, and another said lv* was a member of the Israelite House of David, basing his views on the Old Testament. The decisions were: Walter Sylvester Thrush, solicitir. Dismissed conditional on reservist being posted to the Medical Corps. Maurice Gregson Wood, salesman. --Dismissed conditional on being posted to non-combatant service. Ballance Reginald Spurdie, journalist.- Appeal allowed. Edward Ronald Prince, architect.— Appeal allowed. The board consisted of Messrs. E. H. Young (Stiatiord), chairman. T. B. Ewens (Waitara*. ami A. P. Melville (Fordell). The Crown representative was Mr. C. H. Clinkard. Thiush read a statement in whicn he declared that he conscientiously objected to bearing arms because he believed that war was absolutely contrary to the teachings of Christ. He had been a member of the Siethodist Church for the past 20 years, and a senior member for 15 years. He was a fully-accredited local preacher and had been circuit, steward for the past five years. He added that in 1932 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938, tne Methodist Conference had passed resolutions to the effect that war was contrary to the teachings of Christ. In the 1940 manifesto on peace and war the previous resolutions were contradicted. hut the Methodist Conference, at the same time, asked that the religious convictions of members of the church be respected. This view was confirmed by the 1941 conference. Appellant added that ho was prepared to serve in the Medical Corps, or carry out any such work as might be allocated to him. In reply to Mr. Clinkard. Thrush said he did not know what he would do if New Zealand or his household wore attacked, but he knew Im should not use force. He had a brother in the Middle East who was wounded in Libya. Confirmation of appellant's church affiliations was given by the Rev. C. E. Dickens, Methodist minister, Gonville. Large Following “I think there is a large following in the Methodist Church with this view,” said the chairman (Mr. E. H. Young, Stratford), when witness said he shared somew hat the same view* as Thrush. The Methodist Church would be the one to come out of the war most creditably in the end, said appellant. Mr. Young: I disagree. I think other churches will conic out more creditably in the end. People in the Methodist Church are beginning t<» realise, this and would like a change. He believed that appellant was absolutely sincere in his convictions, said J. S. D. Tizard, solicitor, Wanganui. He added that he had known Thrush for many years and described him as an intellectual who read and thought, deeply. Wood said he and his father were members of the Israelite House of David, and not only opposed to taking human life, but also the life of animals. They believed that killing in any form was opposed to the teachings of Christ. Appellant added that he was fully prepared to serve in any non-combatant service. In support of the belief that it was wrong to even kill animals, he was a vegetarian. He had held these views all his life. They were based on the Old Testament. Members of the Israelite House of David, few of which were in New Zealand, did not attend any particular church. Supporting the appeal of his son, William Wood said that because he was a vegetarian, appellant would require a special diet if he went into camp. Hiul Not Taken Oath Spurdie said he had not taken the oath after his medical examination and had not .signed the E.P.S. attestation form when the compulsory enrolment system was Introduced. He had been a workec in the Methodist Church for 14 years and nad belonged to it before that. About a year ago he came to the conclusion that the Church’s attitude to war was wrong. He was not prepared to take up any form of national service. Mr. Clinkard: We have to defend ourselves. Spurdie: That is not the law of God. I have come to the conclusion that the best thing I can do is to give my life to the Lord and pray for repentance. Mr. Ewens: Do you believe that i: all New Zeaeland prayed peace would come ? Spurdie: That is the promise of God. Mr. Clinkard: Arp you prepared to do anything at all? Spurdie: No. Not even to the extent of medical work? That is all explained in my statement. We are fighting against other nations and have got to defend ourselves if attacked. That is the law of the land?—lt is not the law of God. Suppose the Japanese, who are not concerned with God, wanted to come to New Zealand, would prayer stop them?- 1 believe the power of God could stop them. In reply to a question by Mr. Ewens, Spurdie said he had no time to waste on dances, sport, or any type of pleasure. He spent his spare time in prayer and in God's work. Mr. Ewens: You might be better if you did find time for amusements. In reply to further questioning, Spurdh l said he did not attend meetings where war or pacifism were discussed. His people and his minister did not hold the same views as he did. “I believe appellant is utterly sincere in hi outlook on this question.” said the Rev. Dickson. “I have known him for three years and during that time he has always held the conviction that a Christian should not take part in war." Prince also submitted a lengthy statement in which he said he was a member of the Church of Christ, Ingestre Street. He realised awkward questions could be asked of him, but held that, the same awkward qu n .>- tions could be asked of those who were Christians and believed in bearing arms. Appellant produced a statement signed by the Rev. Godfrey Fretwell, who was unable to be present. Mr. Fret well stated that, he had known appellant for seven and a-half years and described him as a member of full standing in the church. He was most consistent in his attitude of conscientious objection to war. Cross-examined by Mr. Clinkard, appellant said he could not work under military control. He believed that his services could be used in constructive work, but not in destructive work He could not become part of the military machftie.