New-York tribune., 1917-07-28
The Conscientious Objector
By Bishop !. r. Cooke
OF the Methodist Episcopal Church South
. (Fyom The Methodist Adyocdte-j jounaD

;,y has slowly evolved in history and made
,hs beirlooms of the nations. But he is per-
fectly willing to enjoy all the dement's sociai'
political cultural, commercial or other' .na'
these men have won or preserved ior n''"
at the cost of their own blood and sunering
and death For if all war is wrong, upon
what moral principle does the CONSCIENTIOUS
objector wipe the bloody spot OF quit from
his own hands by simply objecting to war
while he enjoys the benefits OF war! Is the
receiver of stolen goods less criminal than
the thief? Is not the beneficiary of crime
partner in the crime? Is such man Con-
scientious Objector at all? insist that the
Conscientious Directors conscience shall go
down the whole line and not stop just where
he pleases.
No Support in Human Law
But again, does this Objector take MS
stand upon any human law? If he does, the
same questions confront him. For instance,
does he assume the right to refuse support
to government, to society, TO civilization,
and yet demand protection Of government!
Demand the right to make government? TO
partake of a social and cultural life which
he will not defend? Does he assume the
right 10 the benefits Of civilization which
he tamely surrenders to the ruthless hoofs
OF barbarsm? By what human right VIII
he do this?
Nothing, it seems to me, fits the Conscien-
tious Objector so we'll as parody on Gold
smiths poem, "The Hermit:
No Aocks that roam the valley free
To slaughter | condemn;
The butchers kill the meat for me-
buy the meat of them.
He will not go to war, but is willing to
enjoy the results of war. He will obey God
at one end of the line, but ignore him at the
other II seems to me that one should either
90 the killing or stop the eating, or both.
There is no substitute in morals
But Is it possible in any way conceivable
for the Conscientious Objector to disentan-
gle himself from his moral twistings If ne
remains a citizen Of a government which de-
nands his support for value received? Upon
what moral principle everywhere valid Is
this assumed right based? 1t is very evil
dent that the Conscientious Objector cannot
play fast and loose with the laws Of God
! and man at the same time, and plead con-
scentious scruples when it is his pleasure
and interest to do so. Conscientious objec-
tors to war like the Quake:s do not do so.
They do not play ball with conscience that
way They do their part where the govern
nent desires that part shall be done. But
our American variety of obiectors, and Eng
lish, too will not do anything but blandly
receive the benefits of others hardship, suf
ferings and death.
A Purely Governmental Question
| The question, | repeat is not a Church
question. 1t is purely governmental ques-
ton. What then should the government do !?
Should such persons be punished, put in
! prison or interned? No! Government has
70 right to punish man for his opinion. It
seems to me, therefore, that the simplest
way to deal with this difficulty, various and
complicated as the questions are, is: Let
the government respect the Conscientious
| Directors opinions, thus giving him all
benefits of doubt, but at the same time let
the government severely insist that he shall
take the full consequence Of his opinions. If
he is sincere, he cannot object to that. Let
him be deprived forever of all benefits Of
war, of all political and social and civil
rights. "If any man will not work. neither
shall Ne eat" He has no inherent right to
these political and civil privileges. He was
not born with them. He does not inherit
them. He does not obtain them because he
is human being, but on the ground that he
is a citizen Of the United States. They are
political grants. The power that gives has
the power and right to take away. Let the
objector then hold to his opinions, but let
him also abide by the consequences of his
opinions. The hair must 60 with the hide.
No honest Conscientious Objector, whether
he is an absolutist or not, can object to that
II is equal handed justice. If he is moral
person, his conscience must compel him to
be just and honest, intellectually honest, So
cially honest, and the moral sense of man.
kind afirms with the law of God that no man
has a right to things which do not belong to
him. He cannot get something for nothing.
/ The Conscientious Objector has no claim
upon a government he dsavows, upon a
country-its laws, its institutions, its life
and civlization-he will not defend. He is
man without a country, and if he is not
cowardy shirker he will be sufficiently
moral TO abide by the natural consequences