New-York tribune., 1917-07-28

In my judgment some things shou'o DC
stated frankly and without confusion OF
thought about so-called rights Of conscience
which operate only one way-that 49, 70 inc
interest of the individual claiming them IL
ia not ungenerous, nor is 1t without historical
ground, TO say that rights OF conscience are
too easily manufactured by sophistical mines
who are always conscientious enough to let
others bear the burdens, the hardships and
suferings of life, while they enjoy its oene-
fits.
In the first place, this whole question OF
the Conscientious Objector under present
social and political conditions is not, it seems
TO me. a Church question at all; nor is it, ex-
cept by a mixing of things that diner, IN
any way related TO questions OF rehglous
freedom 1t is a state question and belongs
to the domain of government. 1t certainly IS
not wholly a question pure and simple
whether I should obey "God or man, when
in self-interest assumes the whole matter, TO
begin with. Certainly no man has the right
to disobey God. Certainly no government
has the right to compel man to do wrong
thing.
But are all wars wrong? Wars Of hate,
and plunder are wrong. But wars of defence,
wars Furnishing evildoers, are not wrong. Inc
police powers-that Is, the moral forces OF
the universe-are not wrong. The right TO
live is not immoral II is not wrong to
prevent a murderer from killing my wife
and children, or to prevent dehumanlzed
iend from setting fire to city. But II the
Con onscientious Objector insists that the ques-
ton is solely one Of obedience to God, then
the question arises, Shall he obey God in this
one particular only-that is, OF not going 70
war-and he be the sole judge Of what is
righteous war, or shall he also obey God down
the whole line? Shall he obey God the whole
way or only a part Of the way? Shall man
obey God by refusing to tell a falsehood at
one end Of line and be beneficiary OF the
falsehood at the other end?
No Moral Standard
Upon what moral principle grounded in the
constitution of things, then, does the Con-
scientious Objector take his stand? Univer-
sal reason will demand that the Conscien-
tious Objector shall base his moral conten-
ton upon universal moral principles. He is
not a moral standard for the race He can
not, therefore, establish his opinions upon
individuaistic notions of right and wrong,
which notions would also shelter headhunters
Mormon polygamists and many moral and
political infamies like the German war code
or the Zimmerman note to Mexico, but upon
principles valid for all time for all men under
all conditions and in all places.
Does he take his stand, then, upon an as
sumed law of God which is nowhere eX-
pressed? Very well, then, upon what moral
law of God, expressed or unexpressed, does
he assume the further right to appropriate ~
himself, to exercise and enjoy for himself,
the results of war, which are bought BY the
sufferings and blood Of others who lay down
their lives for the sake of freedom and civill-
zation? No man has the right to be thief.
Here is terrible war. Into this war, forty
years in preparation, we are forced by
military caste, it's frightfulness, its defiance
Of all law, human and divine; the murder OF
our people, women and children; the wanton
destruction of our property, aggression upon
our rights upon the seas, the contempt OF our
government at home and abroad and plotting
against our peace, to say nothing Of its
avowed purpose of world dominion and sub
lection of all nations to its brutal might all
of which is buttressed by a perverted moral
ity which crushes every principle Of the Cos
pei of God in order to justify the progressive
diabolism of ruthless force.
Self-Defence Necessity
To defend our own government, our own
people, our own homes and Christian civiliza-
ton, which, while very imperfect as it is, is
nevertheless the fairest flower that ever yet
blossomed on the tree of humanity, we are
forced to send our sons and brothers to the
battlefield and to death. For these rights
and blessings, the product of Gods presence
in human history and all that they include
these beloved ones endure untold hardships,
sufferings, bloody wounds, loss of eyes and
limbs and death itself in the trenches. They
die that our institutions might live.
But the Conscientious Objector will not
die. He will not die for any Of these princi-
pies, nor will he suffer one hour Of agony.
nor endure a pin prick. He is opposed to
war-to any war, even though in defence Of
all that God, in the development Of humap-