The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1930-05-17
BY VIM. Z. GILROY, ID. ID.

EultOE OF Ant COukECEhAiehahst
THE conditions in Palestine at
i the time of Christ as they re-
lated 70 citizenship we're not alto
gether different from the conditions
of today. Probably there never has
been a time when citizenship for
the man of sincerity and principle
did not offer certain problems of
conscience.
The more conscientious a man is,
the more deeply he thinks about
life, the more is he apt not always
to agree with his neighbors or to
approve of the common will as ex-
pressed in particular laws. He may
be a law-abiding citizen and he may
approve in the main of the form of
government under which he lives
and of the vast majority of the
laws that that government enacts,
but every now and then issues will
arise where his personal habits or
personal convictions are at variance
with some phase of government or
some particular law.
A man born under a monarchial
form of government, for instance,
may develop strong republican con-
victions. Because of these he may
either become a rebel, or he may in
every possible way give formal and
actual allegiance to the government
under which he lives. Or, assum-
ing that some particular form of re-
hgion is established by law, he may
not be able to accept that particular
orm of faith, and thereby he be-
comes a Nonconformist.
A whole group of people in Eng
land have been known for cen
turtles as NonconformiSts. They
are self-respecting law-abiding peo-
pie, so noted for their conscien-
tiousness that 'the nonconformist
conscience" has become a byword,
either of honor or of irony, like
the Puritan conscience" in Amer
lea.
Here in our own land today the
chief issue of citizenship concerns
rather a different matter, but a
matter that to many people,
whether they be called "dryS' or
VETS" is one of considerable i'm
portance. 1t is true that no great
principal such as relates to the
difference between a monarchial
and republican form of govern
ment. is involved in the question OF
whether or not a man shall drink
liuuor or have a right to do so; nor
is there any vital questions of re-
ligious faith involved.
Nevertheless, there are people
who believe that the liberty to
drink intoxicating liquor is a per-
sonal right, and who regard pro-
hibition as an infringement of per-
sonaI right. The man who takes
that point of view and who feels
very strongly about it is apt to
think OF himself as resisting a
law for conscience sake.
Are the two situations the same?
Can a man be a good citizen and at
the same time be a nullifier of law?
And assuming that there are situa-
tions where a man has strong con-
scientious convictions and takes
the view that he ought to obey God
rather than man = the view that
John 5unyan took, for instance,
when he went to Jail for twelve
years. because he persisted in mani
Testing his religion in his own way
can the notification Of law have
any moral validity where something
that does not involve moral duty is
concerned?
Even the man who may assert
very strongly his right to drink in
toxicatlng liquor would hardly go
SO far as to say that 1t is his duty
to drink intoxicating liquor. The
fact that multitudeS of men have
lived in good health under total
abstinence from intoxicating liquors.
and the fact that no social curse
attaches to any community where
total abstinence is the practice,
ought to dispose very readily Of the
claim that the drinking of intoxi-
CT ting liquor is an inalienable right
of a citizen or constitutes any
ground for his self defiance of law.
II would help in facing this whole
question from a Christian stand
point il we considered the bearing
OF this lesson upon our modern
problem. The situation in the les
son represented something more
extreme. Here was the question OF
people who were required to give
allegiance to a foreign conQueror.
IN Palestine there was a strong
revolutionary movement against