| IF
war is
right, why should England try to stop warring nations in Africa or
India? If war is right for a great nation, it is also right for a
small nation, so why try to stop small tribes from fighting by disarming
them, while large nations are increasing their armaments? Is it
wrong for one to kill and right for the other If so, who grants the
license to kill? What are the requirements to obtain this
license? The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," did not
specify the number that takes killing out of the realm of crime.
Think of the stunted millions born of fathers whose strength has been
sapped in wars, and of mothers who marked their sons with grief and fear.
France still suffers from Napoleon's wars, which robbed her of her
strongest men and entailed on her the terrible inheritance of a death rate
exceeding the birth rate.
They
that live by the sword shall perish by the sword.
Assyria and Persia rose by the sword and perished by the sword.
Alexander conquered the Eastern World and his Grecian Empire fell under
the sword of Rome. What greater examples can be offered of the truth
of the Master's saying than the rise and fall by the sword of the Roman,
Saracen and Spanish Empires.
But if Universal Peace were established, every nation would be absolutely
assured of its existence forever -- a wonderful assurance for people who
love their Fatherland.
So each nation would be a unit in a brotherhood of nations, free to unfold
its individual idea, and a wonderful advance would take place in all the
arts. The harmony of the universe would flow through the fingers and
voices of its musicians, the brush would transfer to canvas glimpses of
nature now not seen. The soul of man would brush aside material
limitations and spiritual visions not now dreamt of would find expression
in higher and nobler life. The money now wasted on war would make
poverty unknown, if the world would look for its inspiration in principle
and not in matter, and if the national honor were guarded by right motives
and not by Dreadnoughts.
|
