Editorial March 6, 1937 Issue

Neutrality

George Shaw Cook

The subject of neutrality is engaging the earnest attention of individuals and nations at the present time. The effort is being made by certain nations not engaged in war to remain neutral, and thereby to prevent the spread of conflicts already existing. To this end legislation is passed and measures are adopted to deter nationals of one country from involving their government in the conflicts of other countries. One definition of neutrality given by Webster is, "The condition of being uninvolved in contests or controversies between others." And this is a most difficult condition for either individuals or nations to maintain.

However, if for any reason which might seem sufficient to them, two individuals should begin quarreling, it would be the part of good neighbors and friends to keep out of the controversy and to do everything possible to compose the situation. Such endeavors are certainly commendable. Furthermore, they are Christian. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus, the master Christian, said, "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Leaving out of the discussion the higher understanding of peace which probably underlay this declaration of Jesus, we are obliged to admit that the roll of peacemaker is not an easy one to fill. And this is for the reason that in the more absolute sense there can be no such thing as neutrality. Even to human sense, neutrality is more or less a misnomer; for although individuals or nations may succeed in keeping out of a conflict, it is doubtful if at heart they are ever entirely neutral. This was evidently recognized by Shaftesbury, who said, "The heart cannot possibly remain neutral, but constantly takes part one way or the other." And when the contest is between truth and error, right and wrong, it is well that this is so.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Editorial

One Perfect Heritage