Some people maintain that the League of Nations is diametrically opposed to the will of God, expressed in the prophesies of the Bible; that there will be no end of wars to the very end of the world. But we know, positively, that God does not want wars; that God wants peace. We know very well that all the causes of the wars are to be found in the iniquities of men—in the seven capital sins. If not all the prophesies of the Bible, at least a great many can be explained conditionally. If people mend their behaviour, the punishments, which have been foretold for their crimes, will not take place, because the nature itself, which has been so directed by the Creator to punish man for deviating from the order, is changed by man's actions. In fact, some of the prophesies of the Old Testament we could not explain, save in this way. If all people would strive to stop the wars, the League of Nations would become the means of bringing universal peace on earth, according to the will of the Almighty. I wish the American people would study this question as closely as possible, and bring all nations to everlasting peace.
We can plainly see, from the following text of the Bible, that God wants all people to live in peace always: "But if one strike thee on thy right cheek, turn to him also the other. * * * And if any man will contend with thee in judgment, and take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him."—Matt. v. 40. God could never have said this, unless He foresaw the possibility of lasting peace among all men and all nations in this world.
Just imagine, if all people and all nations in this world were readily prepared to turn their other cheek to the one who is ready to strike you on your right cheek. It is self evident there would be none to strike his neighbor on his right cheek. And if everybody in the world would be ready to let go his cloak to one who is ready to take away his coat, there would be none to deprive any one of his coat. As long as we believe that Jesus Christ, who said these words, is true God and true man; as long as we know that every man has free will, and can do what he pleases, so long is this principle possible to every man. Even to those people who do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, this principle could be explained as a natural law: Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you; do unto others what you wish others to do unto you. If all intelligent people, together with those who are aspiring to a higher education, would strive to organize a league to educate all people in this particular principle, there would be no doubt of its success, because no people would desire to have another war. Everybody knows that war does no good to any one; and that another war would be ten times worse than the one we have had. I do not see why the League of Nations or another similar reorganized regulation of nations, should not attract all nations to a union of such principles as these.
The objector insists: "I do not mean that the League of Nations is opposed to the will of God, as if God wanted wars, but God, foreseeing the wickedness of men, prophesied that there will be no peace among men to the end of the world."
It is sufficient to us to know that God does not want war, that God wants peace; or, in other words, to know God's will, and to strive to do it. As long as we know that either the League of Nations or other international organization is in accordance to the will of God—who is striving to induce all nations to prevent wars in future—just as God wants all people to live in peace always—so we ought to strive, by word and example, to induce all nations to hate wars and live in peace. As every human being has a right to existence, so every family and every nation has a right to exist and use its own language, etc. No one has the right to destroy small nations because they are too small to govern themselves. For the very reason, if there be no more wars, if the League of Nations is to be sincere in every respect, to reject all greediness, which is the cause of wars, there would be no more necessity of greatness to be able to defend against foes. Just as every family is capable of governing itself, so the smallest nation can govern itself.
So far the League of Nations does not produce its desired effect, because there is no confidence in some nations in one another. One nation does not trust the other. It is a new branch of science. It requires a good deal of study—and study by all nations and all persons—until some one may discover the means to induce the desired confidence satisfactory for all nations. I hope Americans will make the greatest progress in this line, as in everything else.
My opinion is that all nations could be induced to trust one another, if the above principle of natural law would be plainly explained, either in all languages or in Aspiranto language. If all representatives of all nations would sign the agreement, then the danger would be removed far away. If it is so difficult to induce one nation to trust the other nation to join the League, how can you expect any small nation to be inspired with any confidence when it is annexed to another greater nation by force? No matter how long it will be annexed, it will seek opportunity to free itself, and, unless you amputate its tongue, it will adhere to its language. Just exactly like a cat and a dog in one bag, one will bark, the other will cry its own song, or, like a patched dress, will remain patched forever.
