1 ■ U B w ÿLIBERTY

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

iPllfll iUQHRFniFMPF When the protester’s intentB y R ichard J . O rlosk i U I I I I L V I W U D L V I L H U L v irtu ou s, should the jury acquit?

He n ry D a v id T h o re a u . M o h a n d a s K a ra m c h a n d G a n d h i. D r .M a r t in L u th e r K in g .T h e s e m e n h a v e p la y e d le a d in g ro le s in th e s p o t ty h is to ry o f m o d e rn -d a y c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e . A ll w e re s u b ­

je c te d to im p r is o n m e n t .T h e ta c t ic o f n o n v io le n t p r o te s t b y in te n tio n a lly

v io la tin g th e la w h a s a lw a y s b e e n c r i t ic iz e d a s c r im in a l b y th e c o n te m p o ra r y la w -e n f o rc e m e n t o ffic ia ls a n d th e le a rn e d c i t iz e n r y o f th e d a y . S u c h p r o te s te r s h a v e b e e n c a lle d n a m e s ra n g in g f ro m “ p u b lic n u is a n c e s ” 1 to v ic io u s “ la w b r e a k e r s .” 2 T h e law h a s n e v e r re a l ly le g itim iz e d c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e , a n d its a c c e p ta n c e h a s c o m e o n ly in p a r t ic u la r in s ta n c e s a f t e r th e f a c t o f im p r is o n m e n t , a g o n y , o r e v e n m a r ty rd o m .

In o u r e ra o f e n l ig h te n m e n t , m u s t w e w a it f o r c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e to b e e le v a te d to s a in tly w itn e s s b y th e w isd o m o f h in d s ig h t? I th in k n o t . In d e e d , a s o lu tio n is a lr e a d y im p lic it in th e p r in c ip le o f m e n s rea , w h ic h m u s t a lw a y s b e p a s s e d u p o n b y th e ju r y . A s w e e x ­p lo re th is legal p r in c ip le in th e c o n te x t o f c iv il d is o b e ­d ie n c e , y o u b e th e ju r y a n d d e c id e f o r y o u rs e lf th e p r o ­p r ie ty o f a llo w in g o th e r ju r ie s to p a s s o n th e d e fe n s e o f c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e .

In its b ro a d e s t s e n s e , c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e in v o lv e s a p u b lic illegal a c t c o m m it te d n o n v io le n tly fo r th e p u r ­p o se o f c h a n g in g a p a r t ic u la r law o r a sp e c if ic g o v e rn ­m e n ta l p o l ic y .3 A lth o u g h lega l c o m m e n ta to r s h a v e o c c a s io n a l ly a d v o c a te d m o ra l ju s ti f ic a t io n a s a d e ­

f e n s e to a c r im in a l p r o s e c u t io n ,4 th e c o u r t s h a v e s te a d fa s t ly r e f u s e d to a c c e p t th is a p p ro a c h .

In U n ite d S ta te s v . K r o n c k e ,5 w h e re a d r a f t r e s is te r w a s c h a rg e d w ith h in d e r in g a n d in te r fe r in g w ith th e a d m in is tr a t io n o f th e M ili ta ry S e rv ic e A c t b y d e s t r o y ­ing d ra f t r e c o r d s , th e H o n o ra b le G e ra ld W . H e a n e y o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o u r t o f A p p e a ls r e s o u n d in g ly r e ­je c te d “ m o ra l ju s t i f ic a t io n ” a s a d e f e n s e to T h e r r ia u l t a n d K ro n c k e ’s c iv il d i s o b e d ie n c e :6

It follow s tha t the d e fen d an ts’ m otivation in this case cannot be accep ted as a legal defense or justification . W e do not question their sincerity , but we also recognize tha t society canno t to lera te the m eans they chose to reg ister their opposition to the w ar.

We need not decide here in w hat ex trem e c ircum stances, i f any, governm ental ac ts may be legally resisted . . . . We m ake no m oral judgm ent on the defendan ts. W e counsel only tha t the fabric o f ou r dem ocratic society is fragile , that there are b road opportun ities fo r peacefu l and legal d issen t, and tha t the pow er of the ballot, if u sed , is g re a t .7 (Italics supplied.)

T h e c lo s e s t th e law h a s c o m e to a c c e p t in g m o ra l ju s ti f ic a t io n a s a d e fe n s e w a s in th e A m e r ic a n L a w I n s t i tu te ’s P ro p o s e d M o d e l P e n a l C o d e , w h ic h p ro ­v id e d th a t a n a c to r c a n ju s t i f y illega l a c t iv i ty in o rd e r to a v o id “ e v i l” to h im s e lf o r a n o th e r w h e re (1) th e ev il to b e a v o id e d is g r e a te r th a n th e illeg a l a c t iv i ty ; a n d (2) th e le g is la tu re h a s n o t p la in ly e x c lu d e d th e d e fe n s e o f ju s ti f ic a t io n in th a t p a r t ic u la r o f f e n s e .8

L IB E R T Y IS P U B L I S H E D B IM O N T H L Y B Y T H E R E V IE W A N D H E R A L D P U B L I S H I N G A S S O C I A T I O N . 685 6 E A S T E R N A V E ., N W . W A S H ., D C . 20012. S E C O N D - C L A S S P O S T A G E P A ID A T W A S H .. D C . S U B ­S C R I P T I O N P R IC E $ 3 .73 P E R Y E A R . P R IC E M A Y V A R Y W H E R E N A T I O N A L C U R R E N C IE S A R E D IF F E R E N T . V O L . 7 2 . N O . 2 . M A R C H -A P R IL . 1977. P O S T M A S T E R : S E N D F O R M 3579 T O S A M E A D D R E S S .

O f th e th r e e m a jo r S t a t e s 9 th a t h a v e a d o p te d th e M o d e l P e n a l C o d e , o n ly P e n n s y lv a n ia a d o p te d th e la n g u a g e o f th e c o d e , in d ic a tin g th e p o te n t ia l f o r its a p p lic a tio n to in s ta n c e s o f c iv il d i s o b e d ie n c e .10 N e w Y o rk a n d I l lin o is s u b s ta n t ia l ly c h a n g e d th e w o rd in g o f th e i r s e c t io n s to e x c lu d e its a p p lic a tio n to c iv il-d is - o b e d ie n c e c a s e s .11 E v e n u n d e r th e P e n n s y lv a n ia la w , h o w e v e r , it is n o t c le a r th a t th e s ta tu te w o u ld b e a p p lie d b y th e c o u r t s to in s ta n c e s o f c iv il d is o b e d i­e n c e ; in s te a d , th e la n g u a g e is e q u a lly s u s c e p tib le to b e in g a p p lie d e x c lu s iv e ly to s e l f -d e f e n s e c a s e s .

P a r t ic u la r a c ts o f c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e b e c o m e le ­g it im iz e d o n ly a f t e r th e c a u s e th a t p ro m p te d s u c h la w le s s n e s s b e c o m e s its e lf v in d ic a te d . T h o r e a u ’s a c ­t io n s b e c a m e s o c ia lly a c c e p ta b le o n ly a f t e r h e m i­s p h e r ic im p e r ia lism a n d b la c k s la v e ry w e re v ie w e d a s a n ti th e t ic a l to A m e r ic a n d e m o c r a c y . G a n d h i’s c ru s a d e w a s v in d ic a te d b y I n d ia ’s in d e p e n d e n c e a n d th e p a rtia l d is m a n tlin g o f th e In d ia n c a s te s y s te m . M a r tin L u th e r K in g ’s ja il te rm s b e c a m e b a d g e s o f h o n o r a f t e r p a s ­sa g e o f th e F e d e ra l C iv il R ig h ts a n d V o tin g R ig h ts A c ts . D ra f t - r e s i s ta n c e e f fo r ts d u r in g th e V ie tn a m w a r w e re v ie w e d a s a c ru s a d e f o r so c ia l ju s t ic e a s th e fu t i l i ty o f th e w a r b e c a m e m o re re a d i ly a p p a re n t . Y e t, a t th e t im e , th e p r o te s te r s w e re c o n s id e re d p u b lic n u is a n c e s w h o h a d to b e p u n is h e d f o r t r a n s g re s s in g th e t r a n s c e n d e n ta l p r in c ip le o f o b e d ie n c e to e x is tin g “ la w .” It m a t te r e d n o t th a t th e la w s b e in g v io la te d w e re , in r e a l i ty , lega l in s t i tu t io n a l iz a t io n s o f so c ia l in ju s t ic e , a n d th a t th e p r o te s t w a s a n o n v io le n t d e m o n s tr a t io n o n b e h a lf o f h u m a n d ig n ity . C iv il d is ­o b e d ie n c e to th e “ la w ” w a s e m p h a s iz e d r a th e r th a n th e p u rp o s e o f its v io la tio n a n d th e m o t iv a t io n o f th e c iv il d i s o b e d ie n t s .12

T h e c r im in a l- la w p ro c e s s h a s b e e n u n w illin g to a c ­c o m m o d a te i t s e l f to th e r ig h t o f th e c o n s c ie n t io u s o b je c to r to e n g a g e in a c ts o f c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e . J u r is ts fo rg e t th a t it w a s n e v e r th e p u rp o s e o f c r im in a l law to p u n is h th e b e s t a n d m o s t v ir tu o u s o f o u r fe llo w c it i­z e n s . T h e b a la n c in g te s t o f th e P ro p o s e d M o d e l P en a l C o d e , w e ig h in g ev il a g a in s t e v il , h a rd ly p ro v id e s a re a l is t ic fo rm u la f o r ju r y d e lib e ra t io n s . Y e t , in e s ­s e n c e , th e d e f e n s e , a n d its p ra c t ic a l a p p lic a tio n , is s im p le . W h e n e v id e n c e in d ic a te s th a t a p e r s o n a c te d illeg a lly w ith o u t v io le n c e to a n y p e rs o n f o r th e p u r ­p o se o f c h a n g in g a law o r g o v e rn m e n ta l p o lic y , th e ju r y sh o u ld b e in s tru c te d b y th e tr ia l ju d g e th a t a c ru c ia l e le m e n t o f c r im in a li ty h a s n o t b e e n d e m o n ­s t r a te d , n a m e ly , m e n s rea . M e n s rea , in its s im p le s t m e a n in g , is c r im in a l in t e n t .13

In o th e r w o rd s , w h e re th e in te n t is v ir tu o u s , th e r e is n o c r im in a l lia b il ity . T h e ju r y , p e r fo rm in g its h is to r ic f u n c t io n a s t r ie r o f th e f a c t s a n d o f th e c re d ib il ity o f th e w itn e s s e s , c a n e v a lu a te th e is su e o f th e c iv il d is - o b e d ie n t ’s t r u th fu ln e s s a n d s in c e r i ty . W h e n th e d e ­f e n d a n t ’s m o tiv a t io n a n d p a r t ic ip a t io n in th e a c t is fo u n d to b e c o n s is te n t w ith p r in c ip le s o f n o n v io le n t c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e , th e ju ry s h o u ld b e o b lig a te d to a c q u it .

C rim in a l law g e n e ra l ly h o ld s th a t th e m e n ta l c u l­

p a b il i ty o f th e p e r p e t r a to r o f a n a c t is a n e s s e n t ia l in g re d ie n t o f th e o f f e n s e .14 C o n s is te n t w ith th is a p ­p ro a c h , th e law h a s r e c o g n iz e d in s a n ity a s a d e fe n s e w h e n th e r e is n o q u e s t io n th a t th e a c to r c o m m it te d th e c r im e . S im ila r ly , a m a n w h o h a s k ille d c a n b e e x o n ­e ra te d w h e n th e ju r y fin d s th a t th e a c t w a s c o m m it te d in s e l f -d e f e n s e . L ik e w is e , a p e r s o n w h o is in p o s s e s ­s io n o f s to le n p r o p e r ty c a n n o t b e c o n v ic te d u n le s s th e e v id e n c e d e m o n s tr a te s b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t th a t h e p o s s e s s e d s u c h p r o p e r ty k n o w in g th a t it h ad b e e n s to le n . W ith in th e c o n te x t o f n o n v io le n t c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e , m e n s rea is a r e a d i ly a v a ila b le fo rm u la f o r a llo w in g th e ju r y to p a s s o n th e c iv il d i s o b e d ie n t ’s o th e r w is e illega l c o n d u c t . I t is tim e th e la w c o n f r o n ts th is fo rm o f n o n v io le n t p r o te s t in a d e c e n t a n d c iv i­liz ed m a n n e r , so th a t c iv il d is o b e d ie n c e b e c o m e s m o re th a n th e m e re w isd o m o f h in d s ig h t . □

R ic h a r d J . O r lo sk i is a la w y e r in A lle n to w n , P e n n s y l­va n ia .

R eferences1 M ortim er A dler, Is There a Jurisprudence o f Civil D is­

obedience? 5 111. C ontinuing Legal E ducation 95 (1967).2 Earl M orris , past p residen t o f the A m erican Bar A sso­

ciation , “ A m erican Society and T he R ebirth o f Civil O be­d ien ce ,” 54 A .B .A .J . 653 (1968).

3 K en t G reenaw alt, A C ontextual A pproach to D isobedi­ence, 70 C olum bia L .R . 48 (1970).

4 Ibid.5 459 2d 697 (8th C ir. 1972).6 F or opin ions expressing th is sam e view , see U nited

States v. M oylan, 417 F .2d 1002, 1007, 1008 (4th C ir. 1969); U nited S ta tes v. B oardm an. 419 F .2d 110, 114 (1st C ir. 1969); U nited S ta tes v. E herhardt, 417 F .2d 1009, 1012 (4th Cir. 1969); U nited S ta tes v . O wens, 415 F .2d 1308, 1315, 1316 (6th C ir. 1969).

7 459 F .2d at 704.8 Section 3.02 of the P roposed M odel Penal C ode.9 N ew Y ork , Illinois, and Pennsy lvania .

10 Section 503 of P en n sy lv an ia 's C rim e C ode, 18 P .S . § 503.

11 Illinois’ sta tu te reads as fo llow s: “ C onduct w hich would o therw ise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was w ithout blam e in developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct w as n eces­sary to avoid a public o r p rivate in jury g rea te r than the injury w hich might reasonably resu lt from his ow n co n ­d u c t.” 38 111. S tat. A nno. § 7-13. (Italics supplied .) N ew Y ork’s sta tu te read s , in part, as fo llow s: “ C onduct w hich w ould o therw ise constitu te an offense and no t be crim inal w hen: (2) Such conduct is necessary as an em ergency m easure to avoid an im m inent public o r private in jury . . . . The necessity and justifiability o f such conduct m ay not rest upon considerations pertaining only to m o ra lity .” Section 35.05 of N ew Y o rk ’s Penal C ode, 39 M cK inney ’s C onsoli­dated S ta tu tes §‘35.05. (Italics supplied .)

12 See, as illustrative only , Earl M orris, “ A m erican Soci­ety and T he R ebirth of Civil O b ed ien ce ,” 54 A .B .A .J . 653 (1968).

13 B lack’s L aw D ictionary.14 See, as illustrative only . M orrisette v. U nited S ta tes,

342 U .S. 246, 252 (1951).

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 3

Government:

Befo re m en in civil society- can ex ­perience political and social fre e ­dom , they m ust fash ion a govern ­m ent tha t recognizes the rights o f

m an. B efore they can fash ion such a governm en t, they m ust have the idea tha t governm ent ought in fac t to be lim ited in its au tho rity over them . My them e, briefly pu t, is this: C hristian ity— the original, pu re , prim itive religion of the N ew T estam en t— occasioned a rev ­olution in political thought tha t made lim ited governm ent possib le. By lim ited governm en t, I m ean governm en t that can lay no legal o r m oral claim to the unqualified obedience of its sub jec ts— governm ent hedged abou t w ith definite restric tions upon its pow ers, thus per­m itting som e free developm ent o f the individual and of p rivate associa tions.

B efore the C hristian e ra , m ost men could not have conceived of such a po ­litical system . In princip le, a t least, the m ature sta tes o f an tiqu ity w ere largely unlim ited or abso lu tist s ta te s .1 Since they claim ed divine sanction , d isobedi­ence to their law s am oun ted to an ac t of im piety. T hus m en possessed no appeal beyond the au thority o f the s ta te , no natural rights to balance in the scales against the sins o f governm ent. Pointless to “ appeal to H ea v e n ,” as the A m erican co lon ists w ould la ter do in their struggle w ith B ritain, if H eaven itself had sanc­tioned the political sta tu s quo. In any u ltim ate sense, the ancien ts w ere slaves. T hey lived in closed political system s.

C onsider, fo r exam ple, the situation in E g y p t d u rin g th e p e rio d o f th e O ld K ingdom . T ow ering over the citizens like som e stupendous pyram id stood Pharaoh. To the o rd inary E gyptian , Pharaoh w as no m ortal m onarch , but H orus the H aw k-G od, son o f the su­

prem e deity , Ra. A ccording to official m ythology, the E gyptian throne had been founded at the tim e of creation . As part o f tha t c rea tion , w hich E gyptians believed to be sta tic , the th rone was fixed and final, an everlasting link be­tw een m an and the cosm os. To Pharaoh, th e re fo re , belonged the unflagging fidel­ity o f every m an and w om an, fo r to question his sovereign ty w as to question the goodness o f crea tion itself.

T he w ant o f a w ord fo r sta te in the ancien t E gyptian language suggests the com pleteness o f P h arao h ’s pow er. The king was the s ta te ; in his person w ere united the legislative, execu tive , and ju ­dicial p rerogatives o f governm ent, a unity tha t T hom as Jefferson once called “ precisely the defin ition” of despotism . The u tterances of the god-king w ere the n a tio n ’s law , w hich accoun ts fo r the ab ­sence of any w ritten sta tu tes to w hich an Old K ingdom citizen could re fe r o r ap ­peal am id rep ression . E ven the eco­nom ic s tructu re o f society enhanced im ­perial pow er. E xcepting a few privileged b u reaucra ts , E gyptians possessed no private p roperty . The land w as ow ned in its en tirety by Pharaoh as god, and through royal agen ts he d istribu ted to the inhabitan ts its p roduce and its raw m a­terials. Save fo r som e local bartering , nothing like a free-m arket econom y ex­isted in E gypt. U nillum inated by notions o f liberty , adm inistered w ith a drastic degree o f political, religious, and eco ­nom ic cen tra liza tion , the nation lacked the blessing of lim ited governm ent.

All this is not to say tha t the m ass of E gyptian peasan ts groaned and faltered under P h a rao h ’s yoke. Q uite the con­tra ry . Like any successfu l d ic ta to rsh ip , the regim e of H orus en joyed strong and striking support from the populace. N ot

only in the Old Kingdom but th roughout the na tion ’s ancien t h is to ry , through periods o f peace and of national d is tress, and in spite o f occasional intrigues at cou rt, there arose no real challenge to the system , no indigenous popular effort to depose the po ten ta te or to redefine the p laces o f m an and king in the coun try . They w ere a pious people, these E gyp­tians. and they obeyed Pharaoh not as an ac t o f cheerless subm ission, bu t as an act o f religious devotion. T hey could not im agine o rdered ex istence w ithout him by w hose will and w ord— o r so it was com m only supposed— the tim e and sea­sons passed pred ictab ly , the N ile R iver rose and receded , the ground grew fe r­tile, and the people w ere fed . In Pharaoh they lived and m oved and had their being. But his divine sta tus m ade him om nipoten t n ev erth e less .2

E gypt is adm itted ly an ex trem e case of ancient absolutism . Y et, alm ost ev e ry ­w here one looks th roughout antiqu ity , one sees essentially the sam e system . T he d ifferences betw een s ta tes w ere m ore form al than substan tia l. N o t even the “ d em ocra tic” c ity -sta tes o f classical G reece w ere exem pt from the evils of unlim ited governm ent.

Im agine, fo r illustration , tha t you live in A thens during the fifth o r fou rth cen ­tury B . C . , the m eridian of her g rea tness. If you happen not to be a w om an or a slave or an alien residen t— if, in o ther w ords, you belong to a select 10 per cent or so of the c ity ’s inhabitants-—then you probably en joy full rights o f c itizenship . But these are not actually individual rights; they are privileges o f political participation . You m ay sit in the popular assem bly o r on the popular co u rts , but you have no security of person o r prop-

4 LIBERTY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977

We owe to Christianity the essential

idea that human government of any

sort must not make pretensions

to total power.

erty against these sam e organs o f gov­ernm ent. At least until 417 B .C . the a s­sem bly can banish a m an from A thens fo r ten y ears , no t because o f any crim e com m itted , bu t because the citizens, in exercising their collective au thority , have decided fo r som e reason that he m ight becom e a m enace to the polis, or city -sta te . T here are even penalties for in c iv is m — la c k o f a f fe c tio n fo r th e s ta te .3

H ere is hardly lim ited governm ent. C itizen m ajorities can oppress their fe l­lows as un justly and as violently as did the kings and oligarchs o f an earlier age in G reece. T he s ta te , dem ocratic though its in stitu tions m ay ap p ear, is suprem e and im posing. It in trudes everyw here. Every sec to r o f A then ian life— the indi­vidual, the fam ily , religion, com m erce, even scientific inquiry and en te rp rise4— is sucked into the dom ain and ju risd ic­tion of the polis. If the in terests o f these should clash w ith the in terests o f the polis, the polis m ust and will prevail.

T ake religion, fo r in stance . Go up to the A cropolis, sacred hill o f the c ity , and you will see tem ples w here the gods dw ell. You also will stand am id stones on w hich the law s o f A thens are in­scribed. T he fusion of “ c h u rch ” and sta te sym bolized by the A cropolis is necessary— or at least everyone assum es it is necessary— to the stability o f the polis and the sound m orals of its citi­zenry . H ence the regulation o f all reli­gious rituals by the s ta te . H ence, too , the m andatory public ob lations by citizens, the pow er of the polis to appoin t p riests , and its custody o f every shrine and tem ­ple in the com m unity . T ruly the state in terposes betw een hum anity and the gods. Indeed , the real religion of A thens, like the religion of her sister c ity -sta tes ,

is “ a devotion to the C ity itse lf .” 5 L et som eone like S ocrates o r A naxagoras seem to question the official tru th s and prac tices , and he m ay pay w ith his life fo r tha t im piety.

Thinking o n e ’s ow n thoughts in such an atm osphere can be m ore than dan ­gerous. But suppose tha t som ehow — through som e sublim e instinct, let us say— you see the in justice in this denial o f basic rights o f conscience and free choice. H oping to find m en w ho can articu late w hat you are able to grasp only in tuitively, you seek ou t the A thenian philosophers. P erhaps in their thoughts these intellectuals have soared into the heavens and caught glim pses o f a tru th tha t transcends the sta te .

So you visit P lato, an old m an fam ed fo r his teachings on justice and v irtue, and ask him to describe a good society , som ething b e tte r and m ore ju s t than A thens. To your d ism ay, Plato s ta rts chattering about a city -state in w hich the lives o f citizens are regim ented w ith a vengeance from birth to burial. The ru lers o f P la to ’s p ro jec ted polis w ould stric tly contro l religious activ ities, the con ten t o f lite ra tu re , the num ber o f jobs a person may hold, the cost of m arriage garm ents and of funera ls, and the ages at w hich men and w om en may m arry (30-35 fo r m en, 16-20 fo r w om en; male celibacy beyond 35 w ould bring fines or fo rfe itu re of som e privileges of citizenship). Rulers w ould also decide w hat gam es children m ay p la y ; f o r , a c c o rd in g to P la to , youngsters w ho invent their ow n gam es grow up to be subversives. It is even the business of the polis to see that children develop am bidexterity . Such scrupu­lousness might seem am using if Plato w ere not deadly serious about it. People convicted of unbelief in the gods, for

instance , w ould wind up in a “ H ouse of R efo rm ation” fo r five y ea rs’ so litary confinem ent, a t the end of w hich, if un repen tan t, they w ould be ex ecu ted .6

G iving up on P lato , you approach A r­isto tle, ano ther renow ned in tellectual. W hat w ould his good society look like? U n fo r tu n a te ly , it w o u ld re s e m b le P la to ’s. B esides supervising gam es, m arriage, m orals, and the a rts , A ristotle w ould m ake paren ts adopt th e eugenic Spartan custom of killing deform ed babies. H e w ould also outlaw the private schooling o f child ren and c rea te a un i­fo rm sy s te m o f p u b lic e d u c a t io n . Paren ts, he says, ought not to instruct their children as they th ink best. But w hy? “ W e m ust no t regard a citizen as belonging ju s t to h im se lf,” he explains. “ W e m ust ra ther regard every citizen as belonging to the s ta te .” 7

“ M an ,” A risto tle e labora tes , “ is by nature an anim al in tended to live in a polis. ” 8 T o dwell apart from the polis is to be less than w holly hum an; it is to be a beast o r a barbarian , a sort o f subm an. Only through the polis, w hich “ ex ists by nature and . . . is prior to the individ­u a l,” 9 can m an develop and reach full ra tionality and spirituality . T hus, poli­tics, the science of the polis, is the “ m aster sc ien ce .” 10 O ne might even say , w ith ju s tice , tha t fo r A risto tle poli­tics is the science of salvation . Its aim “ is to engender a certain charac te r in the citizens and to m ake them good and d is­posed to perform noble a c tio n s .” 11 The task of the sta tesm an— not o f som e paren t o r p riest— is therefo re to mold good m en .12 If the sta te is to produce

John W esley Young is a free-lance writer in R ichm ond, Virginia.

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 5

Christian thought distinguished between church and state

and, in so doing, freed from political supervision the

most important part of man, the spiritual.

good m en, it m ust have exclusive pow er to educa te— or b e tte r, to condition— its c itizens. So A risto tle suggests abolishing private education . E ducation , as every to ta lita rian know s, is too im portan t to leave to private d iscretion .

By now , no doub t, you have begun to despair. G reece ’s tw o g reatest philoso­phers canno t envision any higher reality than the polis. Is there no release from its grip? W hat o f the last reso rt— sui­cide? E ven the taking of o n e ’s ow n life, A risto tle will tell you, is a kind o f crim e against— not oneself, nor against the gods, but against— the polis. The suicide goes to his g rave in d ishonor fo r having “ ac ted un justly tow ard the s ta te .” 13 In death no less than in life, the polis has the last w ord.

Only against this background o f an ­cien t abso lu tism , this general belief of an tiqu ity in the right o f the state to th ru st its harsh hand into every com partm en t o f personal life, can one fathom the sig­nificance o f Je su s ’ sta tem en t: “ R ender to C aesar the things tha t a re C aesa r’s, and to G od the things tha t are G o d ’s ” (M ark 12:17). By im plication Jesus co n ­trad ic ts the w hole ancien t ph ilosophy of the sta te . H e suggests w hat few people before H im could have app rehended , tha t there are boundaries to the legiti­m ate claim s of governm ent, tha t som e com partm en ts o f life— nam ely, the reli­g ious— are sealed off from C aesar.

The apostle Paul im plies the sam e thing in the fam ous th irteen th chap te r of R om ans. C hris tians, he w rites, ought to pay taxes and tolls in re tu rn fo r the p ro ­tection tha t the s ta te gives them from the deeds o f w icked m en. “ F or governm ent, a te rro r to crim e, has no te rro rs fo r good beh av io u r” (verse 3, N .E .B .).* O bey the

m a g is t r a te s , P au l a d v is e s ; to re b e l against au thority is to resist “ a divine in s titu tio n ” (verse 2, N .E .B .). T hat m ay sound like an endo rsem en t o f unlim ited governm ent, bu t notice w hat Paul does not say about the sta te . H e does no t say , as w ould A risto tle , that it m olds good m en; it m erely p ro tec ts them . Paul in fac t w ould agree w ith Tom Paine tha t “ governm ent, like d ress, is the badge of lost innocence” : a G od-ordained d e te r­ren t to the evil w hich issues from fallen m en, it provides a minim um of o rder and equity in an im perfect w orld. But it does no t, o r should no t, concern itself directly w ith the soul. T he church has its own organization , a ltogether separate from civil governm ent, fo r m inistering to m en ’s spiritual n e e d s .14

This ra ther negative notion of govern ­m ent suffuses the N ew T estam en t, and undoubted ly it springs from the o th er­w orldliness o f early C hristians. T ry as they might to m ake their peace w ith Bab­ylon, they could not help considering them selves aliens in an “ evil world o rd e r” (G alatians 1:4, Phillips)? that m ust soon collapse and perish. Their first allegiance w ent to C hrist, R uler of the heavenly com m onw ealth , the invisi­ble R edeem er-K ing beside w hom the proud princes o f this world shriveled into tiny and transien t insects. .On the celestial th rone , as Paul observed , God the F a th er had set H is risen Son, “ far above all governm ent and au thority , all pow er and dom inion, and any title of sovereignty tha t can be nam ed, not only in this age bu t in the age to com e. H e put everything in sub jection beneath his fe e t” (E phesians 1:20-22, N .E .B .).

W hat is Paul saying excep t tha t above every Pharaoh , above every polis, above every “ d iv ine” C aesar, reigns the e te r­

nal and tran scenden t L ord . U ltim ate sovereignty cen te rs in H eaven , and it follow s tha t w hen tem poral governm en ts claim that sovereign ty , w hen they cause their laws to speak w ith the voice of om nipotence, w hen they p resum e to m ediate betw een hum anity and H eaven and to d ispense “ the things that are G od’s ,” they have overleaped their lim its. W hereupon the C hristian “ ought to obey G od ra ther than m en ” (A cts 5 :2 9 ) . T h a t e a r ly C h r is t ia n s to o k seriously this scrip tural adv ice , we may gather from their unbending and un­abated resistance to the im perial Rom an cu lt o f em pero r w orship.

T h u s th e id e a o f lim ite d g o v e rn ­m ent— lim ited because it is “ in sub jec­tio n ” to G od, lim ited th ere fo re in the d e m a n d s it m ay r ig h tfu l ly m a k e on G od’s crea tion . By assigning a m ore secular role to governm ent, by d ivorcing theology from politics, C hristian thought blasted the sacred im port ou t o f ancient law. It d istinguished unm istakably be­tw een church and state and , in so doing, freed from political supervision the m ost im portan t part o f m an, the spiritual. R e­leased from serv itude to the ancien t city , a lm ost as from a bear hug, he could detach h im self from the m ass, could begin to sense the value of his soul as a being fo r w hom C hrist d ied— not as a being m ade to live and subm erge his p e r s o n a l i ty in a p o lis . E a r ly in th e C hristian era , significantly, there ap ­peared perhaps the first genuine au to ­biography, the in trospective C onfessions of A ugustine.

I do not m ean to suggest th a t C hris­tianity “ c re a te d ” lim ited governm ent o r tha t, unaided, it m ade hum an rights a legal reality . O bviously , constitu tional restra in ts and bills o f rights have been

6 LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977

Christianity offers a higher power than the state,

plus a will and reason to resist the state’s demands when

they would lead to transgressing God’s law.

the fru its of cen turies-long effort and application by C hristians and non-C hris­tians alike. W hat I do suggest is that C hristian ity brought fo r th , d issem inated , and p reserved , in sp ite o f persecu tion and in spite o f later co rrup tions tha t en ­tered the chu rch , the essen tia l idea th a t hum an governm en t o f any sort m ust not m ake p re tensions to total pow er. Once this idea had flashed through m en’s m inds, it requ ired less im agination to th ink up w ider and m ore express res tric ­tions upon the s ta te . M ilton, w ho elo­quently advocated freedom of the press; L ocke, w ho taught tha t m en ’s rights are an teceden t to governm en t; M adison, w ho sought to fragm ent its pow ers and functions as a safeguard to liberty ; Je f­fe rson , w ho cham pioned republican rule as the su rest im pedim ent to ty ranny— indirectly at least, all these th inkers, and o thers as well, ow ed m uch to the N ew T estam en t idea of the s ta te , w hether they acknow ledged the deb t or n o t.15

Far from having lost its validity or usefu lness , the idea is an asse t to friends of liberty even now . In our cen tu ry we have seen Stalin and H itler and a host of lesser fiends reverting to the absolutism of antiqu ity , a ttem pting once again to absorb the individual in the om nipotent s ta te . T h e y h a v e s o m e tim e s fo u n d C hristian ity an irritating obstacle to their designs. M odern to talitarian d ic ta to rs, m oved by the will to pow er, “ the pas­s io n .” in C. S. L ew is’ w ords, “ to dom ­in a te , a lm o s t to d ig e s t , o n e ’s f e l ­low ” 1(1— the sins o f such m en, before w hom the w eak m ust recoil and cringe, the C hristian cannot in good conscience condone. But m ore than that: C hris tian ­ity prom ises not to leave men shivering in despair w hen consigned to co n cen tra ­tion cam ps or to “ special psychiatric

h osp ita ls .” It offers a higher pow er than the sta te , plus a will and reason to resist the s ta te ’s dem ands w hen they w ould lead to transgressing G o d ’s law . T ha t, I believe, is w hy m en like So lzhenitsyn and G eorge K ennan have gone as fa r as to say tha t a vigorous C hristian ity is the w orld ’s great hope fo r riding ou t the to talitarian w ave.

Even if they are w rong about th a t, no one can deny the nobility and pow er of an idea th a t, m ore than anything else, has m ade possible the freedom that W estern m en and w om en enjoy today .

□

NOTES AND REFERENCES1 Israel, governed by a limited monarch

(Deuteronomy 17:14-20), was the only excep­tion. Had they averted apostasy and tried seriously to influence other nations with their culture, the Jews might have overturned the ancient political order.

2 On Egypt and the other Near Eastern civilizations, see Henri Frankfort, et al.. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man (Chi­cago: University of Chicago Press, 1946); Frankfort, Ancient Egyptian Religion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1948); Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948); Mario Attilio Levi, Political Power in the Ancient World, trans. Jane Costello (New York: New American Library, Mentor Books, 1968), pp. 7-35.

3 Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, 7th ed. (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1889), p. 297. On the Greek city-states, see Ernest Barker, Greek Political Theory, 5th ed. (Lon­don: Methuen and Co., 1960), pp. 1-46; Jacob Burckhardt, History o f Greek Culture, trans. Palmer Hilty (London: Constable Publishers, 1963); Victor Ehrenberg, The Greek State, 2d

ed. (London: Methuen and Co., 1969).4 See Benjamin Farrington, Science and

Politics in the Ancient World, 2d ed. (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1946).

5 Gilbert Murray, Five Stages of Greek Re­ligion (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1955), p. 72.

6 See Plato’s Laws, passim. It should be noted that this dialog depicts Plato’s “ sec­ond-best” society. His best or ideal society, blueprinted in The Republic, Books II-VII, would be cemented together through censor­ship and an elaborate system of propaganda (the “ noble lie,” Plato calls it) designed to make revolt against the ruling elite literally unthinkable.

7 Aristotle, Politics (Oxford University Press), p. 333. For details of Aristotle’s ideal polis, see Books VII-VIII.

8 Ibid., p. 5.9 Ibid., p. 6.

10 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (Bobbs- Merrill Co., Library of Liberal Arts), p. 4.

11 Ibid., p. 23.12 Politics, p. 317.13 Ethics, p. 143.14 Cf. 1 Timothy 3, 5; 1 Corinthians 6:1-6; 1

Peter 5:1-4.15 For a development of this thesis, see

Carl J. Friedrich, Transcendent Justice (Dur­ham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1964).

16 C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters and Screwtape Proposes a Toast (New York: Macmillan Paperbacks, 1971), p. xi. On the successes and shortcomings of Christianity in Nazi Germany, see J. S. Conway, The Nazi Persecution of the Churches, 1933-45 (New York: Basic Books, 1968). On current Chris­tian dissent in the Soviet Union, see “ Chris­tianity in Russia,” Newsweek, July 26, 1976, p. 55.

* T e x ts c r e d i te d to N .E .B . a re f ro m T h e N e w E n g lis h B ib le . © T h e D e le g a te s o f th e O x fo rd U n iv e r s i ty P r e s s a n d th e S y n d ic s o f th e C a m b r id g e U n iv e r s i ty P r e s s 1970. R e p r in te d b y p e rm is s io n .

t F ro m T h e N e w T e s ta m e n t in M o d e r n E n g l is h , © J . B . P h ill ip s 1972. U s e d b y p e rm is s io n o f T h e M a c m illa n C o m p a n y .

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 7

Under what conditions

should a Christian

disobey Caesar?

Traditional C atholic social philoso­phy has em phasized the necessity and legitim acy o f the s ta te and of ou r obed ience to it. At the sam e

tim e, how ever, the church has con tinued to affirm the N ew T estam en t teach ing th a t while we should “ render to C ae­s a r , ” w e sh o u ld a ls o re m e m b e r to “ re n d e r to G od th e th in g s th a t a re G o d ’s ,” and observe the teaching that we m ust “ obey G od ra th er than m e n .”

But how do we apply these princip les? U nder w hat conditions should a C hris­tian d isobey C aesar? Should he indis­crim inately obey the laws of the s ta te? O r can a case be m ade fo r a p ruden t and selective obed ience , one tha t acknow l­edges the necessity and legitim acy of the s ta te , bu t a t the sam e tim e advocates th a t we pu t G od befo re C aesar, tha t we m ust obey G od ra th e r than m an?

The m edieval ph ilosopher T hom as A quinas w anted to d em onstra te no t only the righ tness o f the N ew T estam en t teach ing abou t G od and C aesar, but also its im m ense p racticality . T hus he sought to form ulate a social and political ph i­losophy to guide the C hristian w hen he engaged in social and political affairs. T hom as A qu inas’ teach ing , w hich also is the traditional C atholic teach ing , is best sum m arized by the follow ing principles:

1. The chu rch is above the s ta te , but both have p roper ends and spheres of ac tion ;

2. O bedience to the civil au thority is both necessary and legitim ate be­c a u s e th is a u th o r i ty in d ire c t ly com es from G od;

3. The church has the right to resist

By H aven B . Gow

In Render Unto God* Thomas Shannon argues

the case for selective obedience by

the Catholic citizen.

un just au tho rity , qualified by ex ­hortations to p rayer and obedience;

4. A practical d isappearance from the trad ition o f the theory o f perm itted tyrannicide.

A lthough one might conclude that T hom as A qu inas’ teaching contains a bias in favo r o f civil au thority , it rem ains true tha t he defended the N ew T esta ­m ent principle tha t we should obey God ra th e r than man.

A pplication o f the Rom an C atholic C h u rch ’s teach ing regarding church and s ta te to everyday dilem m as h a sn ’t been easy . The tension betw een au thority and personal conscience is perhaps best il­lu strated by the problem posed by N azi G erm any, and by Pope Pius X II’s deal­ings w ith it. P rio r to his selection as Pope, Pius had been a high-ranking V at­ican dip lom at and , indeed, had played an instrum ental role in arranging the con ­cordat betw een the V atican and the Third R eich. A fter he becam e Pope, Pius took his pernicious position of neutrality regarding N azi G erm any. In M arch, 1939, fo r exam ple, he assu red the G er­m an am bassador to the V atican: “ It is not the business o f the church to take sides in purely tem poral m atters and concerns betw een the various system s and m ethods tha t m ay be considered fo r m astering the urgent problem s of the d a y .”

A lth o u g h G e rm a n s o ld ie rs w ere coerced , fo r exam ple, into taking an un­conditional oath of obedience to H itler and N azi G erm any, the G erm an church allow ed G erm an C atholics to take the oath because “ no oath could obligate a

C hristian to do anything w hich violated G od’s com m and and law .” Sim ilarly, in the face o f N azi G erm any’s brutal rape of N orw ay, Pope Pius X II said tha t there w ere only 2,000 C atholics in N orw ay, and tha t the V atican, “ though condem n­ing the moral aspec t o f the m atte r , m ust take a p ractical view and b ear in mind the 30 million G erm an C a th o lic s .” W hen asked by a friend about his tragic silence regarding the persecu tion and slaughter o f the Jew s, Pius is reported to have responded: “ D ear friend , do not forget that millions o f C atholics serve in the G erm an arm ies. Shall I bring them into conflicts o f co nsc ience?”

It seem s tha t G eunter L ew ry was not unduly harsh w hen he w ro te , in The Catholic Church and N a zi G erm any, that “ while thousands o f anti-N azis w ere beaten into pulp in concen tra tion cam ps, the C hurch talked o f supporting the m oral renew al b rought abou t by the H itler g o vernm en t.” As the au th o r of Render U nto God, T hom as S hannon ob­serves tha t the relationsh ip betw een N azi G erm any and the V atican reveals “ a chasm betw een theory and p ractice , one that finds its source in a com bination of fac to rs: a bias in C atholic theory tow ard obedience to the au thority o f the S tate; and overriding fear that dem and­ing fidelity to principles might provoke opposition ; reprisals might give rise to large-scale desertion on the part o f the faithfu l from the C h u rch .”

Som e con tem porary C atholic th inkers have a ttem pted to resta te traditional Thom istic teaching regarding church and state m atters in a w ay tha t obv iates c rit­

8 L IB ER TY M AR CH /A PRIL, 1977

icism s of the application (or m isapplica­tion) o f the traditional teach ing , and in an effort to rectify w rongs that have been perpe tra ted in its nam e. C atholic philosopher Jacques M aritain re itera tes the c h u rc h ’s traditional teach ing w hen he argues tha t the s ta te m ust guarantee to the church religious freedom , and that the church also has “ a right o f au thority over the political o r tem poral itself, not because of political th ings, bu t because o f the spiritual principle inv o lv ed .”

A lthough the sta te should not be op ­p ressed “ in its ow n sp h e re ,” con tinues M aritain , the church nevertheless does and m ust have an indirect pow er over the s ta te , especially regarding spiritual m atters. T his pow er, M aritain believes, does and should apply to the political sphere ; indeed, he claim s tha t we com ­mit a “ fau lt against obedience, a fault against the ju stice and filial piety w hich binds us to the church in resisting an o rder given by the church in virtue o f her indirect pow er over the tem p o ra l.”

Still, M aritain reaffirms the traditional T hom istic teach ing tha t em phasizes the legitim acy and necessity o f obed ience to civil au tho rity ; yet he argues, as T hom as A quinas argued , tha t resistance to civil au thority is possib le in tw o situations: w hen the people subvert the com m on good and w hen the state o rders sinful ac ts to be perfo rm ed . M aritain , though, is quick to qualify, his position w ith the sta tem en t th a t, excep t fo r these tw o cir­cu m stances, “ by the very fac t tha t civil au tho rity derives from G od, m en are bound in conscience to obey the law s of the s ta te .”

Jesu it theologian John C ourtney M ur­ray also sought to think through and r e f o r m u l a t e th e R o m a n C a th o l i c C h u rc h ’s t r a d i t io n a l te a c h in g a b o u t church and sta te re la tions. M urray per­form ed a valuable serv ice by his re fo r­m ulation of the c h u rc h ’s teach ing within the co n tex t o f m odern dem ocracies, especially w ith re fe rence to A m erica.

A ccording to M urray , we ought not to su rrender ou r consciences to the sta te ; ra ther, we m ust acknow ledge tha t the s ta te too has a conscience , w hich in­fo rm s its law s and decisions. The person m ust concede the rightness o f a law or decision until he is certa in tha t the law or decision is u n ju s t, and is able to provide convincing reasons w hy the law o r deci­sion is un just. If a p e rso n ’s conscience conflicts w ith the position o f the sta te , the person m ust obey his conscience , but still stand within the com m unity and be sub jec t to its judgm ents. A lthough the person m ust obey his consc ience , indi­vidual conscience does not have an ab ­solute right, fo r this w ould be pure indi­

vidualism and a denial o f the natu re of the political com m unity ; and yet, M ur­ray con tends, the political com m unity is bound to respec t the individual con ­science.

Both M urray and M aritain are in line w ith traditional C atholic teaching w hen they seek to validate the necessity and legitim acy o f the s ta te ; but they also s t r e s s , a s d o e s t r a d i t io n a l C a th o lic teaching, the w orth and validity of indi­vidual conscience. On the basis o f their understand ing of the natural law as it is applied to the political o rd er, M urray and M aritain argue fo r a prim a-facie ob ­ligation of obedience to the s ta te w ith a lim ited, selected right o f d issen t on the part o f the person.

Mr. Shannon does not th ink tha t M ur­ray and M aritain go fa r enough in their defense of the ch u rch ’s in te rests ; how ­ever, he finds m uch value in the critique fu rn is h e d by G o rd o n Z a h n o f th e ch u rch ’s teaching concern ing church and state.

Z ahn, a p ro fesso r of sociology a t the U niversity o f M assachusetts , believes that the burden of proof fo r the ju stice of its cause m ust rest on the s ta te , and not on the person w ho questions o r seeks to deny it. Im plicit in Z ah n ’s argum ent is a critique o f the use o f au thority by the sta te and of the ch u rch ’s role in society . Zahn agrees w ith T hom as tha t the state has au thority , and tha t this au thority com es indirectly from G od. But he also argues th a t th is au thority has o ften been abused , as in the case of N azi G erm any and the slaughter o f the Jew s.

An im m oral re la tionsh ip has devel­oped th roughout the cen tu ries betw een church and sta te , Zahn con tends , and the result is that the church has becom e “ little m ore than an agency fo r channel­ing or reinforcing the con tro ls o f the sta te in those m atters it, the s ta te , de­fines as crucial to its w ell-being .” Rom an C atholicism , as well as Judaism and P ro testan tism , has becom e a vehicle o f conform ity to the a ttitudes, beliefs, val­ues, and goals— and supporters o f— the secular sta tus quo.

T o rectify this pernicious develop­m ent, Zahn advocates that the church should re turn to its earliest trad itions, w hich found the C hristian “ ready to fo l­low the M aster’s advice to give C aesar his due, but at the sam e tim e required that he first make sure tha t w hat was dem anded of him w as really C aesa r’s d u e .” Both Zahn and S hannon w ant a re tu rn to the church of the m arty rs , to a church willing to endure persecu tion for the sake of charity and social ju s tice , to a church willing to d issen t from pre­vailing secular values tha t com prom ise

or con trad ic t C hristian values.Shannon th inks tha t certa in princip les

can be incorpora ted into a descrip tion of the chu rch and its role in society to form the fram ew ork fo r w hat he term s “ a theo ry of selective obedience to the S ta te .” The first is tha t the church m ust no t assum e a priori any fixed relation betw een it and the governm en t o ther than th a t it m ust constan tly evaluate the policies and values of the governm en t in light o f the natural law and the c h u rc h ’s teachings.

T he second is th a t the church m ust rem ain faith fu l to its essen tia l values. B ecause of its com m itm ent to rev e la ­tion , trad ition , and the natural law , the church m aintains a tran scen d en t point of re fe rence in the definition o f va lues, and thus fu rn ishes the foundation fo r the se ­lection behav io r o f the church and its m em bers in society .

T he th ird is T hom as A quinas’ co n cep ­tion o f the com m on good, w hich seeks to ensu re tha t ju stice be done, and tha t the benefits o f society— especially in regard to em ploym ent, political equality and equality befo re the law , and social ju s ­tice— are not lim ited to a select few .

T he fo u rth is the prim acy of the values of the chu rch , w hich m eans tha t the policies and values and goals o f the s ta te have to be m easured in light o f the c h u rc h ’s teachings regarding m orality and social ju s tice . T he final principle is the eschatological na tu re o f the chu rch , w hich dem ands th a t the chu rch m aintain a critical independence from the socie­ties and governm en ts w ith w hich it in­terac ts .

T he religious values o f the chu rch and its relation to the s ta te provide a fram e­w ork w ithin w hich the C atholic citizen m ay ju d g e c r i t ic a l ly th e c o m p e tin g claim s o f church and s ta te , and decide w hat are his o r her political responsib ili­ties. The C atholic citizen ought to take seriously his political obligations, bu t he should alw ays judge his political obliga­tions w ith re ference to the natural law and to tran scenden t va lues, Shannon believes. The obedience of the C atholic citizen m ust o f necessity be selective. F o r, as Shannon co n tends , “ in no in­stance can the C atholic citizen au tom at­ically presum e a necessary harm ony of values betw een C hurch and G overn ­m ent. N or m ay the C atholic citizen su r­render his o r her du ty to judge the S ta te ’s values or policies in the light of religious values and ob liga tions.” □

H aven B. G ow is a free-lance writer in Arlington H eights, Illinois.

* P a u l is t P r e s s . 180 p p . $4 .5 0 .

LIBERTY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977 9

ILL

UST

RA

TE

D

BY

JACK

PA

RD

UE

W hat the Authors of the Declaration of Independence

Really M eant By H av en B . G ow

Wh a t d id th e F o u n d in g F a th e r s m e a n w h e n th e y s ta te d in th e D e c la ra t io n o f In d e p e n d ­e n c e th a t " w e h o ld th e s e t r u th s to be s e l f - e v id e n t , th a t all m e n a re c r e a te d e q u a l ,

th a t th e y a re e n d o w e d b y th e i r C re a to r w ith c e r ta in u n a lie n a b le r ig h ts , th a t a m o n g th e s e a re l i fe , l ib e r ty a n d th e p u r s u i t o f h a p p in e s s ” ? W h a t d id th e y m e a n b y “ e q u a l” a n d b y " e q u a l i t y ” ? W h a t d id th e y m e a n by " u n a l ie n a b le r ig h ts ” ? W h a t d id th e y m e a n b y “ h a p p i­n e s s ” ? T h e s e a n d o th e r q u e s t io n s a r e e x p lo re d b y M o r tim e r A d le r a n d W illia m G o rm a n in T h e A m e r ic a n T e s ta m e n t (N e w Y o rk : P ra e g e r P re s s , 1975, 160 p p . $ 7 .9 5 ), a w o rk o f e n d u r in g v a lu e .

A d le r a n d G o rm a n e x a m in e th e D e c la ra t io n w ith r e v e r e n c e , e v e n a s a p r ie s t o r a fu n d a m e n ta l is t p r e a c h e r w o u ld e x a m in e a n d d is c u s s th e N e w T e s ­ta m e n t . T h e y t r e a t th e D e c la ra t io n a s th o u g h it w e re a s a c re d te x t ; th e y c o n c e n t r a te o n th e m e a n in g o f im ­p o r ta n t w o rd s , c o n c e p t s , p h r a s e s , a n d s e n te n c e s , a n d o n th e re la t io n s h ip b e tw e e n o n e e le m e n t in th e d is ­c o u rs e a n d a n o th e r , w h ile p a y in g li t t le o r n o a t te n t io n to th e s o c io lo g ic a l a n d p s y c h o lo g ic a l f a c to r s th a t m ay h a v e m o t iv a te d u s e o f c e r ta in w o rd s o r p h ra s e s ; th e y a p p ro a c h th e i r r e a d in g o f th e D e c la ra t io n w ith a p p re ­c ia t io n o f th e in te n t io n a n d p e r s p e c t iv e a n d in te lle c ­tu a l in te g r i ty o f th e a u th o r s , a n d w ith a f e r v e n t d e s ire to e lic it f r o m th e te x t th e t r u th s th a t th e a u th o r s w e re s e e k in g to e x p o u n d .

A c c o rd in g to A d le r a n d G o rm a n , w h e n th e a u th o r s o f (h e D e c la ra t io n r e f e r r e d to “ s e l f -e v id e n t t r u t h s , ” th e y d id n o t m e a n tr u th s th a t a re s e l f -e v id e n t in th e s t r ic t ly lo g ica l s e n s e . F o r a p ro p o s it io n is se lf- e v id e n t ly t r u e o n ly if it n e e d n o t b e d e m o n s tr a te d a n d if its o p p o s i te is s im p ly in c o n c e iv a b le . T h u s , f o r e x a m ­p le , th e s t a te m e n t , “ A w h o le is g re a te r th a n its p a r t s , ” is a s e l f - e v id e n t t r u th .

T h e a u th o r s s a y th a t m e n a re e n d o w e d w ith c e r ta in u n a lie n a b le r ig h ts , th a t a m o n g th e s e a re th e r ig h t to l i fe , l ib e r ty , a n d th e p u rs u it o f h a p p in e s s , an d th a t g o v e rn m e n ts d e r iv e th e i r ju s t p o w e r f ro m th e c o n s e n t o f th e g o v e rn e d . T o m a n y o f u s , th e s e in d e e d a re t r u th s ; a n d , m o r e o v e r , w e a re b o th w illin g a n d a b le to f u r n is h fo rm id a b le a rg u m e n ts in d e fe n s e o f th e s e p r o p o s i t io n s . B u t, a c c o rd in g to A d le r a n d G o rm a n , p re c is e ly b e c a u s e th e s e p ro p o s i t io n s n e e d to b e a n d c a n b e d e fe n d e d b y a rg u m e n ts , th e y a re n o t se lf- e v id e n t ly tr u e .

W h a t , th e n , d id th e a u th o r s m e a n b y “ se lf -e v id e n t

t r u th s ” ? T o a n s w e r th is q u e s t io n , A d le r a n d G o rm a n r e f e r to H a m il to n ’s F e d e ra lis t N o . 31 . In th a t p a p e r , H a m il to n d is c u s s e d “ p r im a ry t r u th s , o r f irs t p r in c i­p le s ,” a n d r e f e r r e d to s e v e ra l “ m a x im s in g e o m e t r y ,” su c h a s “ th e w h o le is g r e a te r th a n its p a r t s , ” a n d a ls o “ m a x im s in e th ic s a n d p o l i t i c s ,” s u c h a s “ th e m e a n s o u g h t to b e p ro p o r t io n e d to th e e n d .” H a m il to n th e n m a k e s th e fo l lo w in g o b s e r v a t io n :

“ A n d th e r e a r e o th e r t r u th s in th e la t te r tw o s c ie n c e s [e th ic s a n d p o litic s ] w h ic h , if th e y c a n n o t p re te n d to r a n k in th e c la s s o f a x io m s , a re y e t s u c h d ir e c t in f e r e n c e s f ro m th e m . . . th a t th e y c h a lle n g e th e a s s e n t o f a s o u n d a n d u n b ia s e d m in d , w ith a d e g re e o f f o r c e a n d c o n v ic t io n a lm o s t e q u a lly i r r e s i s t ib le .”

F o r J e f f e r s o n , th e p ro p o s i t io n s th a t fo l lo w “ all m e n a re c r e a te d e q u a l” p o s s e s s th e s a m e k in d o f f o r c e , p o w e r , a n d p e r s u a s iv e n e s s .

B u t w h a t d id th e a u th o r s m e a n b y “ all m e n a re c r e a te d e q u a l” ? C e r ta in ly , n o t th a t a ll m e n a re b o rn e q u a l , f o r it is o b v io u s ly u n tr u e to s a y o f p e o p le liv in g u n d e r a d ic ta to r s h ip , f o r e x a m p le , th a t th e y a re all “ b o rn e q u a lly f r e e a n d in d e p e n d e n t .” A n d , c le a r ly , h u m a n b e in g s a re n o t “ e q u a l” in ta l e n t , w is d o m , in te ll ig e n c e , o r v ir tu e . S o w h a t d id th e F o u n d in g F a ­th e r s a c tu a l ly m e a n ?

Im p lic it in th e s ta te m e n t b y th e a u th o r s th a t “ all m en a re c r e a te d e q u a l” is a c e r ta in v iew o f m a n ; th e p ro p o s it io n re f le c ts th e te a c h in g th a t m a n is q u a l i ta ­t iv e ly d if fe re n t f ro m a n im a l a n d f r o m p h y s ic a l n a tu r e , th a t h e is a ra t io n a l b e in g , th a t h e p o s s e s s e s th e in h e re n t c a p a c i ty to m a k e f r e e ju d g m e n ts a n d c h o ic e s , th a t h e h a s th e a b il i ty to fu lfill h is n a tu ra l p ro p e n s i t ie s a n d c a p a c i t ie s , th a t h e is m o ra lly a c c o u n ta b le f o r w h a t he d o e s o r d o e s n o t d o to a c h ie v e th e p e r f e c t io n o f h is n a tu re a n d th e g o o d h u m a n life . A lso im p lic it in th e s ta te m e n t th a t “ all m e n a re c r e a te d e q u a l” is th e b e lie f th a t m a n is n o t ju s t a r a t io n a l b u t a ls o a p o litic a l a n d so c ia l b e in g : th a t is , h u m a n b e in g s a r e d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e ir a s s o c ia t io n s w ith o th e r h u m a n b e in g s f o r th e p e r f e c t io n o f th e i r c o m m o n h u m a n n a tu r e s , f o r th e i r p u r s u it o f h a p p in e s s a n d th e g o o d h u m a n life .

A n o t h e r s t u d e n t o f t h e D e c l a r a t i o n o f I n d e ­p e n d e n c e , H a r ry J a f fa , a u th o r o f T h e C o n d it io n s o f

H a v e n B . G o w is a fr e e - la n c e w rite r in A r lin g to n H e ig h ts , I l lin o is .

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL. 1977 11

F r e e d o m , h a s c o r r e c t l y o b s e r v e d t h a t w h a t t h e F o u n d in g F a th e r s m e a n t b y e q u a l i ty is th is : A ll m en sh a re a c o m m o n h u m a n n a tu r e , a n a s s e r t io n th a t d e ­p e n d s u p o n a p r io r re c o g n i tio n o f n a tu r e in g e n e ra l , o f w h ic h h u m a n n a tu r e fo r m s a n im p o r ta n t p a r t . T h e a s s e r t io n th a t all m e n a re c r e a te d e q u a l , c o n te n d s J a f fa , m e a n s th a t a ll p e r s o n s a re th e s a m e in s o m e r e s p e c t ; it d o e s n o t m e a n th a t all m e n a re id e n t ic a l , o r e q u a lly ta le n te d , w is e , in te ll ig e n t , o r v i r tu o u s ; r a th e r , it m e a n s th a t all p e r s o n s p o s s e s s th e in h e r e n t c a p a c i ty to r e a s o n , to u t i l iz e a n d c o m p r e h e n d s y m b o ls , to e n g a g e in p ro p o s i t io n a l s p e e c h , a n d to m a k e f r e e c h o ic e s a n d ju d g m e n ts . B e in g c re a te d e q u a l im p lie s th e r ig h ts s t r e s s e d in th e D e c la ra t io n , a n d , f ro m th e s e r ig h ts , c o r r e s p o n d in g d u tie s m a y b e d e d u c e d .

T h e p ro p o s i t io n th a t “ w e a re e n d o w e d b y o u r C r e ­a to r w ith c e r ta in u n a lie n a b le r ig h ts ” is a n a t t e m p t to a d d a h ig h e r , a d iv in e s a n c t io n to o u r r ig h ts . I f th e s o u rc e o f o u r r ig h ts is s o c ie ty , th e n s o c ie ty c a n ta k e a w a y o u r r ig h ts w h e n e v e r s o c ie ty so d e s i r e s . B u t if th e s o u rc e o f o u r r ig h ts is G o d , th e n o n ly G o d m a y a b r id g e th e m . A n d if G o d is th e s o u r c e o f a ll o u r r ig h ts , th e n h u m a n a t t e m p ts to v io la te th e m o r ta k e th e m a w a y a re a n o ffe n se a g a in s t G o d . B y th e p ro p o s i t io n th a t w e a re e n d o w e d b y o u r C r e a to r w ith c e r ta in u n a lie n a b le r ig h ts th e a u th o r s o f th e D e c la ra t io n s o u g h t to m a k e c le a r in u n m is ta k a b le te r m s th a t o u r r ig h ts a r e n o t d e p e n d e n t u p o n le g is la tio n o f a n y k in d , th a t th e y a re u n a lie n a b le b e c a u s e th e y a re in h e r e n t in th e v e ry n a tu r e o f m a n , th a t p e r s o n s p o s s e s s th e s e r ig h ts s im ­p ly b e c a u s e th e y a r e h u m a n b e in g s . T h e s e r ig h ts , in o th e r w o rd s , p o s s e s s m o ra l f o r c e a n d im p o s e m o ra l o b lig a tio n s e v e n w h e n th e y la c k legal f o r c e a n d s a n c ­tio n s .

A s A d le r a n d G o rm a n p o in t o u t , th e r ig h ts m e n ­tio n e d b y th e a u th o r s o f th e D e c la ra t io n im p o s e c e r ­ta in m o ra l o b lig a tio n s : th e y a re r ig h ts th a t sh o u ld b e r e s p e c te d b y e v e ry o n e u n d e r a ll c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Y e t, u n d e r c e r ta in c i r c u m s ta n c e s , th e ex e rc ise o f th e s e r ig h ts m a y b e c u r ta i le d , th o u g h th e i r u n a lie n a b il i ty m u s t a lw a y s b e a c k n o w le d g e d a n d r e s p e c te d . B y e n ­g a g in g in c r im in a l c o n d u c t , f o r in s ta n c e , a p e r s o n m a y f o r f e i t th e e x e rc is e o f r ig h ts th a t a re in h e re n t in h im , th o u g h h e c a n n o t a b n e g a te h is p o s s e s s io n o f th e m . In o th e r w o rd s , th e r ig h ts d e c la re d b y o u r F o u n d in g F a th e r s a re G o d -g iv e n a n d in h e re n t in th e v e ry n a tu re o f m a n : th e s e r ig h ts c a n n o t b e g iv e n a w a y b y h u m a n b e in g s a n y m o re th a n th e y c a n b e ta k e n a w a y .

M o re o v e r , s in c e o u r r ig h ts a re g ro u n d e d in o u r h u m a n n a tu re a n d in an o rd e r h ig h e r th a n h u m a n , p ro fo u n d im p lic a tio n s fo l lo w . I f , a s th e F o u n d in g F a ­th e r s b e l ie v e d , all m e n a re e q u a l b y n a tu re a n d b y d iv in e c r e a t io n , a n d if th e r ig h ts r e f e r r e d to b y th e F o u n d in g F a th e r s a re in h e re n t in h u m a n n a tu r e , a n d if th e e q u a li ty o f h u m a n b e in g s is g ro u n d e d in th e s a m e ­n e s s o f th e sp e c if ic n a tu r e in w h ic h all m e n p a r t ic ip a te , th e n th e s e h u m a n o r m o ra l r ig h ts a re e q u a lly p o s ­se s s e d by a ll. W e c a n n o t c la im to h a v e r ig h ts , th e r e ­f o r e , th a t a re d e n ie d to o th e r h u m a n b e in g s ; n o r a re w e e n ti t le d to d e n y to o th e r h u m a n b e in g s th e r ig h ts th a t w e c la im f o r o u rs e lv e s .

A m o n g th e r ig h ts c o n s id e re d u n a lie n a b le b y th e F o u n d in g F a th e r s a re th e r ig h ts to l i fe , l ib e r ty , a n d th e p u rs u it o f h a p p in e s s . W h y d id th e a u th o r s o f th e D e c la ra t io n c h o o s e to m e n tio n th e s e th r e e r ig h ts ? A d le r a n d G o rm a n b e lie v e th a t th e a u th o r s h a d a c e r ta in v ie w o f m a n , b a s e d u p o n th e i r re f le c t io n s o n h u m a n e x p e r ie n c e a n d h u m a n h is to ry , w h ic h led th e m to th e b e lie f th a t th e r e a re c e r ta in o b lig a tio n s th a t m e n m u s t d is c h a rg e if th e y a re to fu lfill th e m s e lv e s a s h u m a n b e in g s . F i r s t , a h u m a n b e in g s h o u ld s t r iv e to p r e s e rv e h is v e ry e x is te n c e ; s e c o n d , s in c e h e is a b e in g th a t p o s s e s s e s th e in h e r e n t p o w e r to m a k e f r e e c h o ic e s a n d ju d g m e n ts , m a n o u g h t to s t r iv e to c o n tro l th e c o u rs e o f h is life ; th i rd , in e x e rc is in g h is f r e e d o m to c h o o s e th e d ire c tio n o f h is life , m an sh o u ld s t r iv e to m a k e h is life a g o o d life ; th a t is , h e s h o u ld s t r iv e to w a rd s s e l f -p e r fe c t io n , to w a rd s th e fu l le s t d e v e lo p ­m e n t o f h is p o te n t ia l i t ie s , to w a rd s h a p p in e s s .

I f a h u m a n b e in g is to im p le m e n t th e d is c h a rg e o f th e s e o b lig a tio n s , th o u g h t th e F o u n d in g F a th e r s , h e m u s t p o s s e s s th e r ig h t to life , l ib e r ty , a n d th e p u rs u i t o f h a p p in e s s . A ll o th e r r ig h ts a re d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e r ig h t to life . W e c a n n o t e x e rc is e th e r ig h t to lib e r ty o r th e r ig h t to p u rs u e h a p p in e s s if w e a re n o t a l iv e ; th u s , w e m u s t h a v e th e r ig h t to b e s e c u re a g a in s t fo r c e s o r f a c to r s th a t a re d e tr im e n ta l to th e p r e s e rv a t io n o f o u r e x is te n c e . M o re o v e r , w e m u s t h a v e th e r ig h t to lib ­e r ty ; th a t is , th e r ig h t to c i r c u m s ta n c e s th a t fa c i l i ta te a c t io n s f r e e ly c h o s e n . A n d la s t , w e m u s t p o s s e s s th e rig h t to p u rs u e h a p p in e s s ; th a t is , w e h a v e th e r ig h t to w h a te v e r h e lp o rg a n iz e d s o c ie ty c a n fu r n is h u s in o u r a t te m p t to m a k e a g o o d h u m a n life f o r o u rs e lv e s a n d o u r p o s te r i ty .

Y e t, o n e m u s t a s k , w h a t is “ h a p p in e s s ” ? W h a t d id th e a u th o r s o f th e D e c la ra t io n m e a n b y “ h a p p in e s s ” ?

12 LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977

B ritish p o li tic a l p h i lo s o p h e r J o h n L o c k e m a in ta in e d th a t h u m a n b e in g s p o s s e s s th e r ig h t to life , l ib e r ty , a n d p u rs u i t o f h a p p in e s s . V irg in ia n G e o rg e M a s o n a g re e d , a n d th u s h e fo r m u la te d a D e c la ra t io n o f R ig h ts th a t th e V irg in ia C o n s t i tu t io n a l C o n v e n tio n a d o p te d le s s th a n o n e m o n th b e fo r e J u ly 4 , 1776. A rtic le I , S e c tio n 1 o f th a t d e c la ra t io n sa id :

T h a t all m e n a re b y n a tu re e q u a lly f r e e a n d in d e p e n d e n t a n d h a v e c e r ta in in h e re n t r ig h ts , o f w h ic h , w h e n th e y e n te r in to a s ta te o f s o c ie ty , th e y c a n n o t , b y a n y c o m p a c t , d e p r iv e o r d iv e s t th e i r p o s te r i ty ; n a m e ly , th e e n jo y m e n t o f life a n d lib e r ty , w ith th e m e a n s o f a c q u ir in g a n d p o s s e s s ­ing p ro p e r ty , a n d p u r s u in g a n d o b ta in in g h a p p i­n e ss a n d s a fe ty . ( I ta l ic s s u p p lie d .)

T h is d e c la r a t io n , a u th o r e d b y G e o rg e M a s o n , r e ­v e a le d th e h e a v y in f lu e n c e o f J o h n L o c k e o n th e V irg in ia n ’s th in k in g . L ik e L o c k e , G e o rg e M a s o n r e ­je c te d th e tr a d i t io n a l te a c h in g th a t m a n is b y n a tu r e a so c ia l a n d p o li tic a l b e in g , th a t h u m a n b e in g s re q u ire a s s o c ia t io n s w ith o th e r h u m a n b e in g s to a tta in th e p e r f e c t io n o f th e i r n a tu r e s , a n d to a c h ie v e th e g o o d h u m a n life . L ik e L o c k e , th e V irg in ia n a ls o re je c te d th e v iew th a t s o c ie ty e m a n a te s f ro m th e d e m a n d s o f m a n ’s h ig h e r n a tu r e : its d e m a n d f o r f r ie n d s h ip , lo v e , m a r r ia g e , fa m ily .

R a th e r , G e o rg e M a s o n , a s d id L o c k e , c o n te n d e d th a t h u m a n b e in g s p re v io u s ly liv e d in is o la t io n f ro m o n e a n o th e r in a h y p o th e t ic a l s ta te o f n a tu r e , b u t , m o t iv a te d b y th e i r p r iv a te , se lfish in te r e s t , th e y c a m e to se e th a t a so c ia l c o n tr a c t w a s n e e d e d to s a fe g u a rd p ro p e r ty a n d th e r ig h t to p ro p e r ty , a n d th e p u rs u it o f m a te r ia l w e ll-b e in g . T h u s , M a s o n , lik e L o c k e , e m ­p h a s iz e d th e n e e d to p ro te c t th e a c q u is it io n a n d p o s ­s e s s io n o f p ro p e r ty .

L ik e G e o rg e M a s o n a n d J o h n L o c k e , T h o m a s J e f ­f e r s o n a c k n o w le d g e d a n d r e s p e c te d th e r ig h t to p ro p ­e r ty , th a t is , th e r ig h t to th e f r u i ts o f o u r h o n e s t la b o rs . B u t h e b e lie v e d th a t th e r ig h t to p ro p e r ty w a s in c o r ­p o ra te d in to th e r ig h t to p u rs u e h a p p in e s s . In o th e r w o rd s , h e a g re e d w ith M a s o n a n d L o c k e th a t g o v e rn ­m e n t o u g h t to e n s u r e th e r ig h t to p ro p e r ty , to th e f ru i ts o f o u r h o n e s t la b o r s ; b u t in s te a d o f th e h e a v y e m p h a ­sis o n th is r ig h t, h e p r e f e r r e d to v iew th e r ig h t to p ro p e r ty a s a n ex te rn a l c o n d it io n in d isp e n sa b le to o u r p u rs u it o f h a p p in e s s . J e f fe r s o n , th e n , d id n o t id e n tify th e p o s s e s s io n a n d th e p ro te c t io n o f p ro p e r ty w ith

h a p p in e s s , th o u g h h e c e r ta in ly r e c o g n iz e d th a t p ro p ­e r ty w a s a n in d is p e n s a b le c o n d it io n in o u r p u rs u i t o f th e g o o d h u m a n life .

A s in d ic a te d , th e a u th o r s o f th e D e c la ra t io n b e ­lie v e d th a t h a p p in e s s is s o m e th in g m o re th a n m a 'teria l w e ll-b e in g a n d th e p o s s e s s io n o f p ro p e r ty . F o r th e m , h a p p in e s s is s o m e th in g in te rn a l , n o t e x te r n a l . H a p p i­n e s s h a s to d o w ith a life w ell liv e d , o r a g o o d h u m a n life a s a w h o le ; it in v o lv e s th e a c h ie v e m e n t a n d p r a c ­tic e b y a p e r s o n o f s u c h v ir tu e s a s c o u ra g e , d e c e n c y , a n d c h a r i ty , v ir tu e s th a t a re e n t i r e ly w ith in a p e r s o n ’s o w n p o w e r to a t ta in . H a p p in e s s , th e n , is d e p e n d e n t u p o n a p e r s o n ’s a t ta in m e n t o f o r d e r in h is s o u l , an o rd e r th a t is d e p e n d e n t u p o n a p e r s o n ’s in n e r , m o ra l d is p o s it io n . N o s o c ie ty o r g o v e rn m e n t h a s th e p o w e r to e n s u re th a t a p e rs o n w ill o b ta in o r a c h ie v e h a p p i­n e s s ; th e m o s t th a t a n y so c ie ty o r g o v e rn m e n t c a n d o is e n s u r e th e e x te rn a l c o n d it io n s n e e d e d in o u r p u rs u it o f h a p p in e s s , a n d th e r e b y f a c i l i ta te , th o u g h n o t g u a r ­a n te e , o u r a c h ie v e m e n t o f th e g o o d h u m a n life . In ­s o f a r a s it is p o s s ib le f o r g o v e rn m e n t o r s o c ie ty to fu rn is h th e m a te r ia l c o n d it io n s n e e d e d f o r a d e c e n t , o r a t le a s t a to le ra b le , e x is te n c e , it m u s t d o so . B u t it c a n n o t g u a ra n te e h a p p in e s s , f o r h a p p in e s s is d e r iv e d f ro m o u r c u l t iv a t io n a n d p ra c t ic e o f s u c h v ir tu e s a s c o u ra g e , d e c e n c y , c iv i l i ty , c h a r i ty , p r u d e n c e , a n d w isd o m .

H a p p in e s s , th e n is in te rn a l , n o t e x te r n a l ; it is d e ­p e n d e n t u p o n a p e r s o n ’s v ir tu o u s life a n d h is c h a r a c ­te r . A t th e s a m e tim e , h o w e v e r , th e g o o d h u m a n life is n o t d is t in c t ly in d iv id u a l , b u t c o m m o n ly h u m a n . S in c e h u m a n b e in g s a re e q u a l b y n a tu r e a n d b y d iv in e c r e ­a tio n , th e n th e h a p p y , o r g o o d , life is b a s ic a lly th e sa m e f o r all h u m a n b e in g s ; w e all n e e d to fu lfill th e s a m e sp e c if ic a lly h u m a n p o te n t ia l i t ie s ; w e n e e d to s a t is fy th e s a m e n e e d s a n d a s p i r a t io n s in h e r e n t in h u m a n n a tu r e — f o r e x a m p le , o u r n e e d s f o r f r ie n d s h ip , lo v e , fa m ily . S in c e th is is s o , w h a te v e r is t r u ly g o o d f o r a p e rs o n is t r u ly g o o d f o r o th e r h u m a n b e in g s .

T h e a u th o r s o f o u r D e c la ra t io n re f le c te d u p o n , a n d u n d e r s to o d , h u m a n e x p e r ie n c e , h u m a n h is to ry , a n d h u m a n n a tu r e ; a n d in th e i r o w n in d iv id u a l w a y s , th e y w e re re lig io u s m e n w h o lo v e d G o d a n d s o u g h t to s e rv e H im . T o d a y , tw o c e n tu r ie s a f t e r th e b ir th o f o u r n a tio n , w e c a n b e s t th a n k th e m f o r w h a t th e y a c c o m ­p lish e d f o r u s b y re n e w in g o u r s o c ie ty ’s o r ig in a l c o m ­m itm e n t to th e t r u th s th e y e x p r e s s e d , a n d b y try in g to m a k e th o s e t r u th s a n e v e ry d a y re a l i ty . □

LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 13

The United NationsWhat is the record of this international body in resolving deeply rooted religious antagonisms?

and Religious DiscriminationBy HOMER A. JACK

T he h is to ry of religion is the h isto ry of in to lerance , p re jud ice , d iscrim ­ination , and m assacre— all in the nam e o f religion. A nd religious persecu tion con tinues to the p resen t

w ith even m ore soph istica ted techniques of harassm en t and to rtu re than in past cen turies.

N o religion and no section of the p la n e t a p p e a rs im m u n e fro m n a m e - calling, d iscrim ination , even large-scale m assacre— based on religion.

The tw en tie th cen tu ry has w itnessed the refinem ent o f religious m assacre w ith the ho locaust against the Jew s. But be­fo re H itler, C hristian A rm enians w ere m u rd e re d in W e s t A s ia ; so o n a f t e r H itler, H indus, M oslem s, and Sikhs slaughtered each o th e r on the Indian subcontinen t.

H ere are o th er exam ples from the C on tem porary C atalog o f “ C iv ilized” H orrors: In one coun try , C hristians are p e r­secu ted by C hris tians; in ano ther, C hris­tians by M oslem s. On ano ther con tinen t, religiousJew s and C hristians are persecu ted by a the is ts ; in ano ther, Jew s are p reven ted from leaving by M oslem s. In a “ C h ris tian ” nation , M oslem shave been discrim inated against fo r c en ­turies. In a M oslem , if secu la r, nation , H in­dus live in potential te rro r. On one island. C atholics and P ro t­e stan ts are at each o th e r’s th roats.

H um an conflict is never sim ple. In ­cluded in the above situations are not only deeply roo ted religious antagonism but social and econom ic fac to rs .

We should have bo th sym pathy and understand ing , then , fo r the U nited N a ­tions— the in ternational body assigned by the com m unity o f nations to d ra ft a dec la ra tion and convention against reli­gious d iscrim ination . G iven the d im en­sions of the struggle betw een com peting econom ic ideologies and em ergence of the T hird W orld fo rces tha t exert d is­p ropo rtiona te influence in to d a y ’s U N , and the thousands-of-years-o ld reco rd of

m an ’s inhum anity to m an, it is no small task .

The StandardsE ven befo re W orld W ar II ended , e f­

fo rts w ere begun to c rea te a world o rgan­ization th a t w ould devote m ore a tten ­tion to hum an rights than did the L eague o f N ations. T he C harte r o f the U nited N ations , adop ted in 1945, included p ro ­m otion and re sp ec t “ fo r hum an rights and fo r fundam ental freedom s fo r all w ithout d istinction as to race , sex , lan­guage, o r re lig ion .” T he early years of the U N saw activ ity by E leanor R oose­velt o f the U nited S ta te s , R ené C assin of F rance , C harles M alick o f L ebanon , and m any o thers to d ra f t a U niversal D ec­laration of H um an R ights. A dopted in D ecem ber, 1948, by the U N G eneral A ssem bly,* the docum ent directly re­ferred to religion in its E igh teen th A rti­cle.

Ju s t one day befo re the adoption of the U niversal D eclaration , the U N G en­eral A ssem bly also adop ted fo r signature and ratification by S ta tes a C onvention on the P revention and Punishm ent o f the Crim e o f G enocide. T he la tter w as de­fined as “ any o f the follow ing ac ts com ­m itted w ith in ten t to destro y , in w hole or part, a national, ethn ical, racial, o r reli­gious group , as such (a) killing m em bers o f the g roup ; (b) causing serious bodily o r m ental harm to m em bers of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions o f life calculated to bring about the physical destruction in w hole o r in part; (d) im posing m easures in­te n d e d to p r e v e n t b ir th s w ith in th e group ; and (e) fo rcib ly transferring chil­d ren of the group to ano ther g ro u p .” This convention en tered into fo rce in 1951 and now consists o f 77 parties. The U nited S ta tes is— at th is w riting— not yet a party .

S ince the U niversal D eclaration of H um an Rights constitu ted an in terna­tional standard but w as not a legally b in d in g t r e a ty , th e U n ite d N a tio n s d rafted tw o in ternational covenants on hum an rights. By 1966 both the In te rna­

tional C ovenant on Civil and Political Rights and on E conom ic, Social, and C ultural Rights w ere signed. A rticle 18 o f the fo rm er con ta ins fo u r paragraphs on religion. This covenan t en te red into fo rce in 1976 w ith 35 sta tes ra tify ing it. L arger sta tes not yet parties— at this writing— include the U nited S ta tes , B ra­zil, C anada, F rance , India, Indonesia, Japan , and N igeria.

A DeclarationSince the U niversal D eclaration and

the In ternational C ovenants dealt w ith a la rg e p a c k a g e o f h u m a n r ig h ts , th e U nited N ations decided to follow up these declarations by drafting a series o f decla rations and legally binding conven ­tions, each devoted to a separa te hum an right, such as freedom from slavery , abolition of fo rced labor, freedom from arb itra ry arrest, the right to a nationality , the right o f self-determ ination . The ef­fo rt to d ra ft a declaration and a conven ­tion against racial and religious discrim i­nation began in the early 1960’s. A t first it w as p lanned to adop t a declaration com bining both racial and religious d is­c r im in a t io n — a f r e q u e n t a n d lo g ica l com bination— but a strong political de­sire em erged to keep the issues separa te and forge ahead first on ru les against racial d iscrim ination . The 1962 G eneral A ssem bly requested the C om m ission on H um an Rights to d ra ft bo th kinds of instrum ents. A D eclaration on the E lim ­ination of All Form s o f In to lerance and D iscrim ination B ased on Religion or B e­lief w as finished and proclaim ed in 1963, and a convention w as adop ted in 1965 (and en tered into fo rce in 1969).

Dr. H om er A . Jack is secretary-general o f the W orld C onference on Religion and Peace, an international nongovernm ental organization in consulta tive s ta tu s with the U N E conom ic and Socia l C ouncil, N ew York City.

* T h e v o te w a s 48 to n o n e , w i th e ig h t a b s te n t io n s a n d tw o a b s e n te e s . S in c e th is w a s a r e s o lu t io n , n o t a t r e a ty , n o s ig n a tu re s o r r a t i f ic a t io n s b y s ta te s w e re r e q u ir e d .

14 LIBER TY M AR CH /A PRIL, 1977

T he effort to d ra f t a declaration and a conven tion against religious d iscrim ina­tion w ent m ore slow ly— and is still con­tinuing. A fter several fa lse starts and d ra f ts , the resu lts so fa r include a p rov i­sionally adop ted pream ble (except fo r a final paragraph) and several versions of its opera tive sec tions. W ork on a con­ven tion has been a t least tem porarily suspended .

The FrustrationsThe histo ry of d rafting a declaration

and a conven tion against religious d is­crim ination is one o f fru stra tion . It is easy to blam e the U nited N ations fo r the fo rest o f docum en ts and decades of de lay , bu t the U n ited N ations is but a m irror o f the positions of its m em ber sta tes . The U nited N ations is a tool to be used by its m em bers; in this instance, the tool has w orked very slow ly. The unbe­lievable tangle can best be described briefly through the follow ing ch ronol­ogy:

1959— A rcot K rishnasw am i as special rap p o rteu r fo r the U nited N ations Sub­com m ission on P revention of D iscrim i­nation of M inorities concluded his Study o f D iscrim ination in the M atter o f Reli-

Bible Sale?Are Bibles for sale in the Soviet Union?A recent issue of Soviet Life says Yes. (Soviet

Life is published in the United States and pur­ports to give an accurate picture of life under socialism.) Says the magazine, in answer to questions on freedom of religion in the U.S.S.R.: “The Old and New Testaments and the Koran are on sale in kiosks adjoining places of worship. New editions are printed as the need arises.”

L I B E R T Y has written the editor of Soviet Life, asking for the addresses of kiosks where Bibles are sold. Since L IB E R T Y has insisted that Bibles have not been available in book­stores or elsewhere to Christians and Jews in the Soviet Union, its editors will be happy to correct this mis(?)information upon receipt of the addresses from the editor of Soviet Life and purchase of such items by contacts within that country.—The Editors.

gious R ights and Practices. O ut o f this report, the subcom m ission p repared a series o f d raft p rincip les.

1960— As a resu lt o f a series o f sw as­tika paintings during 1959-1960, the sub­com m ission voted to study these even ts and their causes.

1962— T he U N G eneral A ssem bly re ­quested the C om m ission on H um an R ights to p repare declarations and con ­ventions separately on religious and ra ­cial d iscrim ination , w ith prio rity to the latter.

1963—T he U N D eclaration on the Elim ination o f All Form s of R acial D is­crim ination w as adop ted by the G eneral A ssem bly (and by 1965 the In ternational C onvention on the E lim ination of All Form s of Racial D iscrim ination w as ready fo r signature and ratification).

1964— T he s u b c o m m iss io n an d a w orking group o f the C om m ission on H um an Rights started drafting a “ d ec­laration against all fo rm s of religious in to le rance” (the official w orking title fo r m any years).

1965— In a sw itch in stra tegy , the sub­com m ission prepared a p relim inary draft convention.

1967— The com m ission fu r th e r con ­sidered the d raft convention and the Third C om m ittee o f the G eneral A ssem ­bly devoted tw enty-nine m eetings to fu rther drafting.

1968— T he T hird C om m ittee of the G eneral A ssem bly gave these item s no m ore sustained atten tion through 1971.

1971— R epresen ta tives o f som e non­governm ental organ izations (N G O ’s), w orking w ith rep resen ta tives o f som e governm ents, revived in terest in this dorm ant agenda item.

1972—T he T hird C om m ittee of the G eneral A ssem bly voted to give priority to com pleting the declaration befo re re ­sum ing consideration of the convention .

1973——The T hird C om m ittee devoted seven sessions to debate on this item , and asked the com m ission to d raft a declaration .

1974— The th irtie th session of the com m ission appointed a w orking group

th a t d ra fted and provisionally adopted eighty-eight w ords— the title and one a r­ticle o f the p ream ble.

1975— The th irty -first session of the com m ission in its w orking group p rov i­sionally adop ted an additional 238 w ords of the p ream ble.

1976— T he th irty -second session of the com m ission in its w orking group p ro v is io n a l ly a d o p te d an a d d it io n a l fifty-eight w ords of the p ream ble— all bu t one paragraph— but had no t yet d is­cussed the opera tive section .

1977— The th irty -th ird session of the com m ission m eeting a t G eneva (7 F eb ­ruary-11 M arch) is scheduled to devote fifteen sessions o f a w orking group to drafting the declaration .

Some IssuesD uring the years this decla ra tion and

convention have been d iscussed and ne­gotiated in the U N , a num ber o f them es have recu rred . Som e have been p ro ce ­dural: fo r exam ple, w hether to d ra ft first a decla ra tion o r a conven tion . (The usual p rocedure has been to d ra f t initially the less-binding decla ra tion , fo llow ed by the le g a lly b in d in g c o n v e n tio n .) O th e r them es have been substan tive . A few of the la tte r are d iscussed below .

Religion and Belief. Right from the s ta rt, these instrum en ts dealt w ith “ reli­gion or b e lie f,” since this ph rase exists in the U niversal D eclaration . H ow ever, early in the d iscussions the socialist s ta tes raised the question of a theism and its p ro tec tion . If religion should be p ro ­tec ted from discrim ination , so should atheism . T here w ere som e w ho felt that the trad itional field of religion w as a big e n o u g h d o m a in fo r o n e in s tru m e n t; o thers felt th a t there is a con tinuum , that the rights o f those w ho did no t believe in religion, or w ho believed in unconven­tional religion, w ere as im portan t to p ro ­tec t as the rights o f those w ho believed in traditional religion. A t one point it w as agreed tha t the title o f the decla ration w ould be changed , to reflect th is inclu­siveness, from “ declaration on the elim ­ination of all fo rm s of religious in to ler­

LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL. 1977 15

an c e ” to “ decla ration on the elim ination o f all fo rm s of in to lerance and discrim i­nation based on religion or b e lie f .’’ F low ing from this title is now the im plicit agreem en t to deal both w ith religion and belief— the la tter going beyond religion and including a theism . The d ra ft tex t o f A rticle I subm itted by the N etherlands sum s up the problem w ith a definition: “ T he expression ‘religion or b e lie f’ shall include the istic , non theistic and atheistic b e lie fs .”

Minimum or Maximum. In both the U niversal D eclaration and the In te rn a ­tional C ovenan t on Civil and Political R ights, A rticle 18 d iscusses hum an rights in the religious field in a m inim al w ay. T he im petus fo r d rafting additional in­strum en ts in the field of religion, as in o ther fields, w as the desire th a t m ore detailed standards should be given. T here is, how ever, alw ays the danger e ither o f m aking such standards too d e ­tailed or o f reverting to the minim um found in the existing instrum ents . Som e m iddle ground m ust be found.

Retreat. In e laborating additional in ­strum en ts, there is the added danger that the result m ight be to w rite in m ore re ­s tra in ts , and less freedom , than in the existing docum ents, how ever b rief they now are . W hen the existing instrum en ts w ere d ra fted , in 1948 and 1966, the U N w as a sm aller body than it is today . It has been suggested tha t today som e earlier hum an-rights docum ents could no t be so easily adopted . G iven the opposition , or the unconcern , by som e sta te s , there is indeed alw ays danger tha t the resu lt of the cu rren t effort m ight be to w hittle aw ay religious rights found in existing instrum en ts .

Perversion. Q uite apart from the gen­eral danger o f lessening existing rights, som e argue tha t the effort could resu lt in c ircum scrib ing religion instead o f freeing it. W ith som e sta tes critical o f organized religion having m ore pow er in the U N today than fo rm erly , th is new pow er m ay be reflected in drafting instrum ents th a t are a perversion of the goal. This occasionally happens, even in the U N .

Religion and Politics. Som e sta tes have tried— at hom e or through the U N — to circum scribe the “ po litica l” activ ities of organized religion, desiring that the la t­te r p rac tice “ relig ion” but not en te r into “ p o litic s .” This is a classic deba te , ex ­isting today in m any sta tes and thus re­flected in the U N during these d iscus­sions. T hose w ho w ant “ the church to be the c h u rc h ” have been rem inded that they do not o b jec t w hen som e churches denounce racism in South A frica o r to r­ture in Chile.

Limitations. A fam iliar legislative de­vice is to m ake possib le certa in freedom s and then , in the sam e law , to take them aw ay. A rticle 2(7) o f the U N C harter con ta ins the w ell-know n “ dom estic ju ­risd ic tion” clause: “ N othing contained in the p resen t C harter shall authorize the U nited N ations to in tervene in m atters w hich are essen tia lly w ithin the dom estic ju risd iction of any sta te o r shall require the M em bers to subm it such m atters to se ttlem en t under the presen t C h a rte r .” E ven the U niversal D eclaration in A rti­cle 29(a) inco rpo ra tes an im portant if not fatal lim itation: “ In the exercise of his rights and freedom s, everyone shall be sub jec t only to such lim itations as are determ ined by law solely fo r the purpose of securing due recognition and respect fo r the rights and freedom s of o thers and o f m eeting the ju s t requ irem ents o f m o­ra lity , public o rder, and the general w el­fare in a dem ocratic so c ie ty .” A ddition­ally, the In ternational C ovenant on Civil and Political Rights in A rticle 18(3) con ­tains lim itations even on religious lib­erty : “ F reedom to m anifest o n e ’s reli­gion or beliefs m ay be sub ject only to such lim itations as are p rescribed by law and are necessary to p ro tec t public sa fe ty , o rder, health , o r m orals or the fundam ental rights and freedom s of o th e rs .” T hese are ex tensive lim itations, o r can be so construed by sta tes and cou rts tha t desire to limit religious free ­dom . T hus an ob jec tive of d rafting fu r­ther instrum ents is surely not to increase these lim itations, but if possible to re­duce their application.

New Factor NeededThe drafting of a declaration o r cove­

nant by the UN adm ittedly is not a simple exercise. It calls upon m any disciplines: religion, theology', law , in ternational re ­lations, world politics— as well as com ­mon sense. If p rogress is to be m ade in 1977, ano ther fac to r m ust be brought into the struggle— aroused w orld public opinion. N ations having positions on the UN C om m ission on H um an R igh tst should be the prim ary focus. T heir parlia­m ents and foreign offices should be asked to instruct their rep resen ta tives on the C om m ission to do a t least two things: (1) To take in itiatives and give priority to negotiating a d raft declaration during the cu rren t session : (2) to a ttend the m eetings o f the w orking group d ra f t­ing the decla ration (15 are scheduled). It m ay be unreasonable to insist that a decla ration be sen t to the th irty -th ird session fo r approval o f m em ber sta te s; but m em bers o f the C om m ission should not be perm itted to forget tha t their w ork began in the early 1960’s. □

Composition of the 33rd Session of the Commission on Human Rightst AfricanEgypt*Lesotho**Libya**Nigeria***Rwanda**Senegal*Uganda***Upper Volta*AsianCyprus***India***Iran*Jordan**Pakistan***Syria***

Latin AmericanCosta Rica* Cuba**Ecuador*Panama***Peru***Uruguay**Western Europe & OtherAustria***Canada**German Fed. Rep.* Italy*Sweden***Turkey**U.K.**

Eastern Europe U.S.A.*R u l o n r i a * * ‘ Term exp iresB u l g a r i a Dec 3 , |97?

Byelorussia* “ T erm ex p iresU.S.S.R.*** D ec. 31, 1978., / ’ * ***T erm ex p iresYugoslavia* D ec. 3 1 , 1979.

16 LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977

DOCUMENTS OF THE UN CONCERNING RELIGIOUS LIBERTY

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 18. Everyone has the right to free­dom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observ­ance(Adopted by the UN General Assembly, Dec. 10, 1948)

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Article 18. 1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include free­dom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either indi­vidually or in community with others, and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limita­tions as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedom of others.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in con­formity with their own convictions.

Article 27. In those States in which eth­nic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own lan­guage.

(Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1966, and entered into force on March 23, 1976. However, less than one quarter of the Member States of the UN have ratified this covenant; the U.S. has not yet done so.)

The Provisional Preamble

(1) Considering that one of the basic principles of the Charter of the United Na­tions is that of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings, and that all States Members have pledged themselves to take joint and separate action in co­operation with the Organization to promote and encourage universal respect for and observance of human rights and funda­mental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

(2) C on s id e rin g th a t the U n ive rsa l Declaration of Human Rights and the In­ternational Covenants on Human Rights proclaim the principles of non-discrim ina­tion and equality before the law and the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, including the right to choose, manifest and change one's reli­gion 0« belief,

(3) Considering that the disregard and infringement of human rights and funda­mental freedoms, in particular of the right

to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, have brought, directly or indi­rectly, wars and great suffering to man­kind, especially where they serve as a means of foreign interference in the inter­nal affairs of other States and amount to kindling hatred between peoples and na­tions,

(4) Considering that religion or belief, for anyone who professes either, is one of the fundamental elements in his concep­tion of life and that freedom of religion or b e lie f shou ld be fu lly respected and guaranteed,

(5) Considering that it is essential to promote understanding, tolerance and re­spect in matters relating to freedom of religion and belief and to ensure that the use of religion or belief for ends inconsis­tent with the Charter of the United Nations, other relevant instruments of the United Nations and the purposes and principles of the present Declaration >s inadmissible,

(6) Noting with satisfaction the adoption of several and the coming into force of some conventions, under the aegis of the United Nations and of the specialized agencies, for the elimination of various forms of discrimination,

(7) Concerned by manifestations of in­tolerance and by the existence of discrimi­nation in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some areas of the world,

(8) Resolved to adopt all necessary measures for the speedy elimination of such intolerance in all its forms and man­ifestations and to prevent and combat dis­crimination on the ground of religion or belief.

(This preamble, with a last article unfin­ished, has been provisionally approved by a working group of the UN Commission on Human Rights. However, it is subject to change, and the operative clauses of the declaration have yet to be debated and provisionally approved.]

One Suggested Draft Declaration

Article IEveryone has the right to freedom of

thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to adhere or not to adhere to any religion or belief and to change his religion or belief in accordance with the dictates of his conscience, without being subjected to any coercion likely to impair his freedom of choice or decision in the matter. The expression “ religion or b e lie f shall include theistic, nontheistic and atheistic beliefs.

Article IIDiscrimination between human beings

on the ground of religion or belief is an offense to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as a violation of the human rights and funda­mental freedoms proclaimed in the Uni­versal Declaration of Human Rights and elaborated in the International Covenants on Human Rights and as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among na­tions.

Article III1. No individual or group shall be sub­

jected by any State, institution, group or individual on the ground of religion or belief to any discrimination in the recognition,

exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

2. Everyone has the right to effective remedial relief by the competent national tribunals against any acts violating the rights set forth in this Declaration or any acts of discrimination he may suffer on the grounds of religion or belief with respect to his fundamental rights and freedoms.

Article IVAll States shall take effective measures to

prevent and eliminate discrimination based on religion or belief, in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, political, economic, social and cultural life. They shall enact or rescind legislation where necessary to prohibit such discrim i­nation and take all appropriate measures to combat those prejudices which lead to religious intolerance.

Article VParents or legal guardians have the right

to decide upon the religion or belief in which a child should be brought up. If the child has reached a sufficient degree of understanding his wish shall be taken into account.

Article VIEvery person and every group or com­

munity has the right to manifest their reli­gion or belief in public or in private, without being subjected to any discrimination on the ground of religion or belief; this right includes in particular:

1. Freedom to worship, to assemble and to establish and maintain places of worship or assembly;

2. Freedom to teach, to disseminate, and to learn their religion or belief, and also its sacred languages or traditions;

3. Freedom to practice their religion or belief by establishing and maintaining charitable and educational institutions and by expressing the implications of religion or belief in public life;

4. Freedom to observe the rites or cus­toms of their religion or belief.

Article VIIReligious congregations have the right

to train ministers and teachers and to have contacts with communities and institutions belonging to the same religion or belief both within the country and abroad.

Article VIIINeither the establishment of a religion or

belief nor the recognition of a religion or belief by a State nor the separation of religion or belief from a State shall by itself be considered discimination on the ground of religion or belief.

Article IXGovernments, organizations, and pri­

va te persons shall s tr ive to p rom ote through education, as well as by other means, understanding, tolerance, and re­spect in matters relating to freedom of religion and belief. Freedom of religious and nonreligious belief shall not be used for purposes of kindling hatred between peoples and different religious and na­tional groups.

|This draft of the operative paragraphs was submitted by the Netherlands to the 28th session of the UN General Assembly in 1973. However, it constitutes only one proposal among several, and the final ver­sion is as yet unknown.]

Whatthe

Sabbath Asks You

to BeBy C h arles Scriven

In th e B ib le th e S a b b a th is a la w , a s w ell a s a g if t. B u t e v e n in w h a t H e re q u i r e s , G o d is o u r F r ie n d . A n u n fo rg e tta b le s to ry b y J o h n S te in b e c k , e n ti tle d T h e P earl, h e lp s u s to se e w h y .

In th e s to ry a p o o r p e a rl d iv e r n a m e d K in o is r e ­b u ffe d b y a r ic h d o c to r w h e n , w ith o u t m o n e y to p a y , h e s e e k s h e lp f o r h is s ic k c h ild , C o y o ti to . In d e s p e r a ­tio n K in o g o e s to th e b e a c h , a n d b y a m ira c le fin d s in th e se a a p e a rl “ a s la rg e a s a s e a -g u ll’s e g g .” B u t w h e n w o rd o f h is d is c o v e ry — w h ic h w ill su ffice f o r th e d o c ­to r bill a n d m o re !— s p re a d s th ro u g h th e v il la g e , K in o a n d h is fa m ily b e c o m e th e o b je c t o f ev il in te r e s t . P ro w le r s tw ic e d is tu rb th e fa m ily a t n ig h t ; th e p e a rl b u y e rs tr y to c h e a t K in o w h e n h e o ffe rs h is t r e a s u re f o r sa le ; so m e o n e b u rn s h is b ru s h h o u s e to th e g ro u n d . B u t e v e n th o u g h h is w ife w a n ts h im to th ro w a w a y th is th in g th a t is b r in g in g th e m so m u c h f e a r , K in o r e f u s e s , k n o w in g w h a t it is w o r th . J u s t b e fo re th e fa m ily flees th e v il la g e , K in o te lls h is b ro th e r , “ T h is p e a r l h a s b e c o m e m y s o u l .”

T h e fu g itiv e s s o o n n o tic e th r e e f ig u re s tr a c k in g th e m , a n d th e i r n e rv e s g ro w ta u t . O n e n ig h t a fe w d a y s in to th e i r fligh t, K in o h id e s h is w ife a n d b a b y in a h o llo w e d -o u t c a v e th i r ty f e e t a b o v e a m o u n ta in s p r in g . T h a t n ig h t th e t r a c k e r s c a m p b y th e w a te r , tw o o f th e m s le e p in g w h ile th e o th e r s ta n d s g u a rd w ith a rifle . K in o , p la n n in g a n a t t a c k , s te a ls d o w n to w ith in tw e n ty f e e t o f th e t r a c k e r s — b u t th e n th e b a b y w h im p e r s . T h e r if le m a n , th in k in g h e h a s h e a rd a c o y o te , a im s a sh o t to w a rd th e c ry . J u s t th e n K in o le a p s , a n d in a m o m e n t h a s w re s te d th e g u n a w a y a n d k illed all th r e e o f h is e n e m ie s .

B u t so m e th in g is w ro n g . F in a l ly a so u n d r e g is te r s o n h is m in d — a n a n g u is h e d c ry f ro m th e c a v e . T h e firs t s h o t , in te n d e d fo r a c o y o te , h a s k illed h is litt le b o y .

E v e ry o n e in th e v il la g e , s a y s S te in b e c k in h is b o o k , r e m e m b e r s th e r e tu rn o f th e fa m ily — K in o h a d a rifle , a n d J u a n a , th e b o d y o f h e r c h ild w ra p p e d in a sh a w l. T h e y w e n t, w ith g r ie f o n th e i r f a c e s , to th e e d g e o f th e se a . K in o to o k th e p e a r l a n d h e ld it o u t to J u a n a . “ N o , y o u ,” sh e s a id , re fu s in g to ta k e it.

“ A n d K in o d re w b a c k h is a r m ,” w r ite s th e a u th o r , “ a n d flung th e p e a rl w ith all h is m ig h t. K in o a n d J u a n a w a tc h e d it g o , w in k in g a n d g lim m e rin g u n d e r th e s e t ­tin g su n . T h e y sa w th e litt le sp la s h in th e d is ta n c e , a n d th e y s to o d sid e b y s id e w a tc h in g th e p la c e f o r a lo n g t i m e .” 2

W h a t h a p p e n s w h e n a h u m a n life fo c u s e s o n so m e ­th in g th a t , th o u g h g o o d in it s e l f , is n o t th e b e s t? I f a p e rs o n s u b m its to s u c h a th in g , he b e c o m e s its s la v e ; an d s o o n e r o r la te r it b r in g s d is c o rd , f e a r , a n d ev il in to h is life . H e lo s e s h is p o w e r to lo v e a n d to m a k e rig h t d e c is io n s . H is life s lo p e s d o w n w a rd to w a rd m ise ry .

In th e m o d e rn w o rld w e s o m e tim e s th in k th a t b e ­c a u s e w e d o n o t w o rs h ip id o ls o f w o o d a n d s to n e w e h a v e o v e rc o m e id o la try . B u t th e e s s e n c e o f id o la try , a s E r ic h F ro m m w r i te s , “ is n o t th e w o rs h ip o f th is o r th a t p a r t ic u la r id o l b u t is a sp e c if ic a lly h u m a n a t t i ­t u d e . ” 3 H e m e a n s th e a t t i tu d e o f c e n te r in g o n e ’s life a ro u n d th in g s , o r th a t w h ic h is p a r t ia l , in s te a d o f liv in g f o r o n ly th e b e s t a n d h ig h e s t , w h ic h is G o d . W o rd s , m a c h in e s , p o s s e s s io n s , p o w e r , s c ie n c e , a flag— all th e s e c a n b e fa ls e g o d s th a t t e a r a w a y o u r h u m a n ity , o u r c a p a c i ty f o r lo v e a n d re a s o n . I t is ju s t th i s , th e w o rs h ip o f so m e th in g le s s th a n G o d , th a t d e v a s ta te d K in o , J u a n a , a n d C o y o ti to .

N o w w e c a n u n d e r s ta n d a n o th e r r e a s o n w h y th e L o rd G o d m a d e H is S a b b a th a law . H e a s k s u s to r e s t fro m o u r la b o rs o n th e s e v e n th d a y b e c a u s e H e w a n ts to p ro te c t u s f ro m th e m is e ry o f id o l w o rsh ip . H e c o m m a n d s u s to ta k e s h e l te r f ro m th e d a s h a n d c la t te r o f th e w e e k d a y s so th a t w e m a y m e d ita te u p o n m a t te r s o f th e so u l. H e g iv e s u s th e law o f th e S a b b a th so th a t , b y h a v in g a sp e c ia l t im e to re f le c t u p o n w h a t is t r u e , w e m a y b e s a v e d f ro m w h a t is fa ls e .

T he. c la s s ic s ta te m e n t o f th is la w is th e f o u r th c o m ­m a n d m e n t, re c o r d e d in b o th E x o d u s a n d D e u te ro n ­o m y . T h e re a s o n s a c c o m p a n y in g its p ro c la m a t io n h e lp u s to se e th a t th e S a b b a th d a y e n h a n c e s p e r s o n h o o d , th a t its fu n d a m e n ta l a im is to b r in g w h o le n e s s to life .

In E x o d u s 20 th e c o m m a n d m e n t u rg e s th e k e e p in g o f th e S a b b a th b e c a u s e “ in s ix d a y s th e L o rd m a d e h e a v e n a n d e a r th , th e s e a , a n d all th a t is in th e m , an d o n th e s e v e n th d a y h e r e s te d . T h e re fo r e th e L o rd b le s s e d th e s a b b a th d a y an d d e c la re d it h o ly .” 4 G o d h a s m a d e th e S a b b a th to m e m o ria liz e H is c re a t io n , a n d H e a s k s u s to s h a re it w ith H im .

H e re is th e h ig h e s t p o s s ib le e n h a n c e m e n t o f p e r ­s o n h o o d . F o r G o d in v i te s u s to s h a re a h o lid a y w ith H im , g iv in g u s e a c h w e e k , a s w e sa w b e fo r e , a ju b i le e to c h e e r o u r h e a r t s . B u t n o w , w h e n w e ’v e tu r n e d to

C h a rle s S c r iv e n is a fr e e - la n c e w rite r in S t . H e le n a , C a lifo rn ia .

“Remember to keep the sabbath day holy. You have six days to labour and do all your work.But the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God.”

- From the fourth commandment.'

19

th e q u e s t io n o f w h a t th e S a b b a th a s k s u s to b e , w e m u s t se e th a t th e d a y is a ls o a s u m m o n s to m o ra l r e s p o n s ib i l i ty . I t a s k s u s to b e f r ie n d s w ith G o d a s H e is f r ie n d s w ith u s , sh a r in g H is c o n c e r n s , d o in g w h a t H e d o e s . I t c a lls u s to th e re c o g n i tio n th a t t r u e life c o n s is ts in m a k in g c o m m o n c a u s e w ith o u r C re a to r .

T h e E x o d u s c o m m a n d m e n t sh o w s th a t o n e p u rp o s e o f th e S a b b a th h o lid a y is to c e le b ra te th e C re a t io n . W e r e jo ic e in th e th in g s o f th e e a r th ; w e e x u lt in th e p o s s ib il i t ie s o f life . T h e d a y re m in d s u s a ls o th a t w e a re p a r tn e r s w ith G o d ; h a v in g g iv e n u s a w o r ld , H e w a n ts u s to h e lp H im b u ild th a t w o r ld . A n d b e c a u s e th e S a b b a th is a d a y o f re s t, w e h a v e tim e to th in k a b o u t w h a t it m e a n s to b e p a r tn e r s w ith G o d , tim e to ta k e s to c k o f h o w w e a re d o in g , to o r ie n t o u rs e lv e s a n e w to w a rd th e t r u e c e n te r o f o u r e x is te n c e .

In D e u te ro n o m y , G o d ’s d e l iv e ra n c e o f H is p e o p le f ro m b o n d a g e is e m p h a s iz e d a s a r e a s o n f o r S a b b a th - k e e p in g . “ R e m e m b e r th a t y o u w e re s la v e s in E g y p t a n d th e L o rd y o u r G o d b ro u g h t y o u o u t w ith a s t ro n g h a n d a n d a n o u ts t r e tc h e d a r m ,” s a y s th e c o m m a n d ­m e n t , “ a n d f o r th a t r e a s o n th e L o rd y o u r G o d c o m ­m a n d e d y o u to k e e p th e s a b b a th d a y . ” 5

H o w c a n life b e w h o le w ith o u t fu n d a m e n ta l h u m a n f r e e d o m s a n d o p p o r tu n i t ie s ? I t c a n n o t b e , so G o d th e C re a to r s te p p e d in to th e m id d le o f th e h u m a n s to ry a n d b ro u g h t l ib e ra t io n to H is p e o p le . A n d th e S a b b a th is a m e m o ria l to th is , to o . A s th e d e l iv e ra n c e o f I s ra e l s h o w s , G o d w ills f r e e d o m , ju s t i c e , a n d h e a lin g f o r H is c r e a tu r e s ; th e S a b b a th is a w e e k ly a s s u ra n c e th a t b y H is w ill a n d p o w e r th e s e q u a li t ie s w ill tr iu m p h in th e u n iv e r s e .

B u t a g a in , th e S a b b a th is m o re th a n a d a y to c h e e r o u r h e a r t s ; it is a ls o a d a y to r e m e m b e r o u r d u ty . W e h a v e s e e n th a t G o d w a n ts u s , a s f r ie n d s w h o s h a r e H is life a n d p u rp o s e , to h e lp H im b u ild a w o r ld . N o w w e se e th e v a lu e s th a t sh o u ld m o v e u s in th is w o rk . A n d b y k e e p in g th e S a b b a th , w e fin d r e s p i te f ro m d a ily w o r ry a n d c o m m o tio n in o r d e r to r e n e w e a c h w e e k o u r s e n s e o f w h a t th e s e v a lu e s a r e .

“ T h e S a b b a th is th e in s p ir e r , th e o th e r d a y s th e in s p i r e d ,” w ro te A b ra h a m H e s c h e l .6 W h e n th e S a b ­b a th is t r u ly k e p t , th e d a y s b e c o m e o p p o r tu n i t ie s to e m b o d y w h a t th e S a b b a th s ta n d s f o r , to g iv e s t ro n g b o n e s a n d w a rm fle sh to m e re w o rd s . W e s ta r t , o f c o u r s e , w ith th e p e r s o n s w h o s e liv e s w e to u c h , d o in g w h a t w e c a n b y a c ts o f lo v e a n d m e rc y to b r in g o u r f a m ily , f r ie n d s , n e ig h b o r s , a n d fe l lo w w o rk e r s o u t o f E g y p t in to th e P ro m is e d L a n d . W e a im to b rin g w h o le n e s s to life w h e re v e r w e c a n .

M o re th a n th is , w e w o rk , in w h a te v e r la rg e o r sm a ll w a y s w e c a n , f o r f r e e d o m , ju s t i c e , a n d h e a lin g in th e h u m a n c o m m u n ity a t la rg e . T h e s c o p e o f o u r c o n c e rn in c lu d e s s o c ie ty , n o t ju s t th e p r iv a te lo t o n w h ic h o u r h o u s e m a y s ta n d . F o r if th e S a b b a th is a m e m o ria l to D iv in e c o n c e rn , o n b e h a lf o f th e e n s la v e d I s r a e l i te s , it a s k s th e s a m e c o n c e rn f o r u s . A re m e n a n d w o m e n f r e e ? A re th e y tr e a te d f a i r ly ? D o th e y h a v e o p p o r tu ­n ity f o r h e a lin g , f o r g ro w th in p e r s o n h o o d ? T h e S a b ­

b a th a s k s u s to c a re a b o u t th e s e th in g s , to b e g o o d c it iz e n s o f th e w o r ld , a s w ell a s g o o d m e m b e rs o f o u r fa m ilie s a n d n e ig h b o rh o o d s .

T o so m e it is a te m p ta t io n n o t to th in k to o m u c h a b o u t p ro b le m s o f s o c ie ty , o r p e rh a p s e v e n to a rg u e th a t g o o d re lig io n h a s n o th in g to d o w ith th e s e p ro b ­le m s . T o s u c h p e r s o n s , th e e x p e r ie n c e o f A lb e r t S p e e r , A d o lf H i t l e r ’s p e rs o n a l a r c h i te c t a n d c ity p la n ­n e r , c a n b e in s tru c t iv e . A f te r th e w a r h e w a s tr ie d a t N u re m b e rg f o r h is p a r t ic ip a t io n in N a z i s c h e m e s , a n d s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty y e a r s in p r is o n . In 1966, so o n a f t e r h is r e le a s e , h e p u b lish e d a m e m o ir o f h is life . In it h e w ro te th a t h e h a d g ro w n u p in a n a tm o s p h e re o f in d if fe re n c e to m a t te r s o f g o v e rn m e n t . N e i th e r G e r ­m a n sc h o o l a s s ig n m e n ts n o r th e c o n v e r s a t io n s in h is h o m e h e lp e d h im to fo rm s ta n d a rd s in th is a r e a . T h e r e s u l t , h e im p lie s , w a s th a t w ith v ir tu a l ly n o u n d e r ­s ta n d in g o f w h a t h e w a s d o in g h e fe ll in to lo c k s te p w ith a g o v e rn m e n t o f v i l la in s .7

A lb e r t S p e e r d id n o t h o n o r G o d w ith h is in d if ­f e r e n c e to s ta n d a rd s o f g o o d g o v e rn m e n t , a n d n e i th e r c a n a n y o n e e ls e . A S a b b a th d a y p o in t in g b a c k to G o d ’s d e l iv e ra n c e o f H is p e o p le f ro m o p p re s s io n is a r e m in d e r , e a c h w e e k , o f th is f a c t .

W h a t, th e n , d o e s th e S a b b a th a s k y o u to b e ? L e t u s su m u p th e m a t te r :

1. A s a C re a t io n h o lid a y y o u s h a re w ith th e C re ­a to r , th e S a b b a th a s k s y o u to p a r t ic ip a te w ith G o d in th e b u ild in g o f a w o r ld . T h is r e s t d a y th a t in s p ire s th e o th e r d a y s a s k s y o u to s ig n ify y o u r lo y a l ty to G o d b y in v o lv in g y o u rs e lf in th e e n h a n c e m e n t o f k n o w le d g e , f o r m , a n d b e a u ty in th e C re a tio n .

2. A s a d e l iv e ra n c e h o lid a y y o u s h a re w ith th e D e liv e re r , th e S a b b a th a s k s y o u to p a r t ic ip a te w ith G o d in th e c o n q u e r in g o f e v il . I t a s k s y o u to s ig n ify y o u r lo y a lty to G o d b y y o u r c o m m itm e n t to f r e e d o m , ju s t ic e , a h d h e a lin g in th e e a r th .

T h is is ju s t a n o th e r w a y o f sa y in g th a t th e S a b b a th a s k s y o u to b e o b e d ie n t to G o d , th e t r u e s t , h ig h e s t A u th o r i ty in th e u n iv e r s e . A n d f ro m H is r e s e r v o ir o f m e rc y th is G o d h a s m a d e th e k e e p in g o f H is S a b b a th a law . H e k n o w s th a t o th e r g o d s , g o d s w h o in s te a d o f sa v in g u s b r in g u s m is e ry , c ry o u t f o r o u r a t t e n t io n a n d lo y a l ty . H is S a b b a th p ro te c ts u s a g a in s t th e s e g o d s . I t m a k e s u s s to p a n d se e w h a t t r u e life re a l ly is— so th a t w e w ill n o t m iss o u t o n it . (P a r t tw o o f a th r e e -p a r t s e r ie s .) □

R eferences1 E xodus 20:8-10, N .E .B . T exts cred ited to N .E .B . are

from The N ew English Bible. The D elegates o f the O xford U niversity P ress and the Syndics o f the C am bridge U niver­sity Press 1970. R eprinted by perm ission.

2 Pages 117, 118, B antam Pathfinder edition .3 P sychoanalysis and Religion (B antam Psychology ed i­

tion), p. 114.4 E xodus 20:11, N .E .B .5 D euteronom y 5:15, N .E .B .6 A braham J. H eschel, The Sabba th , p. 22.7 A lbert Speer, Inside the Third R eich, p. 8.

2 0 LIBERTY M AR CH /A PRIL, 1977

Why the IRS Abandoned Its Sensitive-CaseFile By W atford R eed

No longer is the In ternal R evenue Service tougher on m inisters and rabbis than it is on truck drivers and farm ers .

N or does it seek to m ake an exam ple o f religious leaders and professional men to frigh ten o thers in to abiding by in ­com e-tax law s.

A t least th a t is w hat the IRS says.In ternal R evenue C om m issioner D on­

ald A lexander o rdered abolition of the sensitive-case file on January 31, 1975. IRS headquarte rs had suspended the file before that.

Its dem ise may have been assured w hen the IRS p rosecu ted Rabbi E m an­uel R ose of Tem ple B eth Israel in P o rt­land, O regon , on charges of failing to file F ederal incom e-tax re tu rns.

T h e s e n s i t iv e -c a s e file w as b eg u n years ago w hen, the IRS said , it w anted executives in W ashington, D .C ., to have all the answ ers on cases involving lead­ers.

T he idea w as to keep top IRS officials inform ed on investigations involving anyone prom inent enough to arouse q u e s t i o n s f r o m n e w s s o u r c e s o r m em bers o f C ongress.

In its heyday the IRS file held the nam es of taxpayers under a long list of headings— m em bers of C ongress, o ther e lec ted officials, headline sports heroes, Presidential appo in tees, new spaperm en.

H ardly anyone ou tside the IRS even knew there w as such a file until a few days befo re Rabbi R ose 's trial began in M arch, 1974.

But those w ho did know w ere co n ­vinced the file had becom e an “ ene­m ies” list o f people w hose re tu rns w ere given special a tten tion , and who w ould be trea ted as harsh ly as the law allowed if there had been a m isdeed.

T he trial o f R abbi R ose began w hen A lbert P. D eschenes, special agent for the IRS fo r 27 years , took the w itness stand to tell abou t the rab b i’s failure to file tax re tu rns until he w as w arned that he might be p rosecu ted .

D efense stra tegy had begun to shape up a few days befo re , w hen the rab b i's law yers, Jam es R. M oore and Bruce Spaulding, secured an IRS handbook

from the agency under the F reedom of Inform ation A ct. The book said “ sensi­tiv e” cases should be p rosecu ted to m ake an exam ple of p rom inent law­breakers and fo s te r respec t fo r incom e- tax laws.

O n c ro s s -e x a m in a t io n S p a u ld in g asked D eschenes w hether the agent had called the Rose case “ sen s itiv e .” D es­chenes said he had done so.

“ M ainly the list refers to persons of considerable public in te re s t ,” D es­chenes explained.

Spaulding then asked w hether Rabbi Rose had been called “ p ro m in en t.” The IRS agent said he had.

“ Did you also say in your re p o r t,” the law yer bored in, “ ‘Inasm uch as failing to file incom e-tax re tu rns by professional people is a continuing problem to IR S, p rosecution of R abbi R ose will have a de terren t effec t’?”

“ Y es, s ir ,” D eschenes answ ered.M oore then took over and told U .S .

D istrict Judge R obert C. Belloni, him self a prom inent Episcopal laym an:

“ This case w as handled differently from m ost tax cases because R abbi Rose is a religious leader. The prim ary pur­pose of p rosecu tion is to m ake an ex ­ample of the defendan t. This is repug­n a n t to n o rm a l ju d ic ia l p ro c e s s . D eschenes m arked this case ‘sens itive’ and said p rosecu tion should be under­taken because the IRS had problem s w ith professional people and it would have a de te rren t effect.

“ If the problem w ere one o f race , the case autom atically w ould be d ism issed by the c o u r t .”

M oore asked fo r a d irected verd ict of acquittal.

T he p rosecu to r, Paul J. S chaeffer, of the IRS legal departm en t a t W ashington, D .C ., leaped to his fee t and told the judge:

“ I am unaw are o f cases brought for the sake of publicity . T he defense took an isolated paragraph out o f a volum i­nous book. T here is no ev idence that anybody tried to p rom ote publicity in this c a se .”

But Rabbi R ose’s law yers had made their point.

Judge Belloni called the IRS policy “ shock ing .”

“ If we judge a case not on its m erits but by its im pact on the p u b lic ,” he said , “ w e’ve turned justice inside ou t. I adm it p rofound initial shock to realize that possibly R abbi R ose w as p rosecu ted w hen som eone w orking as a laborer w ould no t have been prosecu ted fo r the sam e act. It is alm ost unbelievable to me because I am so steeped in the m essage that everybody m ust be trea ted alike in a cou rt o f law .”

A fter thinking about it overn igh t Judge Belloni flayed the IRS fo r “ shock ing” unfairness and d irec ted a verd ict o f a c ­quittal. H e gave as his reason tha t the IRS had not show n “ w illfu lness" on the part o f the rabbi in failing to file re tu rns. T here w as no need, he said, to decide on the defense charge of d iscrim ination against the p rom inent, including men of the cloth in general and Rabbi R ose in particu lar. But he declared :

"T h is p rosecu tion is shocking. It is repugnant to this so c ie ty ’s belief [in a fair tr ia l] .”

R eferring to sec tions from the IRS handbook that im plied investigators should be harsher w ith prom inent people than w ith the m an on the s tree t, the judge w ent on:

“ H ere we have a fac to r w hich has nothing to do w ith guilt or innocence. But it plays a part in a G overnm ent de­cision to p rosecu te o r no t to p rosecu te . P rosecution that trea ts the defendan t differently because he is a religious leader den ies him equal p ro tec tion o f the law. It is possib le tha t the decision to p rosecu te violated his F irst A m endm ent rights o f freedom of religion and fre e ­dom of association . It may have d e ­prived him of his F ifth A m endm ent right to practice his m inistry and the right to be free o f im proper p ro secu tio n .”

Soon a fte r Judge B elloni’s decision , IRS C om m issioner A lexander abolished the sensitive-case file. □

W atford Reed is religion editor o f the Portland Journal, Portland, Oregon.

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL. 1977 2 1

e a r G o d ,” I p r a y e d , a s I c r ie d m y h e a r t o u t , “ w h y d id n ’t Y o u g iv e m y p a re n ts th e sam e re l ig io n ? ”

O n ly 8 y e a r s o ld , I h a d b e e n h u m ilia te d by m y s c h o o l te a c h e r th a t d a y b e c a u s e I h a d b e e n a b s e n t o n a J e w is h h o lid a y . M y f a th e r w a s a R o m a n C a th o lic a n d m y m o th e r J e w is h , b u t th e y h ad b o th a g re e d th a t I w o u ld g o to th e sy n a g o g u e w ith m y m o th e r o n h e r h o ly d a y , a n d to c h u rc h w ith m y f a th e r o n S u n d a y . T h is a r r a n g e m e n t , th e y f e l t , w o u ld g iv e m e a c h a n c e to c h o o s e th e re lig io n I w a n te d , o r so m e o th e r if I so d e s i r e d , w h e n th e tim e c a m e .

I c a n re m e m b e r a s if it w e re y e s te rd a y h o w th e te a c h e r s to o d m e u p in f r o n t o f th e c la s s a n d sa id , “ W ith a n a m e lik e y o u r s , w h y w e re y o u a b s e n t y e s ­te r d a y ? ” M y fa c e w a s o n fire a n d m y v o ic e q u iv e re d a s I a n s w e re d , “ M y m o th e r is J e w is h a n d ta k e s m e to s y n a g o g u e w ith h e r . ”

“ T h a t ’s a lik e ly s t o r y , ” sh e la s h e d b a c k a t m e . I s tu m b le d to m y s e a t a m id b u r s ts o f la u g h te r a n d s lu m p e d d o w n a t m y d e s k . I tr ie d to h id e th e a n g u is h , b u t th e te a r s ro lle d d o w n m y c h e e k s . S u d d e n ly I fe l t a h a n d o n m y s h o u ld e r a n d th ro u g h b lu r re d v is io n saw th a t it w a s th e litt le N e g ro b o y in th e n e x t s e a t . H e w h is p e re d , “ D o n ’t c ry in f r o n t o f e v e ry o n e ; c ry like I d o , a lo n e ! ”

In th a t m o m e n t 1 k n e w I s h a re d a p ro b le m w ith e v e ry o n e w h o w a s a litt le d if fe re n t .

A f te r sc h o o l I ru s h e d h o m e a n d s n e a k e d u p s ta ir s to m y b e d ro o m b e fo r e m y m o th e r c o u ld g re e t m e . S h e w a lk e d in to m y ro o m w h ile I w a s c ry in g a n d p ra y in g f o r G o d to m a k e m y p a re n ts b e lie v e th e s a m e re lig io n . H o ld in g m e c lo s e , sh e s a id , “ W e all lo v e e a c h o th e r , d a r l in g , a n d e v e ry th in g w ill b e all r ig h t in th e w o rld s o m e d a y .”

T h e n e x t d a y m o th e r c a m e in to th e c la s s ro o m a n d q u ie t ly a s k e d th e te a c h e r to s te p in to th e h a ll. T h e y w e re g o n e f o r a lo n g t im e , a n d w h e n th e y r e tu rn e d , o u r te a c h e r lo o k e d p a le . I n e v e r le a rn e d w h a t m y m o th e r sa id to h e r . M o th e r a n n o u n c e d th a t w e w o u ld all s in g a so n g . T h e te a c h e r to o k th e b a to n a n d led us in th e c h o ru s :

“ M y c o u n tr y , tis o f th e e . S w e e t lan d o f lib e rty . O f th e e I s in g ; L a n d w h e re m y f a th e r s d ie d .L a n d o f th e p ilg r im ’s p r id e ,F ro m e v e ry m o u n ta in s id e L e t f r e e d o m r in g .”

M o th e r s to o d b e s id e m e a n d h e ld m y h a n d a s w e sa n g to g e th e r . I r e a c h e d o u t a n d to o k th e litt le b la c k h a n d n e x t to m e . □

S h ir le y F ish e r is a fr e e - la n c e w rite r in V isa lia , C alif.

LIBERTY M A R CH /A PRIL. 1977

America’s Jewish Connection Has a Building at Its Center

By B arbara H illson A bram ow itz

By all m eans, plan a visit to the T ouro Synagogue th is year and brush up on our Jew ish connec­tion. R etrace the foo ts tep s o f our founding fa th e rs , Jew ish and non-Jew -

ish: A aron L opez and R oger W illiam s, M oses Seixas and G eorge W ashington, Isaac T ouro and E zra S tiles, Em m a L az­arus and H enry W adsw orth L ongfel­low. T hey all figure in our early A m eri­c a n s to ry th a t re v o lv e s a ro u n d th e synagogue a t N ew port.

In 1776 N ew port, R hode Island , w as the m ost im portan t po rt and com m ercial cen te r in A m erica, surpassing even N ew Y ork. It boasted the largest Jew ish com ­m unity on the con tinen t— about 1,200 people, o r roughly half the Jew s in the th irteen colonies.

Roger W illiams founded Rhode Island as a haven fo r religious d issen ters. Spe­cifically nam ing Jew s in a 1655 speech , he prom ised freedom of religion and lib­e rty o f conscience to all w ho cam e there . In the spring o f 1658, fifteen M arrano

Barbara H illson A bram ow itz, P h.D ., is an educator and free-lance writer in W ashington, D .C .

ILL U S TR A T ED BY M ARSHA LED ERM A N

LIBER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977 23

fam ilies (“ eight Souls o f Je w s” ), tired of practicing the faith o f their fa th e rs in sec re t, risked all to s ta rt a new life in a new land. T hey w ere p roud , e legan t, educated “ g ra n d e e s .” F luen t in several languages, they quickly flourished in their brisk trade w ith o th er coun tries , and by 1759 felt affluent and secure enough to start building a synagogue. F inished in 1763, it stands today as the m ost beautifu l building of A m erica’s first d istinguished a rch itec t, P eter H arri­son.

Dr. Isaac de A braham T ouro , fo r w hom the synagogue is nam ed, w as from an o ld S p a n is h fa m ily . H e c a m e to N ew port from Jam aica to be spiritual leader. A long w ith A aron L opez, Jacob R ivera, and o th ers , he drew up plans fo r the synagogue. It cau tiously included “ a few small sta irs w hich lead from the altar in the cen te r, to a secre t passage in the b asem en t” — a haunting rem inder o f the dangers Jew s had faced in practicing their religion since the tim e of the Inqui­sition. T he trap doo r on the floor o f the B im a leads to an escape hatch and tunnel to B arney S tree t in dow ntow n N ew port.

So in tegrated into the N ew port com ­m unity w ere those early Jew s tha t the synagogue w as used fo r public ga th e r­ings. G eorge W ashington a ttended a tow n m eeting held at the synagogue in 1781, and the p lace w here he sat is d u ­tifully noted by to d ay ’s sex ton . H e re ­turned to N ew port in 1790 a fte r he was inaugurated as first P residen t o f the U n ite d S ta te s o f A m e ric a . M o ses Seixas, head of the Jew ish com m unity of N ew port, then w ro te W ashington, o u t­lining the kind o f coun try he hoped the U nited S tates w ould be. In so doing, he put w ords into the m outh o f the new chief execu tive— w ords tha t have gone dow n in U nited S tates h is to ry as the classic expression o f the dem ocratic tra ­dition aborning. M oses Seixas noted w ith gratitude the good fo rtu n e o f “ the children of the stock of A braham . . . deprived as we here to fo re have been of the invaluable rights o f free citizens [to] behold a G overnm ent w hich gives to b igotry no sanction , to persecu tion no a ss is tan ce .”

In reply W ashington sent a le tte r “ To the H ebrew C ongregation of N ew port, R hode Is la n d ,” in w hich he recycles S e ix as’ w ords: “ F o r happily the G ov­ernm ent o f the U nited S ta tes , w hich gives to b igotry no sanction , to p ersecu ­tion no ass is tance , requires only tha t they w ho live under its p ro tec tion should dem ean them selves as good c itizens, in giving it on all occasions the ir effectual su p p o r t.” W ashington assured the Jew s

Entrance to the Touro Synagogue.

of N ew port that he shared their goals and values, and thus issued the first A m erican execu tive sta tem en t on reli­g io u s f r e e d o m . T h e o rig in a l le t te r , signed “ G. W ash ing ton ,” is on exhibit in the B ’nai B ’rith Building in W ashing­ton , D .C.

T he early Jew s o f N ew port w ere in­deed good citizens, and made m any im­portan t cultu ral and spiritual con tribu ­tions to their new hom eland. A aron L opez, w ho ow ned a candle fac to ry , had th irty ships a t sea in trade , fishing, and smuggling (a “ patrio tic calling” engaged in by several founding fa thers). He bought the books fo r the R edw ood L i­b rary , founded in 1747, and also e s tab ­lished the L eiches te r A cadem y nearby. M oses L opez , a potash m anufactu rer w ith a scholarly m athem atical ben t, published “ The L unar C alendar” in 1806 in N ew port. M oses Seixas, w ith o ther m erchants , founded the B ank of Rhode Island, fo r m any years the leading bank in the S tate . Jacob Isaacs, the first A m erican desalination specialist, p re ­sented President W ashington, during his 1790 visit to N ew port, w ith a bottle of drinking w ater “ ex trac ted from ocean w ater, so free from saline m atter as to answ er fo r all the com m on and culinary purposes of fountain or river w a te r ,” and “ the p residen t was pleased to ex ­press him self highly satisfied th ere ­w ith .” (Isaacs petitioned the H ouse of R ep resen tatives to sell his d iscovery to the U nited S ta tes. T he m atter was referred to T hom as Jefferson , w ho w rote

a favorab le m em o on it a fte r conferring with sc ien tists , but C ongress took no action in the m atter.)

G enerations o f Elis can look to the T ouro Synagogue as a link betw een them and the H ebrew trad ition . D r. E zra Stiles, w ho becam e Y ale’s first presiden t in 1778, developed a close association w ith the synagogue and o ften a ttended services. H e and Isaac T ouro used to d iscuss Biblical passages. H e eulogized “ his intim ate fr ie n d ,” A aron L opez, at the la tte r’s funeral. A Palestin ian rabbi from H ebron , H aim Isaac C arigal, a r­rived in 1773 and becam e a close friend o f Dr. S tiles, w ith w hom he stud ied H e­brew and Bible.

It is not surprising , then , tha t Dr. S tile s m ad e H e b re w a c o m p u ls o ry course fo r all freshm en a t Y ale. T hirteen years later, how ever, he m ade it op ­tional. His d iary records: “ T his year I have determ ined to instruct only those who offer them selves volun tarily . . . . A ccordingly, o f th irty-nine freshm en , tw enty-tw o have asked fo r in struction in H eb rew .”

In 1781, E zra Stiles delivered a H e­brew oration at the public com m ence­m ent, in w hich he used as his tex t a verse from the Book of E zra (chap. 7:10), which he apparen tly took personally : “ F or E zra had prepared his heart to seek the law of the L ord , and to do it, and to teach in Israel sta tu tes and ju d g m en ts .” He m astered the H ebrew language, w ith a fluency unusual even in those days. The cryp tic w ords “ U rim V ’ T u m in ,” chosen fo r the Yale seal, probably m eant to him “ light and w ho len ess ,” the goal of a liberal education . Only a m an w ith a profound understand ing o f the tex t and its rabbinic com m entaries could in ter­p re t th e m e a n in g o f th o s e d ifficu lt w ords— “ shrouded in m y s te ry ,” ac ­cording to m odern scholars— engraved on the High P rie s t’s b reas tp la te in the days of the Tem ple.

Dr. S tiles 's im m ersion in Jew ish Bibli­cal tradition was so to tal that he once delivered a serm on in w hich he traced the evolution of the dem ocratic form of governm ent from Palestine to A m erica. He called A m erica “ G o d ’s A m erican Israe l” and G eorge W ashington the “ A m erican Jo sh u a ,” called fo rth by God to set his people free . E zra S tiles joined the ranks o f m any early co lon ists who identified them selves and their struggle with the Jew s o f the Old T estam ent.

H ebrew w as a sacred and scholarly tongue fo r these co lon ists , and they chose Biblical nam es fo r the ir chil­dren— A braham , Sarah , Jacob , R achel, I s a a c . K in g G e o rg e I I I w as th e ir

MADE BVABRAHAM TOIJRQ.ESO

24 LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977

Pharaoh, A m erica w as C anaan , and the A tlantic O cean w as the Red Sea. T here was a proposal to adopt H ebrew as the official language o f the new born coun try .

T h e firs t In d e p e n d e n c e D ay w as som ething like a Jew ish holiday. On July 4, 1776, w hen the D eclaration of Inde­p e n d e n c e w as p u b lis h e d , B e n ja m in F ranklin , Sam uel A dam s, and T hom as Jefferson w ere asked to design a seal fo r the new governm ent o f the U nited S tates of A m erica. T hey chose one depicting Pharaoh, sw ord alo ft, riding in an open chario t th rough the divided w aters o f the Red Sea, in pursu it o f the Israelites. M oses stood on the opposite shore, bathed in light from a pillar o f fire, m o­tioning to the w aters to close and sw al­low Pharaoh. A round the p icture w ere the w ords: “ R ebellion against ty ranny is obedience to G o d .” Som e still p refer it to the sym bol tha t w as finally chosen— a fierce, w arlike eagle.

Ironically , it w as the R evolution that brought all th is to an end. In 1776 N ew ­port suddenly lost its central role in the h isto ry of A m erica and its Jew s. The B ritish cap tu red it, confiscated the 150 ships in the harb o r, and occupied it for three years. M any o f the Jew s there w ere tied by fam ily and business bonds to E ngland, and therefo re it w as tem pt­ing to be loyal to the king. H ow ever, their love of freedom caused nearly all to espouse the colonial cause . W hen the chips w ere dow n, ra ther than live under British occupa tion , even the m erchant prince A aron L opez, w ith so m uch to lose and there fo re an am bivalent patrio t, took his w ife and seven teen ch ild ren and chose exile along w ith the res t o f the N ew port Jew ish com m unity . The syna­gogue w as closed and its m em bers so scattered th a t, even a fte r the B ritish left in 1779, the Jew ish com m unity was never able to res to re its p re-revo lu tion­ary glory.

W hen the British evacuated N ew port, they burned its docks and dem olished m ost o f the city . O ne of the few public buildings to survive the R evolution un­dam aged w as the synagogue. It served as the m eeting p lace fo r the R hode Island G eneral A ssem bly and fo r sessions of the Suprem e C ourt o f R hode Island from

- 1781-1784. Som e o f the Jew s cam e back , bu t few stayed . The last im portan t act of the com m unity w as the le tte r it sen t to W ashington, w hich evoked his fam ous reply.

T he synagogue, once the scene of bustling civic ac tiv ity , was used only on rare occasions a f te r 1820. Both H enry W adsw orth Longfellow and Em m a L az­aru s (w ith w hom he co rresponded)

Interior of the Touro Synagogue.

sensed the poignancy of the closed syn­agogue and w ere m oved to w rite poem s about the Jew ish cem etery a t N ew port. Tram ping through the shaded plot p u r­chased by a small band of Sephardic Jew s in 1677, Longfellow , in 1852, sang of their sorrow ful history:“ The very nam es recorded here are strange,

Of foreign accen t, and o f different clim es;

A lvares and R ivera in terchangeW ith A braham and Jacob of old tim es.

5(< H4 5k 5k 5k

“ C losed are the portals o f their S yna­gogue,

N o Psalm s of David now the silence break,

No Rabbi reads the ancien t D ecalogue In the grand dialect the P rophets spake.

* * Jk sk >k

“ Pride and humiliation hand in hand W alked with them through the world w h ere ’e r they w ent;

T ram pled and beaten w ere they as the sand,And yet unshaken as the continen t.

* * * sk sk

“ But ah! w hat once has been shall be no more!

The groaning earth in travail and in pain

Brings fo rth its races , but does not resto re ,And the dead nations never rise aga in .”

L ongfellow ’s gloom y pred iction did not com e true . T he synagogue w as re­opened in 1883, thanks to a bequest by I s a a c T o u r o ’s so n J u d a h , w ho h ad m oved to N ew O rleans, m ade a fo rtu n e , given a lot to charity , and died a bache­lor. T he T ouro Synagogue w as desig­nated a national shrine under President H arry S. T rum an in 1947.

O ther A m erican P residen ts follow ed G eorge W ash ing ton’s fo o ts tep s to the synagogue a t N ew port. D w ight D. E i­senhow er v isited on R osh H ashana, S ep tem ber 15, 1958. H e sat on the raised pew against the north w all, reserved for o ffice rs o f th e c o n g re g a t io n . T h e re G eorge W ashington, the governor of Rhode Island, and judges of the S tate Suprem e C ourt sa t w hen the republic was young. John F. K ennedy passed the T ouro Synagogue on his w edding day. H is m arriage to Jacqueline B ouvier took place at her fam ily ’s seaside esta te in the fashionable reso rt a rea o f N ew port.

A phoenix Jew ish com m unity has risen in N ew port— this tim e A shkena- zic— to continue the religious trad itions of the o ldest synagogue in the U nited S tates. T he fam ous Israeli archeologist Yigal Y adin noted w ith en thusiasm on his visit tha t the synagogue is not a m u­seum , bu t is in active use.

T he T ouro Synagogue w as ded ica ted on the first day o f H anukkah , 1663. E zra Stiles reco rded the even t a t g rea t length in his d iary . H e sketched the original ark in the m argin. The now four-hundred- year-old T orah scroll, a gift from the Jew s of A m sterdam , is topped off w ith R im onim m ade by the fam ous p re-revo­lu tionary silversm ith M yer M yers, and can still be seen there today . The eternal light above the ark , given to the syna­gogue in 1765 by Sam uel Ju d ah , o f N ew Y ork, w as originally run on oil. Soon a fte r 1882 w hen e lec tric ity w as in tro ­duced in the N ew port a rea , m em bers of the congregation , deciding it w ould be nice no t to keep changing w icks nor re­plenishing the lam p w ith oil anym ore, put in an elec tric bulb. S trangely enough, that sam e bulb is still burning today. E xpert e lec tric ians accoun t fo r it by pointing ou t the ex trem ely low w attage of the bulb. But the people of N ew port like to believe tha t theirs is an A m erican H anukkah m iracle. M aybe it is. “ N ath less the sacred shrine is holy yet,

W ith its lone floors w here reveren t fee t once trod ,

T ake off your shoes as by the burning bush.

B efore the m ystery o f death and G o d .” — Em m a L azarus, “ In the Jew ish Syna­gogue of N ew p o rt” □

LIBER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977 25

INTERNATIONAL

R elig ious L iberty C on gress to H onor S p an ish F oreign M in ister

A M S T E R D A M — T h e firs t W orld C ongress on Religious L iberty , m eeting M arch 21-23, will honor posthum ously Dr. F ernando M aria C astiella y M aiz, fo rm er Foreign M inister o f Spain and a prim e m over of tha t co u n try ’s Law of R eligious T o lera tion . T he congress will p resen t the In ternational Religious L ib­e rty A sso c ia tio n ’s first A w ard of H onor to D r. C astiella.

S ponsored by the In ternational R e­ligious L iberty A ssociation (IR L A ), the A ssociation In ternationale pour la D e­fense de la L iberté R eligieuse (A ID LR ), and L i b e r t y , a m agazine of religious freedom , the C ongress will exp lore hon­est d ifferences in v iew points on religious liberty , recognize and honor persons o f good will w ho have con tribu ted m ateri­ally to religious freedom , and enhance the In te rn a tio n a ls’ w ork of “ quiet d ip lo­m acy ” on behalf o f religious freedom .

S peakers at the C ongress will include Dr. T rygve L eivestad , assoc ia te ju stice o f the Suprem e C ourt o f N orw ay ; Dr. A nastase M arinos, associa te ju stice o f the Suprem e C ourt o f G reece ; Dr. J. B. C layton R ossi, a p ro cu ra to r o f the R e­public o f B razil; D r. A ndrew G unn, d irec to r o f A m ericans U nited fo r the S eparation of C hurch and S ta te ; D r. B.

Fernando Maria Castiella y Maiz

B. B each, d irec to r o f public affairs and religious liberty , N orthern E urope-W est A frica D ivision o f Seventh-day A dven t­is ts; and D r. P ierre L anares, secre tary - general o f A ID LR .

T he IR LA w as incorporated in W ash­ington, D .C ., in 1946. Its first honorary p residen t was M rs. F ranklin D elano R oosevelt, w ho served from 1946 to 1962.

Ita ly , V atican A gree on C oncordat R evisions

R O M E— V atican and Italian govern ­m ent negotia to rs have agreed in princi­ple on a sw eeping revision of the 1929 C onco rda t, w hich regu lates affairs be­tw een the Italian sta te and the Rom an C atholic C hurch , Prim e M inister Giulio A ndreo tti has told Parliam ent.

T he C hristian D em ocrat leader gave the C ham ber of D eputies an outline o f a d raft o f a revised C oncordat designed to reflect social changes in m odern Italy. It is in tended to replace the one tha t the V atican concluded w ith B enito M usso­lini on F ebruary 11, 1929, and w hich w as reaffirm ed in 1946, shortly after Italy be­cam e a republic.

A ndreo tti said the d raft included three m ajo r revisions: the R om an C atholic re­ligion no longer will be defined as I ta ly ’s s ta te religion; m arriage no longer will be recognized as a sacram en t by the civil au tho rities; and C atholic religious in­struction in sta te schools no longer will be com pulsory .

F u rth e r, he said , th e revised church- s ta te agreem ent will elim inate references to the “ sacred ch a ra c te r” o f the city of Rom e. It will, how ever, record tha t the city is the seat o f the B ishop of Rom e, w ho, as such , is the P ope, and tha t Rome is the cen te r o f the Rom an C atholic w orld.

T he spirit o f the new agreem ent, A n­d reo tti said, reflects tw o fundam ental princip les: L iberty and equality .

W hile the Italian C atholic C hurch is assu red of full liberty , m em bers o f o ther religions are assu red o f the sam e liberty , he said.

O ther provisions o f the old C oncordat tha t w ould be elim inated under the new d raft included the follow ing: u* A ban on “ d e fro ck ed ” o r “ la icized” p riests holding public office or teaching

positions, and a c lause under w hich any priests could be nam ed to public office only w ith their b ish o p ’s approval.** A rticles requiring governm ent ap ­proval fo r appo in tm en ts of bishops and requiring bishops to take an oath o f loy­alty to the Italian sta te , v" Special trea tm en t fo r priests charged w ith penal o ffenses, and a provision that priests sen tenced to jail term s should , “ if p o ss ib le ,” be kep t separa te from o ther prisoners.

Provisions o f the p roposed agreem ent on the key issue of m atrim ony take into accoun t Ita ly ’s d ivorce law , passed in 1970, and upheld in a national re fe ren ­dum in 1974 despite strong opposition by the Rom an C atholic C hurch.

Regarding the teach ing of religion in schools, A ndreotti said the d ra ft ag ree­m ent m akes p rovision fo r in struction in th e R o m an C a th o lic fa i th in p u b lic schools, but paren ts will decide w hether to enroll their children .

C anadian S u p rem e C ourt U pholds D eath P enalty

O TTA W A — The Suprem e C ourt of C anada decided unanim ously th a t the death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishm ent w ithin the m eaning of the C anadian Bill o f R ights.

This decision w as academ ic, since Parliam ent voted earlie r in 1976 to abo l­ish capital punishm ent. H ow ever, the Suprem e C ourt said it would have abd i­cated its function if it had su rrendered to parliam entary policy w ithout m aking its own assessm en t.

The cou rt re jec ted the appeals o f con ­victed m urderers John H arvey M iller an d V in c e n t Jo h n R o g e r C o c k r ie l l , w hose counsel had argued tha t the death penalty con travenes the Bill o f Rights section that says C anadian law m ust not im pose “ cruel and unusual trea tm en t, or pun ish m en t.”

In w riting the decis ion , Ju s tice Roland Ritchie said the co u rt w as no t concerned w ith the m oral issue o f w hether o r not capital punishm ent should be re tained or abolished. It w as sim ply a m atter of w hether the prev ious hanging law con ­travened the Bill o f R ights.

M iller, 30, and C ockriell, 21, had been slated to hang on A ugust 3, 1976, for shooting a Royal C anadian M ounted Po­

26 LIB ER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977

INfERNMIONAL

lice constab le in M arch, 1974.C hief Ju s tice L ask in suggested that

w hen the death penalty w as law , it a f­fo rded a sense o f p ro tec tion to law -en­fo rcem en t officers “ and w as to some ex ten t a de te rren t to a prison inm ate already serving a life sen tence , but tem pted to escape , even if this m eant com m itting m u rd e r.”

P arliam en t E nds C ontrol O ver M ethodist D octrine

L O N D O N — A m ilestone in British M ethodist h isto ry w as passed w hen the H ouse of C om m ons gave a form al third and last reading to the M ethodist C hurch Bill, w hich provides fo r the rem oval from Parliam ent o f its veto pow er over changes in M ethodist doctrine.

T he bill w as endorsed earlie r by the H ouse of L o rds, w here it had been in­troduced as a Private M em ber’s Bill in accordance w ith the desire o f the M eth­odist C onference. It then w ent to the H ouse of C om m ons, w here, as in the H ouse of L ords, tens of thousands of w ords w ere said in debate on the m eas­ure. It now aw aits the Royal A ssent— Q ueen E lizabe th ’s signature , w hich is a form ality— before it becom es law.

N eed fo r the bill and the situation it is designed to change goes back to the u n io n o f W e s le y a n , P r im itiv e , a n d U nited M ethodist C hurches in 1932. The lines along w hich these th ree separated b ranches of John W esley ’s m ovem ent should com e together had been set ou t in the M ethodist C hurch U nion A ct of 1929. The 1932 D eed of U nion laid dow n the doctrinal basis o f the new M ethodist C hurch and also ind icated , as the act r e q u i r e d , th a t th is b a s is c o u ld be changed only w ith the perm ission o f Parliam ent.

T he M ethodist C hurch U nion Act of 1929 specifically precludes the M ethodist C onference from revising the doctrinal standards o f its church “ in any m anner w h a tev e r” w ithout Parliam entary ap ­proval. But vo tes at the latest M ethodist C onferences have recom m ended that Parliam ent change the law.

G u yana E xp ropriates C h urch -R elated Schools

G E O R G E T O W N , G uyana— The gov­

ernm ent o f Prim e M inister F orbes B urn­ham has com e under strong criticism as a result o f its takeover o f m ore than 600 nursery , prim ary , and secondary schools from churches and o ther p rivate ow ners.

N o com pensation w as paid to church schools. C om pensation fo r p rivate secu­lar schools w as arbitrarily fixed and the governm ent has refused to perm it its de­cisions to be challenged in the courts .

O pposition has arisen because of the way the expropriations w ere carried ou t, ra ther than the fac t o f the tran sfe r of au thority and ow nership .

The governm ent rushed through a bill that deleted a fundam ental rights section from the constitu tion and changed the education act to facilitate s ta te takeover o f all private schools. It v irtually banned religious instruction in c lassroom s in the acquisition o f private schools, arguing it had a duty to m ake education free to all.

G overnm en t officials denied there was any loss o f, o r in terfe rence w ith, reli­gious freedom or the pursu it o f religious activities by churches.

M r. B urnham argued tha t G uyana guaran teed freedom to w orsh ip or no t to w orship , but held it could not allow de­nom inational schools to continue to operate in a secular sta te .

B ecause of a shortage of teach e rs , a num ber o f priests and o th er church- related instructo rs are expected to con ­tinue to teach in the schools.

C anada P lans to S trengthen L aw s B arring R acia l, R elig ious Bias

O TTA W A — C om prehensive legisla­tion outlaw ing religious, racial, and sex discrim ination is being p repared by the federal governm ent and is likely to be­com e law early in 1977.

A ntidiscrim ination sta tu tes have been am ong C anada’s hum an rights laws fo r years, but they contain loopholes.

In announcing the legislation in the H ouse of C om m ons, Justice M inister Ron B asford said it w ould provide fo r establishm ent o f a com m ission w hose decisions could be en fo rced by court orders.

B asfo rd 's action cam e as a d irect re­sult o f public revulsion over racial hate m essages being d issem inated by te le­phone recordings and aim ed m ostly at

the black im m igrants in T oronto .O n ta r io ’s A tto r n e y -G e n e ra l R oy

M cM urtry found he w as w ithout legal pow er to stop the m essages, and for several m onths he has urged the federal governm ent to enact laws giving him sufficient pow ers to act.

C atholic E du cators W eigh U nion ization of D iocese Schools

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C .— Tw o issues a re involved in the m atte r o f the un ion­ization of Rom an C atholic schools, a U n ite d S ta te s C a th o lic C o n fe re n c e (U SC C) official told the N ational A sso­ciation o f S tate C atholic C onference D irectors a t their annual m eeting.

M sgr. Olin J. M urdick, U SCC secre­tary fo r education , said tha t on the one hand is the right o f teachers to organize “ and all tha t en ta ils ,” and on the o ther, the right of the church to “ deal w ith its ow n personnel, free from undue in ter­ference by any agency or g o v ern m en t.”

By im plication, the sam e also applies to the unionization of em ployees of C a th o lic a g e n c ie s a n d in s t i tu t io n s , am ong w hom the issue has also arisen in recen t years .

At the m om ent, the question of col­lective bargaining and “ teacher organiz­ing” is in litigation befo re the N ational L abor R elations Board in six C atholic d ioceses— Philadelphia; F o rt W ayne- South B end, Indiana; G ary , Indiana; Los A ngeles; B rooklyn; and C hicago. Issues involved differ in each case.

“ T he right o f teachers to bargain col­lectively m ust rem ain in ta c t,” M sgr. M urdick said , “ while a t the sam e time the larger institutional issue m ust like­w ise be m ain ta ined .”

T he U SC C ’s involvem ent in the m atter began last M ay w hen it w as placed be­fore the N ational C onference of C atholic B ishops at the spring m eeting in Chi­cago, the m onsignor no ted .

Since then , he said, the U SCC C om ­m ittees on E ducation and Social D evel­opm ent and W orld Justice and Peace have m et and discussed a d ra ft sta tem ent on the sub jec t p repared by the staff of the Social D evelopm ent and W orld Ju s­tice and Peace Office. The Social D evel­opm ent C om m ittee has endorsed the sta tem en t, but the E ducation C om m ittee has no t, he said.

LIBER TY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 27

INfERNMIONAL

T he tw o com m ittees have agreed to c rea te a jo in t subcom m ittee to deal w ith the issue. The subcom m ittee has held a hearing concern ing the six d ioceses w here litigation is u nder w ay, bu t to date no sta tem en t or recom m endations con ­cern ing that litigation have em erged, M sgr. M urdick said.

M sgr. F rancis J. L ally , U SCC secre­tary fo r Social D evelopm ent and W orld Peace , said the “ p rob lem ” is not co llec­tive bargaining, but the selection of a bargaining unit by the teachers . The teachers have e lec ted to bring the cases to the N ational L abor R elations B oard , bu t the d ioceses have opposed tha t m ove, he noted.

“ Until the litigation is reso lved , we c a n ’t do m u c h ,” M sg r. L a lly sa id . “ C atholic schools are not com m ercial in stitu tions and should not be trea ted as su c h ,” he asserted .

“ D ep rogram m in g” N o L onger R estricted to L ittle C ults

N E W Y O R K — T w o p e rs o n s w ho w ere abducted from religious groups in efforts to “ dep rog ram ” them reported here that deprogram m ing efforts are no longer d irec ted exclusively at m em bers o f “ little c u lts .”

F a th er Philaret T ay lo r, 22, an Old C atholic C hurch m onk, w ho w as ab ­ducted from an O klahom a C ity m onas­te ry last Ju ly , and D ebby D udgeon, 23, w ho w as taken from a R om an C atholic com m unity in O rangeville, O ntario , in 1974, described their experiences fo r re ­porters and staff o f the N ational Council o f C hurches.

F a th er Philaret said he had jo ined the M onastery of the H oly P ro tection of the B lessed Virgin M ary a t age 17. H e re­lated tha t he was abducted from the m onastery on July 15 and placed under the tem porary guardianship o f his fa ther th rough a cou rt o rder th a t w as later de­clared invalid.

Miss D udgeon told how she w as lured ou t o f the C atholic com m unity of B eth­any by m em bers of her fam ily and taken to the hom e o f a p ro fesso r in G uelph w here, she said, Ted P atrick and o ther deprogram m ers w orked on her fo r 14 hours.

Both F a th er Philaret and M iss D ud­

geon escaped and re tu rned to their reli­gious com m unities. T hey are publicizing their experiences in an effort to coun ter w hat they see as a grow ing m ovem ent to use paid specialists to “ dep rog ram ” people from groups tha t their fam ilies may find ob jectionable .

Both F a th e r Philaret and Miss D ud­geon stressed tha t they are not m em bers o f g roups tha t have been charged with using “ bra inw ash ing” techniques to keep their m em bers. T hey said they felt their experiences and those of o thers like them indicate that "dep rog ram m ing” is posing a grow ing th rea t to religious fre e ­dom .

B ook P red icts R evolt A gainst T ax E xem ptions

N EW Y O R K — Tw o specialists on church-sta te separa tion issues have w arned that a nationw ide revolt against church tax exem ptions m ay soon take place.

In their book The Religious Em pire Dr. M artin A. L arson and C. S tanley Low ell, a U nited M ethodist m inister, argue that an end to tax exem ptions for religious en terp rises w ould benefit their supporters by low ering p roperty taxes.

Dr. L arson is considered an au thority on tax-exem pt p roperty and has w ritten o ther books on the sub jec t. Lowell is ed ito r of Church and S ta te m agazine, published by A m ericans U nited fo r Sep­aration of C hurch and S tate.

A ccording to L arson and LoWell, “ Since the taxation o f church property w ould reduce the levies paid by the typ ­ical hom eow ner by at least $100, it would seem that even church m em bers w ould benefit substantially through the taxation of their ow n houses o f w orsh ip .”

The au thors com m ent tha t “ over half (57.7 per cen t) o f all private exem pt p roperty is ow ned by churches o r reli­gious corpora tions. Such properties de­voted to religious pu rposes and fu n c ­tions are exem pt from tax in every state. In studying this situation , we find ou r­selves in a dilem m a betw een ‘free exer­c ise ’ and ‘no estab lish m en t.’ ”

They declare tha t “ fo r the first tim e in our h is to ry , the tax exem ption fo r reli­gious p roperty is being seriously chal­lenged. It is not so m uch an a ttack on the

basic concep t of religious exem ption it­self as upon the m anifold effort to in­crease its sc o p e .”

They also recom m end that “ a strong case can be made fo r the taxation o f real es ta te ow ned by churches and o ther ex ­em pt groups w hich is not specifically used fo r the purpose on w hich the ex ­em ption is b a se d ,” and tha t “ a charge to the churches fo r m unicipal serv ices ren ­dered to them w ould be entirely ap p ro ­p ria te .”

T he au thors also tackle the question of how to define a church o r religious p roperty fo r purposes of tax exem ption . “ While there are ob jec tions to having the sta te m ake the d e te rm in a tio n ,” they say , “ there are even m ore serious p rob ­lem s w hen the churches undertake to define them selves. At this point it ap ­pears that these are judgm ents the sta te will sooner o r la ter have to m ake. T his is probably not an ideal situation , o r even a good one , but o thers appear even less d esirab le .”

Bill R em oves T hreat of R evenue-Sharing C utoff

W A SH IN G T O N , D .C .— 'The Sen­ate has passed a m easure, previously adopted by the H ouse o f R epresen ta­tives, w hich rem oves the th rea t o f cutting off Federal revenue-sharing funds for certain religiously affiliated institu tions.

By a vote of 59 to 16, an am endm ent to the S tate and Fiscal A ssistance Act was adopted to apply existing civil rights prohibitions and exem ptions on reli­gious d iscrim ination to the revenue- sharing program .

That am endm ent, as originally in tro ­duced in the H ouse by Rep. Edw ard I. Koch (D -N .Y .), s ta tes that “ prohibitions against d iscrim ination on the basis of religion contained in the Civil Rights Act o f 1964 and in Title VIII o f the Civil Rights Act o f 1968 shall be applicable to any program or activ ity sub ject to the provisions o f this p a rag rap h .” In the S enate , that am endm ent in nearly the sam e w ords was in troduced by S enator Mike G ravel (D -A laska).

Mr. K och, in rem arks from the H ouse floor the day before the Senate vote , noted that the R evenue Sharing A ct, as passed by the H ouse, "co n ta in ed a p ro ­

28 LIBER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977

INfERNMÌONAL

hibition against religious d iscrim ination . T hat prohibition w as attacked on the grounds that it p rohibited discrim ination in the service o f day-care cen te rs , hosp i­ta ls, and o ther charitab le o rganizations financed o r opera ted by religious groups fo r their m em bers.

“ Since T itle VI o f the Civil Rights A ct o f 1964 does not con tain a prohibition against religious d iscrim ination in se r­v ices in Federally assisted program s, the H ouse-passed bill w as read by som e per­sons as im posing new kinds of p rohibi­tions against religious d iscrim ination ,” he said.

“ The kinds o f religious d iscrim ination in em ploym ent, education , and housing w hich are prohibited by the Civil Rights A cts o f 1964 and 1968 should , in my v iew ,” he a sse rted , "a lso be prohibited in program s or ac tiv ities receiving F ed ­eral assistance under the R evenue S har­ing A ct.

“ T he purpose of my am endm ent is to m ake such d iscrim ination unlaw ful un­der the R evenue Sharing A c t,” he ex ­plained.

S enato r G ravel, in his Senate rem arks prior to the 59-16 vo te , noted that “ m any religious g ro u p s” had sought the clarifi­cation provided fo r in the G ravel-K och am endm ent.

This am endm ent, besides incorpora t­ing in the R evenue Sharing A ct the p ro ­hibitions against d iscrim ination on the g rounds of religion con tained in the Civil Rights A cts of 1964 and 1968, also incor­pora tes any exem ptions fo r religious o rgan izations in those ac ts , he noted.

P aren ts B ar D octor’s C are;C hild N am ed W ard of C ourt

O K L A H O M A C IT Y — An O klahom a d istric t judge has m ade a healthy 3-year- old boy a w ard o f the cou rt because his paren ts say they w ou ldn ’t call a doc to r if he becam e ill.

Mr. and M rs. G lenn O w ens are m em ­bers o f the C hurch o f the F irst B orn. T heir infant daughter died of pneum onia a fte r they refused to obtain m edical help fo r her.

T he boy con tinues to live w ith his par­en ts , but the S tate w elfare departm en t will m onitor his health frequently .

W hen their eight-m onth-old daughter

becam e ill in F ebruary , Mr. and M rs. O w ens prayed and anoin ted her w ith olive oil, they testified.

In the sum m er o f 1976, C olorado S tate au thorities w ere considering m ethods of legally forcing m em bers of the C hurch o f the F irst Born residing in C ortez , C olorado , to have their children im ­m unized against d iph theria a fte r the d is­ease broke ou t am ong them .

Flere and T hereThe U nited S tates Senate and H ouse

of R ep resen tatives have passed a “ sense of C ongress” resolution supporting So­viet C hristians and o ther religious b e ­lievers suffering fo r their beliefs. The resolution calls on the Soviet G overn ­m ent to free d issiden t B aptist M inister G eorgi V ins, cu rren tly serving a five- year sen tence a t hard labor, v" The con troversial hym n “ It W as On a F riday M orning” will no t be included in fu tu re prin tings of the hym nal fo r the U nited S ta tes arm ed fo rces, accord ing to the D epartm ent o f D efense, p*' The Pennsy lvania U nem ploym ent C om pensation B oard o f R eview has ruled tha t a w orker can collect unem ­ploym ent com pensation if he quits a job tha t p reven ts his a ttendance a t Sunday w orship serv ices.i-"* Pentecostals in R om ania have re ­ceived governm ent perm ission to build five churches, open a Bible school in B ucharest, and prin t 3,000 copies o f an instruction m anual fo r pasto rs. v* T h e F e d e ra t io n o f E v a n g e lic a l C hurches in the G erm an D em ocratic R epublic has received perm ission to build 40 churches. The F edera tion in­cludes L u theran , R eform ed, and U nited churches.i A resolution tha t w ould have banned Billy G raham C rusade m eetings on S un­day “ as a w itness to the sanctity o f the L o rd ’s D ay ” w as overw helm ingly de­feated by the Anglican Synod of Sydney , A ustralia.v* Jew s w ere perm itted to ce leb rate outside a M oscow synagogue a fte r R osh H ashana serv ices in S eptem ber. Som e 600 w orshipers held traditional religious dances in the stree t. v* A com m on pleas cou rt in C onnecti­cu t has declared the S ta te ’s 1976 Sunday

law unconstitu tional. T he ch ie f a tto r­n e y ’s office has advised p ro secu to rs to stop en forcing the law , even though the decision is no t binding on o th e r co u rts , i* T he F lorida Suprem e C ourt, upho ld ­ing d isorderly conduc t conv ic tions o f tw o w om en arrested fo r top less sun­bath ing , said tha t “ public nudity has been considered im proper” since the beginning o f civilization. It c ited G enesis. 3:7.u* A M innesota hearing exam iner has u p h e ld a c o m p la in t b y th e S t a t e ’s H u m a n R ig h ts D e p a r tm e n t th a t an ap artm en t ow ner and his m anager d is­crim inated by refusing to ren t ap a rt­m ents to unm arried m ale-fem ale co u ­ples.p** The N ew Jersey Suprem e C ourt has ru led tha t nonsec ta rian , nonprofit hosp i­tals m ay no t refuse on m oral g rounds to allow abortions in their facilities. v0 T he Pennsylvan ia Suprem e C ourt has struck dow n a law m aking adu ltery a civil o ffense know n as crim inal co n v er­sation . T he co u rt stressed it in no w ay “ condones sexual prom iscuity and con ­tinues to hold the institu tion o f m arriage in the highest reg a rd .” It concluded , how ever, tha t social changes dem and abolition of the law. i* The T exas Suprem e C ourt has ruled that an E piscopal C hurch cam p is no t exem pt from p roperty taxes . “ C ertain ly , insp iration and a spirit o f renew al m ay be cap tu red by experiences w ith na­tu r e ,” the cou rt said, “ bu t those experi­ences can also qualify as w holesom e recrea tion , w hich falls short o f religious w o rsh ip .” A case involving a M ethodist cam p is also befo re the T exas cou rts , p" The B ritish G overnm en t’s Crim inal Law R evision C om m ittee has recom ­m ended th a t eu thanasia , o r m ercy kill­ing, now considered m urder, becom e a separa te crim inal offense punishable w ith a m axim um im prisonm ent o f tw o years.^ P o land’s R om an C atholic bishops

ave accused the governm ent o f waging “ an in tense a theistic cam paign” against re lig io n . A p a s to ra l le t te r re a d in churches in S ep tem ber listed grievances involving d iscrim ination against be­lievers and restric tions on religious edu ­cation and construction of chu rches .

LIBERTY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977 29

PERSPECTIVE

“ C olor the B lue L aw s G reen ”

The trouble w ith setting aside Sunday or any o ther day as a day of rest fo r all A m ericans is tha t w hen it com es to the pocketbook , businessm en are in terested only in getting an ex tra d a y ’s profit out of the w eek. A t least th a t 's w hat WilliamF. W illoughby, the W ashington S ta r re ­ligion ed ito r, concludes in his N ovem ber 13 article dealing w ith a topic th a t is becom ing one of m ajo r in te rest to the religious press.

“ C olor the blue laws green (the shade of a dollar b ill) ,” he suggests, “ and th e y ’ll be ever so happy , believe m e .”

His tongue-in-cheek response was triggered by C hristianity Today ed ito r H arold L indsell’s suggestion that tran s­portation and com m erce be curtailed by law on Sunday as a m eans o f conserving energy and fostering fam ily together­ness. Said W illoughby: L indsell “ has, in sp irit, a splendid idea. But to try to en ­fo rce som ething in these days and under our c ircum stances o f p lurality that could happen in Israel m illennium s ago just isn ’t going to w ork h e re .”

L indsell cam e close to proposing just such a national res t d ay , S unday , in his M ay 7, 1976, editorial entitled “ The L o rd ’s D ay and N atural R eso u rces .” To conserve energy , he suggested , legisla­tion should be enacted tha t w ould close "a ll businesses including gasoline s ta ­tions and re s ta u ra n ts” every Sunday. L indsell argued that such a m ove would be in accordance w ith the natural laws tha t govern m an ’s w ell-being as well as w ith “ the will o f God fo r all m e n .” But people are “ highly un likely” to observe Sunday as a rest day voluntarily . T h ere­fo re , Lindsell fe lt, the only w ay to ac­com plish his dual ob jec tives of Sunday observance and the conservation o f en ­ergy w ould be “ by fo rce o f legislative fiat through the duly e lec ted officials of the p eo p le .”

Reaction to the editorial w as m ixed, w ith Seventh-day A dventists and o ther Sabbatarians generally in opposition . T he critics pointed ou t that, no m atter how essential it is to conserve energy , tying governm ent en fo rcem ent to a day o f res t and w orship is a violation of the rights guaran teed A m ericans under the F irst A m endm ent.

In the N ovem ber 5, 1976, C hristianity

Today L indsell cam e up w ith a co u n te r­proposal: T hat “Sa turday be set aside as the day o f res t fo r all people. T hose w ho choose to join in co rpo ra te w orship of G od that day could do s o ,” he said. “ O thers could spend the tim e in their ow n w a y .”

But w hat o f Biblical support fo r Sun- daykeeping? T here is no problem , be­cause there is no such support, Lindsell pointed ou t. “ F o r P ro testan ts and C ath­olics it should prove no theological hardship : apart from the fact that our L ord rose from the dead on the first day o f the w eek, there is nothing in Scripture that requ ires us to keep Sunday rather than S atu rday as a holy d a y .”

L indsell’s hope that “ Saturday closing could not possib ly be construed as a religious p lo y ” and “ w ould provide no chu rch -sta te p rob lem ” w as quickly re ­butted .

W. M elvin A dam s, d irec to r o f public affairs and religious liberty fo r the Sev­en th-day A dventist C h u rch 's world con ­fe ren ce , im m ediately m ade it clear that Seventh-day A dventists “ are em phati­cally opposed to blue laws tha t w ould establish Saturday as a national day of r e s t .”

In a p ress release issued at his d e ­nom ination’s h eadquarte rs , A dam s re­sponded to L indsell’s proposal by say ­in g , “ W e s t ro n g ly d is a p p ro v e a n y a ttem pt to legislate observance of any day of the w eek. W hile we believe in the benefits o f observing the seventh-day S abbath , and concur w ith the editors of C hristianity Today th a t a day of res t is beneficial, A dventists do not w ant S at­urday legislation any m ore than we w ant blue law s w hich encourage Sunday o b ­se rv an ce .”

In co n trast, the executive secretary of the Seventh D ay B aptist G eneral C on­fe rence , Dr. K. D. H urley , responded to L indsell’s editorial by writing to execu­tives of fifty-five religious groups, urging them to get together to seriously discuss the C hristianity T oday ed ito r’s proposal fo r “ quiet S a tu rd ay s .” “ People need to consider seriously the im plications of dw indling natural resources and the d is­sipation of hum an re so u rc e s ,” H urley said. “ They should be given the chance to assess anew the claim s o f the Sabbath as G o d ’s gift to m an o f a day of rest. At

issue is not the proper day fo r w orship , but w hether A m erica will accep t, in her need, G o d ’s g if t.”

Serious questions seem residen t in an enforced Saturday rest. In a nation w here several million people keep the seventh-day Sabbath on Satu rday in re­sponse to the Biblical fou rth com m and­m ent, can Satu rday legislation fail to have religious overtones? H ow can there help but be church-sta te im plications in­vo lved?

Can any nation truly rem ain a dem oc­racy while it legislates and en fo rces re­stric tions that bring hardship on religious groups in its m idst o r fo rces religious traditions on those w ho do not hold to religious faith of any k ind?

The day on w hich to w orship has alw ays been a sensitive issue. T hrough­out h isto ry m any C hristians have sacri­ficed their lives and m any o thers their livelihoods over this very question .

We do not fault H arold L indsell fo r seeking to “ avert a final depletion of natural re so u rc e s .” N either do we deny tha t, from the view point o f m an ’s physi­cal well-being, it m akes good sense to keep the Sabbath .

W e w ould even agree that it is highly unlikely m ost A m ericans can be per­suaded to keep a w eekly rest day o ther than by “ fo rce of legislative fiat through the duly elec ted officials o f the p eo p le ,” as Lindsell expresses in his M ay 7 ed ito ­rial.

But there is a higher principle at stake. Can we afford , even through seem ingly innocuous and beneficial legislation, to deprive any segm ent o f ou r population of religious freedom ?

T h e c o n s t i tu t io n a l p ro v is io n th a t “ C ongress shall m ake no law respecting an estab lishm ent of religion, o r p roh ib it­ing the free exercise th e re o f” m ust re ­main a safeguard to keep our nation as free of in to lerance and persecu tion as possible. To en fo rce by civil au thority any religious prac tice , no m atte r how beneficial it m ay seem to the general w elfare o f the nation as a w hole, cannot but b reak dow n the basic principles that distinguish and ensure those A m erican freedom s we have com e to en joy and expect.

LEO R. VAN D O LSO NE xecutive E d ito r, The M inistry M agazine

30 LIB ER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977

LETTERS

P eople W ho K illed W itches

M any, m any thanks fo r your article “ T he People W ho K illed W itches” (N o- vem ber-D ecem ber, 1976). This is the first full exposition of the afterm ath of the Salem w itch tria ls, and i t ’s a story tha t is long overdue.G RA H A M R. H O D G ES PastorEm m anuel C ongregational C hurch W atertow n , N ew Y ork

M rs. T aines asse rts that the ac t of aw arding dam ages to the fam ilies o f the victim s “ stands w ithout parallel in the h isto ry of ju r isp ru d en ce .”

I know fo r a fac t that the A ustrian G overnm en t has m ade restitu tion to re­tu rned victim s of N azi persecu tion and to their fam ilies. T hey received dona­tions in the form of m oney as well as fu rn itu re to com pensate fo r tha t w hich had been confiscated by the N azis. S U Z A N N E BRO W ER L os A ngeles, C alifornia

T ran scen d en ta l M editation

The churches fear TM (Septem ber- O ctober, 1976) because it is giving peo­ple w hat they canno t give— an accep t­ance of oneself. . . . TM cannot be called a religion by anyone w ho is a p rac titioner. Religion is o n e ’s re la tion­ship w ith G od. . . . I have been a p rac­ticing C atholic all my life (52 years) and until a few m onths ago I could be in­cluded in the 75 per cen t o f the people w ho are unhappy w ith them selves and their lives. I have been a TM practitioner fo r seven m onths and my w hole life is d ifferen t— I am happy!M RS. M ARY P U L L E N K ansas C ity , K ansas

“ T ranscenden ta l M editation and H ot M utton P ie" is superb . O ur country and our churches need to realize how satanic this insidious religion is. (Y es, I consider it a religion.)JO H N A. A N D ER SO N PastorSt. T hom as L utheran C hurch T ru fan t, M ichigan

In regard to your artic le , I w ould sim ­ply like to com m ent th a t I have been practic ing the transcenden ta l m editation

technique fo r alm ost tw o years and have never in any w ay found it to be a reli­g ious technique nor related to a particu ­lar religion in any w ay. 1 have w orked at the TM cen te r in O rlando on and off fo r these two years and through the cen ter have never been in troduced to any liter­a tu re or inform ation that w ould in any w ay tie it in w ith a religious organization . As Mr. U tt points out in his artic le , there is a religious background to the tech ­n ique. T hat does not make the technique itself religious. I am a R om an C atholic and my religion has been enhanced and has becom e m uch m ore m eaningful to me since I have been practicing the TM technique.

A pparently Mr. U tt does not p ractice the technique and therefo re has no first­hand know ledge o f w hat it is and w hat it is not.JA N IS M. SM ITH M Y ER O rlando, Florida

I am interested in the article on TM as a sta te-funded religion, and the N ew Jersey C ourt case. The lure o f federal dollars has caused several N ew Y ork agencies to fo rce persons to go to A lco­holics A nonym ous and then to use su r­veillance to ensure the referra l “ sugges­tio n ” has been carried ou t. T here are o ther m atters, equally d isgusting, w hich are by-products o f th is b ig-brother ap ­proach . The theory locally is tha t there is too m uch m oney fo r anyone to put a stop to it. Political pull rears its ugly head. PA U L TA Y LO R A ttorneyN ew ark Valley, N ew Y ork

As an active m em ber o f the R eorgan­ized C hurch of Jesus C hrist o f L atter Day Saints, w hich is a religion, I assure you that TM is not a religion, is not any form of w orship, nor will TM necessarily m ake you m ore religious in the con tem ­porary sense of the w ord “ re lig ious.” B EV E R L Y J. C A R LSO N M inot, N orth D akota

M ary, Q ueen of Scots

Re R osenberg’s article (N ovem ber- D ecem ber, 1976) on M ary, Q ueen of Scots.

The decision to condem n M ary w as over her recen t com plicity in a plot to

effect the assassina tion of Q ueen E liza­beth . This plot was fam ous as the A n­thony B abington one. M ary w as brought to trial in Sep tem ber, 1586, and sen tence was p ronounced on O ctober 25, 1586. It w as no t until February 1, 1587, tha t E liza­beth took courage to sign her death w arran t. It w as carried into effect on the eighth , one w eek la ter. H ardly the q u es­tionable h istory o f Mr. R osenberg. G E O R G E G R E E N PastorSeventh-day A dventist C hurch L ake C ity , F lorida

Jefferson ’s R eligionT h e a r t ic le “ F r ie n d s , R e a d e rs ,

C ountrym en— Lend Me Y our E y es” (N o- vem ber-D ecem ber, 1976) sta ted that T h o m a s J e f fe rs o n w as a U n ita r ia n . T hom as Jefferson w as an a theist and strongly antic lerical. He was educated in Anglican church schools as a young m an, w hich stim ulated him to fight the clergy and to estab lish public schools w hen he gained a position of pow er. Faw n M. B rodie d iscusses his atheism in dep th in her book T hom as Jefferson, and it is also m entioned in G od in the W hite H ouse by E dm und Fuller and D avid E. G reen.M RS. N A N C Y BUTTS San D iego, C alifornia

[Little wonder there remains question over Thomas Jefferson’s religious views, for they were the center of conjecture and controversy during his lifetime. But that he was agnostic rather than atheist and Unitarian in the sense of holding belief in only one God is supported by his own testimony.

Attempts to denounce Jefferson as an unbeliever or hostile to Christianity were motivated, at least in part, by his support for religious liberty in Virginia, as is doc­umented in his letter of August 6, 1816, to Mrs. Harrison Smith of Washington, D.C.:

“ The priests indeed have heretofore thought proper to ascribe to me religious, or rather anti-religious sentiments, of their own fabric, but such as soothed their resentments against the act of Virginia for estab lish in g re ligou s freed om . They wished him to be thought atheist, deist, or devil, who could advocate freedom from

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 31

LETTERS

their religious dictations. But I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our God and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests.

“ I never told my own religion, nor scrutinized that of another. I never at­tempted to make a convert, nor wished to change a n o th er ’s creed . I have ever judged the religion of others by their lives.

“ By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priest­hood. They must have a positive, a de­clared assent to all their interested absurd­ities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial struc­tures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolts those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there. These, therefore, they brand with such nick-names as their enmity chooses gra­tuitously to im pute.’’

Jefferson concluded his letter by allud­ing both to the charges of atheism made against him and rumors that he had be­come a Christian:

“ The imputations of irreligion having spent their force, they think an imputa­tion of change might now be turned to account as a bolster for their duperies. I shall leave them, as heretofore, to grope in the dark.”

In a letter to Ezra Stiles, June 25, 1819, Jefferson identified himself as being of “ his [Christ’s] theology,” in that He “ has told us only that God is good and perfect, but has not defined him .”

That he believed in “ one G od,” rather than three, and also, rather than none, is a matter of record in many letters. For one example, see his letter to James Smith, December 8, 1822.

Was Jefferson a Unitarian? He was strongly anti-Trinitarian, as several let­ters reveal (see, for example, his letter of February 27, 1821, to Timothy Picker­ing). But to Thomas Whittemore, a Uni­tarian clergyman who sought confirma­tion of his allegiance to Unitarianism, Jefferson said only, “ I have never per­mitted myself to meditate a specific creed. These formulas have been the bane and ruin of the Christian church, its own fatal invention, which, through so many ages,

made of Christendom a slaughter-house, and at this day divides it into casts of inextinguishable hatred to one another.”

On one occasion, however, Jefferson did write with less prudence than usual, to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, a professor of medicine at Harvard. When Dr. Water­house, delighted with Jefferson’s senti­ments, asked permission to publish them, Jefferson replied with alacrity, insisting on privacy for his religious views. He had, he said, a “ proper respect for hornets.”

But the letter is now available and it does add substance to assertions that Jef­ferson was as Unitarian as one can get without publicly affiliating with a group by that name. Jefferson asserted that it was a doctrine of Jesus that “ there is only one God, and he all perfect.” To this point and others of Jesus’ teachings, he contrasted the “ demoralizing dogmas of C alvin,” among which was “ there are three Gods.” Then, in perhaps his most revealing comment on his religious sen­timent, he wrote:

“ Had the doctr in es of Jesus been preached always as pure as they came from his lips, the whole civilized world would now have been Christian. I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its creed and conscience to neither Kings nor priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a yo u n g m an now living in the United States who will not die an Unitarian.”

Whatever the books on Jefferson say, his own letters speak most persuasively. And the evidence, we believe, is in favor of the conclusions in the L ib e r t y article: Jef­ferson was not an atheist and at least Unitarian, with a small “ u .” — Eds.]

M otherhood R etried

Re “ M o th e rh o o d R e t r i e d ” (S ep - tem ber-O ctober, 1976), response to Jon Schuster.

C oun ter p ropositions to m odify state- enfo rced school a ttendance will not clear the th ickets o f sta te-en fo rced regula­tions, w hether it is simply that 6-year- olds m ust a ttend o r those w hose m atu­rity is adequate . T here will never be any agreem ent.

The real separation of church and sta te is a tta ined in “ paren ts as teach ­e r s .” This will never w ork until parents

take the responsibility o f p reparing them selves so that their in struction is superio r to that o f the schools.

Only w hen the church-supported ed u ­cational program is entirely chu rch-sup­ported and is superior to the ex ten t that it does not need to belong to an a sso c ia ­tion to bo lster its s ta tu s , will the church be separa te from the s ta te in m atters o f education .

T h e se d e c la ra t io n s a re n o t in th e p rovince o f research to d iscover. R O B E R T M. SH R E W SB U R Y M ayaguez, P uerto Rico

R elig ion in P ublic Schools

T h e a r t ic le by C h a r le s D o u g la s , “ Parental Rights in Public S choo ls” (S ep tem ber-O ctober, 1976), should be read by everyone but particu larly by puzzled paren ts w hose civil and religious rights are being denied today in public schools. M ore and m ore people are be­com ing aw are of this.M A R G A R ET R. D O O C EY C oopersburg , Pennsylvania

T h e in te r fa i th B ib le R e a d e r (S e p ­tem ber-O ctober, 1976), as P. Griffith L indell points ou t, m ay well be insuffi­c iently ob jective and neutral fo r public c lassroom use , but the au th o r errs in suggesting tha t liberal C hristian and Jew ish view s on the Bible are the sam e as “ secu lar hum an ist” view s. T here are o ften w ide d ivergences both am ong and w ithin Evangelical C hris tians, C atho lics, “ libera l” C hris tians, Jew s, and hum an­ists w ith regard to the m eaning o f the Bible as a w hole and its m any parts.

C harles D ouglas errs in charging the public schools w ith prom oting “ secular o rth o d o x y ” o r “ hum an ism .” W hile there is a religious point o f view labeled hum anism , it is in no w ay synonym ous w ith the religious neu trality requ ired of our public schools both by the C onstitu ­tion and the pluralistic nature o f our society . Indeed, since m ost o f ou r m ore than 2 million teachers are C hristians and Jew s, and since hum anists rep resen t only a small religious m inority , it is probable that fo r every instance of classroom inclination tow ard hum anism there are m any hundreds of inclinations tow ard generally C hristian view s. F u r­ther, it is absurd fo r Mr. D ouglas to

32 LIBER TY M A RCH/APRIL, 1977

LETTERS

suggest tha t audio-visual m aterials and equipm ent are any m ore “ w orld ly” or “ hum anistic” than labora to ry equip­m ent, slide ru les, ball point pens, fluo­rescen t lighting, o r school buses. The N ew H am pshire federal cou rt ruling upholding the ir use w as reasonable . A con tra ry ruling w ould have set the stage fo r the total paralysis o f all public edu ­cation.

N or is evo lu tion a specifically hum an­ist view . M any C hristians believe the theory of evo lu tion to be incom patible w ith the accoun t o f origins in G enesis, but m any o ther C hristians and Jew s see no such incom patib ility and, in fac t, re ­gard evolution as the m ethod o f creation . If e v o lu t io n is d e a lt w ith in p u b lic schools the w ay all scientific theories should be, as theories to be tested and validated by the scientific m ethods and not as infallible dogm as, studen ts w ould have few problem s.

A great deal rem ains to be done to keep our public schools religiously neu­tral, though the problem s are minim ized by the fac t th a t the m ore than 2 million m en and w om en w ho teach in, adm in­is ter, and govern our public schools show a high degree of p rofessionalism and fa irness and rep resen t the m any re ­ligious fa ith s and po in ts o f view found in every com m unity . S ince few S ta tes and school d is tric ts have bo thered to develop guidelines and m achinery fo r ensuring neu trality , how ever, it w ould be well fo r educational, religious, and religious lib­erty leaders to w ork up such guidelines and b lueprin t such m achinery .ED D D O ER RD irector o f C om m unications A m ericans U nited fo r the Separation of C hurch and S tate S ilver Spring, M aryland

I thought it m ight be o f in terest to you to know tha t M ichigan S tate U niversity offered a course in evolu tion /C reation during the spring term . T here w ere tw o p ro fesso rs . O ne, na turally , taught evo ­lution and the o th er taught C reation . The num ber o f studen ts w ho enrolled fo r the course surpassed all expecta tions, I am certa in .MRS. L IL L IA N R. SC IE SZK A L ansing, Michigan

O hio v . W hisner

[A letter from John R. Meckstroth (see L ib e r t y , September-October, 1976) com­mented unfavorably on an article in the March-April, 1976, L ib e r t y — “ State of Ohio v. Whisner, et a l .”

L ib e r t y intended to print all of Mr. Meckstroth’s letter but inadvertently omitted the closing paragraph, thus dis­torting the meaning of the paragraph preceding it. Following are the two para­graphs:

“ In summation, I believe any magazine has an obligation to verify the truth con­tained in the articles it prints. I believe the entire article’s honesty is accurately re­flected in the statement on page 10, which reads as follows: ‘but he is not certified by Ohio, which requires that a teacher be graduated from an accredited school with [a] degree in Education—even to teach in a nonpublic school.’

“ This is a flat-out falsehood, as a simple telephone call to any private or parochial school principal in the State of Ohio would have revealed.” — Eds.]

A nti-C hrist P ropaganda

L ib e r t y is disgusting, sick. . . . It is typical o f Seventh-day A dventist p ropa­ganda— anti-C hrist and deserv ing only of the fire. The January -F ebruary issue is such a travesty upon the D ivine N am e that the fire, and even the m anure pile, is too good fo r it. It is u tte r b lasphem y!

Rem ove my nam e from your mailing list a t once and never again send me your A dventist lies!REV . R. W. H A L E W est L aw n, Pennsylvania

Scholarly L IB E R T Y

I enjoy every issue of L i b e r t y . Some of the articles have been exceptionally scholarly and thought-provoking, e sp e ­cially to one like m e, w ho has such a passionate attachm ent to . and love for, freedom .

In religious faith I am a W itness of Jehovah (lifelong, 70 years o f age), and 1 have served as a m inister in that faith fo r upw ard of fo rty years , also as legal counsel and trial a tto rney fo r the W it­nesses for m ore than th irty years (re­tired from law practice due to health problem s).

R ecently 1 au thored a book. O 'er the R am parts They W atched, dealing with the era o f g reat persecu tion through w hich the W itnesses passed during the past fo rty years , not only in this coun ­try but around the w orld , and w hich con ­tinues unabated in A rgentina, M alawi, B enin, and o ther coun tries. T he book con ta ins an analysis o f som e tw en ty or m ore Suprem e C ourt decisions involving the free p ress, free speech , and fre e ­dom of assem bly and religion. In ter­w oven in the book are m any of my own personal experiences in fighting the good fight o f the faith to keep open the channels o f free com m unication .

T hinking you might en joy reading the book , I have this day m ailed you a com ­plim entary copy. I do hope you find it profitable.V IC TO R V. B L A C K W E L L C ovington, L ouisiana

m m mPlease notify us 4 weeks in advance.

Name

Address (new, if for change of address)

City State Zip

To subscribe to Mail to:L IB E R T Y c h e c krate below and fill LIBERTY subscrip- in your name and tions, 6856 East- a d d re s s a b o v e , e rn A v e ., N W . Payment must ac- W ashington, D.C. c o m p a n y o rd e r . 20012.

□ 1 year $3.75

ATTACH LABEL HERE for address change or inquiry. If m oving , list new address above. N o te : your subscription expiration date (issue, year) is given at upper right of label. Example: 0375L1 w ould end w ith th ird (M ay-June) issue of 1975.

LIBERTY M ARCH/APRIL, 1977 33

G. Washington Sh lep t Here?

Y esh, th a t’s w hat we said. And we do m ean yesh. I t ’s B arbara A bram ow itz ’s title , really . But it had to run quite a gaun tle t, from copy ed ito rs to p ro o f­read e rs , each one o f w hom sought to d em onstra te his w orth by co rrecting it. The final hurdle cam e w hen we asked M arsha L eiderm an to illustrate it fo r this colum n.

“ Do you know w hat yo u ’re do ing?” she asked . “Shlep t is Y iddish fo r d rag ­ging som ething som ew here. L ike, G. W ashington dragged his w eary body off to b e d .”

“ B u t,” the ed ito r rep lied , “ G eorge W ashington slept here is itself recog­nized A m ericana, and our non-Jew ish readers w o n ’t see anything in the head­line bu t a sly bit o f hum or about the Jew ish co n n ec tio n .”

“ And w hat about your Jew ish readers w ho w o n ’t know that you know about sh lep t? " she asked . “ T h ey ’ll all w rite you le tte rs , and som e o f them m ay be in Y idd ish .”

W ell, fo r them we have w ritten th is colum n on shlept. A nd have had Ms. L eiderm an illustrate it w ith G eorge shlipping oif to R hode Island fo r a visit to the T ouro sy n ag o g u e .— R .R .H .

LIBERTYW hen the p ro te s te r’s in ten t is v irtuous, should the ju ry acqu it? See Civil D isobedience, page 2.

Cl l/lt DISOBEDIENCE

V O L U M E 72, N U M B E R 2, M A R C H -A PR IL , 1977

FEATURES

C IV IL D IS O B E D IE N C E R ichard J. O rloski 2

L IM IT E D G O V E R N M E N T : A C H R IS T IA N IDEA John W esley Y oung 4

U N D E R W H A T C O N D IT IO N S S H O U L D A C H R IST IA N D ISO B E Y C A E SA R ? H aven B. Gow 8

W H A T T H E A U T H O R S O F T H E D E C L A R A TIO N O F IN D E P E N D E N C E R E A L L Y M E A N T H aven B. Gow 10

T H E U N IT E D N A T IO N S A ND R E L IG IO U S D ISC R IM IN A T IO N H om er A. Jack 14

W H A T T H E SA B B A TH A SKS YOU TO BE C harles Scriven 18

W H Y T H E 1RS A B A N D O N E D ITS SE N S IT IV E-C A SE F IL E W atford Reed 21

W H E N LO V E R E A C H E D O U T Shirley F isher 2 2 -

G E O R G E W A SH IN G T O N S H L E P T H E R E B arbara A bram ow itz 23

DEPARTMENTS

IN T E R N A T IO N A L 26

PE R S P E C T IV E 30

L E T T E R S 31

STAFF

R O L A N D R. H E G ST A D — EditorW. M E L V IN A D A M S, G O R D O N E N G E N , R O B E R T W. N IX O N —

A ssociate E ditors C A R O L M A R IE L O N G A R D — E ditorial A ssistan t H A R R Y K N O X A N D A SSO C IA TE S— L ayou t and D esign B. B. B E A C H , T H E O D O R E C A R C IC H , W . J. H A C K E T T , D A R R EN

M IC H A E L , N . C. W IL SO N — C onsulting E ditors E D M U N D M. PE T E R S O N — C irculation W A R R E N L. JO H N S — Legal A dvisor

L i b e r t y is a publication of the Religious Liberty Association of America and the Seventh- day Adventist Church.The Religious Liberty Association of America was organized in 1889 by the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Dedicated to the preservation of religious freedom, the association advocates no political or economic theories. President, Neal C. Wilson; general director, W. Melvin Adams; associate directors, Gordon Engen, Roland R. Hegstad. Robert W. Nixon. © 1977 The Review and Herald Publishing Association. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whoie or in part by permission only.L i b e r t y correspondence: Please send to L i b e r t y , 6840 Eastern Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20012.

Dangers in Name-Calling

We can not for a m om ent adm it that by simply applying an unpopular or obloquious name to m en, whether that name be anarchist, or socialist, capitalist or vagabond, republican or democrat, an officer can be justified in depriving men of

rights guaranteed by the fundamental law, and can break up their m eeting, can club, search and imprison them , not for

what they have done, but for what he, in his wisdom, or his prejudice, or his caprice, fears they m ight do.

If this principle were once adm itted, there is no lim it to its application. W hile it is sought to apply it to one class

today, it could be applied to any other class tomorrow, and a precedent made in one case would be sure to be cited and acted on in another, and a political party, for the tim e being

in power, could prevent its opponents from m eeting andput them in jail.

John Peter Altgeld (1847-1902)G overnor o f Illinois

To the Chief of Police, Chicago, November 14, 1891, page 53- (from The Great Quotations, by George Seldes)

four great paintingsby the fam ous a rtist H arry A n- approxim ately 16" by 22" are on

derson, all in living color. T rea t m atte paper suitable for fram ing, yourself or order several for gifts. Price $2.00 each, postage paid. Special

These beautiful paintings, prices on a h und red or more.

rI Please send me the following

Great Painting(s) at $2.00 each:□ I.T h e Spirit o f'76 d S /'K e e p T h e m Separate”□ 2. In His Steps CM. The Way to Freedom

NAM E................................................

ADDRESS.................

C IT Y STATE

Write: Pictures, 6840 Eastern Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C., 20012.

niii

iiiiii

Paintings © by Review and Herald.