American F r i e n d s S e r v i c e Committee
1501 Cherry S t r e e t
P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pennsylvania
19102
QUAKER BELIEFS AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGETS
Louis W. Schneider
Executive S e c r e t a r y
( T r a n s c r i p t of a t a l k p r e s e n t e d a t t h e S t a f f Conference of t h e Program
on Government S u r v e i l l a n c e and C i t i z e n s ' R i g h t s , October 24, 1 9 7 7 )
George B a n c r o f t , t h e h i s t o r i a n , h a s w r i t t e n t h a t t h e r i s e of t h e people c a l l e d
Quakers i s one of t h e memorable e v e n t s i n t h e h i s t o r y of man.
It marks t h e moment
when i n t e l l e c t u a l freedom was claimed u n c o n d i t i o n a l l y by t h e people a s a n i n a l i e n a b l e
birthright.
Early Ouakers s t r u g g l e d f o r r e l i g i o u s and p o l i t i c a l freedom by t h e i r nonv i o l e n t r e f u s a l t o obey u n j u s t laws.
Here i n t h e United S t a t e s f o u r Quakers,
i n c l u d i n g a woman, Vary Dyer were hanged i n Soston f o r such r e f u s a l .
I n Great B r i t i a n
a s many a s 21,000 s u f f e r e d f i n e s and imprisonment, and some 450 d i e d i n p r i s o n ,
mainly i n p r o t e s t of t h e Quaker Act of 1662.
When whole congregations were
imprisoned f o r r e f u s i n g t o obey t h e law, t h e i r c h i l d r e n took t h e i r p l a c e and met
instead.
I n 1670, William Penn was t r i e d f o r r e f u s a l t o obey t h e law.
When t h e j u r y
brought i n a v e r d i c t i n h i s f a v o r , t h e judge ordered t h e j u r y imprisoned.
Penn's
p l e a t o t h e j u r y t o "Mind your r i g h t s " s t r e n g t h e n e d t h e i r r e s o l v e t o a c t independently.
U l t i m a t e l y t h e c a s e became a landmark i n t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t
to a fair trial.
For Penn, a s f o r t h e o t h e r c h i l d r e n of t h e L i g h t , t h e cause of v i c t o r y was a
h o l y cause and any v i c t o r y i n i t s behalf was a v i c t o r y f o r t h e human s p i r i t , which
i s t h e c a n d l e of t h e Lord.
I n keeping w i t h t h a t t r a d i t i o n t h e American F r i e n d s
S e r v i c e Committee h a s continued t o work f o r r e l i g i o u s and p o l i t i c a l freedom i n
s e v e r a l important a r e a s .
A t t h e time o f World War I, when American men were d r a f t e d t o s e r v e i n t h e
armed f o r c e s , no p r o v i s i o n was made f o r c o n s c i e n t i u u s o b j e c t o r s .
AFSC was founded by a group of Quakers h e r e i n P h i l a d e l p h i a .
I n response t h e
After persistent
e f f o r t t h i s group a r r a n g e d t h a t t h e C O ' s be furloughed under i t s c a r e f o r humanit a r i a n s e r v i c e , doing r e l i e f and r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i n Europe d u r i n g and immediately
a f t e r t h e war.
By World War I1 i t was a l e g a l p r o v i s i o n i n t h e S e l e c t i v e S e r v i c e
and T r a i n i n g Act t h a t C O ' s who claimed a b e l i e f i n a Supreme Being and were
a f f i l i a t e d with a supportive church organization were e n t i t l e d t o alternative service.
In due course the provision was broadened t o include those who d i d not subscribe
t o such a b e l i e f .
During t h e McCarthy period there were many infringements on the freedom o f
American c i t i z e n s .
Under the Internal Security Act o f 1950 c i t i z e n s who were a f f i l i a t e d
with the Communist Party or "subversive" organizations were prohibited from obtaining
a passport.
The 1956 passport applicationincluded an oath o f allegiance.
When J i m
and Dee Bristol were appointed t o represent t h e AFSC i n Delhi, India they f e l t they
could not sign such an oath.
The AFSC supported them, and wrote the following
l e t t e r t o the Assistant Secretary o f State.
"The attached application for a passport i s made by a s t a f f
member o f the American Friends Service Committee who has recently been assigned t o a program i n India i n order t o carry on
the r e l i g i o u s , charitable, social and r e l i e f work o f the Committee.
You w i l l see that he has on grounds o f personal conviction and
principle declined t o consider those portions o f the application
which inquire i n t o h i s membership i n Communist organizations. He
has attached t o the application a personal statement s e t t i n g f o r t h
h i s position.
As long as the passport application form has t h e present wording,
such individual stands among Friends volunteering for overseas
service may be expected. The Board o f Directors o f the American
Friends Service Committee believes that we should t r y t o s e t down
a t t h i s time the grounds for our deep concern on t h i s matter.
The 300 year Quaker witness against t e s t oaths i s a matter o f general knowledge. I t i s our clear conviction t h a t the forced d i s closure o f a p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n i s i n e f f e c t an inquiry i n t o
b e l i e f . This disclosure which a t e s t oath exacts i s a f i r s t s t e p
i n the process o f thought control.
Quakers believe that American democracy was founded upon a deep
r e l i g i o u s f a i t h i n the dignity and worth o f the individual. They
r e j e c t , as d i d the founders o f the Constitution, any philosophy
which s e t s the State above the moral l a w , and they hold that a man
serves h i s country b e s t who follows the leading o f h i s conscience.
We are convinced that the Founding Fathers sought t o preserve freedoms o f b e l i e f and association i n the United States Constitution
and i n the First Amendment.
As responsible c i t i z e n s , Quakers recognize that t h e i r r e l i g i o u s
i n t e r e s t i n a broad freedom o f expression must a t some points
take i n t o consideration t h e i n t e r e s t o f the State i n protecting
i t s e l f from the threat o f internal subversion. We b e l i e v e , however,
that these passport application measures impair those freedoms
which they are intended t o protect. Further, we hold that such
measures do not i n practice substantially safeguard the well being
and inner security which we a l l wish for our nation.
We earnestly hope that the foregoing will receive your consideration in the processing of the attached passport application and others reflecting a conscientious position."
In due course the waiver of this requirement was negotiated and in 1964
the Supreme Court ruled that the provisioil requiring such an oath was unconstitutional.
Another program which the AFSC mounted in the 1950s and continued into the
1960s was the Rights of Conscience Program.
Individuals who found themselves in
confrontation with the government over political affiliation, military service, and
civil rights were aided with their legal costs in fighting their suits.
Since many
of them lost their jobs they were also provided with subsistence to relieve them of
suffering until the problem could be solved.
In the early 1950s, the AFSC was approached by the U.S. government to use Point 4
Funds in support of our rural development program in Barpali, India, which was
attracting considerable interest at the time.
We agreed to receive 75,000 a year
for five years; the contract to be renegotiated after three.
The first contract
was negotiated smoothly, but by the time of the second contract the government, under
the McCarthy era pressures, was asking to review and approve all appointment of
personnel sent abroad by the private agency.
funds with such strings attached.
AFSC decided it could no longer accept
In the course of stating our position to the
government, Iiarold Evans, then chairman of the Board said in ringing tones "I will
Lell you now, the AFSC will never relinquish its responsibility for the appointment
of personnel to the United States government".
During the Vietnam war there was a rising concern among Friends and people
associated with the AFSC over the payment of federal income taxes, a large portion
of which is devoted to expenditures for war and preparation for war by our government.
Two of our colleagues requested the AFSC not to forward to the government that
portion of their taxes withheld, approximately 53%, which would be used in support
of the war and war efforts.
We agreed to their request.
Instead of not forwarding
those funds, the AFSC forwarded an equivalent amount from its own general fund, and
then requested the government to reimburse us for that amount since we were in
complete sympathy with our employees in their concern based on First Amendment
principles.
Service refused to reimburse us we took the
When the Internal Reve~~ue
matter to court.
The Federal District Court in Philadelphia decided in our favor,
saying that we not only should be reimbursed butthat the government had a variety of
alternative methods of collecting taxes other than relying on anemployer who was
completely identified with its employees in their conscientious conviction.
The
IRS appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court which ruled against us,
Justice William 0 . Douglas dissenting.
Finally, the AFSC decided that it was ready to send humanitarian aid to
North Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government in Vietnam even though
we might have been refused permission to do so by the United States Government.
We not only mounted a protest in Washington but we informed the government and the
American public that if we were denied permission we would do it anyway on grounds
of religious belief and conviction.
An important aspect of Friends' contribution to religious and political freedom
has been a commitment to complete openness in regard to the issues they were addressing,
their thinking about it, and their way of proceeding either in public demonstrations
or
in actions through the courts.
This tradition has continued from generation to
generation. All efforts are carried forward with an air of dignity, dignity that
comes from ones sense of acting in the Light and of being a citizen entitled to enjoy
all these rights. When these rights are threatened by a government the individual is
surrounded by a sense of greater dignity than the government itself.
This can be a
compelling dynamic in any confrontation that may take place between citizens and
government.
There is a story about Thomas Garrett, a Delaware Quaker and abolitionist
involved in the Underground Railroad.
He was brought to court by a slaveowner,
heavily fined, and financially ruined.
After the sentence had been read he is
supposed to have risen and said "Judge, thou hast left me not a dollar; but I wish
to say to thee and to all in this courtroom that if anyone knows a fugitive who
wants a shelter and a friend send him to Thomas Garrett and he will befriend him."
To a large extent the progress that has been made and theeffortsthat still
continue on matters of personal affirmation on the part of individuals, reflect
faith in an ideal.
They are politically relevant acts and as one can see, as
one takes a long view of history, they open up new power, sometimes beyond our
capacity to predict.
Finally I'd be inclined to say that it's not that the citizen should be under
surveillance by the government, but that the government should be under the
surveillance of its citizens.