September-October 1962
Fà
VOL. 57, NO. 5
r
A MAGAZINE OF niELoomous Emerisoloom
•
Ve`
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion,
and only one person were of the contrary opinion,
mankind would be no more justified in silencing that
one person, than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind.. .
"The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of
an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who
dissent from the opinion, still more than those who
hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of
the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong,
they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer
perception and livelier impression of truth, produced
by its collision with error."
—JOHN STUART MILL, On Liberty, 1859
• ;'
, - ::,7„,
•
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER, 1962
VOL. 57, No. 5
Declaration of Principles
25 cents
a copy
LIBE
RTY
Washington
D.C.
A MAGAZINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
LIBERTY ASSOCIATION
LIBERTY: A Magazine of Religious Freedom is published bimonthly for the International
Religious Liberty Association by the Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington 12, D.C. Second-class postage paid at Washington, D.C. Address editorial correspondence to 6840 Eastern Avenue, Washington 12, D.C. LIBERTY is a member of
the Associated Church Press.
ARTICLES
6
"EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT!"
ST. PAUL AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT
Clifford J. Durr 7
PETER ZENGER AND FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
William L. Roper 12
CENSORED
Dean M. Kelley 16
RADIO STATION WITH A BACKBONE
Howard B. Weeks 18
THE LIBERTY TO KNOW, TO UTTER, TO ARGUE
FREELY
Godfrey T. Anderson 22
PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
V. Norskov Olsen 26
FEATURES
FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK
4
LETTERS
4
FOCUS ON FREEDOM
24
UNITED STATES SENATOR SPEAKS OUT FOR RELIGIOUS
LIBERTY
25
THROUGH YESTERDAY'S WINDOWS
PRAYER IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS—FOR,
28
AGAINST
INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS
30
EDITORIAL: SUPREME COURT DECISION MISUNDERSTOOD
32
WORLD REPORT
33
We believe in religious liberty, and hold that
this God-given right is exercised at its best when
there is separation between church and state.
We believe in civil government as divinely
ordained to protect men in the enjoyment of
their natural rights, and to rule in civil things;
and that in this realm it is entitled to the respectful and willing obedience of all.
We believe in the individual's natural and
inalienable right to freedom of conscience: to
worship or not to worship; to profess, to practice, and to promulgate his religious beliefs, or
to change them according to his conscience or
opinions, holding that these are the essence of
religious liberty; but that in the exercise of
this right he should respect the equivalent
right of others.
We believe that all legislation and other governmental acts which unite church and state
are subversive of human rights, potentially persecuting in character, and opposed to the best
interests of church and state; and therefore,
that it is not within the province of human
government to enact such legislation or perform such acts.
We believe it is our duty to use every lawful
and honorable means to prevent the enactment
of legislation which tends to unite church and
state, and to oppose every movement toward
such union, that all may enjoy the inestimable
blessings of religious liberty.
We believe that these liberties are embraced
in the golden rule, which teaches that a man
should do to others as he would have others
do to him.
Editor
ROLAND R. HEGSTAD
MARVIN
E.
Associate Editors
LOEWEN
Art Editor
TERENCE K.
MARTIN
Consulting Editors
W. P. BRADLEY
NEAL C. WILSON
M.
V. CAMPBELL
Editorial Secretary
JEANNE REVERT
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
W. MELVIN ADAMS
Circulation Manager
ROY G. CAMPBELL
Contributing Editors
DR. JEAN NUSSBAUM, Paris
W. L. EMMERSON, London
KENNETH HOLLAND, South-
ern United States
Layout Artist
GERT BUSCH
THE INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY ASSOCIATION was organized in 1888 by the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists. Including in its ranks champions of
freedom of many religious persuasions, the Association is
dedicated to preservation of religious liberty, as is indicated in
the Declaration above. The Association advocates no political
or economic theories. General secretary, Marvin E. Loewen;
associate secretaries, W. Melvin Adams, Roland R. Hegstad.
COPYRIGHT: The entire contents of this issue is copyrighted
(:) 1962 by the Review and Herald Publishing Association. All
rights reserved.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: One year. $1.25; one copy, 25 cents.
Slightly higher in Canada. Subscription rates subject to change
without notice. All subscriptions must be paid for in advance.
Except for sample copies, papers are sent only on paid
subscriptions.
CHANGE OF ADDRESS: One month's notice is required.
Please report any change of address to the Review and Herald
Publishing Association, Washington 12, D.C. Send both old
and new addresses, enclosing, if possible, your address label.
3
from the editor's desh
YOUNG Baptist girl who works on a collective
dairy farm falls in love with a tractor driver.
The young man is an atheist. The affair ultimately
leads to tragedy, for Baptists must not marry unbelievers. But some good results—the girl's belief in
God is shaken and she starts on the sensible road to
atheism. This is the theme of a motion picture being
prepared by a Russian Government film company,
says Radio Moscow. Its purpose—to strengthen the
campaign being waged by Soviet propagandists against
the Baptist denomination in the U.S.S.R.
A
We have an idea that Christians worldwide will
take heart at this film tribute to Baptist vitality, for
whatever its conclusion, it reveals that religious conviction in the U.S.S.R. is far from dead. In fact, when
a numerically insignificant sect is worthy of a government film production, that sect is suffering growing pains!
Radio Moscow documents this conclusion with further news: A number of Russian Baptists have been
arrested in Leningrad on charges of carrying out
"illegal, savage religious agitation and propaganda."
Quoting an article in the newspaper Leningrad
Pravda, the broadcast said the Baptists were arrested
after they had been forcibly ejected from Leningrad's
ancient Kazan Cathedral, now an antireligious museum to which Soviet youth are taken regularly as
part of their education. According to the Communist
broadcast the Baptists were distributing religious
leaflets to visitors and verbally trying to convert them
to their faith.
It is to be regretted that the Soviet Government
does not confine its attacks on the Baptists and other
faiths to counterpropaganda. Religion can pretty well
take care of itself where freedom of press and speech
exists. Which, of course, is why these freedoms are not
extended to religion in the U.S.S.R.
a motion picture. Indeed, a pamphlet that the Soviet
mass-education society published in 1955 warned
parents not to use inadvertently words such as "God,"
"angel," and "devil," or expressions such as "God
preserve," lest religious ideas take root in the minds
of the children. (See E. I. Perovsky, Ateisticheskoe
vospitanie detei v shkole i seme [Atheist Education
in School and Family], Moscow, 1955, p. 34.)
Imagine the impact of a film filled with good, oldfashioned religious terms such as those used by the
Baptists! One can pity the producers, who may lose
their heads should many Communists lose their hearts
to God as a result of viewing the film. Which will be
no great loss, for sure it is they were not using them
when they wrote the plot for The Sinner.
ROLAND R. HEGSTAD
CASTS VOTE FOR LIBERTY
DEAR SIR:
I want to cast my vote of appreciation for the excellent job
the editorial staff has done in producing a magazine, which
in its field is second to none in format, layout, and content.
LIBERTY is definitely geared to eye appeal. The use of color,
fine paper, large print, and art work makes your journal far
superior to any editions seen in earlier years.
Your work is filling a real need in keeping the underlying
issues of church and state before concerned Americans. Keep
up the good work!—RICHARD J. BARNETT, Pottsville, Pennsylvania.
VARIABLE IN QUALITY
DEAR SIRS:
As for the film, entitled The Sinner, one can hope
that its very title will raise questions in troubled
consciences—and pray, moreover, that the producers
will elaborate on the bourgeois doctrines held by the
heroine. Where access to mass communication media
is denied them, how better could the Baptists disseminate such truths as sin and salvation; baptism
by immersion as a memorial of the death, burial, and
resurrection of the Saviour; the perpetuity of the Ten
Commandments? Who knows how many atheists
might be started up the road of faith to God?
Evidence exists that inquiry has been raised and
converts made among spiritually hungry Russians by
mediums of religious expression far less effective than
4
I find your magazine quite variable in quality. Some articles
are excellent and well taken. Others are illogical and poorly
documented. In the main, I find most of the articles interesting
enough to skim, at least. Your contentions regarding Sunday
laws are usually well taken. The article on tax exemption was
interesting, but the argument for exempting schools and
churches was not consistent with the argument for not exempting businesses owned by churches. A tax exemption is an indirect subsidy. Better the government recognize this, declare all
exemptions illegal, and then proceed to give subsidies to those
activities it feels help the common good. This puts the whole
matter of tax exemptions in proper perspective. It also reveals
clearly that no church or church-related organization should
receive a tax exemption of any kind.—THE REVEREND LAING
W. SIBBET, Peace Memorial Presbyterian Church, Klamath
Falls, Oregon.
LIBERTY, 1962
HONEST AND CHARITABLE
BOUND EDITIONS OF LIBERTY
DEAR SIR:
DEAR SIR:
Congratulations on the "powerful" cover picture of the
January-February, 1962, issue. A Protestant friend passes on
his issues to me, and only this week did I receive the abovementioned issue.
I would be less than honest if I wrote that all your convictions are mine. I would be less than charitable if I ridiculed
all that you stand for.
May Christ and Mary help all of us.—JOSEPH BARRETT,
Galesville, Wisconsin.
Is it possible to purchase the 57 volumes of LIBERTY in
bound edition? Can the present yearly publications be purchased at the end of the year in bound volumes?
I have just read your March-April, 1962 issue, and it occurs
to me that the stand which you take for religious liberty and
religious freedom in this country is in line with maintaining
our Government for the people under the Constitution. . . .
—JAMES W. WITHERSPOON, Attorney at Law, Hereford,
Texas.
POEM CREDIT. The poem titled "Let the Stranger
Speak," used on the inside cover of LIBERTY for
January-February, is by Esther Baldwin York and appears in Morrison's anthology Masterpieces of Religious
Verse under the original title "Stranger at the Peace
Table." Copyright is held by the Curtis Publishing
Company, 1945.
WORLD REPORT BRINGS SADNESS
DEAR SIR:
Here (Y.M.C.A., Roanoke, Va.) in my hands come the magazine LIBERTY. In the World Report with a great sadness I
read: Soviet Authorities Close Baptist Church in Riga, Latvia.
Last September closed Agenskalna Baptist Church. Riga is the
church where I was baptized 35 years ago.
We are facing an ideology that could destroy the free world,
but we just don't want to believe it. What can we do? Fundamentally, the problem is a moral and spiritual one. The foundations of freedom must be girded with a moral and spiritual
revival.
It is time for America—for the free world—to turn to GOD.
We may well believe that tyranny shall not triumph and freedom shall not perish from the earth.—REv. PETER KNEZHA,
Y.M.C.A., Roanoke, Va.
[Sorry, neither past nor present copies of LIBERTY are
available in bound form. If any of our readers have preserved volumes back to 1906, we would like to know. The
November-December LIBERTY will carry an index of the
year's articles.—ED.)
ORGANIC UNITY?
GENTLEMEN:
In your November-December, 1961, LIBERTY, Dr. Edwin
Espy of the National Council of Churches was quoted as saying
that the goal of that council is "organic unity" of churches.
This surprised me since this idea is expressly forbidden in
the NCC Constitution. I wrote Dr. Espy and he assured me
that he had not said this and that he was quoted out of context.
Since this is a sensitive and important issue, I am sorry you
did not take the time to check into it further. I hope you will
advise your readers that organic union is not the purpose of
the NCC.—JEROME G. BLANKINSHIP, Pastor, Community
Methodist Church, San Marcos, California.
[Dr Espy's statement as released by the Religious News
Service:
"This oneness finds its highest expression in the actual
uniting of churches that are prepared to commit themselves wholly to one another and to lose their separate
identity in the higher expression of Christ's church
through organic unity."—ED.]
EXTRA! READ ALL ABOUT IT! "LIBERTY" MAGAZINE ISSUES FREE PRESS
SPECIAL: COMMENDS PUBLISHERS, EDITORS OF FREE PRESS . . . HARRY
ANDERSON PAINTS GREAT COVER PICTURE; NEWSBOY SHOWN TO BE
VITAL LINK IN COMMUNICATIONS CHAIN ... EXTRA! SUPREME COURT
DECISION ON PUBLIC SCHOOL PRAYER STIRS HOT CONTROVERSY
. . . READ ALL ABOUT IT! PAUL APPEALS TO CAESAR: ROMAN
FIRST AMENDMENT AT ISSUE . . . JURY FINDS PETER ZENGER INNOCENT; GREAT VICTORY FOR FREE PRESS . . . CENSORSHIP PROBLEMS
EXPLORED .. . EXTRA! WEEKS FINDS RADIO STATION WITH BACKBONE
. . ANDERSON DEMANDS FREEDOM TO ARGUE . . . FREEDOM CALLED
"NOT NEGOTIABLE" . . . OLSEN DESCRIBES FATEFUL MOMENT IN HISTORY . . . EXTRA! NEWSBOYS VITAL LINK IN COMMUNICATIONS
CHAIN . . . READ ALL ABOUT IT.
COPYRIGHT 0 1962 BY THE REVIEW AND HERALD
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
HARRY ANDERSON, ARTIST
5
I,
ODAY I sat in town meeting and heard the city fathers
debate the future of our community.
I also observed a dispute between a great labor
union and the President of the United States.
"EXTRA!
BEAD
ALL
ABOUT
IT!"
Then, too, I dropped into the mayor's office to explore a
water-supply problem.
I looked in on the stock exchange—with some trepidation.
But then I was reassured by an inspection of a booming
new factory development in our county.
I sat in on the trial of a man charged with selling on Sunday—and heard public comments against the law itself.
Also today I heard teachers talking about wage rates . . .
and I saw a ten-year-old boy who had inherited $35 million.
I heard important disclosures at a Congressional hearing
and took in an outdoor art exhibit.
It has been a busy day.
Of course I did not do all these things in person. I covered
all this ground in less than an hour—the local newspaper was
my magic carpet.
Through the press, in all its forms, we see, we hear, and we
feel the force of events far beyond our powers of personal
participation.
More important, through the press the agencies of government feel our presence. Because the press is there, we are there.
Because the press is free, we are free.
Shut out the press, still its voice, and we go back through
the centuries to a serfdom our forebears knew. We become
pawns of powers at work in secret, controlling in secret, fearing no exposure.
We salute the world's free press—our eyes, our ears, our
voice.
CLIFFORD J. DURR
Attorney at Law
Montgomery, Alabama
Adapted from The Churchman.
Used by permission.
oP R .
T c 1
THE RE, IE,' nND HI FALD
HERBERT RUDEEN ARTIST
St. Paul and
the First Amendment
N THE year A.D. 54 one Saul of Tarsus, alias Paul,
With his educational advantages and family conneclabeled a notorious agitator and troublemaker, was tions, he had had no difficulty in getting employment as
arrested and brought to trial before Gallio, the a prosecuting attorney on leaving the university. At
Roman Deputy of Achaia (southern Greece). The first diligent and even zealous in the performance of his
charges were serious, and public indignation against the duties, Paul gave every evidence of being a young man
prisoner was at a high pitch. He was certainly no first destined for high position. Then, for reason of changed
offender, and the most earnest social workers would religious conviction, he went back on his upbringing
have had a difficult time winning sympathy for him on and threw away a promising career. It happened in the
grounds of an underprivileged childhood.
following way.
Paul, or Saul, was a member of an old and respected
A tightly disciplined group of Christians, operating
family. Brought up in a religious atmosphere, he had out of Damascus, were busily engaged in highly subverreceived a good education, attending, as a young man, sive activities. Their ringleader, one Simon Peter, a
one of the leading universities. There he studied law tough, uneducated fisherman from Galilee, had not only
under the foremost legal scholars of that time.
undermined the very foundation of established religion
but also had openly advocated defiance of the lawful
authorities. "We ought to obey God," he told his fol• This interpretation of Saint Paul's career is based chiefly on the gospel
of Acts of the Apostles.
lowers, "rather than men."
I
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
7
Because of his past success in dealing with these same
lawless elements, Saul, or Paul, was selected for the
task of bringing the Damascus group to justice. Armed
with a warrant for their arrest, he started on the road to
Damascus, "breathing out threatenings and slaughter"
against them. But the arrests were never made. Instead,
he destroyed the warrants and joined the group he had
set out to discipline.
It would be a mistake to attribute Saul's inexcusable
behavior to fear, for whatever may have been the defects of his character, physical cowardice was not ont of
them, nor was a reluctance to use violence when the
occasion required. His "breathing of slaughter" was not
empty boasting of his toughness. According to a reliable
account, he had been involved in at least one killing. In
all probability there had been many more as he wrought
the "havoc" among lawbreakers with which he was
credited.
His story about being blinded by a bright light and
hearing a mysterious voice speaking from the heavens
can hardly be charged to temporary insanity. That he
knew exactly what he was doing is clear enough from
the fact that he went immediately into hiding and came
out as the leading spokesman and organizer of the very
group he had sworn to wipe out.
Contributing to Paul's defection may have been ideas
planted in his mind during his college days by a radical
law professor, one Gamaliel. Whether this professor was
a secret member of the group, or even a conscious fellow traveler, is not clear, but it is a matter of record
that on at least one occasion he came to the defense of
its members, advancing un-Pharisaical arguments about
freedom of speech and of belief not unlike those set
out in a memorable piece of legislation adopted some
seventeen hundred years later over the bitter opposition of some patriotic churchmen—the Virginia Act of
Religious Liberties.
For nearly twenty years after his "apostasy" Saul, now
known under the assumed name of Paul, had traveled a
circuit through the key cities of two continents, a jump
ahead of the police, spreading his propaganda and
leaving behind him a wake of strife, dissension, violence,
and frustrated indignation. According to a source believed to be reliable, he had on occasion openly denied
the sovereignty of Caesar, asserting that the only legitimate sovereignty lay in the line of a Nazarene Carpenter, who only a few years before had Himself been tried
and executed for alleged claims of the same nature.
Quite early in his career Paul had been cornered in
Damascus, but had escaped through the connivance of
confederates, who let him over the city wall at night in
a basket. At Philippi he had actually been caught and
jailed, but thanks to the confusion created by an earthquake and to the concern of the magistrates when they
learned that he was a freeborn Roman citizen, he was
released without even being required to make bond.
The police having shown their helplessness, the good,
8
law-abiding citizens were forced to take matters into
their own hands. Time after time he was chased out of
cities, only to sneak back in again as soon as things
quieted down. Once he escaped only by feigning death
from blows he had received at the hands of a posse.
Only in the sophisticated city of Athens did he fail to
stir up any serious conflict. The people took calmly his
highly inflammatory "one-world" talk about God having "made of one blood all nations of men." They
were not even too put out by his contention that the
executed Nazarene mentioned earlier had been resurrected from the dead; and they offered to hear him
again on the subject. But it is well known that the
Athenians were the kind of people who liked nothing
better than an argument and "spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing."
Nothing was too obscure or too fanciful for them to
listen to, and they were not likely to get upset about
Paul's advocacy of an unknown God, hitherto unheard
of on Mars' Hill.
Now, at Corinth in Achaia, Paul at last was securely
under arrest and actually before the court for trial. The
courtroom, we may well believe, was highly charged
with the indignation of outraged citizens. Paul was without counsel, and if there was a single witness ready to
testify for him, his name has not come down to us.
But fortune was with him in the form of the judge to
whom his case had been assigned.
Whether Gallio's appointment had been for life, or
for good behavior, or only for a term of years is not on
record, but he was clearly a stickler for the letter of the
law and not inclined to put up with any foolishness, as
he saw it, in his courtroom.
The prosecution arose and read the indictment:
"This fellow persuadeth men to worship God contrary to the law." According to the report of the trial,
Paul was about to enter his plea of defense, but before
he could "open his mouth," Gallio launched into an attack on the prosecution. "What do you mean," he said in
effect, "dragging a man into my court charged with
nothing more than advocating unorthodox religious
views? If it were a matter of wrong or wicked lewdness,
O ye Jews, reason would that I should bear with you.
But if it be a question of words and names and of
your (religious) law, look ye to it, for I will be no
judge of such matters."
With that, the report says, ". . . he drave them from
the judgment seat."
Thus, on First Amendment grounds, Gallio,1 on his
own motion, threw out of court in a matter of minutes a
case of tremendous public importance which had been
building up for twenty years; and Paul was once again
turned loose to resume the spread of his doctrines.
Unfortunately, press accounts of the public reactions
It is not surprising that Gallio proved to be a man of principle and firmness, since he was the son of Seneca the Elder and the older brother of Lucius
Annaeus Seneca, the great Stoic philosopher.
LIBERTY, 1962
ILLUSTRATED PRESS SERVICE
Only in the sophisticated city of Athens did the
apostle Paul fail to stir up any serious conflict.
to Gallio's opinion have not come down to us. Possibly
Gamaliel came to his defense in an article in the Tarsus
Law Review, but we may safely assume that the more
solid journals carried an abundance of articles and editorials deploring the appointment to the bench of a
political hack, so lacking in intelligence, experience and
judicial temperament, and showing beyond the shadow
of a doubt that his opinion was based not on law, but
on nothing more than the sociological writings of some
Christian-minded crackpots.
Made even bolder by his victory in the court at
Corinth, Paul moved on to Ephesus and in no time at
all virtually wrecked the economy of the city.
As a consequence of his teachings, the manufacture
and sale of silver shrines of Diana was brought to a
standstill. To Demetrius, a leading silversmith, it was
clear that the issue was far bigger than the loss of business. A religious principle was involved. If this kind of
outrage were permitted to continue, "The great goddess
Diana should be despised and her magnificence should
be destroyed." So, with the cry, "Great is Diana of the
Ephesians," he rallied the fellow members of his craft to
action. Two of Paul's followers were caught in short
order, and Paul was hemmed in so that escape was impossible.
This time it was the Town Clerk who came to his
rescue, a petty bureaucrat who apparently accepted the
opinion of Gallio as good law. It is possible that he also
may have been a pupil of Paul's old professor, for in
his plea to the citizens that the courts be permitted to
handle the matter, he added an argument not unlike
that of Gamaliel: that if Diana was the great goddess
she was believed to be, her might could not be overcome
by words.
. . . seeing that these things cannot be spoken
against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly.
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your
goddess.
"Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which
are with him, have a matter against any man, the law is
open, and there are deputies: let them implead one
another.
"But if ye enquire concerning other matters, it shall
be determined in a lawful assembly.
"For we are in danger to be called in question for
this day's uproar, there being no cause whereby we may
give an account of this concourse."
Perhaps it took the threat of prosecution for a breach
of the peace to clinch the argument, but Paul was again
set free to continue his journey to Jerusalem.
The shocking report that Paul, on one occasion, had
actually brought a Greek into the temple, preceded him
to Jerusalem. That this was a mere rumor, based' on
nothing more than the fact that he had been seen with
Trophimus, an Ephesian, made little difference. After
all, he was the kind of person who well. might decide to
take a Greek into the temple with him. Certainly he had
received Greeks on terms of complete equality in his
own organization and had shown a complete indifference to the obvious distinction between the circumcised
and the uncircumcised.
The good churchmen of Jerusalem had prepared a
fitting reception. More than forty of them had taken an
oath in secret that they would neither eat nor sleep until
Paul was dead, but what forty men know is not likely
to be a secret long. Paul's nephew overheard the plot,
and the carefully organized program was frustrated by
the Roman Army, which held the citizens at bay with
drawn swords and placed Paul under arrest.
Once again he pulled his Roman citizenship on the
centurion in charge, but this time succeeded only in
getting his shackles removed. He remained under arrest
and was spirited out to Caesarea at night under heavy
guard, and brought to the court of Felix, the Roman
Governor, for trial.
Notwithstanding the frustration of their plans, the
law-abiding citizens did not lose hope. If a trial was
necessary to dispose of this menace to their way of life,
so be it. Felix was no Gallio. He knew that law and public opinion go hand in hand and that the very foundation
of a law is public acceptance. Still, it would be best to
take no chances. So the citizens retained as special prosecutor a man distinguished not only as a lawyer, but
also as an orator, the great Tertullus himself.
Tertullus' opening remarks have a familiar ring. In
fact, his tactics might well be examined as a guide for
prosecuting attorneys.
It never hurts to butter up the judge and tell him
what a great public official he is and to remind him that
he is the symbol of law and order: "Seeing that by thee
we enjoy great quietness, and that very worthy deeds
are done unto this nation by thy providence, we accept
9
it always, and in all places, most noble Felix, with all up to Jerusalem for to worship. And they neither found
thankfulness."
me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising
Assure the judge that you are not going to bore him up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city."
with a long-winded argument: "Notwithstanding, that
Demand strict proof of the indictment: "Neither can
I be not further tedious unto thee, I pray that thou they prove the things whereof they now accuse me."
wouldest hear us of thy clemency a few words."
Readily admit facts that do not hurt your theory of the
Let the judge know right off that the prisoner is not case: "But this I confess unto thee, that after the way
only a low character, but a threat to national security: which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my
"For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a fathers."
mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the
Be even stronger for religion than the prosecutor was,
world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes."
and take your stand with God and the people as well:
Take your stand firmly on the side of religion and "And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a
show that the prisoner is against it: "Who also hath conscience void of offence toward God, and toward
men."
gone about to profane the temple."
Assure the court of the purity of your misunderstood
Bear down on the outrage of military interference
with local customs and practices: "Whom we took, and motivations: "Now after many years I came to bring
would have judged according to our law. But the chief alms to my nation, and offerings."
Bear down on the absence of key witnesses for the
captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence
prosecution and imply that they haven't showed up, betook him away out of our hands."
Paul himself was no novice in the courtroom. What- cause the prosecution knows their testimony would not
ever one may think of Gamaliel's political views, he hold water: "Whereupon certain Jews in Asia found me
was a good teacher. And Paul had a considerable purified in the temple, neither with multitude, nor with
amount of courtroom experience, not only as a defend- tumult. Who ought to have been here before thee, and
ant but also, doubtless, as prosecutor in his better days. object, if they had ought against me."
Boil down the prosecution's case to its essence to fit
His arguments may provide a few guides for defendants
and their attorneys:
your legal theory of the case: "Except it be for this one
Don't allow the prosecutor a monopoly on the butter. voice, that I cried standing among them, Touching the
Let the judge know you have so much confidence in his resurrection of the dead I am called in question by you
ability and fairness that it is actually a pleasure to be a this day."
defendant in his court: "Forasmuch as I know that
Upon the conclusion of the case, Felix did what
thou halt been of many years a judge unto this nation, modern-day judges are inclined to do when a hard case
is likely to make bad law. He took it under advisement.
I do the more cheerfully answer for myself."
Profess your innocence early and often, and don't The principle that a man could not be legally punished
overlook the alibis: "Because that thou mayest under- for mere words and advocacy of ideas, as distinguished
stand, that there are yet only twelve days since I went from wrongful acts, was at least as old as the reign of
Paul's imprisonment at Philippi
gave rise to the jailer's question,
"What must I do to be saved?"
FREDERICK SHIELDS, ARTIST
LIBERTY, 1962
Julius Caesar, if not much older. Gallio's opinion was
sound precedent; and in Jerusalem itself, only a few
years earlier, the Governor, Pontius Pilate, had recognized the principle in the trial of the Carpenter from
Nazareth, though the case had gone against the defendant on an erroneous finding of fact.
Felix not only felt that he had to get along with the
community, but the fact that his wife was Jewish added
to the pressures. So the case remained under advisement
for two years, and then, upon the expiration of his
term of office, Felix dropped the hot potato into the lap
of his successor, Porcius Festus, and headed back to
Rome, having, as a final gesture of his solidarity with
the community, put Paul back in chains.
Giving in to public pressure, Festus, as a first order of
business, reopened the case of the People v. Paul. The
witnesses were again vehement in their charges, but
short on evidence. ". . . The Jews which came down
from Jerusalem stood round about, and laid many and
grievous complaints against Paul, which they could not
prove."
And Paul stood firm in his denial that he had violated any law. "Neither against the law of the Jews . . .
nor yet against Caesar, have I offended against any
thing at all."
Desiring to placate the Jews, Festus tried to get Paul
to consent to a change of venue from Caesarea to Jerusalem: "Wilt thou go up to Jerusalem and there be
judged of these things before me?"
Paul, however, stood on his right to be tried in less
excited surroundings. "I stand at Caesar's judgment seat
where I ought to be judged."
In anticipation of an adverse ruling on the venue
question, he moved for an appeal directly to Caesar.
At this point, the Jewish King Agrippa came to
Caesarea, possibly on a tour of inspection. Here was a
chance for Festus to defer to Agrippa's authority, and
so he referred the case to him.
Festus's statement to Agrippa was fair and complete.
He raised at least three of the important legal issues:
1. The right of confrontation (today guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) :
"It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any
man to die, before that he which is accused have the
accusers face to face, and have license to answer for
himself concerning the crime laid against him."
2. The failure of the prosecution to meet the burden
of proof:
"Against whom (Paul) when the accusers stood up,
they brought none accusation of such things as I supposed."
3. Freedom of speech and religion:
"But had certain questions against him of their own
superstition, and of one Jesus, which was dead, whom
Paul affirmed to be alive."
The next day Paul was brought before Agrippa, and
at Agrippa's invitation launched immediately into a full
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
recitation of his activities from the Damascus road episode right on to the time of his arrest. He frankly admitted his beliefs and gave a summary of the sermons
he had delivered.
It was perfectly clear to Agrippa that the charges
against Paul were legally without any basis; and, unlike
Felix, he had no hesitation in giving his decision, agreeing with Festus that "this man doeth nothing worthy of
death or of bonds," and, "This man might have been
set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar."
The bureaucratic wheels had been set in motion by
the appeal, and to Caesar he must go. So he was taken
to Rome, not just as a prisoner in chains, but as a Roman
citizen who had stood on his rights.
The centurion, Julius, who was in charge, "courteously entreated Paul, and gave him liberty to go unto
his friends to refresh himself."
He even saved Paul's life when there was a shipwreck
and certain of the guards wanted to kill Paul and other
prisoners to prevent their escaping.
At Rome, Paul was treated in a rather civilized manner: "And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own
hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those
things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all
confidence, no man forbidding him."
To the "right thinking" people of his day, Paul's
ideas were certainly offensive. To them he was not a
very nice person; a truly committed person seldom is.
However, as a Justice of the United States Supreme
Court once remarked: "It is a fair summary of history
to say that the safeguards of Liberty have frequently
been forged in controversies involving not very nice
people."
Had Gallio been a more flexible type of judge, less
insistent on the primacy of the safeguards of individual
rights and more inclined to balance out these safeguards
against the demands of peace and good order and national security, an important area of the civilized world
would doubtless have enjoyed for a while longer more
of the "quietness" which Tertullus thought so worthy
of praise. But we would not have today as a heritage
the 13th Chapter of First Corinthians nor the other
Pauline writings.
We recruit our saints from the ranks of dead heretics
and embrace their heresies as our orthodoxies. Paul,
being long dead, now has his honor. But isn't there a
niche somewhere for Gamaliel, for the pagan Gallio,
and for an unnamed Town Clerk of Ephesus, who stood
boldly against the "righteous," not merely for justice to
a man called Paul, but for freedom of the human mind
and spirit?
***
2 This verse concludes The Acts of the Apostles. The preponderance of
scholarly evidence is to the effect that Paul won his appeal before the Emperor
Nero's tribune. But in A.D. 64 he was brought to Nero's Rome again under
arrest, and executed. Just before his death he wrote to his disciple Timothy:
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the
faith.Justice Felix Frankfurter in U.S. v. Rabinowitz, 339 U.S. 56, 69
(1949).
3
11
WILLIAM L. ROPER
PETER ZEiGER and
FREEDOM of the PRESS
Our first signal victory for freedom of the press was
achieved by a refugee from religious persecution.
EWSPAPERS of America seldom
forget to commemorate August 4,
1735, when this country, then an
English colony, achieved its first notable victory for freedom of the press. But they usually overlook one important element in that
victory.
That element is the role the struggle for
religious liberty played in making that victory possible. John Peter Zenger, the humble New York printer whose defiance of
tyranny made him the symbol and the champion of freedom of the press in 1735, was a
Palatine—a refugee from religious persecution.
Zenger was about thirteen years old when
he arrived in New York in 1710 with several
shiploads of Palatine refugees—Lutherans,
Huguenots, Moravians, and other Pietist
sects who had fled the Rhineland because of
religious persecution. They were transported
in English ships, after having been given
temporary sanctuary in England. Approximately 3,000 Palatines, so-called because
they had come from the Rhenish Palatinate,
crossed the stormy Atlantic in this convoy,
and many died during the rough, long
voyage. Col. Robert Hunter, the English official in charge, reported 470 lost during the
voyage. Among those who died and were
buried at sea was Zenger's father.
A year after the boy's arrival he was apprenticed to William Bradford, a foremost
printer of New York. During an eight years'
apprenticeship he learned his trade.
N
12
In 1726 Zenger established a printing
business of his own in New York, publishing
religious and political tracts largely in the
Dutch language. He maintained his ties
with his Palatine brethren, who were beginning to smart under the British yoke.
There were others in the colonies, who
also were beginning to gall under the arbitrary and tyrannical acts of the Royal Governor William Cosby of New York. Printer
Bradford, Zenger's former master, had allied
himself with the governor, so the disgruntled
colonists made Zenger their spokesman.
Thus in 1733 he became the editor of the
New York Weekly Journal, a paper sponsored by lawyers, merchants, and other men
of influence who opposed Governor Cosby's
unpopular rule.
F
ROM ITS FIRST ISSUE, on November 5,
1733, the Journal challenged and satirized
the governor. And it found plenty to criticize.
Governor Cosby had begun provoking
controversy and resentment shortly after his
arrival in 1732. He had become notorious
for his cruelty, for making personal use of
his high office to enrich himself, and for
picking on private citizens.
But it was his prosecution of Rip Van
Dam, who had served as interim governor,
that consolidated the opposition into a political unit. Van Dam, a member of the old
Dutch aristocracy and owner of a shipyard
near Trinity church, was popular and widely
respected. When Cosby served a royal order
LIBERTY, 1962
on Van Dam, demanding an accounting and charging a
shortage in funds, Van Dam did not take it quietly. He
retorted that there was no shortage, and that Cosby had
failed to report £6,000 that Cosby had collected
from the people in fees and taxes. 'Enraged at this unexpected defiance, Cosby tried to sue Van Dam. The
Colonial Supreme Court blocked the governor in this,
holding that it was without jurisdiction. Cosby then
summarily fired Chief Justice Lewis Morris.
Morris, the son of Richard Morris, who had fought
as a captain in Cromwell's army, had served as chief
justice of both New Jersey and New York. His dismissal further alarmed the colonists.
Seeing in Cosby's high-handed actions not only personal danger but also a threat to basic freedoms already
won in England, several of the colony's most distinguished leaders joined in sponsoring Zenger's paper.
Some of them undoubtedly wrote a number of the articles, exposing the governor's questionable activities; but
Zenger, a dedicated champion of liberty, penned his
share. He has been described as a crude writer, a speaker
of broken English, but he wrote with spirit.
T
HIS CRITICISM by "the son of a Palatine," in other
words, a peasant, particularly infuriated Cosby. The
governor prided himself upon being the tenth son of
Alexander Cosby of Stradbally Hall, Queens, Ireland.
He had won the favor of the queen while an equerry to
the queen and colonel of the Royal Irish Regiment. He
had further consolidated his position with the aristocracy
by marrying the daughter of the Earl of Halifax.
So being a proud man of violent temper, he de-
cided to deal quickly and ruthlessly with Zenger's newspaper. Such criticism was not to be tolerated.
His first act was to order offending copies of the
Weekly Journal publicly burned. But truth, as more
than one sage has remarked, cannot be turned to ashes.
And the more Zenger's paper was burned, the more
popular it became.
Early in 1734 the governor ordered his officials to
jail Zenger. The Colonial Grand Jury, however, refused
to indict the printer on a charge of seditious libel. Cosby
then offered a reward of L50 for the conviction
of the author of the articles published in the Journal.
But no one claimed the reward.
Fuming at this continued defiance, the governor had
Zenger arrested. Since the grand jury continued to refuse to indict him, the attorney general charged him
with "libel by information."
UT
v TITH ZENGER IN JAIL, the governor took steps to
deprive him of legal defense. Two prominent lawyers,
James Alexander and William Smith, were ordered disbarred when they sought to aid him.
Zenger's only communication with the outside world
was through a hole in the door, and the only person he
was permitted to talk with was his loyal wife, Anna.
Through this hole in the prison door Zenger whispered instructions on how to carry on the business
of printing the Journal. Anna did her part well. She
kept the publication going, missing only one number.
The governor bided his time. He expected Zenger to
grovel and name the influential men who had been
sponsoring his Journal as a voice of protest. But Zenger,
William Leon Roper, author of "Peter Zenger and Freedom of the Press," is of Palatine ancestry. He can trace
his lineage back to Valentine Frey, who came to America
from the Alsace (then a part of the German Palatinate)
in 1733 in search of religious liberty. Valentine Frey and
his parents, Hans Peter Frey and wife, settled in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, just one year before Zenger
was thrown into jail for his newspaper's criticism of
Governor Cosby.
"Naturally, I am proud of my Palatine ancestry,"
Roper says, "because they were a devout, industrious people, devoted to liberty." The name Frey (in German Frei)
means "free."
Roper was a newspaperman in Missouri, Texas, and
California for many years before becoming a full-time freelance magazine writer. His articles have been published
in more than a hundred magazines, including Coronet,
The American Weekly, These Times, The Christian Advocate, and Liberty.* He has specialized in writing on historical, moral, and social reform subjects. His wife, Violet
May Roper, is also a writer, specializing in stories for
young people. The Ropers reside near Chino, California.
• Articles "The Answer to Intolerance" and "United We Stand."
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
13
being a Palatine, knew the value of freedom. And like
other Palatines, he was notoriously stubborn when he
believed he was in the right.
Some have said it was mere chance that led Zenger
to become the champion of liberty in 1735. But they
overlook the facts. It was his staunch championship of
the rights of a group of thirty-eight Quakers to vote in
a special election that caused him to be chosen for the
courageous task of editing the Journal. Governor
Cosby's election-board officials had denied the Friends
the right to vote, because they asked permission to "affirm" instead of taking the prescribed oath. Their creed,
they explained, forbade them from taking oaths.
William Bradford, publisher of the New York
Weekly Gazette, with whom Zenger was associated at
the time of the special election, refused to print Zenger's
article criticizing the authorities for their treatment of
the Quakers. This led Zenger to decide to establish a
paper of his own. And since he was a champion of
freedom by choice, not by accident, he awaited his
trial with Palatine courage. The winter of 1734 and
the spring of 1735 passed.
F
INALLY ON AUGUST 4, 1735, Zenger was brought
from his prison cell to the prisoner's dock in the hot,
crowded courtroom. We can imagine the bright-eyed,
frail, 38-year-old printer, as he takes his place there in
the dock, accused of a high crime, the power and prestige
of the governor arrayed against him. Many of his friends
must have looked at him with pity and fear in their
hearts, for his cause appeared almost hopeless, his defense attorneys having been disbarred by the court.
But suddenly the eyes of the courtroom crowd turned
from the prisoner to an elderly, white-haired man who
had entered the door. Slowly the old man, leaning on a
cane, made his way to the counsel's table. A few recognized the distinguished old gentleman, and an excited
whisper raced through the room—"It is the famous
Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton."
Hamilton, an adviser to William Penn's family and a
former attorney general in Pennsylvania, was the most
distinguished lawyer of his day. In addition to being
powerful and able, he was devoted to the ideal of liberty,
and having heard of Zenger's plight, he had journeyed
to New York to volunteer for the printer's defense.
The black-robed Chief Justice James de Lancey, a
Cosby appointee, and his associate, Justice Frederick
Phillipse, took their places on the bench. After the
charges against Zenger had been read, Hamilton surprised both the jurists and spectators by admitting that
his client had printed and published the papers upon
which the charges were made.
The prosecutor, Attorney General R. Bradley, must
have thought for a moment that this admission was a
confession of guilt, and that he had his case won.
Quickly he urged the jury to render a verdict "for the
king."
14
But Hamilton was not done. "Before you make my
client a libeler," he said, "the words themselves must be
libelous; that is, false, scandalous, and seditious, or else
he is not guilty."
In thus making truth a defense, Hamilton was many
years ahead of jurisprudence. For it was not until 1792
that the British Parliament changed the law so that
truth became a defense in a trial for libel. The old Star
Chamber rule in English law had been that "the greater
the truth, the greater the libel."
"I agree with Mr. Attorney," Hamilton continued,
"that government is a sacred thing; but I differ very
widely from him when he would insinuate that the just
complaints of a number of men who suffer under a bad
administration is libel."
Hamilton added that if the attorney general could
prove false the facts stated in the newspaper, he would
admit that a libel had been committed.
"We have nothing to prove," Bradley retorted. "You
have confessed the libel."
The chief justice joined in, saying that a libel could
not be justified by showing that what was printed was
true. Any criticism of an official was to be considered
libelous, whether true or false.
Not so, argued Hamilton, pointing out that the indictment against Zenger charged that he had published
false libels, and that the jury must decide whether the
published criticism was false.
Swinging around to face the jury, Hamilton said:
"Then, Gentlemen of the Jury, it is to you we must now
appeal for witnesses to the truth of the facts we have offered and are denied the liberty to prove. The facts
which we offer to prove are notoriously known to be
true and therefore in your justice lies our safety."
I
N HIS INSPIRED SPEECH in that crowded New York
courtroom Hamilton called attention to the progress
that had been made by those championing religious
and political liberty.
"There is heresy in law as well as in religion," he
said, "and both have changed very much; and we well
know that it is not two centuries ago that a man would
have been burned as a heretic for owning such opinions
in matters of religion as are publicly written and printed
at this day."
He told how William Penn and his Quaker congregation had been indicted for disturbing the peace because
they had held a service in a quiet manner at their regular
meetinghouse in London, but had won acquittal by a
jury decision.
The judge who tried the Quaker case in London had
instructed the jury to find Penn and his brethren guilty,
Hamilton recalled, "but the jury did not think fit to
take the court's word for it, for they could neither find
riot, tumult, or anything tending to the breach of the
peace committed at the meeting."
For disobeying the judge's instructions, the jury had
LIBERTY, 1962
been fined. One juror, refusing to pay the fine, had appealed to higher courts and had succeeded in establishing a rule of English law—that a jury could not be fined
or imprisoned for rendering a verdict contrary to the
judge's instructions. Hamilton, therefore, made it clear
to the jury that he was relying upon its members to do
their duty as patriots and free Zenger, even if the two
justices advised them to do otherwise.
"This is the second information for libeling of a
governor that I have known in America," Hamilton
said. He then recounted the amazing story of how Sir
Francis Nicholson, while governor of one of the
colonies, had happened to meet a clergyman who had
criticized him. Continued Hamilton, "As it was usual
with him, under the protection of his commission, he
used the poor parson with the worst of language,
threatened to cut off his ears, slit his nose, and, at last,
to shoot him through the head."
The preacher stood bareheaded in the hot sun until
Governor Nicholson had exhausted himself with his
tirade, then he ran to a neighbor's house. There he
collapsed, and a physician was called. The minister described his meeting with the governor. "He must certainly be mad," he concluded. The doctor mentioned the
case to others, and eventually the governor heard that
the minister had written a letter stating his opinion that
the governor was demented.
Enraged, Nicholson ordered an indictment drawn,
charging the preacher with libeling him by "false, scandalous and wicked" statements, "written with intent to
move sedition among the people." Fortunately, an order
by good Queen Anne put an end to the preacher's prosecution, and Sir Francis was recalled to England.
Hamilton's reference to this case, still fresh in the
minds of many colonists, showed once more the important role the champions of religious liberty had
played in establishing other basic American freedoms.
"The question before you, Gentlemen of the Jury,"
Hamilton said, "is not of small or private concern; it
is not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York
alone, which you are now trying. No! It may in its consequence affect every free man in America. It is the best
cause. It is the cause of liberty. . . . Every man who prefers freedom to a life of slavery will bless and honor you
as men who have baffled the attempt of tyranny, and by
an impartial and uncorrupt verdict, have laid a noble
foundation for securing to ourselves, our posterity and
our neighbors, that to which nature and the laws of our
country have given us a right—the liberty both of exposing and opposing arbitrary power—in these parts of
the world, at least—by speaking and writing the truth."
The red-faced chief justice gave the customary charge
to the jury, virtually directing them to find John Peter
Zenger guilty.
A few minutes later the jury was back. Its verdict:
"Not guilty."
Cheers rocked the courtroom, and others wept openly
in joyful relief. New York's city officials feted Andrew
Hamilton and presented him with a gold box containing
a document granting him the freedom of the city. Zenger, following his acquittal, continued to publish the
New York Weekly Journal. Eventually he became public printer for New York in 1737, and government
printer for New Jersey. His New Jersey appointment
was brought about by his friend, Lewis Morris, who
had been ousted as chief justice by Cosby. Morris, who
had left New York following his trouble with Cosby,
became governor of New Jersey.
Not only did the Zenger case provide a foundation
for freedom of the press as we know it today, but it
also helped sound the death knell of Colonial tyranny. Zenger's courtroom victory has been called "the
morning star of that liberty which subsequently
revolutionized America." And the man who put his
career on the line for that liberty forged his character on
the anvil of religious persecution.
***
Governor Cosby's first act was to order offending copies of the Weekly Journal publicly burned.
HARRY BAERG, ART iST
moat. &wooed.
What limits should be imposed on freedom of expression,
and who should impose them?
DEAN M. KELLEY
CONSENSUS
1. Under the First Amendment of the Constitution considerable freedom of expression is permitted and protected, for
A. Individuals, and
B. Mass Media:
1) Press (newspapers, magazines, books)
2) Public performances (stage, etc.)
3) Radio and Television
4) Motion Pictures (to which the First Amendment was extended in the recent "Miracle"
decision of the Supreme Court)
2. There are few who would claim that this freedom is
absolute. Certain extremes of offensive expression
are recognized, including:
a. "Obscenity" (especially "pornography")
b. Portrayals of violence, cruelty, bloodshed
c. "Sacrilege" or "blasphemy"
d. "Sedition" (including "hate" literature)
e. Libel
However, differences arise over which expressions fall
within these categories, and which are still within
the limits of permissibility.
PROBLEMS
1. Some would limit the dissemination of extreme expressions only when they can clearly be shown to
cause overt actions made illegal by a proper statute.
As Justice Douglas said in his dissent in the Roth
case:
I would give the broad sweep of the First Amendment full support. I have the same confidence in
the ability of our people to reject noxious literature as I have in their capacity to sort out the
true from the false in theology, economics, politics, or any other field. (1956)
2. Advocates of permissiveness insist that no clear connection has ever been established between "obscenity" or "pornography"—for instance—and the crimes
16
alleged to be incited by such literature; they claim
(a) that susceptibility to such literature is not a
cause of crime but a symptom of deeper causes;
(b) that such causes more often find a relatively
harmless outlet in reading such literature than they
find incitement to overt crimes in it. ("Literature,
the Law of Obscenity, and the Constitution," Lockhart and McClure, cited in Roth.) . . .
3. Some desire a much tighter control of extreme forms
of expression, so that no part of a work of art or
a performance might be offensive to the more susceptible or sensitive members of society. The prevailing standard, established in the Roth decision, is not
so restrictive, but judges whether the work as a whole
"appeals to prurient interest" or otherwise "offends
the common conscience of the community by presentday standards,"—that is, the standard is the average
rather than the exceptional person, the whole rather
than a part of the work.
4. The chief concern of those who would limit freedom
of expression is the danger to young and immature
minds. Some who insist that adults cannot properly
be barred by other adults from seeing, hearing, or
reading whatever there is to see and hear and read,
are still concerned to protect the sensibilities of children. Whether information can be forbidden to minors in the same sense as alcoholic beverages are
sought to be forbidden is an issue in dispute.
5. There is a distinction to be made between freedom
of expression and freedom of dissemination or reception: some will say that limits should not be placed
on what people express so much as on whether it
should be published, seen, heard, transmitted, to and
by other people.
6. Others condemn as "censorship" any form of "prior
restraint" that would enable expression to be muffled
before dissemination. They claim that if expression
is productive of harm or danger there is sufficient
remedy in "subsequent prosecution" on the basis of
evidence of harm.
LIBERTY, 1962
7. Several modes of control have been suggested to protect the young and the susceptible:
a. Self-control. This type of control has been fairly
effective (until recently?) in radio, television, and
motion pictures, as a method designed to forestall
governmental censorship.
b. Community standards. Various efforts have been
made to organize community-wide campaigns to
raise and enforce standards among exhibitors of
entertainment motion-pictures, news-stands and
magazine dealers, etc. The Roman Catholic National Organization for Decent Literature and its
Legion of Decency, The Watch and Ward Society,
The Methodist Board of Temperance and Public
Morals, and other such groups work at this in
local commuaities and among their denominational constituents.
c. Governmental censorship ( coercive).
1) Through the courts, by either civil or criminal
actions.
2) Through administrative officers, such as municipal licensing authorities, the U.S. Customs,
and the Postmaster General.
POSITIONS OF RELIGIOUS AND OTHER BODIES:
1. A Roman Catholic position:
Civil authority has the right and duty to exercise restraint on human expression because the common
good of society is involved. Likewise, the churches of
America share in this duty and right. . . . Where
pornography is big business, salacious literature is a
diabolical threat to not only teenagers but to all;
where smut is on the newsstands and lewd conduct
and obscene matter are common in public media, no
one can possibly deny the right of churches to speak
out. The National Legion of Decency and the National Office for Decent Literature were founded to
give free expression to moral judgment on license
and social responsibility. "Through these agencies,"
the (Roman Catholic) Bishops stated, "we voice our
concern over conditions which, tolerated, merit expressions of public indignation. A freedom perceived
in its true essence, in its exact limits, in its context of
responsibility, is a freedom doubly secure; a freedom
misunderstood risks becoming a freedom lost."—from
the "White House Conference Handbook" published
by the National Catholic Committee, Page 58.
Turn to page 31
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
Where other stations were silent,
Bill and Becky Ann's
was going to speak up.
Sunday laws, loyalty oaths, prayer
in public schools, birth control,
censorship, racial questions—
you name it; WPBC
has broadcast an opinion on it.
Radio S-11
-11,1' cox-A_
HOWARD B. WEEKS
T
HE SKEPTICS called it a pipe dream when in
1949 Bill and Becky Ann Stewart announced
their startling plans for a "different" kind of
radio station.
"You'll never make a go of it," said wise old heads of
the Minneapolis broadcasting fraternity.
Bill and his pretty young wife only grinned and
spelled out the ambitious details for them.
Their radio station was going to have "backbone."
On community issues where other radio stations were
usually silent they were going to speak up. Where other
stations seemed fearful, they would stimulate needed
thought even if it meant occasionally stepping on community toes.
Just as important, they were sick of the raucous sounds
that passed for music on most stations. Their new station would toss "irritating" music right out the window,
along with idiotic chatter.
But they wouldn't go to the other extreme with
long-haired classics. They would be middle of the road,
play music with character but easy to listen to—"better
music" they would call it.
All this wouldn't seem exactly radical now, but these
ideas were real shockers in 1949. Many broadcasters
18
thought no one could stay in business unless he catered
to the lowest common denominator in public taste.
Sponsors would stay away in droves, it was claimed,
unless you clammed up on local discussions that might
bruise the feelings of this or that group.
It was even questionable to what extent the Federal
Communications Commission would tolerate a radio
station nosing into local political fracases.
There were bets in the trade that "Bill Stewart's
pipe dream won't last six months!"
But today that dream is still going strong. The Stewarts' Station WPBC stands near the top in Twin Cities
audience surveys. And across the country radio and television "editorials" on community issues have become
commonplace. Almost every big city has a "better
music" station where you can get easy listening somewhere between the extremes of rock 'n' roll and the
rigid classics.
But this was a vision that few could see in 1949.
Many people asked, "Who is going to sit still for that
kind of music?"
"And the first time you slug someone with an editorial," Bill was warned, "you'll be crucified!"
Sure, newspapers could get by with it; be community
LIBERTY, 1962
gadflies. "But radio is different," the Stewarts were advised. "People take it personally; get stirred up too
much."
Bill's reply to that was simple. "That's exactly why
radio should be more responsible and use its great personal power to stir people up about the right things—get
them to thinking."
He and Becky Ann shared this conviction that radio
should inspire and stimulate—not pander and degrade.
They had been working together in broadcasting
since 1943. That year Becky Ann, who had an eye on
Bill even when they were students at Purdue University, landed a job at WOWO in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Perhaps it was no coincidence that Bill had begun
work there as an announcer just the year before!
Bill and Becky Ann had a lot in common—even ap-
investor to another, Bill heard the refrain again and
again: "Don't you know that radio is in trouble? This
is no time to start any kind of station, much less one
that violates all the rules of attracting listeners—and
sponsors!"
The Stewarts' faith was strengthened as one by one
they found rugged idealists interested enough in a new
kind of radio to put their money alongside their convictions.
Bill applied' for and got his license for the new station. He rented a small building on the outskirts of
Minneapolis. Equipment was bought and installed. In
1949 the first call letters were sounded. Bill and Becky
Ann Stewart were at last on the air—on their own!
Their music was hand picked, just good listening
music, such as Vienna waltzes and Rogers and Ham-
' kith n Baclzbone
pearance. There was almost a family resemblance in
the clear-eyed, open countenance, and firm-set chin.
Bill was more affable; Becky Ann more reserved.
Both were sensitive and thoughtful. Both came from
Methodist families with strong beliefs in individualism
and idealism. They had similar tastes in music. Most
important, each felt that society was a little sick and that
radio could and should do something about it.
As their ideas blended, so did their lives. In less than
a year they were married. Their great ambition—not
only a home of their own but also a radio station of their
own!
They moved to Minneapolis. Bill worked as an announcer and commentator on WCCO, veteran station
of the Twin Cities. But family savings piled up all too
slowly. By 1948 they amounted to an unimpressive
$1,800.
Obviously, the only hope of realizing the dream of a
station of their own was to form a corporation and invite investment by others who shared their ideals and
optimism.
But optimism about radio was hard to come by in
1948. Reeling from the initial punch of television,
radio was deemed by many gloomy observers to be on
the way out.
As he wearily made the rounds from one potential
The "Special Assignment" tapes of Joseph della Malva
punched nearly every key on the console of controversy.
40. After Bill tore up the programing schedules, he
and Becky played music they could stand to listen to.
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
merstein compositions. Bill took to the air every hour
with a brief program of comment and opinion on local
and national issues, tentatively at first, testing his footing.
Becky Ann had her program too—"One Woman's
Viewpoint," on which she talked about everything from
women in politics to needed improvements in the
school system. A dream come true. Everyone, it seemed,
was happy.
Everyone, that is, except would-be advertisers. Skittish about these unproved ideas, they were staying
away in droves! With expenses piling up, the dream began to turn into a nightmare. Before long the station
was nearly broken financially. Were the skeptics right?
Was it only a pipe dream after all?
B
hold in the day of trouble, and He knoweth them that
trust in Him."
They lingered in prayer, gathering strength for decision. They arose. "Becky Ann," Bill said firmly, "we
will tell the stockholders that this station cannot and
will not broadcast this kind of music." He tore up the
future programing schedules. Together he and Becky
Ann picked out four thousand titles that met their old
standards and issued instructions to all station staff that
future programing was to be made up from that list only.
They waited for the blowup, but it never came. The
stockholders, somehow, had caught anew the first vision
of their project. They stuck loyally by the Stewarts in
their bold reappraisal.
Just as Bill and Becky Ann in that moment of prayer
had believed they would, audience ratings steadily
climbed. More advertisers came aboard as they saw the
value of a rather special audience attracted by this special kind of programing. Old advertisers and listeners,
attracted during the "top-forty" months, stayed by. The
crisis was over.
Encouraged, Bill moved to expand the expression of
opinion on the station. He brought more comment into
his own regular programs, "What Do You Think?"
and "Scrapbook." He gave his news editor a free hand
in evaluating the news of the day and editorializing
where he felt it would stimulate thought and helpful
discussion. Becky Ann branched out into all sorts of
topics on her "Viewpoint" show.
They shouldn't have been surprised when angry
howls arose, but they were. "Apparently some people
believe in freedom until their own toes get pinched,"
Bill says.
University of Minnesota students harangued him on
the telephone, "You don't have a right to broadcast
your opinions just because you own a radio station,"
they protested. "Why can't we have the same right?"
Bill Stewart's answer to this was disarming. "You
can," he told them, and invited the students to send
someone to express their views on the station. No one
showed up.
When he ventured an opinion that Roosevelt High
School students shouldn't be allowed to picket the
school just because they didn't like a change in cafeteria hours, parent-teacher association leaders ganged
up on him.
Rival radio station managers, objecting to his commentaries, charged him with mishandling the news.
But scores of favorable calls spurred the Stewarts
on. "You are honest in your expression of opinion," one
listener said. "We need more of that in this city."
ILL AND BECKY ANN still shudder as they remember that grim session with the stockholders one day when
it seemed certain that the prophets of doom were about
to be vindicated.
Several investors had already pulled out. The others
sat in a circle in the Stewarts' living room, looking reproachfully at the uncomfortable pair.
"Something has to change," one of the leaders declared with finality. "It's that milquetoast music you're
playing."
"That's right," chimed in another. "I like it fine. It's
what we wanted. But it just doesn't pull in mobs of listeners. Sponsors have to have quantity, not quality."
Hopefully, Bill put the question to the group as a
whole, wistfully confident that idealism would triumph
over economics.
"All right," he said, "you decide what we will broadcast." He cast his own vote. "I'm for sticking to what
we've been doing, and trying to educate the listening
audience."
Becky Ann cast her vote with Bill.
They turned to the next man in the circle. He paused,
then frowned. "Nope. Better use the top-forty tunes
of the week—only thing that's been proved," he said.
Bill's heart sank. Then the next man. "The top forty,
I guess," he said. So it went, right down to the last man.
Clearly outvoted, bitterly disappointed, Bill and
Becky Ann bowed to the demands of the stockholders.
Their dream was over. Now they were running just
another station.
The turntables rolled. The raucous sounds emerged.
The Stewarts couldn't believe it had come to this. Day
after day for five months the babel of sound went on.
So this was their "dream station"!
"We actually became ill," Bill recalls. "It was a physical thing. We just couldn't stand it. We were ashamed
to tell anyone that we were in charge of the station."
ILL WAS WELL AWARE that sooner or later some
With his own sense of values finally outraged, Bill
called Becky Ann and together they went to the office. sponsors would become nervous about the station's exThere, true to their religious upbringing, they knelt to- pression of controversial opinions, just as they had earlier
gether and prayed. On the wall was a picture, Sohl- about the music.
After the station voiced strong opposition to a Sunday
man's Christ, and a motto: "The Lord is good, a strong-
B
20
LIBERTY, 1962
blue law aimed at closing independent used-car lots, a
new car dealer who had been a major sponsor suddenly
dropped the station. No one said anything about a boycott, but to this day there has been little automobile advertising placed with WPBC.
One of Bill's disappointments is that he has never
been able to persuade any advertiser to sponsor those
programs on which opinions are expressed. The fear of
offending customers is apparently too great.
But Bill Stewart's convictions run deep where freedom of expression is concerned. Convinced that apathy
is the worst enemy of free speech, he made in 1958 a
dramatic move designed, as he says, "to test the freedom climate in our town."
Because his management responsibilities limited personal time for research and comment on current issues,
he looked around for someone to carry the ball for him.
After a long search he found a man he thought
could provide provocative, thought-stimulating daily
editorials. He was Joseph della Malva, ex-Army intelligence agent, one-time prisoner of war, and a man who
shared Stewart's urgent conviction that thinking people
must take up the cause of free speech or lose the right.
"We also wanted to learn something about the ability
of people in our town to practice the freedoms Americans preach," Bill explains.
Della Malva was given freedom almost unheard of in
local radio to express his personal opinions on all subjects, limited only by his judgment concerning honesty,
ethics, and good taste.
True to his own belief in freedom of expression,
Stewart allowed this, knowing in advance that Della
Malva's views on many subjects were vigorously opposed to his own. Stewart did not even ask to see the
script before broadcast.
Della Malva, in a series called "Special Assignment,"
recorded three two-minute commentaries a day for
broadcast hourly on a rotation basis. With good taste
and fairness to other viewpoints, Della Malva punched
nearly every key on the console of controversy, all as an
employee of Bill Stewart's station.
He hit loyalty oaths in American colleges, called into
question the offering of prayer in public schools, and
struck at Sunday laws. He defended the Hutterites
against restrictions on land ownership. He chided public officials for playing down the strength of our enemies
and exaggerating our own. He stirred the caldions of
birth control and censorship, of racial and religious
questions.
To these Bill Stewart replied, "I am disappointed
when Americans threaten boycott in order to control
thought in our country. It is alarming that some Americans are not able to hear opinions opposed to their own
without attempting to silence the speaker. This is a
dangerous tactic, used in dictatorial nations where people with opposing views are silenced by physical liquidation."
However, it was soon clear that supporters, though
perhaps less vocal, far outnumbered detractors and critics. The station, with all its features intact, began attracting wider attention and wider acceptance among
thoughtful people. It was growing. And it was financially solvent and prospering.
The economic blessings of integrity and courage having been proved, another group paid Bill and Becky
Ann Stewart the finest compliment, they say, by landing a spot on the dial right next to WPBC for a new station with a similar format. Also, an older, established
station has shifted to the "better music" approach.
Four years ago, in a move some observers feel is not
entirely unrelated to the courageous experimentation of
people like the Stewarts, the Federal Communications
Commission issued an advisory that more expression of
opinion on current issues would be profitable on radio
and television stations.
Today many stations exercise this liberty considered
so risky only twelve years ago by Bill Stewart's skeptical
friends.
T
HE STEWARTS ARE KEENLY AWARE that hazards
remain for any radio station with its neck out in the
realm of public discussion. He still remembers the crisis
days when stockholders were pulling out over the music
issue, when nothing but "guts and the fear of God," he
says, kept them going.
But at the moment Station WPBC seems firmly here
to stay. Latest Neilsen ratings show an average audience through the week of 15 per cent of Twin Cities
homes, with 215,000 homes, or 52 per cent, tuning in
at some time during the week. This figure compares
well with the 275,000 homes for the largest station in
the area.
In January, 1961, came the best evidence of all that
WPBC is not only here to stay but is still on the way
up. The Mutual Network shifted away from its
former outlet in the Twin Cities and among all the
available independents chose WPBC as the station that
would best "upgrade the network" in that locality.
When the big day came and network programs at
last began filtering through WPBC transmitters, all
EACTIONS WERE NOT SLOW in coming. There
were many compliments, but there were also ugly, threat- hands were nervous and excited. But there was quiet
ening letters. One listener, inflamed by Della Malva's satisfaction too.
broadcast on birth control, snarled to Stewart, "I
Bill and Becky Ann Stewart had proved that broadwouldn't suggest anything like physical liquidation. Just casting with a backbone does not have to stoop to contape his mouth shut!" Other listeners threatened to boy- quer. Ideals and courage had made the skeptics' "pipe
dream" a very down-to-earth reality.
cott the station.
***
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
21
The Liberty to Know,
to Utter, to Argue Freely
GODFREY T. ANDERSON
President, Loma Linda University
HE BIGGEST dimension of freedom is knowing.
. . . The choice you never can make is the choice
you never heard of." ' This is true because freedom begins in man's mind. The freedom to know and
to think is basic to all other freedoms. Thus, to enslave
a man's mind, to keep knowledge from him, to manipulate his processes of thinking, is a graver sin against him
than to inhibit his physical freedom. For it is with his
mind and heart that a man reaches to God and communicates with his fellow men.
From the mind of man has come great literature,
philosophy, scientific discovery. From his mind, working
through keen ears and skillful hands, man has produced
art and music that have lifted life onto a higher level.
Oftentimes this great literature and art has come from
persons whose bodily freedom was restricted, but whose
minds transcended the limits of walls and barred doors.
Hazards to freedom of the mind are twofold. One is
from without and is concerned with freedom of speech
and the press, and with free access to written learning
and the right to hear issues discussed. The other hazard
is from within, and it is inherent in apathy, in prejudice,
in indifference to new ideas, and an unwillingness to investigate and learn. These attitudes can be as effective a
bar to freedom of the mind as are the outward restrictions put upon information and independent thinking
by a totalitarian regime. James Oppenheim gave a suc-
T
cinct glimpse at this two-sided aspect of freedom when
he wrote the lines:
They set the slave free, striking off his chains. . . .
Then he was as much of a slave as ever.
He was still chained to servility,
He was still manacled to indolence and sloth,
He was still bound by fear and superstition,
By ignorance, suspicion, and savagery . . .
His slavery was not in the chains,
But in himself. . . .
They can only set free men free
And there is no need of that:
Free men set themselves free.'
America has always taken pride in its freedom of
speech and of the press. Yet there have always been
forces in our land that would inhibit our right to know
and our access to books and other printed materials.
Frequently we hear of libraries that remove classifications of books, or books by certain authors, from their
shelves for the "protection" of the reading public. Even
innocuous children's books have been banned from
certain libraries because of illustrations that offend the
prejudices of a few adults. To the credit of vigilant
citizens sensitive to the implicit dangers in such restrictions, these attempts are often forestalled, and the library
shelves continue to offer a variety of uncensored mate-
"Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely
according to conscience, above all liberties."—John Milton
22
LIBERTY, 1962
rial to all who come to enlarge the horizons of their
knowledge.
There are others who would censor by refusing passage through the mails of material they consider inflammatory or subversive or unacceptable to some whim
or prejudice. We have laws to prevent the carrying of
obscene matter through the mails, and these are and
should be carefully enforced. Still there are those who
wish to see their own views enforced by law upon the
general public, whom they consider not qualified to decide these matters for themselves. To exhort or persuade others against reading certain published material
is within the rights of any group or organization or individual. However, to accomplish this by pressure, or by
removing the questioned material from free access, is
another matter; it is a violation of the basic right implicit
in a democracy such as ours—the right to learn and to
know.
At one time in our country's history, when President John Adams prosecuted and persecuted a number
of newspaper editors under the sedition laws, it seemed
that our country was stepping back from its brave stand
that all men have the right to knowledge. However, upon
the accession of Thomas Jefferson to the Presidency, the
wrong was quickly righted and a sounder principle
was enunciated. He took for his guiding principle his
own declaration, "I have sworn eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Later
when there was a question of censorship regarding a
French work that contained atheistic ideas, Jefferson
wrote, "Are we to have a censor whose imprimatur
shall say what books may be sold, and what we may
buy? . . . Whose foot is to be the measure to which
ours are all to be cut or stretched? . . . It is an insult to
our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose
it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If this
book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its
reasoning, refute it. But let us freely hear both sides, if
we choose."'
Because America has had such concern for freedom
all during its growth and development, it has had a
peculiarly intense interest in public education and in
public libraries. In 1647 the young colony of Massachusetts Bay provided that every town having one
hundred or more families or households should have a
grammar school supported by the taxpayers. Horace
Mann, the great exponent of public education, said
that this law laid the foundation for the present system
of free public schools. It is this compulsory free education for all its children that has laid the basis for an enlightened citizenry, able to govern itself knowledgeably.
Three centuries later this type and scope of education
is still a stranger to the masses of the world.
That compulsory free education and a free press
were a great boon has not always been the unanimous
opinion. The Royal Governor of Virginia wrote to the
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
English Committee for the Colonies only a quarter of a
century after the beginning of public schools in Massachusetts: "I thank God there are no free schools nor
printing, and I hope we shall not have these hundred
years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy
and sects into the world, and printing has divulged
them, and libels against the best government. God keep
us from both!"
However, over against such autocratic pronouncements by officials against public education and a free
press is man's instinct for acquiring knowledge and
making free use of it. Aristotle wrote more than two
thousand years ago, "All men desire by nature to
know." It is this unquenchable thirst for knowledge
that has urged men forward to study, to experiment
and explore, and to record their findings for future
generations. To make these accumulated riches of the
mind available to anyone who desires them is the chief
function of our public libraries.
There were libraries in the colonies from the beginning, and they were public in the sense that they
were not the exclusive property of any individual. Some
were in colleges; some were town collections; others
were owned by churches. In 1731 Benjamin Franklin
founded a subscription library at Philadelphia, and
others soon followed. Throughout the years private
gifts and public grants have produced more and larger
libraries than will be found in any other nation, with a
total endowment of nearly $90 million. And public funds
constitute about 90 per cent of their income.' They
have helped to create an atmosphere of tolerance for
new ideas; they have become sanctuaries where men
can pursue problems to the periphery of knowledge;
they are one of the most important influences in our
lives that make any book-burning project offensive and
shocking.
The American Library Association in 1953 voted a
significant declaration on the Freedom to Read. In summary it said:
1. It is in the public interest . . . to make available the
widest diversity of views and expressions, including those
which are unorthodox or unpopular with the majority. . . .
2. Publishers and librarians do not need to endorse every
idea or presentation contained in the books they make available. It would conflict with the public interest for them to
establish their own political, moral, or esthetic views as the
sole standard for determining what books should be published
or circulated. . . .
3. It is contrary to the public interest for publishers or
librarians to determine the acceptability of a book solely on
the basis of the personal history or political affiliations of
the author. . . .
4. The present laws dealing with obscenity should be vigorously enforced. Beyond that, there is no place in our society
for extra legal efforts to coerce the taste of others, to confine
adults to the reading matter deemed suitable for adolescents,
to inhibit the efforts of writers to achieve artistic expression....
5. It is not in the public interest to force a reader to accept
23
with any book the prejudgment of a label characterizing the
book or author as subversive or dangerous. . . .
6. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians as
guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon the freedom by individuals or groups seeking to
impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at
large. . . .
7. It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians to
. . demonstrate that the answer to a bad book is a good
one, the answer to a bad idea is a good one. . . . We believe
. . . what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be
focus on freedom
BISHOP SAYS AMISH MAY EMIGRATE
TO ESCAPE U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY
Sharon, Pennsylvania.—An Old Order Amish
bishop has said that the Amish will leave this
country and settle in Australia if they are forced
to pay Social Security taxes.
This latest statement in a controversy that
has been going on for some time was made by
Bishop Andy M. Byler. He said members of the
Amish community around New Wilmington,
Pennsylvania, have been invited to relocate in
Australia along with another Amish group that
recently left Ohio and moved to Canada.
"We're looking for a place to go where we
can escape religious persecution," Bishop Byler
said. "And we'd go a good ways to practice our
beliefs."
Bishop Byler said he has friends in Australia
and has been studying its government to see
whether it would permit the Amish to practice
their beliefs. The invitations for the Amish to
settle in Australia were reported to have come
from private citizens.
The Amish dispute with the Government over
Social Security stems from their belief that any
kind of insurance plan implies a lack of faith
in God and that the care of the aged and the
sick is a responsibility of the family and the
church and should not be left to government.
Last summer Internal Revenue Service agents
seized three horses belonging to an Amish
farmer, Valentine Y. Byler, and sold them to
help pay a three-year delinquent Social Security
tax bill.
Although they have traditionally refused to
sue anyone, the Amish decided to take this matter into court as a test case.
Mr. Byler filed suit recently in a Federal court
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to recover $214.13,
the amount for which the Government sold his
horses.
Legislation has been introduced in Congress
to exempt the Amish from the Social Security
system, but so far no action has been taken.
24
dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it
is ours.'
No clearer case for the freedom of people to read and
learn and know could be made than the one set forth in
this declaration.
Some who would abridge the rights of men to free access to books and other literature do so on the basis of
protecting them from error. It is assumed by such that
the general population does not have sufficient discrimination to tell truth from error. However, the right to be
wrong is as basic as the right to be right. What God has
given to man, no other man has the right to take away.
John Milton, who fought so bravely against government censorship in his day, wrote: "And though all the
winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the earth,
so truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing
and prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. . . . Who ever
knew truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"
By withholding general information and by conditioning the minds of its citizens through intensive propaganda, certain dictatorships today have succeeded in influencing the thinking of their people to an unwholesome degree. The art of influencing thinking is a dangerous intrusion into personal freedom—the freedom
to know. The most effective weapon against brainwashing, studies have revealed, is a sturdy independence of
thinking and a reservoir of sound knowledge. A student of this subject has written, "A free country, a free
press, the right to be well-informed, gives to man . . . an
inner foundation and strength against wild political
suggestions. Beyond this, strong, simple belief and faith
in one's own ideas and intentions make people less vulnerable."
In our fear of alien philosophies that threaten to
make inroads even in our midst, have we forgotten the
proud strength of freedom? Have we become afraid,
not only of those who would subvert our freedom and
our system of government but also of the free interchange of ideas? "The riddle of a free democratic society is to find the just mean and equilibrium between
tolerance and intolerance, between the proud battle for
justice and the valuable tolerance to bear injustice. . . .
Man's inner strength and mental backbone depend on
a free, unlimited knowledge of himself and on man's
simple self-confidence that he or his heirs eventually
will reach that goal. It depends, too, on his education in
both freedom and self-discipline."
Another hazard to the free use of the mind is the
continual pressure upon our consciousness of mass communication media, and of that dazzling array of gadgetry which seems to be the focal point of our contemporary culture. The mind dedicated to the trivial becomes easy prey to the suggestions of slick and raucous
manipulators. To think clearly and reasonably is difficult in the babble of modern, everyday living.
LIBERTY, 1962
Apart from the outward hazards of censorship, of
propaganda, or gadgetry and trivialization, there are
hazards to freedom of thought in the minds of men
themselves. All education and learning is a continuing
dialog between men, and between questions within
the minds of men who are determined to pursue knowledge "to the utmost bounds of human thought." When
limits are put on discussion, when people are afraid to
express their opinions and pose their questions, then
they cease to advance and to think creatively. When
men become so obsessed with the need to conform,
when education is geared to the needs of young people
to adjust to the mediocre rather than to think and be
independent, then freedom is slipping away. This is the
hazard to freedom from within. The spirit of investigation, of independent thinking, fades into a dull shadow
of what people accept and think of as socially correct.
The bonds of mass thinking are inimical to freedom,
for "what earth, air, fire, and water are to animate nature, freedom is to learning. A mind unfree, a mind
possessed, dragooned, or indoctrinated, does not learn.
It copies. Learning implies discovery. The unfree
mind looks at maps but does not travel. It dares not.
For at the edge of the map is the jumping-off place, full
of dragons and sea serpents. The unfree mind stays
home, locks the door, bars the shutters.'
The theme "Man's Right to Knowledge and the Free
Use Thereof" was chosen by Columbia University
when it celebrated its bicentennial in 1954. At that
time the president of the university pointed out that the
future of human freedom could never be in mortal
jeopardy so long as man continued to insist on the everwidening application of this motto. This is a truth that
needs constant reiteration.
One must meet ideas unafraid in order to earn his
right to knowledge and the free use thereof. The free
use of the mind and the right to knowledge are basic
to all other freedoms. Freedom of expression presupposes that man has ideas and convictions. As loyal
Americans, may we always cherish in our hearts, as we
have commemorated on a recent postage stamp, the
great creed of Jefferson: "I have sworn eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
***
REFERENCES
1 Lyman
Bryson, quoted in "The Strategy of Freedom" by John W.
Gardner, President, Carnegie Corporation of New York.
2 James Oppenheim, "The Slave," in The Book of American Poetry, selected by Edwin Markham (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1934), p. 608.
3 Quoted in William 0. Douglas, An Almanac of Liberty (Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Company, 1954), p. 40.
4 .Quoted in Mauritz Hallgren, Landscape of Freedom (New York:
Howell, Soskin & Company, 1941), p. 79.
5 See Douglas, op. cit., p. 341.
e American Library Association Bulletin, Intellectual Freedom Issue, Vol.
47, No. 10, November, 1953, pp. 482, 483.
John Milton, Prose Works, edited by J. A. St. John (London: George
Bell and Sons, 1885), p. 129.
Joost A. M. Meerloo, "Brainwashing and Menticide" in Identity and
Anxiety, edited by Maurice Stein, Arthur J. Vidich, and David Manning White
(The Free Press of Glencoe, Illinois), p. 517.
Ibid., pp. 519, 520.
10 A. Whitney Griswold, Liberal Education and the Democratic Ideal
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959), p. 108.
United States
SENATOR SPEAKS OUT
for Religious Liberty
Freedoms of all kinds, and particularly religious freedom, . . . [are] indispensable to a
democratic society. Throughout its history, the
United States has encouraged men and women to,
observe the faith of their choice. Without that
right, America would not be the great cradle of
liberty which it is today. In these times, perhaps as never before, the principle of religious
liberty must be strictly adhered to for the good
of every citizen of the United States.
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER
Senator from Maryland
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
25
Background for the Vatican council.
Fourth in a series.
Papal
Infallibility
V
The coming Vatican council
has awakened interest in the dogma
of papal infallibility.
What were the claims advanced
on that eventful July 18, 1870?
How do they affect the
Roman Catholic attitude
in church-state relationships?
And when and how did the
Bishop of Rome gain pre-eminence
over his fellows?
V. NORSKOV OLSEN
President, Newbold College, England
26
IVA Pop Nono Papa infallible! These words echoed
and re-echoed in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome on the
eventful July 18, 1870, when the great crowd of some
eighty thousand, after having heard the message of papal infallibility, jubilantly expressed their applause. "In the midst of one
of the fiercest storms ever known to break across the city, accompanied by thunder and lightning, while rain poured in through
the broken glass of the roof close to the spot where the Pope
was standing, Pius IX read in the darkness, by the aid of a candle,
the momentous affirmation of his own Infallibility."'
The fierce storm and dense darkness, the thunder and lightning that accompanied the reading of this document, caused
adherents of the Papacy to compare the event to the lawgiving
at Mount Sinai; on the other hand, opponents saw in the wrath
of the elements a sign of God's anger. By both friend and critic
the declaration of papal absolutism and infallibility was considered to be the most momentous event in the long history of
the Papacy.
With a Vatican council beginning on October 11 that will
have far-reaching consequences for the rest of Christendom—and
indeed may well affect the destiny of nations—with prominent
churchmen of Protestant churches trekking in increasing numbers to the Eternal City, a re-examination of papal claims advanced that stormy day, as well as of the bulls and decrees that
laid the foundation for them, is in order. For to one who would
understand the problems of religious liberty and church-state
relationships, or who would seek to forecast developments in the
growing rapport between Roman Catholicism and other branches
of Christendom, the words of Pius IX are of greatest significance.
What were the claims advanced on that eventful July 18,
1870?
The decree of papal infallibility is contained in a document
"very modestly" entitled the "First Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church of Christ."' Each of the four chapters of this document
closes with an anathema, which gives an excellent indication of
LIBERTY, 1962
the far-reaching consequence of the papal claim of infallibility. First is mentioned the institution of the apostolic primacy in the apostle Peter, and then it is declared: "If any one, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the
Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church
Militant; or that the same directly and immediately
received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy
of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction:
let him be anathema." In chapter two "the Perpetuity of
the Primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs" is
taught, and the chapter concludes by saying: "If, then,
any should deny that it is by the institution of Christ
the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter should
have a perpetual line of successors in the Primacy over
the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is the
successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be
anathema."
In regard to "the Power and Nature of the Primacy
of the Roman Pontiff" it is stated: "If, then, any shall
say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not full and supreme power
of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in
things which belong to faith and morals, but also in
those which relate to the discipline and government of
the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that
he possesses merely the principal part, and not all
the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power
which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both
over each and all the churches, and over each and all
the pastors and the faithful: let him be anathema."
The closing statement of "the Infallible Teaching of
the Roman Pontiff" defines the dogma as follows:
"We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex
cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of
pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed
Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the
divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals;
and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the
consent of the Church.
"But if any one—which may God avert—presume to
contradict this our definition: let him be anathema."
Before proceeding to the historical backgrounds of
the Dogma of Infallibility, we should look at its application by Pius IX in two subsequent acts of his long ( 18461878) pontificate. The first of these was the 1854 proclamation of the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary
—which means that Mary had no share in original sin.
"Therefore," said the pope, "if some should presume to
think in their hearts otherwise than we have defined
(which God forbid), they shall know and thoroughly
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
understand that they are by their own judgment condemned, have made shipwreck concerning the faith,
and fallen away from the unity of the Church."
The second act was the issuance in 1864 of the
Syllabus of Errors. While it condemned many things
that Christians in general would oppose, it also repudiated doctrines and principles fundamental to Protestantism and modern democratic states. A few of these "Errors," which "must be regarded now as infallible and
irreformable," are as follows:
Protestantism is held to be an error. Anathematized
is the one who says that "Protestantism is only a different form of the same Christian religion, in which we
may please God as well as in the Catholic Church"
(Error III, 18). Related to this is the error by those who
say that "the Church has not the power to define dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is
the only true religion" (Error V, 21). Bible societies are
condemned in company with Communism and secret
societies.
The Syllabus of Errors leaves little doubt as to the
papal concept of church-state relationships. Those who
hold the following concepts are in error: "The
Church has no power to avail herself of force, or any
temporal power, direct or indirect"; "national Churches,
independent of the authority of the Roman Pontiff,
may be established"; and "the Church is to be separated
from the State, and the State from the Church" ( Errors V, 24, 27; VI, 55).
When and where the papal claim of infallibility is
granted, church-state relationships necessarily reflect
principles of the Syllabus.
Unam Sanctam: Foundation Stone
The proclamation of the immaculate conception of
the virgin Mary and dogma of papal infallibility, as
well as the Syllabus of Errors, made the pontificate of
Pius IX momentous. Yet, study shows that there is a
direct relationship between the Vatican Council of 1870
and the bull Unam Sanctam issued by Boniface VIII
in 1302. Said this bull: "We must necessarily admit
that the spiritual power surpasses any earthly power in
dignity and honor, because spiritual things surpass
temporal things. . . . Therefore if the temporal power
errs, it will be judged by the spiritual power, and if the
lower spiritual power errs, it will be judged by its superior. But if the highest spiritual power errs, it cannot be
judged by men, but by God alone. . . . We therefore declare, say, and affirm that submission on the part of every
man to the bishop of Rome is altogether necessary for his
salvation." In this bull "Boniface VIII. gave a dogmatic
and biblical foundation to the doctrine of the universality
of papal dominion." ° When Boniface said that "all law
was locked within his breast," the foundation was laid
for the Vatican Council of 1870 and the subsequent formulation of the dogma of the immaculate conception
of the virgin Mary, and for the Syllabus of Errors.
27
But what preceded Boniface's bold claim? When
and how did the Bishop of Rome gain pre-eminence
over his fellows?
The apostolicity of the Church of Rome was recognized from the turn of the first century, but it is significant to notice that the early Church Fathers do not
speak about the Church as founded by Peter, but by
Peter and Paul who died as martyrs in Rome. Even
Augustine, who made many references to the apostle
Peter and Rome, never went beyond the Anti-Nicean
Fathers.' In regard to the founding of the church in
Rome, Augustine gives credit not only to Peter but also
to Paul.°
The concept of equality of authority among the
bishops remained prominent until the time of Constantine the Great. With Constantine began the Imperial State Church and a series of Church councils.
The Council of Antioch, A.D. 341, is a milestone in the
history of the metropolitan power. Canon nine of this
council reads: "The bishops of every province must be
[THROUGH
YESTERDAY'S WINDOWS
1887
Seventy-five years ago
ASTRONAUTS' GRANDPA.—July 4, at Quincy,
Ill., an aeronaut named Baldwin jumped from a balloon at the height of one mile, and landed safely by
the aid of an eighteen-foot parachute.
1927
Thirty-five years ago
WILLS FOR SALE.—A full-page advertisement
running through many magazines is headed
"Strengthen Your Will by Simple Exercises." The
ad declares that to develop an iron will is easy
enough if one simply follows certain rules that the
ad's sponsor is ready to sell.
1952
Ten years ago
PAROCHIAL PLUS.—During the past fifteen
years, enrollment in Protestant day schools at the
nursery, kindergarten, and elementary levels has increased 61 per cent, a survey by the National Council
of Churches of Christ in the United States reveals.
There are at present more than 186,000 Protestant
children in approximately 3,000 such schools, while
in 1937 there were slightly more than 2,000 parochial
schools, with about 110,000 pupils.
28
aware that the bishop presiding in the metropolis (the
civil capital) has charge of the whole province; because all who have business come together from all
quarters to the metropolis. For this reason it is decided
that he should also hold the foremost rank." 10 This
canon gave increased power to the metropolitan
bishop. It should be noted that the Bishop of Rome had
authority only in his province as the other patriarchs
had in theirs.
Innocent I (A.D. 402-417) found his own province
confining, and he sought power over his fellows, as is
revealed in his reply to letters from the Council of
Carthage: "All ecclesiastical matters throughout the
world are, by Divine right, to be referred to the apostolic see, before they are finally decided in the
provinces." " Nothing that was done even in the most
remote and distant provinces was to be taken as finally
settled unless it came to the notice of this See; any just
pronouncement was to be confirmed by all the authority
of this See, and the other churches might from thence
gather what they should teach.
In the person of Pope Leo the Great (440-461), "the
idea of the papacy, as it were, became flesh and
blood." Immediately on assuming the episcopacy, Leo
began to assert the authority of his See by formulating
the Petrine theory. In an early sermon he speaks of
Peter always being recognized in Peter's See." Other
early sermons assert that the power of the Roman See
is the power given by Christ to Peter as the first of the
apostles, and Peter's functions are discharged by the
Bishop of Rome.
Those who accept the Petrine theory should not forget that Pope Leo the Great first formulated this doctrine, nor that the Fourth Council did not respect it. In
fact, Canon 28 gave Constantinople parallel jurisdiction with Rome. Rome opposed the canon for obvious
reasons.
Gregory the Great (590-604), last of the Latin
fathers and the first of the popes," contended strongly
for the supremacy of Rome and exercised constant
supervision over the bishops in all parts of the East and
the West. The spiritual and temporal authority he exercised gave birth and form to the Papacy of the Middle
Ages.
Nicholas I (858-867), third of the three popes styled
"The Great," and the only outstanding pope between
Gregory I and Gregory VIII, made full use of the
political situation and claimed papal supremacy. His
letters to the emperor express papal supremacy in words
unsurpassed, but in full accord with the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (see July-August LIBERTY) . Hincmar,
archbishop of Rheims, spoke of "Nicholas, who is called
the Pope . . . and makes himself the emperor of the
whole world."
Hincmar himself felt the power of Nicholas after deposing Rothad, Bishop of Scisson. Rothad appealed to
the pope, who reinstated him, citing the Pseudo-IsidoLIBERTY, 1962
nocent says: "Silly sinner! know that God does not demand from thee more than, with my aid, thou art able
to bear; and if any such intolerable penance be laid
upon thee, I have set my vicar the Pope in my place on
earth to be the judge, and he will mitigate the penance
according to the nature of the transgression, and the
ability of the patient to endure it; for he has received
from me the power to bind and to loose."
In a letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, in
1199, Innocent stated: "The pope is the vicar of Christ,
yea of God himself. Not only is he intrusted with the
dominion of the Church, but also with the rule of the
whole world. Like Melchizedek, he is at once king and
priest. . . . So are they also to his vicar."
Until the time of Innocent III the popes had called
themselves Vicars of Peter, but since Innocent their title
has been Vicar of Christ. With the change of title came
a changed relationship between bishops and pope.
Where bishops had received their confirmation from the
Metropolitan, now the pope alone had plenary jurisdiction in the Church.
The next significant pontificate was that of Boniface
VIII who, as has been mentioned, expressed the proudest and the highest claims of papal supremacy.
In the beginning of this article it was stated that
there is a direct relationship between the Vatican Council of 1870 and the bull Unam Sanctam. It has been
shown, further, that Unam Sanctam itself was the expression of more than a thousand years of persistent,
though unjustified, claims for universal supremacy.
The question may now be asked: Why did it take
nearly six centuries, from 1302 to 1870, before Unam
Sanctam became the first Dogmatic Constitution on the
Church of Christ, or the doctrine of universal supremacy
became the doctrine of papal infallibility? The answer
is a story of "civil war" and "revolution" inside the
church caused by opposition to, and defense of, the
"That the Roman church was founded by God alone,
***
That the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called uni- dogma of absolute papal authority.
(To be continued)
versal.
rian Decretals in proof of his authority over both king
and bishop.
Commenting on the reinstatement of Rothad by the
pope, Hincmar says: "Thus was a criminal, solemnly deposed by the unanimous judgment of five provinces of
this realm, reinstated by the pope, not by ordinary
canonical rule, but by an arbitrary act of power, in a
summary way, without inquiry, and against the consent
of his natural judges."
Hincmar was forced to submit to superior pressure
and power, but his protest against papal interference in
France "lingered for centuries in the Gallican
liberties till they were finally buried in the papal absolutism of the Vatican Council of 1870."
To the Eastern Church there had always been
four patriarchates with equal rights—Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Hatred for the
papal claims of supremacy had been noticeable since
the Council of Chalcedon, and when the papal claims,
as in the case of Nicholas, became more insistent, animosity was intensified. The final separation of A.D. 1054
came when Pope Leo IX (1049-1054), and Cerularius,
the patriarch of Constantinople (1043-1059) , anathematized and excommunicated each other. The schism,
dividing Christian East and West, is still a silent protest
against the universal jurisdiction of the Papacy, and a
continuing stumbling block between the Greek Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome.
Between A.D. 1073 and 1302 the Papacy made its
most lofty claims to universal supremacy. It also attained
its maximum power.
Gregory VII (1073-1085) summed up his conception of the pope in the Dictatus Papae. This document
makes the pope God's representative on earth, having
absolute power over the Church and secular rulers. It
asserts:
That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops. . . .
That he alone may use the imperial insignia. . . .
That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors. . . .
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one;
and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
That he himself may be judged by no one....
That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to
all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness. . . .
That he who is not in peace with the Roman church shall
not be considered catholic. . . .
That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked
men." 1°
To a large degree Gregory VII succeeded in realizing
the lofty ideals of the Dictatus Papae.
Innocent III (1198-1216) brought the Papacy to its
peak. "Gregory VII, Innocent III and Boniface VIII
stand out as the three popes who stated most clearly the
claims of the papacy both in spiritual matters and
secular: but Innocent III alone made good the claim."
Speaking of the pope as a universal pardoner, InSEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
REFERENCES
J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), P. 273.
Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1889), vol. 2, pp. 256-271.
3 /bid., p. 212.
4 Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 128-134.
5 Oliver J. Thatcher and Edgar H. McNeal, A Source Book for Medieval
History (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1905, pp. 316, 317) •
" Johann von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Second edition;
London: Rivingtons, 1869), pp. 161, 162.
Margaret Deanesly, A History of the Medieval Church, 590-1500.
(Eighth edition; London: Methuen and Co., Ltd., 1954). p. 179.
Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel According to St. John, ed. by
M. Dods (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1874), tractate 56, p. 196.
° Augustine, Letters, letter 232, par. 3, p. 446.
"Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Christian Councils (Edinburgh:
T. and T. Clark, 1896), vol. 2, p. 69.
ii. A. Bower, The History of the Popes (Philadelphia: Griffith and Simon,
1844), 1. 147.
" Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1895), vol. 3, p. 315.
" Leo the Great, Sermons, chap. 2, p. 116.
14 Schaff, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 212.
15 Horace K. Mann, The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co., Ltd., 1902), XVIII, p. 75.
" Thomas Greenwood, Cathedra Petri: A Political History of the Great
Latin Patriarchate (London: C. J. Stewart, 1856), Bk. VIII, chap. 2, p. 268.
17 Schaff, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 276, 277.
"Ernest F. Henderson, translator and editor, Select Historical Documents
of the Middle Ages (London: George Bell and Sons, Ltd., 1912), pp. 366,
367.
19 Deanesly, op. cit., p. 143.
99 Greenwood, op. cit., VI, Bk. XIII, chap. 2, p. 354.
2' Schaff, op. cit., vol. 5, part 1, p. 157.
1 Vif.
29
Prayer in Public Schools
The United States Supreme Court Decision
FOR
IN BEHALF OF RELIGION
T
HE Supreme Court's decision respecting prayer
in the public schools is an act of liberation.
It frees school children from what was in effect a
forced participation by rote in an act of worship which
ought to be individual, wholly voluntary and devout.
It frees the public schools from an observance much
more likely to be divisive than unifying. And most
important of all, perhaps, it frees religion from an essentially mischievous and incalculably perilous sort of
secular support.
The main thrust of Mr. Justice Black's learned, illuminating and richly eloquent opinion for the Court is to
show that one of the principal purposes of the First
Amendment was to preserve religion in the United
States from the inevitably corrupting influence of secular authority. The Establishment Clause, he wrote,
"stands as an expression of principle on the part of
the Founders of our Constitution that religion is too
personal, too sacred, too holy, to permit its 'unhallowed
perversion' by a civil magistrate." It would be wholly
absurd to treat this concern for religious liberty as reflecting any indifference, let alone hostility, to religious
worship. Speaking of that faith in the power of prayer
which animated so many of the authors of the Constitution, Mr. Justice Black went on:
These men knew that the First Amendment, which tried
to put an end to governmental control of religion and of
prayer, was not written to destroy either. They knew rather
that it was written to quiet well-justified fears which nearly
all of them felt arising out of an awareness that governments
of the past had shackled men's tongues to make them speak
only the religious thoughts that government wanted them to
speak and to pray only to the God that government wanted
them to pray to. It is neither sacrilegious nor antireligious to
say that each separate government in this country should stay
out of that business of writing or sanctioning official prayers
and leave the purely religious function to the people themselves
and to those the people choose to look to for religious guidance.
There is no doubt that this decision will be disappointing and painful to many deeply conscientious ministers of religion and to laymen who believe that public
education ought to be infused with some measure of
religious faith. But religious faith is best inculcated in
the home or in places consecrated to religion. And the
freedom to inculcate it in accordance with private con30
viction is best fortified by a jealous exclusion of civil
authority from all forms of religious activity.
A prescribed prayer, however nondenominational it
may be, is a form of enforced orthodoxy and is therefore an inescapable enemy to religious liberty. Let children speak to the teachers appointed to instruct them
in the forms and language prescribed for their education.
But let them speak to God in the forms and language prescribed by their individual consciences.—The Washington Post (D.C.) , June 26, 1962.
AGAINST
"—AND FORBID THEM NOT"
J
ESUS, according to St. Luke, remonstrated with
His disciples and said: "Suffer little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not." Little children may not approach Him, however, through
the public schools of New York. Six justices of the
Supreme Court have forbidden it.
At issue was this brief nondenominational prayer:
"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on
Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
our teachers and our country." This prayer has been
composed by the State Board of Regents and was
recited each morning in at least some of the schools.
Had any child been required to recite the prayer,
the court would have had every reason to forbid it.
But this was not the case. Those who did not wish to
participate were not even required to be present when
the prayer was recited. Thus, the real effect of the court's
ruling is to prohibit children who might wish to do so
from reciting the prayer. And this in the name of
freedom of religion!
The First Amendment says that Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, the
Founders having in mind the established Church of
England and similar early efforts in some of the colonies.
But would the recital of this simple prayer, as recommended by a State agency, be equivalent to enacting a
law respecting an establishment of religion? Of course
not, and Justice Black, speaking for the majority, was
obliged to concede that it does not amount to a "total
establishment of one particular religious sect to the
exclusion of all others. . . ." In our opinion it does not
remotely approach this. Nor does it bear any rational
LIBERTY, 1962
comic-book publishing) industry for efforts to cleanse
its own house, but that we urge constant pressure
by all State, county, and municipal officers, as well
as by the United States Post Office Department, to
prevent the distribution of such objectional publications in order that the youth of this nation may not
be exposed to this corrupting influence.
—1955, General Convention of the
Protestant Episcopal Church
We commend Postmaster General Summerfield, and
his associates in the Post Office Department, and
many members of Congress, for their continuing efforts to stop the publication, distribution, and sale of
Blest with victory and peace,
indecent,
obscene, and pornographic literature, and
may the heav'n rescued land
especially
that aimed at the youth of our land. We
Praise the Pow'r that hath made
pledge
our
support to these efforts, and urge the
and preserved us a nation!
members
of
our churches, ministers and laity, to join
Then conquer we must, when
with
others
of
all faiths in our homes and communiour cause it is just,
ties,
to
combat
indecency and obscenity in publicaAnd this be our motto "In God
tions
of
all
kinds,
and to encourage the distribution
is our Trust."
and use of literature that is clean and wholesome.
Perhaps this could be substituted in New York for
—1959, American Baptist Convention
the proscribed prayer. But, on second thought, maybe 3. The Association of Council Secretaries (of city, state,
it would be better not to suggest it. The Supreme Court
and national councils of Protestant and Orthodox
some day might rule that Congress, in its Act of 1931,
churches) in June, 1958, had presented to it a tentapassed a law respecting an establishment of religion,
tive advice for those interested in limiting distribuand that the National Anthem, therefore, is unconstitution of objectionable magazines and paper-backs.
tional. Far-fetched? We are not sure.—The Evening Star
a. Make your effort a community effort, enlisting
(Washington, D.C.), Tuesday, June 26, 1962.
Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.
b. Rely as much as possible on community action,
locally directed.
Censored
c. Seek the cooperation of vendors—as neighbors,
From page 17
parents, citizens.
d.
Involve
young people, not as vigilantes, but as re(An edifying exchange occurred in regard to the
porters
(to
the Committee) and as judges of the
operation of the N.O.D.L. recently: "The Harm
effect
of
what
is being sold.
Good People Do" by John Fischer in Harper's Magae.
Do
not
use
anyone's
list of proscribed publications.
zine, October, 1956; and a reply by Fr. John Courtf.
Do
not
issue
seals
or
certificates to cooperating
ney Murray, S.J., "The Bad Arguments Intelligent
vendors.
Men Make" in America, November 3, 1956, in which
he claimed that Fischer criticized the excesses of
g. Inform yourself as to state laws; in some states
they are helpful; in some, objectionable.
N.O.D.L. rather than its intent, and he himself critih. If you have legal definitions of what is objeccized N.O.D.L. for not eliminating elements of cotionable, try to arrange that a dealer or the comercion in its work.)
mittee may obtain a judicial opinion (not that of
2. Protestant positions:
the prosecutor) as to a given publication, without
. . . whereas the holders of television station licenses
the delay, expense, friction, and advertising that
and the networks with which they are affiliated have
may attend a lawsuit.
ignored, for the most part, the constructive possibilii.
Do
not allow the police to treat any private list
ties of television and have instead presented both proor
opinion
as legal.
grams and advertising offensive to good taste, danFinally
and
fundamentally, let us remember that
gerous for children, and contrary to the Christian
the
only
sure
defense against objectionable
teachings of our churches, therefore .. . we call upon
printed
matter
is the lack of a market. In the
the F.C.C. promptly to move to revoke licenses where
home,
in
the
churches,
in the schools, such good
programs of indecent or harmful content have been,
taste
and
high
morality
must be cultivated that
or are being, broadcast.
baseness
will
have
no
appeal.
—1950, the General Council of the
Congregational Christian Church
Bulletin of the Department of Religious Liberty,
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
Resolved, that we commend the (crime and horror
Volume III, No. 2, July, 1958.
relationship to the religious struggles of 200 or 300
years ago.
In his dissent, Justice Potter Stewart noted that the
Supreme Court begins each day by invoking the protection of God. Its Crier importunes: "God save the
United States and this Honorable Court." How long
will this be tolerated? And what about the prayers
which are said each day in the House and the Senate.
Does this contravene the First Amendment?
Justice Stewart also noted that The Star-Spangled
Banner was declared to be our National Anthem by an
Act of Congress in 1931. Yet its third stanza reads:
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
31
as the editors see it
SUPREME COURT PRAYER DECISION
MISUNDERSTOOD
T
HE United States Supreme Court decision against
prayer in New York public school classrooms
(Engel v. Vitale) does not declare unconstitutional the saying of a prayer in a public school, nor
does it rule out mention of God. It does not affect the
singing of "God Bless America," or the verse in "The
Star-Spangled Banner" that says: "And this be our motto:
'In God is our trust.' " Equally undisturbed are the
Pledge of Allegiance phrase "One Nation Under God,"
and the motto on our coins, "In God We Trust." The
decision merely rules out "official" prayers written or
directed by the State—or any other branch of—government. Thus the scope of the Court's decision is
considerably less than some early, and impassioned,
press releases concluded.
The kernel of the decision is contained in these words
of Justice Black, who wrote the formal—and binding—
opinion of the Court:
"We think that the constitutional prohibition against
laws respecting an establishment of religion must at
least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any
group of the American people to recite as a part of a
religious program carried on by government."
In a footnote Justice Black added:
"There is of course nothing in the decision reached
here that is inconsistent with the fact that school children and others are officially encouraged to express love
for our country by reciting historical documents such
as the Declaration of Independence which contain references to the Deity or by singing officially espoused
anthems which include the composer's professions of
faith in a Supreme Being, or with the fact that there
are many manifestations in our public life of belief in
God. Such patriotic or ceremonial occasions bear no
true resemblance to the unquestioned religious exercise
that the State of New York has sponsored in this
instance."
Thus the Court's decision should not be called antiGod, but anti-state-enforced religion. The spiritual foundations of our American heritage, the principles that
led our forefathers to flee their neighbor's religion to
found a land where men of all faiths and no faith
32
might live together in peace—knowledge of these truths
is not denied our children. Nor does the Court deny
them the right to pray voluntarily, apart from state direction, either at school or at home.
The decision re-emphasizes two things: First, the
constitutional barrier against state-directed religious
practices. And this re-emphasis is essential, as a reading
of the current clericalism barometer shows. For example,
Jerome G. Kerwin, professor of political science at the
University of Chicago, and a liberal Catholic, answers
the question, What might be expected if America becomes Catholic? by saying: "Public recognition of the
Roman Catholic faith as the religion of the state and
the people would ordinarily be expected. Public ceremonies would be accompanied with Catholic forms of
worship."' (Italics supplied.) No more to be desired
is the Protestant clericalism exemplified by the politically
oriented lobbying activities of certain churchmen. The
Supreme Court reaffirms the protection against clericalism afforded by the Constitution. In the words of Madison, the Court "saw all the consequences in the principle and they avoided the consequences by denying the
principle."
In addition, the Court's action highlights the responsibility that rests upon American parents to instruct their
children in religion. President Kennedy recognized this
when he proposed a "very easy remedy" for the ruling:
For Americans to pray a good deal more at home and to
go to church more, thereby making the true meaning of
prayer "much more important to the lives of all of our
children."
If the Court's action is rightly understood, as merely
ruling out "official" prayers written or directed by the
State, little concern will be aroused that we have taken
another step down the road to secularism. And if families will, as a consequence, be found together, parent
and child, kneeling morning and evening to seek knowledge of the will of God, the action will have propelled
us a long step upward toward a vital relationship with
our Father in heaven.
R. R. H.
1 Jerome G. Kerwin, Catholic Viewpoint on Church and State (Garden
City, N.Y.: Hanover House, 1960), p. 90. Imprimatur: Francis Cardinal
Spellman, archbishop of New York, May 10, 1960.
LIBERTY, 1962
world report
UNITED STATES
Adventist Survey in California
Finds Little Sunday Law Support
Churchmen Hail Religious Freedom
Guarantee in Algerian Pact
Alhambra, Calif ornia.—A survey among 2,620
southern Californians of 47 communities who observe
Sunday as their Sabbath revealed that the overwhelming majority of them oppose laws restricting Sunday
business.
• The study was conducted by the Department of Public Affairs of the Seventh-day Adventist Southern California Conference. Results were reported at an Adventist religious freedom meeting in Alhambra by Herbert Ford of Glendale, a director of the conference's
public affairs department, who headed the survey.
He said the survey showed that less than 14 per cent
of those interviewed favored legal restrictions on Sunday sales. Mr. Ford stressed that the study was limited
to non-Sabbatarians, or those who do not observe Saturday as the Sabbath—in contrast with the Adventists,
who do.
The survey sought opinions on laws banning ten
types of Sunday activity. These included legislation
against sale of furniture and appliances, favored by
13.8 per cent; autos and real estate, 12.3 per cent; food,
5.9 per cent; gasoline, 2.5 per cent; prescription drugs,
1.9 per cent. Only 2.8 per cent wanted laws restricting
Sunday sport events.
Paris.—Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish leaders have hailed the incorporation in the Algerian ceasefire agreement of guarantees of religious freedom and
other human rights in the new African state.
They said these guarantees in a state to be governed
by a Moslem majority were of great importance to the
Christian and Jewish communities.
The agreement stipulated that "the Algerian state
will unreservedly subscribe to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and will base its institutions on
democratic principles and on equality of political rights
between all citizens without discrimination of race, origin, or religion."
Jewish spokesmen said the guarantees were of particular importance to the Jewish settlers in Algeria, because "they have regularly been attacked by the F.L.N.
[Algerian nationalists)."
IRELAND
Irish Prelate Asks New Censorship Laws
to Halt Obscene Literature
Bandon.—Roman Catholic Bishop Cornelius Lucey,
one of the most outspoken members of the Irish
Clergy-backed Sunday-closing
hierarchy, observed that many imported publications are
Plan Loses in Arkansas City
written from "a non-Catholic materialistic standpoint."
Some of these publications, he asserted, are definitely
North Little Rock, Arkansas.—A strict Sunday-closing ordinance, supported by the ministerial alliance, was occasions of sin for their readers.
"A new Censorship of Publications Act to combat the
defeated at the polls, 3,597 to 2,193, in a special referendistribution of such literature should be introduced, and
dum held in North Little Rock.
The bill recommended by the ministers would have the penalty for violation of the Act should be imprisonprohibited the operation of all business except the fol- ment or a fine," he said.
lowing: hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, athletic
events, public utilities, parks, recreational and cultural
MALTA
facilities, hospitals, funeral homes, service stations, medical supplies, and newspapers.
Malta Labor Party Member Jailed
Three separate measures were debated before the Under Press Law for "Reviling" Prelate
alliance-supported measure was put before the voters.
The others proposed listing the types of merchandise
Valletta.—Roque Abdilla, 28-year-old Labor Parry
or service that could be sold or provided on Sunday, member of the newly elected parliament, was given a rewithout listing the types of commercial businesses in- duced sentence of ten days' imprisonment by a court of
appeals here after having been found guilty of "revilvolved.
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER
33
ing, insulting and bringing into hatred or contempt" the
person of Roman Catholic Archbishop Michael Gonzi
of Malta. He was also fined the equivalent of $75.
A lower court had imposed a two-month prison
term and fined the defendant $90. Two other Labor
Party supporters involved in the offense also had their
sentences reduced to ten and twelve days' imprisonment
and their fines lowered to $75 each.
The offense, which brought charges under Malta's
press law, occurred in June, 1961, when Archbishop
Gonzi visited the village of Zurrieq. He was warmly
greeted by the villagers, but a poster in Latin was displayed outside the Labor Party club which, translated,
read: "Hail, Nero! The city which you burned greets
you." Responsibility for the poster was attributed to
Mr. Abdilla.
-RUSSIA
Moscow Magazine Says Fight Against
Religion Is No "Short-Term" Drive
Moscow.—The fight against religion cannot be regarded as a "short-term campaign," Kommunist, the
theoretical organ of the Soviet Communist Party, said
in a special article published in Moscow.
"A cavalry charge" type of attack would be of little
effect, the Red publication warned party members, stating that religious beliefs formed over the centuries
have "permeated the people's existence" and have attained the status of "irrational habit."
It said that the Soviet Union will follow the program
laid down by Lenin. Lenin, it said, was of the opinion
that administrative methods of fighting religion—forcible closing of churches, violation of people's religious
feelings, and repression of clergy—were inadvisable
and did not result in progress of materialism and
atheism.
"Lenin," said Kommunist, "stressed that a persistent
atheistic campaign should be waged with the help of
exclusively ideological weapons, and that administrative methods of action are necessary only against religious organizations that spread fanaticism and against
those who exploit religion for counter-revolutionary
purposes."
"Religion," it continued, "must be combated by liquidating its social roots and by patiently explaining its
antiscientific and reactionary character."
Kommunist maintained that "Lenin's testaments"
have been fulfilled. It wrote with "justified pride" that
"we can claim that in our country the social roots of
religion have been undermined, but the struggle against
religion continues and must be continued to prevent
religion from rising again."
The magazine called for improvement in atheistic
campaigns in the U.S.S.R. and for the training of atheist
propagandists "to a much higher standard than ever
before to enable them to win arguments with believers."
34
LIBERTY
Liberty is a necessity for all men. But liberty will
not maintain itself. Men must join their interests to
preserve it. Make LIBERTY: A MAGAZINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM your agent in fighting for freedom.
Send LIBERTY to five of your friends NOW. They
need LIBERTY. Enter their names and addresses on
the form below. When sending in more names, you
may attach an additional sheet of paper containing
names and addresses.
International Religious Liberty Association:
Please send LIBERTY: A MAGAZINE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, published in the nation's capital:
To
Street
City
Zone
State
Zone
State
Zone
State
Zone
State
Zone
State
To
Street
City
To
Street
City
To
Street
City
To
Street
City
Rates:
Subscription rate: $1.25 a year. Slightly higher in Canada.
Check ❑ Money order ❑ Currency
Send your order to the
International Religious Liberty Association
6840 Eastern Avenue, Washington 12, D.C.
Full of error and suffering as the
world yet is, we cannot afford to reject
unexamined any idea which proposes to
improve the Moral, Intellectual or Social condition of mankind. Better incur
the trouble of testing and exploding a
thousand fallacies than by rejecting
stifle a single beneficent Truth.
—Horace Greeley
Editorial, New York Tribune, 1845
,J)
JEAN ANTOINE HOUDON, SCULPTOR
whose imprimatur shall say what
books may be sold, and what we may buy? . . . Whose foot is to be
the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? . . . It is an
insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings
RE WE TO HAVE A CENSOR
or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the
test of truth and reason. If . . . [a certain controversial book] be
false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it.
But . . . let us freely hear both sides, if we choose."
—THOMAS
JEFFERSON
Quoted in William 0. Douglas
An Almanac of Liberty, p. 40.