500 
 8173
 
 ustin Addresses 
 
 Delivered at the 
 
 Iniversity of Texas 
 
 January, 1917 
 
 By 
 
 RABBI MARTIN ZIELONKA 
 
 Temple Mt. Sinai 
 EL PASO, TEXAS
 
 Stack 
 Annex 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 I Common Ground . 1 
 
 II Morality Versus Legality 5 
 
 III Tyranny of The Majority 3 
 
 IV The Power of Faith 11 
 
 V The Place of Religion in a 
 
 Democracy 14
 
 Common Ground 
 
 Whoever emphasizes the particular 
 at the expense of the common, the 
 sectarian instead of the universal, 
 breeds discontent and discourages uni- 
 ty. There may have been a time when 
 progress demanded the literal devo- 
 tion to a creed but that time has 
 passed. 
 
 He who proclaims his faith as the 
 only one that leads to salvation, and 
 sends to perdition all who disagree, 
 is living in the wrong age. When the 
 Constitutional Convention of the Unit- 
 ed States convened, no single faith 
 was ready to give way to another and 
 none were willing for others to gain 
 an advantage. Brancroft wisely re- 
 marks, "American law was the growth 
 of necessity, not the wisdom of indi- 
 vidual." And if such were the con- 
 ditions in those early days, what can 
 we expect today, when faiths are 
 counted by the hundreds, and when 
 each looks to a constitutional guaran- 
 tee for its right to worship God ac- 
 cording to its dictates. 
 
 As thinking men and women, we 
 cannot agree upon everything. Life 
 would lose its zest were we to think 
 and act alike. But we can sympathize 
 with each other's views; we can be 
 tolerant. You and I can be the best 
 of friends without knowing to what 
 faith the other swears allegiance, and 
 we- can fulfill our duties as citizens of 
 this great republic without parading 
 our religious beliefs. 
 
 There is a common platform upon 
 which we can met as citizens, and 
 which should be the guiding spirit of 
 
 50084?
 
 your lives as well as mine. You may 
 recall the words of Nathan, the wise, 
 to the friar, 
 
 "Indeed! The very thing that makes 
 me seem 
 
 Christian to you, makes you a Jew 
 to me." (Act iv Sc. 7.) 
 
 What is the common ground upon 
 which we can meet? 
 
 First and foremost is the belief in 
 God, in a Being not ourselves that 
 tends for righteousness. More and 
 more do we learn that the curse of 
 civilization is the self-made man who 
 worships his Creator. Though we may 
 regulate our destiny, we cannot con- 
 trol it. Heine, in his "History of Re- 
 ligion and Philosophy in Germany" 
 tells us that Kant postulated a deity 
 in his practical system although he 
 had exploded deity in his theoretical 
 system, because his man servant 
 Lampe looked dismally at the con- 
 clusions of pure reason, and the phi- 
 losopher was moved to compassion. 
 The same practical conditions confront 
 every man. It should not matter 
 whether I worship the Supreme Be- 
 ing as Jehovah and you see Him sym- 
 bolized in Jesus, so long as you do 
 not try to force your teaching on me 
 and I do not try to force my teach- 
 ing on you. Lip service and confes- 
 sion of faith do not make God real in 
 our lives. It has been well said, "What 
 a man believes may be ascertained 
 not from his creed, but from the as- 
 sumptions on which he habitually 
 acts." Now if we act on the assump- 
 tion of a God, we have common ground 
 for broad fellowship. 
 
 And the natural deduction from 
 this first principle of our common 
 ground is the Brotherhood of Man. 
 Not a brotherhood that is limited to 
 the fellowship of a particular church 
 or synagog, but a brotherhood that in- 
 cludes mankind. If God be the Father,
 
 and the Father be One, then all men 
 must be His children. That was an 
 astute remark of an ancient rabbi who 
 declared that the profoundest senti- 
 ment of the Bible was found in the 
 fifth chapter of Genesis which de- 
 clares, "this is the book of the gener- 
 ations of man," because here is used 
 the singular 'man' to designate a com- 
 mon origin of prince and pauper, of 
 nobleman and mendicant. 
 
 It matters little whether we quote, 
 "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy- 
 self", from the nineteenth chapter of 
 Leviticus or from the New Testament, 
 so long as we realize the command in 
 our lives. 
 
 It matters little whether we quote 
 the golden rule in the positive form 
 of Jesus or adopt the negative form 
 of Hillel, who lived before Jesus, so 
 long as this rule is truly golden in the 
 sunshine and 'happiness it brings to 
 mankind. 
 
 You and I agree that we are some- 
 thing more than flesh and bones, that 
 there rests within each one a spark of 
 the divine Father, which He takes 
 unto Himself in His own time. The 
 difference between man and animal is 
 not only the intellect but also the 
 longing for a realization of life be- 
 yond this mundane sphere. And this 
 future life does not depend upon the 
 recital of any particular creed. 
 
 You and I may add to these funda- 
 mental thoughts whatever our history, 
 our environment or our study may 
 deem best, but we can agree upon 
 foundations. Our additions make us 
 Congregationalists, Baptists, Presby- 
 terians, Catholics or Jews, but our 
 additions should never be emphasized 
 at the expense of our common ground. 
 
 When you and I meet as citizens 
 let us strive for the common good and 
 not for the express benefit of a partic- 
 ular class or creed. Our first object
 
 should be honest and upright citizen- 
 ship. 
 
 A thousand roads may lead to Rome, 
 but an infinite number of roads will 
 lead to our Father in heaven because 
 He is infinite. Thinking men may 
 agree upon a common ground but no 
 two thinking men will agree exactly 
 upon the details of their belief. 
 
 When all is said and done do not 
 the words of Nathan, the wise, come 
 back to us, 
 
 "I cannot venture to decide between 
 Rings which the Father hath express- 
 ly made 
 
 To baffle those who would distinguish 
 them." 
 
 Let us then do our best here and 
 now, each working for the benefit of 
 all and none working for the sole ben- 
 efit of one.
 
 Morality Versus 
 Legality 
 
 Adjustments along social, religious, 
 industrial and business lines are ap- 
 parent everywhere. The recent threat- 
 ened tieing up of our railways system 
 and with it the paralyzing of all indus- 
 try; the strikes in the coal fields and 
 garment industries are simply straws 
 which show the way in which the wind 
 is blowing and this wind is not a good 
 omen. 
 
 Many reasons are assigned for this 
 condition general unrest caused by 
 international strife; increased cost of 
 living; ever higher standards of liv- 
 ing; decrease of illiteracy; the grant- 
 ing of fundamental rights to laboring 
 men with the result of their demand- 
 ing ever greater rights. 
 
 Such explanations are ture in part; 
 they do not reach the fundamental. 
 A tremendous change in industry has 
 taken place within less than a century 
 and this tremendous change has re- 
 acted upon mankind. No such change 
 could possibly take place without leav- 
 ing an indelible impression on men. 
 And this impression has been of a 
 dual nature. The men of power and 
 means felt the strength of their po- 
 sition and refused to relinquish any of 
 their power; the laboring man, realiz- 
 ing a subordinate position, recognized 
 the dignity of labor, the necessity of 
 labor in the economy of the world, and 
 demanded an ever greater but just 
 portion of the results of his labor. 
 
 And this tremendous change has 
 brought a change of emphasis in hu-
 
 man affairs. The moral question was 
 at one time a vital question. Right 
 and wrong were uppermost in men's 
 minds. Today this is changed: today 
 the question has become "Am I legally 
 right or legally wrong: am I within 
 the law?" 
 
 And this is true of both sides of 
 our dispute. Labor seeks to be within 
 the law in every effort to improve 
 its conditions and if these conditions 
 cannot be changed under existing 
 laws, then the law must be so changed 
 as to give ample protection to labor. 
 Employers want to be within the 
 law and should developing public opin- 
 ion demand certain laws which might 
 force a readjustment in factory or 
 mine then must such legal enact- 
 ments be opposed no matter how 
 just or how much they may add to 
 public welfare. It has become a ques- 
 tion of Morality versus Legality; it is 
 a conflict of two standards and the 
 lower standard must give way to a 
 higher standard. 
 
 The railway brotherhoods may be 
 legally right in refusing to arbitrate 
 their differences and threatening to 
 tie up the industrial life of the nation, 
 but are they morally right? 
 
 The factory boss may be legally 
 right in employing immature children 
 in the manufacture of his wares, but 
 is he morally right? 
 
 The civilization of the future de- 
 pends on the boys and girls of today, 
 and if we sap the vitality of these 
 youths how can we expect to rear 
 another generation which shall be 
 physically, morally and mentally 
 strong? The moral rights of the en- 
 tire future should be greater than the 
 legal rights of the present. "The 
 sins of the fathers are visited upon 
 the children unto the third and fourth 
 generation." We cannot deny this. 
 Entrenched behind legal rights each
 
 side continues the struggle: now giv- 
 ing this reason, now giving that ex- 
 cuse. The struggle continues and will 
 continue so long as it is simply a 
 question of legal rights and all moral 
 implications are forgotten. 
 
 And what will be the end ? I can 
 see but one and I feel certain that his- 
 tory gives but one answer. Laws 
 change with each generation; legal 
 rights are simply temporary rights. 
 Men may struggle against the gradual 
 approach of legal rights to the higher 
 demands of the moral code, but they 
 struggle in vain. The ten command- 
 ments, the moral implications of the 
 nineteenth chapter of Leviticus, the 
 flaming words of the prophets have 
 become the heritage of mankind and 
 must sooner or later be reflected in 
 all laws dealing with the relations 
 of men. Today it may be a struggle 
 of "Morality versus Legality"; to- 
 morrow it must be an adjustment of 
 legal enactments to the great moral 
 code underlying our civilization. 
 
 For this religious task the college 
 man and woman must gird his loins; 
 it is a struggle worth while, a strug- 
 gle for the best in men and women; 
 a struggle for the light which must 
 ultimately conquer all darkness.
 
 Tyranny of The 
 Majority 
 
 Wealth and luxury are sapping the 
 vitality of our nation; the cankerous 
 growth of discontent has eaten deeply 
 into our vitals. Salvation is possible 
 only thru a saving remnant. 
 
 What is there beneath the discon- 
 tent seen on all sides of the United 
 States but the sudden growth of 
 wealth due to increased trade; the 
 increase of luxury versus the cry of 
 the poor for a fair share of the added 
 wealth 
 
 A cry for greater democracy is 
 sounded in every quarter of the na- 
 tion. The people as individuals would 
 have more to say about the govern- 
 ment and its needed regulations. The 
 magazines and newspapers are filled 
 with articles and editorials upon the 
 initiative, referendum, the recall of ju- 
 diciary decisions. These are the cures 
 advocated for our disease. Few will 
 deny that these may bring good re- 
 sults if used with proper safeguards. 
 But will they not undermine the basic 
 principles of our government? There 
 is no such thing as absolute freedom 
 and absolute democracy; there is on- 
 ly such freedom and such democracy 
 as is circumscribed by laws enacted 
 for the common weal. 
 
 These seek to enforce the power of 
 numbers. They make possible violence 
 by mob and mob rule. We are un- 
 consciously striving to exploit the ty- 
 ranny of the majority, forgetting the 
 minority and its rights guaranteed by 
 the constitution. The founders of the
 
 nation never intended to establish a 
 direct government but a representa- 
 tative government. 
 
 There is nothing we need fear more 
 than the tyranny of the majority. 
 Our country is so large, its inhabi- 
 tants of such diverse natures, religi- 
 ously and ethically, that right in one 
 part of the country may be wrong in 
 another part: the will of the majority 
 here may be the will of a weak mi- 
 nority elsewhere. 
 
 We have adequate laws to overcome 
 the evil in our midst, but we do not 
 take the time to- perform our duty as 
 citizens at the polls. New laws and 
 experimenting with new forms will 
 not make the citizen better and more 
 willing to use his power for good. 
 What we need is not more laws and a 
 more complicated procedure, but new- 
 er and higher ideals of citizenship 
 and a more honest enforcement of 
 exisisting laws. 
 
 Let us take a concrete example. A 
 few years ago the supreme court of 
 the State of Illinois in a suit submit- 
 ted by some catholic parents, decreed 
 that singing of devotional songs, read- 
 ing of the bible, and reciting the 
 "Lord's prayer" was religious wor- 
 ship and prohibited by the constitu- 
 tion of the state which guaranteed 
 the separation of church and state. 
 Following this decision a howl was 
 heard throughout the State of Illinois. 
 Church conference after church con- 
 ference passed resolutions denouncing 
 the same; petitions after petitions, de- 
 crying the court, were signed and for- 
 warded to the governor. How long 
 do y.ou think would this just decision 
 have remained valid and the rights of 
 the minority, as guaranteed by the 
 constitution respected, if the tyranny 
 of the majority had ruled and num- 
 bers instead of right had determined 
 the issue.
 
 What we need today is a saving 
 remnant that shall steer the ship of 
 state away from the Scylla and 
 Carybdis of destruction out into the 
 placid waters of representative gov- 
 ernment, where all men, having their 
 rights guaranteed, will have these 
 rights respected. What 'we need today 
 is a saving remnant that shall recog- 
 nize its duty as citizens, and do its 
 duty as citizens. Then will we be 
 free to rise from strength to strength 
 without fear or favor, giving unto all 
 men their just deserts, nothing more 
 and nothing less.
 
 The Power of Faith 
 
 The pendulum of a clock swings 
 as far in one direction as in the other; 
 human thought gives expression to 
 both extremes in every period of his- 
 tory. The materialism of Hobbs is 
 followed by the mysticism of Locke 
 and the Utilitarian philosophy of 
 Pragmatism runs parallel with mystic 
 Christian Science'. 
 
 With the increased importance of 
 the manufacturer and the merchant, 
 the philosophy of materialism gained 
 ground; faith was ready to be cast 
 aside. Men judged life and actions 
 not by motives, but by results, not by 
 broad principles, but by temporary 
 facts. The well springs of idealism 
 had dried up and cold-blooded business 
 principles ruled in all matters. Men 
 scoffed at idealism; religion became a 
 mocking; those who sought to realize 
 ideals were laughed at as dreamers. 
 The ledger became the bible of life and 
 utilitarianism the basis of action. 
 
 Little wonder then that the tide 'has 
 turned! Having given materialism a 
 fair trial human thought has turned 
 to the other extreme. Faith and re- 
 ligion are now looked at with more 
 charitable eyes; the minds and hearts 
 of men are more open to truth and a 
 consideration of the deeper problems 
 of life. 
 
 We are more than creatures of cir- 
 cumstances. Our actions are gov- 
 erned by more than our intellectual 
 training. We bear the inheritance of 
 generations long passed to the great
 
 beyond and we cannot completely rid 
 ourselves of this influence. 
 
 All materialistic philosophy fails 
 before the power of faith in ourselves. 
 "I will" and the victory is half won; 
 "I can't" and failure is evident. The 
 mind finds expression not only in 
 words but also in deeds; not only in 
 my deeds but in the deeds of others. 
 The patient cannot be cured if he 
 does not have faith in his doctor, and 
 many wondrous cures have been per- 
 formed by a simple solution of sugar 
 and water because men really be- 
 lieved they would be cured. Many men 
 have passed to the great beyond be- 
 cause they had not the willpower to 
 make a final rally. The seeming mir- 
 acles performed at many places of 
 pilgrimage are facts and easily ex- 
 plained in this way. 
 
 I call your attention to this thought 
 with the hope of interesting you in 
 the power of faith. The man who be- 
 lieves in himself will in the end force 
 others to believe in him; the man who 
 has faith and power to exercise it 
 cannot be moved. 
 
 This is an exceedingly liberal age. 
 Men are throwing off the shackles of 
 creeds and dogmas and asserting the 
 right to evolve their own solution of 
 the world mystery and, having thought 
 it out, to live it. Yet, with it all, 
 there are thousands upon thousands 
 whose minds have reached definite 
 conclusions concerning their religious 
 ideas, yet, week in and week out, 
 they assemble to repeat a creed whose 
 dicta their brains cannot accept and 
 whose words can be uttered only with 
 a mental reservation. The hand of 
 the past is upon them and faith is 
 more powerful than reason. The at- 
 tempts to bring about reforms in all 
 our large cities have failed to a great 
 extent because men have inherited a 
 laisez-faire spirit and are satisfied so
 
 long as no one interferes with their 
 business. If democracy is a failure, 
 as some claim, then it is due more to 
 the fact that we do not recognize the 
 power of faith, than to any other sin- 
 gle reason. 
 
 It is well and good to strive for the 
 material ends of life; men deserve 
 commendation who strive to supply 
 their dear ones with more than the 
 necessities, but it is equally necessary 
 that we impress upon our offspring 
 the power of faith faith in God, 
 faith in our fellowmen, and faith in 
 ourselves. Without these this world 
 is very dreary; without it our life is 
 a wilderness, instead of a garden. We 
 may not be able to fathom the depths 
 of the human soul, the human heart 
 and the human mind, but everywhere 
 about us we can see the influence of 
 our thoughts, our actions and our 
 words. Progress may be measured 
 by standards of wealth, but it should 
 also be measured by standards of 
 character. "A guilty thought is al- 
 most as criminal as a guilty deed," 
 should be branded on the minds of the 
 growing generation, for it is frought 
 with the deepest meaning. He who 
 has pure thoughts will live a pure life 
 and he who allows his thoughts to 
 run riot will lead a life filled with 
 danger. 
 
 The phenomena of the mind may 
 cause us fear, they may arouse with- 
 in us feelings of distrust; the devel- 
 opment of those inmate powers that 
 control the actions of others may 
 cause us dread, yet, if we will consider 
 and study, if we will only remember 
 that we are learning more and more 
 about man and God, as year follows 
 year, then will "our faith triumph 
 o'er our fears," make us more chari- 
 table to the faults of our neighbors 
 because we have learned our own de- 
 fects.
 
 The Place of Religion 
 In A Democracy 
 
 Every now and then the country is 
 aroused by an attempt to read God or 
 Jesus into the Constitution of the 
 United States; every now and then 
 the discussion waxes warm as to 
 whether or not this is a "Christian" 
 country. Every call for a state con- 
 stitutional convention to give more 
 modern basic principles for state gov- 
 ernments reveals a concerted effort 
 to place the name of God or the Chris- 
 tian Savior into the new constitution, 
 and make bible reading or some form 
 of religious exercises a part of the ed- 
 ucational system. The smaller the 
 city or village, the more bitter and 
 acrimonious becomes the debate when 
 the rights or minorities are urged. 
 Because of this continued emphasis on 
 the subject, I deem it wise to discuss 
 "The Place of Religion in a Democ- 
 racy" in order that I may interpret 
 for you, as a representative of a mi- 
 nority faith, our conception of the 
 place of religion in a democracy and 
 allow you to draw such conclusions as 
 you deem proper about our rights in 
 the matter. In order to do justice to 
 my subject, it will be necessary to 
 outline the causes resulting in the 
 omission of the name of the Christian 
 Savior or the name of God, from our 
 constitution, and, which finally ended 
 with religious liberty guaranteed to 
 all. I do this, not with any idea of 
 presenting new or startling facts, 
 nor even teaching anything that is 
 not well known, but simply to refresh
 
 your memories about facts known to 
 all students of American history. 
 
 Let me begin by making the posi- 
 tive statement full religious liber- 
 ty as guaranteed by the Constitution 
 of the United States was not the re- 
 sult of long, premeditated effort, but 
 rather, of accident. "American law 
 was the growth of necessity, not the 
 wisdom of individuals" says Bancroft. 
 And yet this development through 
 necessity has been characterized by 
 Bryce as "the most salient, of all the 
 differences between the Old World 
 and the New." And Ranke acknowl- 
 edges that "the whole life and char- 
 acter of western Christendom consists 
 of the constant action and counterac- 
 tion of Church and State." 
 
 Since such good authorities agree 
 -as to the value of this experiment in 
 government, let us examine its orig- 
 in more closely. But let us not at- 
 tempt to read into the history of the 
 New England settlements some prin- 
 ciples which pervade our government. 
 Those Pilgrim leaders need no apol- 
 ogy. They followed the light as they 
 saw it. Their differing religious 
 convictions brought the numerous 
 New England states into existence. 
 It is a strange fact, but nevertheless 
 true, that each new New England set- 
 tlement was organized by exiles, for 
 conscience sake, from one of the older 
 states. These men came over with 
 an intense love for their faith. They 
 were thoroughly imbued with the ba- 
 sic principle of the Augsburg peace 
 "cujus regio, ejus religio," 'the relig- 
 ion of the community is determined 
 by the religion of the prince.' Since 
 they could not give assent to -the re- 
 ligion of their prince, they sought 
 new lands where they might be the 
 princes designating that religion. 
 
 It is therefore not surprising to 
 find President Oakes of Harvard de-
 
 claring- in 1673 "I look upon unboun- 
 ded Toleration as the first-born of all 
 abominations": Of Governor Dudley 
 proclaiming "God forbid that our 
 love for the truth should be grown so 
 cold that we shall tolerate error": Of 
 Berkeley giving thanks that "there 
 are no free schools nor printing and. 
 I hope we shall not have these hun- 
 dred years, for learning has brought 
 disobedience and heresy and sects in 
 the world." And Blackstone, a con- 
 gregational minister of Boston, naive- 
 ly pointed out the inconsistency of 
 the Pilgrims when he said that he 
 left England "because he did not like 
 the Lord Bishops"; now he could not 
 remain with the colonists "because 
 he would not be under the Lord 
 Brethren." 
 
 Nor would I criticise the harshness 
 of the faith of these earlier settlers; 
 I disagree with them in toto as to 
 their acts. It was a period of intoler- 
 ance to all who disagreed and full 
 tolerance to all who were in accord. 
 Today we may scan their acts as step- 
 ping stones to liberty. In midwinter 
 the Massachusetts colony drove Rog- 
 er Williams into the primeval forest 
 of Rhode Island, but it gave him an 
 opportunity to found his "lively ex- 
 periment" and for this we should be 
 thankful. Endicott put the dissenting 
 Brownes upon a ship and returned 
 them to England; non-attendance at 
 church services was punishable with 
 a fine in nearly every colony at some 
 time or another. Baptist preachers 
 were beaten and imprisoned in Vir- 
 ginia and Stuyvesant asked his com- 
 pany that no Jews be permitted "to 
 infest New Netherlands." Strange as 
 these incidents seem to us they were 
 simply the honest results of the relig- 
 ious principles of the day; simply the 
 dark spots gradually revealing the
 
 necessity of turning on the light of 
 freedom. 
 
 And enticing as would be a study of 
 the rise of religious toleration, I must 
 'pass it over with only a few remarks. 
 Even so great a statesman as Disra- 
 eli declared as late as 1868 at the dis- 
 establishment of the Irish church that 
 it was "destroying that sacred union 
 between church and state which has 
 hitherto been the chief means of our 
 civilization and is the only safeguard 
 for our religious liberty." Thomas 
 Paine was far more correct in declar- 
 ing "toleration is not the opposite of 
 intolerance, but is the counterfeit of 
 it. Both are despotisms. The one as- 
 sumes to itself the right of withhold- 
 ing liberty of conscience; the other 
 of granting it." Toleration is a denial 
 of the very principle underlying the 
 idea of religious liberty and Lord 
 Stanhope, in 1827 epitomized the de- 
 velopment of religious liberty in the 
 United States and in every other coun- 
 try when he said "The time was, 
 when toleration was craved by disent- 
 ers as a boon; it is now demanded as 
 a right, but the time will come when 
 it will be spurned as an insult." 
 
 Toleration gradually took the place 
 of open opposition. At least it be- 
 came more apparent each year that 
 dissension could not be downed by 
 oppression and legal enactments 
 were no guarantee for purity of reli- 
 gious belief. Although the laws re- 
 mained on the statute books, they 
 were not enforced. Massachusetts, for 
 instance, tolerated Episcopalians and 
 Baptists; and New York and Virginia 
 tolerated the Presbyterians. 
 
 A general condition of toleration 
 prevailed at the breaking out of the 
 American revolution. Roger Wil- 
 liams continued firm in "his lively 
 experiment;" Madison had opposed 
 the Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776
 
 because of "the dangerous implica- 
 tion in the word toleration" and Jeff- 
 erson had boldly declared "it is error 
 alone that needs the support of gov- 
 ernment. Truth can stand by itself." 
 
 At the time the Union was formed 
 only two out of the thirteen states 
 conceded full and perfect freedom by 
 law namely, Rhode Island and Vir- 
 ginia. Protestantism was insisted on 
 by six New Hampshire, Connecti- 
 cut, New Jersey, the two Carolinas 
 and Georgia: the Christian religion 
 was demanded by two Delaware and 
 Maryland. Assent to the divine inspi- 
 ration of the Bible was required by 
 four Pennsylvania, Delaware and 
 the two Carolinas. Belief in heaven 
 and hell was asked by two Pennsyl- 
 vania and South Carolina: three 
 states excluded clergymen from public 
 office New York, Maryland and 
 South Carolina; two states emphasiz- 
 ed belief in One God Pennsylvania 
 and South Carilona; while assent to 
 the doctrine of the trinity was necess- 
 ary in Delaware; and in five states 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Con- 
 necticutt, Maryland and South Caro- 
 lina there were religious establish- 
 ments. 
 
 Delegates from states with such 
 divergent views on religious matters, 
 met to form articles of confederation 
 and jointly to meet a common foe. Is 
 it any wonder that religious questions 
 were almost taboo and that congress 
 in 1774, seeking to induce Quebec to 
 join in opposition, should declare 
 "all old religious jealousies are con- 
 demned as low minded infirmities?" 
 At the dawn of the revolution the 
 colonies were ready for a "religious 
 liberty untrammeled by the civil law, 
 in which the terms conformity and 
 dissent would become forever inappli- 
 cable." And thus in spite of the fact 
 that Major Lusk of Massachusetts
 
 "shuddered at the idea that Roman 
 Catholics, Baptists and Pagans might 
 be introduced into office and that 
 popery and the Inquisition might be 
 established in America" they adopted 
 as part of their constitution "no re- 
 ligious test shall ever be required as 
 a qualification to any office or pub- 
 lic trust under the United States 
 (VI-3), and the first amendment ex- 
 plicitly states "Congress shall make 
 no law respecting an establishment 
 of religion or prohibiting the free 
 exercise therof." 
 
 Yet with these constitutional guar- 
 antees, and the lesson which history 
 brings about the tolerations and per- 
 secutions of the early period of our 
 government, we must not forget that 
 the federal constitution applies only 
 to the federal sphere. There is no 
 force of law against a religious estab- 
 lishment in any state, should such a 
 state, in adopting a new constitution, 
 write therein an established church. 
 The government cannot prevent such 
 things. We may honestly believe 
 that public opinion, within the state 
 or within the sister states would not 
 tolerate such action, yet we must not 
 be blind to such possibilities. We need 
 only recall the present anti-Catholic 
 movement, sowing seeds of religious 
 bigotry. What fruit this will bear 
 no one can foretell. We may weigh 
 well the words of Bryce "Half of 
 the wars of Europe, half the internal 
 troubles that have vexed the Euro- 
 pean States have arisen from theo- 
 logical differences or from rival 
 claims of church and state." 
 
 And within the state and, the small- 
 er units of the state, the city, the at- 
 tack on the present status has been 
 from two opposing sides one party 
 declares that the separation of 
 church and state is not as complete as 
 it should be. To uphold their ar-
 
 guments they refer to the exemption 
 of church property from taxes; to 
 laws for protection of a day of rest; 
 to the anti,-Mormon legislation; to 
 the engagement of chaplains for our 
 army and navy; to the use of chap- 
 lains in our national and state legis- 
 latures; and to the proclamation of 
 an annual Thanksgiving day. These 
 arguments seem, at first hand, to be 
 convincing, but I feel sure that they 
 simply reveal one deep human fact, 
 namely, that a complete separation 
 of religion from life is impossible: 
 that religion and life are co-extensive 
 .and our only safeguard is the guai 
 anteeing of equal religious opportu- 
 nities to all American citizens. 
 
 The claim of others is that our atti- 
 tude is unchristian, and no true 
 Christian ought to countenance this 
 separation from the affairs of state 
 of all that is so vital in his religion. 
 Whether or not this is a Christian 
 nation appears to me not even a de- 
 batable question if we will draw the 
 distinction, which ought ever to be 
 drawn, whether it is Christian "de 
 jure" or "de facto." 
 
 And we must admit that such an ar- 
 gument is extremely superficial. Is 
 the religious quality of a people de- 
 termined by the phrases it places on 
 its law books or by the spirit of its 
 life? Is New Hampshire more Prot- 
 estant or Christian with such terms 
 in its constitution than is Massachu- 
 setts without them ? Or is Michigan 
 less religious than New York because 
 it excludes the names of deity from 
 its fundamental law while New York 
 is 'grateful to Almighty God?' 
 
 And we have the authority of a 
 treaty with Tripoli concluded by 
 Washington and ratified by the sen- 
 ate under John Adams (June 7, 1797) 
 which says "As the government of 
 the United States is not in any sense
 
 founded on the Christian religion: as 
 it has itself no character of enmity 
 against the laws, religion or tran- 
 quility of Musselmen it is declared 
 by the parties that no pretext arising 
 from religious opinions shall ever pro- 
 duce an interruption of harmony ex- 
 isting between the two countries." 
 
 But some ask "Is not the confes- 
 sion of Christ more Christian than 
 silence?" Such a question simply con- 
 founds personal duties with national 
 duties, and with those who will not 
 draw a distinction we cannot argue. 
 Throughout all our discussion about 
 the early conditions of this country 
 and the struggle for religious liber- 
 ty, there is a "strong undercurrent 
 of the need of religion for human wel- 
 fare" or as the Bill of Rights of 
 Massachusetts properly puts it "the 
 happiness of a people and the good 
 order and preservation of civil gov- 
 ernment depend on piety, religion 
 and morality." And even a superfi- 
 cial study of history reveals the fact 
 that "irreligion is the sure precursor 
 of social decay and ruin." 
 
 What then is the place of religion 
 in a democracy like ours? In the first 
 place we must stand for religious 
 freedom for every faith, no matter 
 how great or how small, so long as 
 the morality of the faith is not subver- 
 sive of the standard of morality as 
 accepted in our day. This does not 
 mean that irreligion is placed in pow- 
 er; it does not mean that any relig- 
 ion with a limiting adjective is placed 
 in control, but it does mean that 
 Religion with a capital "R" has full 
 sway and its sway it limited only by 
 an honest regard for the faith of 
 others. "The state has no call to 
 make men religious or moral, but its 
 highest duty is to take care that so- 
 ciety shall not be disintegrated by 
 irreligion and immorality." -
 
 There is need of Religion in a de- 
 mocracy. I firmly believe it has a 
 more definite message and a more 
 definite place in our form of govern- 
 ment than in any other. Where the 
 faith of the ruler is the faith of the 
 land, tradition builds its walls of ex- 
 clusion and inclusion. Though perse- 
 cution may result here and there, re- 
 ligion has a definite place in the econ- 
 omy of life. But our democracy rec- 
 ognizes no particular faith and its 
 origin justifies a refusal to establish 
 a state church or a national church. 
 Here the rights of the minority must 
 be safeguarded against the possible 
 tyranny of the majority, here religion, 
 while having no stated position, can 
 wield an even greater influence. 
 
 In the first place it can create a re- 
 lation of mutual respect between 
 church and state. It can develop that 
 finer sense of manhood which recog- 
 nizes the dignity and rights of the in- 
 dividual soul and, recognizing the 
 same, seeks to fulfill the soul mes- 
 sage in the affairs of state. 
 
 In the second place, religion, being 
 strictly a personal matter, can so 
 wield and weld the individual that he 
 will carry the ideals of his faith into 
 the arena of daily life. This is the 
 peculiar possibility of religion in a 
 democracy because the influence of 
 the church, as a church, is obliterated 
 and substituted for this is the indi- 
 vidual as a religious being. When 
 grave national problems present 
 themselves, ethical values and impli- 
 cations are weighed, and then each 
 individual, according to his light, and 
 different individuals according to 
 their differing lights, may consider 
 the same from all angles and in com- 
 mon, council, after due deliberation, 
 decide upon a just course. 
 
 As valuable as these differing re-
 
 ligious standards are to a nation, just 
 so great is the conservative influence 
 of religion. It is said that religion 
 is extremely conservative, that the 
 forms and customs of the past are its 
 sole guides. There is much truth in 
 this. The truth therein makes it val- 
 uable to democracy. Democracies are 
 easily obsessed by the value of ma- 
 jorities, follow every new thought and 
 every new idea presented in a con- 
 vincing form, and are thus more easily 
 led by demagogism. Here religion with 
 its conservatism is of great value. 
 It teaches the value of experience; it 
 proclaims the soundness of doctrine or 
 dogma hallowed by age; it speaks 
 with respect about the fundamentals 
 laid down by the founders of the na- 
 tion. And this habit of thought must 
 not be underestimated. It is not my 
 idea to proclaim to you the supreme 
 value of the past and the lack of all 
 values in modern thought, but it is my 
 aim to re-emphasize the need of sym- 
 pathetically considering the past. 
 
 And if I may add to these reasons, 
 one other I would say it makes pos- 
 sible the living together, working to- 
 gejther and dicing together of all men, 
 no matter what their personal atti- 
 tude toward the world's mystery may 
 be, because they are united by love 
 for a common fatherland and by a 
 devotion to a common flag. Other 
 lands may have their privileged and 
 their tolerated; we have but one 
 class that of the free. Other lands 
 may imbue with a patriotism limited 
 by the rights of the individual; this 
 land can inspire only an unlimited pa- 
 triotism for it recognizes no special 
 rights, gives no special privileges and 
 tolerates no separate views of citizen- 
 ship but gives to each and every one 
 the same rights, the same privileges 
 and liberty instead of toleration. 
 
 Experience has proven the value of
 
 this "lively experiment" of Roger Wil- 
 liams, tried on a national basis. 
 While here and there men may seek 
 to ignore the teaching and the experi- 
 ence of the past, the college men and 
 women, thoroughly honest and con- 
 sistent in their personal religious life, 
 can guarantee the future by proclaim- 
 ing in times of danger those lessons of 
 the past which are the only safeguard 
 of ages yet unborn. 
 
 Story is right when he tells us 
 "The Catholic and the Protestant, the 
 Calvinist and the Armenian, the Jew 
 and the Infidel may sit down at a 
 common table of the national councils 
 without Inquisition into their faith 
 and mode of worship," and it is for 
 the college man and woman to work 
 for the continued realization of what 
 Thomas F. Bayard, while secretary 
 of state, said "Religious liberty is 
 the chief corner stone of the American 
 system of government and provisions 
 for its security are embodied in the 
 written charter and interwoven in the 
 moral fabric of our laws." When 
 Religion and religions recognize this 
 fact, they will wield a far greater in- 
 fluence than would the placing of the 
 name of deity in our constitution or 
 the introduction of prayer and re- 
 ligious songs into our public schools.
 
 . GE CALIF, LIBRARY, LOS A
 
 A 000 075 259 2