"Americanization and Christian ization W By Sanford B. Horton E are liable to fall into the habit of using proper terms in an improper sense, and of grouping terms in an inappropriate way for the furtherance of an object. An illustration of this is to be found in an interesting incident growing out of some correspondence between Jewish leaders and the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, in which the Jewish leaders resented Christian propaganda which identified Americanization with Christianization. A council was asked for and agreed upon between Jewish authorities and the Federal Council, the result of which is embodied in the following resolutions adopted at the council: 66 Resolved, 1. That we appreciate this opportunity for the free exchange of thought and conviction between representatives of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America, the Home Missions Council, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis. "2. That we disclaim and deplore the use of the term 'Americanization' in any case where it is made to mean or to imply that there is no distinction between the words 'Americanization' and 'Christianization,' or carries the implication that Jews, or people of other religions and other races are not good Americans. No church should use the term 'Americanization' as a cloak for proselyting to its distinctive religious views. "3. That we desire to co-operate with each other as brethren, in all efforts for Americanization and for promoting righteousness in the American people. "4. That we express the desire for further conferences and continued fellowship." The Federal Council is to be commended for its attitude as expressed in the resolutions, and we think it should further recede from any other semblance of religious trust principles, which we believe, with all due respect, still exist in its propaganda; the demand for civil enforcement of Sunday observance, for instance. A SINGLE denomination is not essential to a union of church and state. Nor is it necessary that the church shall be supported by the state. The leading churches agree on what they term the essentials. They demand that these shall be crystallized into statute. They then interpret, and the state enforces their interpretation. If such a situation would not constitute a substantial union of church and state, we should like to have some one tell us why it would not. Former Vice-P W E quite fully Too Muc mer Vice-President Marshall of the United States, who is an elder in the Presbyterian church, that the churches have lost sight of their true mis sion when they establish Christian lobbies at Washington, to influence legislation for the advancement of the cause of Christ. Mr. Marshall fears that he is stirring up a hornets' nest in his own church by voicing his protest against their doings We are glad that he does not belong to that large class of people who, for fear of stirring up trouble, submit to things in religion of which they disapprove. For years we have struck this same discordant note in "the harmony of the church music," to which Mr. Marshall alludes by protesting vigorously against the churches' efforts to secularize religions Liberty Endangered by Sectarian Legislation E By C. M. Bice, B. A., LL. B. VERY man is safe in indulging his own thoughts; it is only when he essays to express them to others that his troubles begin. Hence freedom of thought, in any valuable sense, includes freedom of speech. Some have preferred, like Socrates, to face death rather than conceal their thoughts. We are so accustomed to freedom of speech that we look upon it as a matter of course, and forget the long and bitter struggle of the centuries out of which the liberty which we now enjoy has emerged. In this stupendous conflict we recognize the dominant Christian. church of medieval times as the foremost antagonist, not only of science, of reason, and of investigation, but of the right of men to express their thoughts upon religious beliefs and dogmas, or upon anything else tending to contradict or call in question a premise held by the dominant religious organization. dent Marshall Churches institutions and cus- We are therefore glad to have such The following admonition from the pen. (Continued on page 66) Throughout the ages, the most bitter and relentless persecutions, trailed by the innocent blood of millions, have been the policy of the church toward the brave and courageous thinkers of the world, wherever and whenever it had the political power so to do; and we see no reason to think it would be any different today should the church secure the power to make its anathemas effectual. Abundant warrant for this may be seen in the drastic provisions of proposed religious enactments, and in the resolutions of church councils and assemblies on the subject. A brief history of this conflict in the past. will form a safe guide to what we may expect to happen, should we yield to the demands of the zealots of today. Human nature never changes. Passing over, for the lack of space, the persecutions in ancient Greece of all who dared to question the popular, though absurd, beliefs of mythology, and later the persecutions of Christians by pagans and the counter-persecutions of pagans by the Christians when they gained political power under Constantine, and coming to still later times, we find human nature still the same. During the first two centuries in which they had been a forbidden sect, the Christians had claimed toleration on the just ground that re(Continued on page 66) Former Vice-President Marshall Rebukes the Churches 66 (Continued from page 65) Mr. Marshall expresses a fear that the Protestant denominations, in their efforts to keep the Roman Catholic Church from seizing the reins of government in America," are unconsciously "doing those things which look very much like an attempt to unite the American Republic and the Protestant churches of this country." We read: "It is a difficult thing to be a Christian, either Catholic or Protestant. It is a man's job to be an American citizen. To unite the two under either church or civil rule means the weakening of the one or the other. It is just as true today as it was in the days of the Master, that it is our business to render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's; and unto God the things that are God's.' thority. The capitalist and the laborer sing on Sunday out of the same hymn book, 'Blest be the tie that binds,' and after the benediction go out and repeat, Blessed be the Lord... which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.' The communion of the saints very largely ends at the church door. "There need be no hope of a general revival of the faith given to the fathers, until the church shall purge itself of its mania for political power and influence, until it recognizes that its call is to the individual, and that men group themselves together in organizations, not as a debating society, but as a harmonious and lov ing family. "Let the Presbyterian Church forget Washington for a little while, reconsecrate itself to its creed, resume its ancient functions, relive the lives of its founders in faith, and hope, and charity, put not its trust in earthly institutions, and give God a chance. When any one of its members desires, and all should, to stand for the higher and finer things in civil government, make it plain that he does so as a citizen, and not as a Presbyterian. Let those without the fold be taught that they may entertain what views they will as to the civil laws under which they live, that the church is an empire within an empire. And above all, let the church become a real brotherhood, not only within the building that is occupied, but in its social and economie life, not forced thereto by distasteful laws, but constrained thereto by the love of Christ." "The kingdom of God ought to be within us, not in Washington. I hope I have a chance of getting to heaven without believing that it is the duty of the Presbyterian Church to insist upon this Government placing an embargo upon German coal-tar products. Yet, I have not much doubt that if the General Assembly's attention was called to it, it would memorialize the Congress to place an embargo upon their importation. I might have an objection to any American citizen requesting this to be done, but I should have no right to protest. I do believe, Liberty Endangered by Sectarian however, that I have a right to protest against my church interfering in any way with the civil government of America. If the individual members feel that they should memorialize Congress upon any given subject, let them do so as American citizens, and not as a church organization. "The work of the church is not completed. The kingdom of God has not been established in all the hearts that beat in America: Yet this is a land where everybody has a right to say something about what laws shall govern the people. I have been everywhere in America. Men in all walks of life talk freely before me. I have never found so depraved a man as one who sneered at the life and teachings of the Christ. But every where I find men who, yet unwilling to come into this kingdom, proclaim the churches to be simply political organizations trying to enforce their views upon citizens who do not agree with them. This religion of ours is a failure, if, in order to accomplish its mission, it must be backed up by an act of Congress. "The church is weak, not in what it teaches, but in what it does. It has turned over to the state, very largely, the distribution of alms. It submits the education of its children to civil au Legislation (Continued from page 65) ligious belief is a voluntary matter which cannot be forced. But no sooner had their faith become the dominant creed, with the power of the state behind it, than they abandoned this view and embarked in the hopeless enterprise of bringing about a complete uniformity in men's opinions in matters. of religion, and they thereupon began a policy of coercion to enforce the doctrine that salvation is to be found exclusively in the dominant Christian church. The profound conviction that those who did not believe in its doctrines would be damned eternally, and that God punishes theological error as if it were the most heinous of crimes. led naturally to persecution. It was thought a duty to impose upon men the only true doctrine; hence heretics were more than ordinary criminals, and the pains man could inflict on them were nothing to the tortures awaiting them in hell. To rid the earth of such men, no matter how virtuous, was a plain duty. Pagan virtues were vices in the eyes of Christians. St. Augustine, the greatest of the church Fathers, formulated the principle of persecution for the guidance of future generations, and his teachings have been zealously followed ever since by both Catholics and Protestants. Heresy was the foulest of all crimes, and to prevail against it was a victory over the legions of hell; hence came the torture of the Inquisition. Even men of kindly temper and the purest zeal for morality, were absolutely devoid of mercy where heresy was suspected. The firm belief in witchcraft, magic, and demons was inherited from antiquity, but it became far more lurid in modern times. Both the theory and the persecution were supposed to be supported by the Holy Scriptures, and particularly by the text, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It was upon this text that Pope Innocent III issued a bull, in which he asserted that plagues and storms are the work of witches. People forgot the text which says, "Vengeance is Mine." They thought they were God's avengers. No story is more painful than that of the persecution of witches, and nowhere was it more atrocious than in England and Scotland, and later in America. It was rationalism and the dissenter's persistence for his rights that finally brought the long chapter of horrors to a close. The intellectual and social movement which was to dispel this darkness and usher in the Renaissance, began in the thirteenth century, feeble at first, because hampered by the state-intrenched church; but with the final decline of the Papacy and the Roman Empire, and the growth of strong monarchies, the invention of printing, and the success of the Reformation, a change for the better dawned upon the world. But Luther was inconsistent in that he opposed liberty of conscience and of worship. He held that Anabaptists should be put to the sword; and so with Protestants and Catholics alike, the dogma of exclusive salvation led to the same results. Calvin's reputation for intolerance is perhaps the blackest in history. He stood for the control of the state by the church, and established a theocracy at Geneva. Melanchthon was no better. Nor did Protestant England lag behind the Romish Inquisition, but on account of the obscurity of the victims, her zeal for the faith under Elizabeth and James I has been generally forgotten. She had no Bruno nor Vanini to blazon her historic pages, as unfortunate victims of her persecution. We owe the modern principle of toleration partly to the Italian group of Reformers. Their creed was molded by Socinus, who condemned persecution. Religious toleration was given a new impetus by such men as Roger Williams, who stood for soul liberty. But the great victory came when the principle of separating church from state was adopted by the framers of our own Constitution, of placing all religions on an equality. This, it seems, is about to be overthrown if certain so-called reformers are to have their way, and we are to be thrust back to the tender mercies of religious intolerance and bigotry à la days of Calvin and the intolerant popes of Rome. Are the American people ready for the gory sacrifice? 济 FREEDOM of conscience is absolutely essential to moral responsibility. No man can be held accountable for the exercise of his choice in a matter wherein liberty of choice is withheld from him. This being true, the success of National Reform would destroy moral responsibility to God. But God has not released men from responsibility to Him. While rendering to our fellow men their due, it is stil duty to render to God the things that are God's. W William Jennings Bryan Addressing His Famous Bible Class at Miami, Florida, in the Cocoanut Palm Grove in Royal Palm Park What Shall Be Taught in the Public Schools? ILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN, of Miami, Fla., takes a bold stand against the teaching of atheism or irreligion in all educational institutions supported by public funds. We agree with Mr. Bryan. His position on this question is perfectly sound. Since we have barred the teaching of religion from schools which are supported by public funds, it is no more than justice that the teaching of irreligion should also be forbidden. We say that religion should not be taught in the public schools because there is and can be no agreement as to which particular brand of religion should be taught, nor do we regard it just to compel the people who make no profession of religion to support the teaching of religion by their taxes. Likewise, it would be equally difficult to decide which brand of atheism should be taught in the public schools, and it would not be just to require the religionist to pay taxes for the support of the teaching of atheism when his own religious beliefs are excluded. So in order to be just to all taxpayers who support our public educational institutions, we should bar both the teaching of religion and the teaching of atheism or agnosticism from the curriculum of State-supported institutions. No logical mind can evade this conclusion. Both religion and agnosticism of every brand have the right to full expression in the open forum, so long as they do not infringe upon the equal rights of all or transgress the rules of common decency and morality. But from the sanctum of our public schools we rightfully bar both of them. Atheism is a system of belief as truly as is religion. Atheism advocates certain theories which it regards as funda |