Golden Age, January 18, 1922

Download: PDF — Golden Age, January 18, 1922

Jan. 18, 1922, Vol. Ill, No. 61

Publithed every other week at 35 Myrtle Avenue, Brooklyn, N. Y., U. K. A.

Five Cents a Copy—91.00 a Year Canada and Foreign Countries. $1X0

JNmw ■ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 1922 NDMBn ■

CONTENTS of the GOLDEN AGE

LABOR AND ECONOMICS

Capitalized Brains and Labor War Profiteers Now Safe._______

SOCIAL AND EDUCATIONAL Prohibition of Liquor........236 Golden Rule Principles......240

ubsolAshness Requisite 240 Ie Knowledge Power?........MS

FINANCE—COMMERCE—TRANSPORTATION

Solving the Railroad P.-ob-lem

Ca;ntaliaation .

Beturns on Investments....243

Incretud ng Efficiency.........

How the Public WooM

Benefit ...

POLITICAL—DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN

Service as Spies.............

Sunday Blue Laws

Debt-Paying That Would Be Ruinous_________

Now Jerusalem Blown Up 399

AGRICULTURE AND HUSBANDRY

Away from the Lund

HOME AND HEALTH Why ThU DUtereuce?................................... 349

RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY

to Church, Thou Fool” 227 Jndged nut of Their Own

Mouths

On Sunday Anymore (poem) ..........239

Interested In ZlonUOk

Studies Ln the “Harp of

God”

Ninety and Nine (poekn) 2SB

PebHabed Muy other Wadaeadiy at M Myrtle A ver. lie, Brooklyn. N. Y., . V & A.

to WOODWORTH, HUDGINGS and MARTEN CLAYTON J WOODWORTH......&1«»

EObEHT J. MARTIN .... BoBineuR WM. F. HUDGINGS......Sec'y and Treae,

Copart&en b.l<J proprietor*. Addr»«: 8fi Myrtle Avenue. Brooklyn. N. Y.. . U. S. A

Five Cents a Copy — SljOO a Yka& foreign offices : British ' $4 Crarett Terrace, Lancaster Gate, London W, 2; Canadian: 270 Dundas St. W.. Toronto. Ontario; Australasian : 499 Collinr St., Melbourne, Australia* । Make remittance* to The Golden Ap^

M 8dAAw^v4Mi al Sm^VW. V. la'

^Golden Age

Volume 111

Brooklyn, N. Y., Wednesday, January 18, 1922

Number 61

“Go to Church, Thou Fool”—In Four Parts (Part ii)

/~\F COURSE the clergy know that war is wrong; everybody knows that it is wrong; and in times of peace the “Reverends” are always opposed to the murder of their fellow men by this means. Thus the Board of Methodist Episcopal Church Bishops announce officially: ,fWe earnestly hope that America may be a leader in allaying the passions engendered by war”.

Some of these bishops were present in Pennsylvania in the Spring of 1918, when 400 prominent Methodist Episcopal clergymen memorialized and petitioned Congress and the President of the United

EDITORIAL NOTE

THE Banner-Herald, of Athens, Georgia, in its issue of September 21, 1921, contains a half-page advertisement bearing the above caption, indorsed by the announcements of the ten principal churches of the city, all denominations.

States to inflict the death penalty on all violators of the infamous Espionage Act.

General Bell of the United States Army afterward stated that the specific object in view at the time that resolution was engineered by the clergy and the military was to procure the death of prominent executives and workers in the International Bible Students Association, and their friends and associates. Did those bishops and clergymen, who no doubt claim to be followers of Christ, and in their positions samples of His teachings, thus plan the death of the officers and prominent members of the I. B. S. A.? If so, why? The answer is written in the skies. Wherever they go they lay bare clerical hypocrisies. War is a good time for the “Reverends” to “stand in” with the authorities and to “get” those who expose their duplicity.

At present the bishops are all for peace, but not because there has been any change whatever in their views. During the war they were the strongest “rooters” for war in the whole country. They love peace but hate pacifists. Now they are for peace because their master, Big Business, is temporarily sick of war and, they know it. They “hear their master’s voice”. One can judge, therefore, how genuine is the principle back of the following resolution adopted at the World’s Methodist Conference at London, September 12,1921: “On behalf of millions of youths who suffered and died; on behalf of millions of homes broken by bereavement; in the name of the silent multitudes who still suffer, we insist that our leaders find a way for the settlement of international differences by other than arbitrament of arms. We repudiate the doctrine that war is a necessity. Justice, not force, must be the final arbiter of right. Differences must be settled by reason, not by human slaughter.”

Why did the Bishops wait until the Fall of 1921 to say this? \\ by did they not say it in 1914, or 191.1, or 1916, or 1917 or 1918? Every body knows the reason why. They did not want to go to jail and lose their titles and their respectability. Bishops have always been against war in general, but for each war in particular. For we must love our enemies, except during this particular war “for a just cause!”

Then there is the Reverend Karl Reiland, Rector of St. George’s Church, in the City of New York. In a sermon published in one of the organs of Big Business entitled Commerce, ami I'iname he said recently:

“A little reflection should convince us that we cannot improve this world by paying ignominious tribute to Mars, whose altars have been wantonly drenched in human blood, and we might try, even with hesitancy, paying tribute to the Prince of Peace and the brother-

hood ef sum. Whoever talks Mars instead of Messiah is speaking not for the brotherhood of man and the Bation's destiny, but for the blood of man and the nation's death. He is advocating for our youth not an Ideal of national character, but the idea of a national eemetery. He is not a patriot, but a parasite. Christianity cannot be reconciled to war any more than a gentleman can be to a philosophy of brute force. I admit that we have had to fight, and may yet have to fight, a war. But the point I make is that war should be an accident, pardonable if necessary; but peace, and a scientific, educational, cultural preparation for peace should be the supreme purpose." '

Reverend Reiland writes very well down to the word “I”, so well that one might even feel disposed to test his genuineness by asking him which one of the cell-houses he occupied at the Atlanta Penitentiary and what were his range and cell numbers and his convict number during the war. For he would have gone to prison, had he spoken thus when it was dangerous to do so. But every one knows and must know who reads the rest of his article that during the war he stood foursquare for war the same as all the other clergy have always done in every country and in every war, and that his whole essay is / o*nly a tickling of the ears of those who like to have their ears tickled, .

Then there is Reverend Dwight J. Bradley, Pastor of the First Congregational Church of Webster Groves, Missouri. We know that he is against war now; for in a leaflet dated November 6, 1921, he says:

<rIn our age there has arisen a mastering belief that war is no longer tolerable. The intelligent men and women of the world are almost universally of this opinion."

And we feel like asking, Where did yon, "Reverend” Bradley, stand on the war question in 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 and 1918! When did you get i/our mastering belief that war is no longer tolerable! Why didn’t you say it in 1917! And wAen did “the intelligent men and women of the world” who are now almost universally of the opinion that war is intolerable reach that opinion! It must have been very recently. It certainly was not in the piping days of 1917-1918, when Big Business was deliberately trying to force the country into war; and you know it, Reverend Bradley. They were for war, and we think you were too; for we do not remember seeing you at Atlanta.

We come now to the words of some of those who were openly and outspokenly for war and we shall see how they are floundering now that all the brutal, bloody and beastly facts are oonb> ing to the light/ Take for instance Reverend William T. Ellis, the so-called “Religious Rambler”, famous during the lifetime of Pastor Russell for his persecutions of that godly man;' On June 15, 1918, in the Philadelphia American, Reverend Ellis made use of the fol*

lowing blasphemous language:

"Reverently, many soldiers know in their deepart hearts that they are following in His footsteps wheo^ they fling their lives into this ministry of mankind. All the countless battlefield crosses that point backward and forward and upward with their arms of faith testify to a fresh appreciation of Christ and Him crucified^ offer up all for the sake of others, and of principle^ is the act that links man with God, and that reldUii ■Calvary to the Somme. Two great words of ScriptuH^ are often found in my mind during these days.

is ‘without shedding of hlood there is no remission^ sin*. We .perceive how war’s unmeasured sacrifice Sf purging the nations of grossness and evil. The price that is being paid should free us from our national, sins. Somehow in ways we cannot freely understand^ God is fulfilling the sacrifice of His Son in this great hour. All who serve and suffer vicariously in this hour of crucifixion are sharers tn the travail and triumph ef the patient Christ!*' [Italics ours] ' . . ' -■<

It is evident that this statement was made by Reverend Ellis to herd the boys into the trench^ es and to receive the plaudits of his ally, Big Business.

If any worse blasphemy was ever uttered By one of the “Reverends” since Christ hung oM the cross to atone for the sins of mankind, wj have never heard of it. How the nations hoy* been freed of grossness and evil at the hand! of profiteers is a matter of history. And as to the holy calling of murdering one another, let the Reverend Ellis himself in the same Philadelphia North American; under date of May 24,1919, tell the effect that it had on the holiest of all, namely the Reverends who accompanied the American Expedition to France:'

"So widely had preaching become a profession, withr out the divine spiritual passion, that many clergyman^ instead of being leaders and prophets, have themselves, maintained a conventionally correct mode of life <wfly by circumstances. They followed the code of their calling, because it was difficult and dangerous to do otherwise. Many of these men went to war from varying motives; and some avowedly to escape the tedium' <x their distasteful round of ministerial duties. Of tide number a percentage, small, and yet too large io hi ignored by conscientious people, suffered a moral lap*

!

With the greater number of these latter, the failure was merely a relaxation of their standards of speech and of ■uch practices as wine-drinking. Others went utterly bad, sinking into sensuality and even crime. I know whereof I speak: I am hot exaggerating the occasional instance, such as the minister in Y. M. C. .A. work, who became a confessed and convicted, thief in France. My information comes at first hand and on the spot, from the officials who knew all the details/'

Let us take another illustration, touching some of the same points. The Reverend Thomas B. Gregory is a well-known contributor to the press, his articles being widely published in the New York World and other periodicals. In 1916 the United States conducted a general election, which was won by a college president because “he kept us out of war”. Air. Gregory was on the side of this president at that time. He was against war with Germany. He was for continuing the maintenance of neighborly treatment of all nations and discussed the subject as follows:

"The successful preacher of today is the one who" talks about the things of today: without wasting his precious time talking about things that are supposed to have happened thousands of years ago—things that are ef no particular importance whether they happened tor did not happen. Of more importance to us than the 'Abrahamic Covenant* is the covenant that we make today with our neighbors that we will be neighborly and treat each other with justice and good will.”

- This statement shows that this man is absolutely devoid of knowledge of the religion of 'Jesus Christ. Inasmuch as the Scriptures show that the Abrahamic Covenant states that in Abraham’s seed, which is Christ, all nations, kindreds and families of the earth shall be blessed during the Golden Age, Reverend Gregory’s speech is almost as blasphemous as that of Reverend Ellis. But it is not for that we have quoted it. We want you to compare its spirit and its apparent principle with the spirit and principle of the same gentleman’s utterances a year later, when the president that kept us out the war was busy trying to get us into it and the twenty-five press hounds bought with British Gold — bought for the purpose by Big Business—were busy laying the foundation of lies upon which the war structure was subsequently erected. Hear him in 1917:

"How souls are thrilled by the spontaneity and joy with which so many millions of human, beings are giving themselves up to save the world, to rescue freedom and civilization from its would-be assassins, and contribute by their devoted and unselfish servioe to the welfare and happiness of those who are yet unborn. Thank God for the spectacle. It heartens us; it makes us proud and glad to witness such nobility of ideal and action. This is the most terrible emergency that' humanity has ever been called upon to face; and yet, Heaven be praised, it is being met with courage and ' with faith, in the firm conviction that out of every bit of sacrifice, out of every duty bravely attended to, out of sacred agony and every noble task for the Brotherhood’s sake, there shall come the flower and fruit that shall gladden all the coming generations.”

All men now know that the flower and fruit of the war are revolution, famine, bestiality, disease, and death.

Other church officials that were outspokenly for war: James M. Gray, Dean of the Moody Bible Institute, said in a letter to the Chicago Daily News in October, 1919, “I favor universal military training because it is the duty of citizens to defend their country and sometimes defend other countries, as in the late war with Germany”. Reverend Francis Kelley, Papal-empire chaplain of the American Legion, said in a speech at Cleveland: “A nation is to be judged worthy of existence as a. nation by its ability to fight, and the aim of America should^ be not to be loved but to be feared”. Former Field Marshal Von Hindenburg is a deacon in the Lutheran Church at Brandenburg; and the miserable outcast in the House of Doorn, Kai- ' ser Wilhelm, was one time a regularly ordained minister of the Lutheran Church, and head of the Lutheran Church of Germany.

Some of the Kaiser’s crowd persecuted the International Bible Students because they were unwilling to slay their fellow men. At last accounts Dean Gray of the Chicago Moody Bible Institute, it was alleged, was encouraging the Moodyites to offer persistent prayer for the destruction of the Bible Students—because they will persist in telling the truth and exposing the hypocrisies of the clergy business.

It is a matter of history that the French gov-eminent awarded the Cross of the Legion of Honor to the president and the secretary of the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America as a mark of recognition both for the part played by the Federal Council in the winning of the war and for the personal services of its president and secretary. This shows well enough where the clergy stood during the World War. They proved the maxim, “We -have no king but Caesar”. They gloried in war and considered it fine, wonderful, spiritual!

Else why did the same Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, on October 7, 1920, award to President Wilson a chaplain’s war medal “as an expression of appreciation by the churches of his distinguished services to the church and to the world through his leadership in winning the World War”? Now the same men are seeking to perpetuate Mr. Wilson’s un-American attacks on the United States Constitution (which demands that church and state be kept forever separate) by forming a Woodrow Wilson Foundation which shall continue his policies indefinitely.

Judged out of Their Own Mouths

ET the clergy now acknowledge who were responsible for the World War; for we

will give a number of citations, so' that all may be convinced. First comes Rabbi Wise. Addressing recently the Free Synagogue congregation in Carnegie Hall, New York city, he said: . .

“Failure of the churches and synagogues to maintain leadership over the people was the cause of the present war. They have enthroned a war devil in the place of God. The church is muzzled and throttled into submission. It is like a dumb dog, old and toothless, that can no longer bite. Hany of us looked to the Socialist* to avert such a war as this; but we never looked to the churches, mosques, and synagogues to prevent war. None of us expected such a thing from them, and we know what would happen to any leader in the Church of England who would dare raise his voice against his country's part in the present strife* And when the nations were preparing for this war they never consulted the churches because they knew that, just as they relied upon their ambulance corps and their commissaries, they could rely upon the churches to uphold them.”

The next witness is the Reverend '■Doctor George H. Combs, of Kansas City, Missouri. Dr. Combs, addressing the Detroit Pastors Union, at its monthly meeting in the Y. M. C. A., in November, 1919, said:

“Leather-lunged, intemperate proclamation of the ‘gospel of hate’ during the war has brought the pulpit into contempt and caused the preacher and preaching to lose ground. In the name of patriotism the pulpit was converted into a soap-box, and we are now paying the penalty for it.”

The third witness is the Reverend H. M. Chworowsky, evangelical minister at Oconto, Wisconsin. At that place in October, 1920, he said:

“The church has suffered more than any other institution from the cant and casuistry of the war spirit.

In the beginning of those days, when we refused to be-believe that a general return to pagan principles etf thought and action still were possible, there were many voices that stood out for that pacificism that is not only compatible with but the logical and moral complement of Christian ethical truth. Then as nation after nation entered the conflict, church after church performed that-amazing psychological somersault, changing from sistent attitude of opposition to wars to the ineompi*^ hensible stand of not only submissively acquiescing iikj the national demand for militaristic enterprise bat *et; openly and publicly defending wars, and this war entirely ethical and Christian. Then arose that wav*’ of open hypocrisy and .shameful duplicity in religion, barely hiding the abject moral cowardice it was meant to cover, when from pulpit and religious press fhert issued forth those turbid streams of vituperation and; ghastly slander that rivalled the hysterical ravings dt a perverted patriotism.’” v a

The fourth witness does not give his nanje, but states that he is a clergyman. He writes iff The Nation, March 6, 1920: '

“The record of the war activities of the churched while very ample, is. simple. Practically every pulpit in the land was a source of patriotic inspiration. Every/ clergyman labored day and night fostering the moral# of the army and the people. At home the dergy preadh-cd atrocities, and in the camps they fired the sdldiei# with a holy zeal to attack and kill the enemy. Briefly^ the record shows that both here and abroad each of tto; ordained spokesmen of Christianity justified and coM&k crated the action of his own people in resorting to arm#1 His nation was fighting God's battle, and a5J who wished-to be friends of God must help to the fullest extent 'dt. their powers. Thus a composite photograph, as it of all the Christian preachments reveals to us the doir trine of the man in the street, the doctrine of those whd' believe it to be their highest duty to be ready to die for their country whether right or wrong.” ’ .

The fifth witness is Doctor Edward A Steiner, a converted Jew. a Congregational minister,, occupant of the chair of Applied Christianity in Grinnell College, Iowa. He writes in Tke Independent of his impressions of Europe, obtained after several months which he recently spent there: - ■ '

“All through Europe I found a feeling, freely expressed, that at a critical moment in the world’s history, organized religion failed to fulfill its claims as a bringer df peace. The hopes mankind placed in it were not rgftluaed; for the churches failed to function except as an amen to the reactionary Pagan state. The church gave its all to Csesar; even that which was God’s; the folds of the flag obscured the moss, and the great sacrifice. of Calvary seemed in vain. Sermons now are full of assertion that militaristic force is futile in settling quarrels between nations, that besides being un-Christian it is imprafr Heal; and not only ministers say it, but also professors, essayists, political economists, sociologists. However, they are saying it between wars, when it is safe to say it. If the church or its ministry were faithful to the spirit and teachings of Jesus during one war; if the state knew that it could not use the church as a recruiting station, and as a laboratory for the culture of fighting morale, it might be less willing to rush into war- Of Bourse the church would suffer martyrdom: but there is an outspoken, demand that Christianity manifest itself In its full power, by accepting the consequences of its teachings, or cease its pretense of being the bride of Christ when it is only the concubine of Cossar." _ The sixth witness is Reverend William Austen Smith, editor of The [Episcopal] Churchman:

"Churchmen at conventions talk very solemnly about Christian leadership. Where, in God’s world, can bishops, clergymen and laymen exercise finer leadership in this war-stricken world, than by preaching the Christian doctrine of peace on earth? Will the clergy lead in this Crusade, the greatest since Christ was born? Or will they fold their hands and say: 'It is a problem for experts, for statesmen and cabinets’ ? God pity us. Statesmen, cabinets and experts have been leading us, and • leading us by the nose, in this war-morality for generations. Can we do worse if we follow Christ? If the churches cannot trust Him, who then will? If the Christian Church could raise up in England, France ^and America a thousand ministers who would be will; Jug to suffer martyrdom to end this business of war, there could never be another war. Governments cannot Make war without the consent of the churches. The Christian Church has never tested its power. The clergy Consented unto this wicked thing! How much longer are we going to do it?”

/-*: The same writer (we wonder if he has read ^“The Finished Mystery”) at an address before t the Episcopalian ^ministers at a congress in tJew York said:

' "To my mind it was a serious blunder that the church appeared to confuse patriotism with religion throughout the war. Only a few voices in the churches made clear the teachings of Christianity that war is a loathsome, diabolical disease; that it kills romance and compassion, and finally slays the very soul of justice. I think it heartless, un-Christian and indecent for clergy and philosophers to glow over the spiritual benefits of a war that laid seven million boys in their graves, starved and maimed from twenty to thirty million human beings and bathed the world in hate and darkness.”

Again,-the same writer, in the issue of The Churchman of November 12, 1921, says:

"The churches among all the warring nations, shared the sins of their governments during the war. We hated M our governments bade us hate. We spread lies about our enemies as those lies were meted out to us in official propaganda. We taught unforgiveness even as our rulers and diplomats inspired us to do.”

The seventh and final witness is Reverend John Alfred Faulkner, who gives expression to the following sentiments in The Epworth Herald of November 6, 1920:

"The church is partly responsible for the great war. She has taught on exaggerated and false patriotism. No war was ever waged but that the clergy have either incited it or praised it when once started. What if between 1871 and 1914 every synod, conference and clergyman in Germany had spoken out against that militarist regime and those militarist ideals of which the Great. War was the logical consequence—what would have been the result? I think the only man who did thus speak out was Liebknecht, the Socialist, and he was in prison for two years. Men who sinned in a similar way in ' America were sentenced to twenty years, more or less; and what Church has asked for their release ?”

Oeorse Bernard Shaw is not a clergyman, but he sized up the situation very well in the Fall of 1919, when he was asked to send a mes-. sage to the Protestant Episcopal Church of America—the same church that, when the Right Reverend Paul Jones of Utah declared himself a real Christian, opposed to war, “accepted” his resignation because of the “impaired usefulness of Bishop Jones under the present conditions”. Well! Mr. Shaw wrote the gentlemen a letter long to be remembered. It is couched in his usual witty but forceful and cutting language:

“If the blood of millions of their fellow creatures did not move the Protestant churches to protest, nor the Catholic churches to proclaim that in the kingdom of heaven there are no frontiers, can you suppose that a few drops from my ink bottle would have any effect on them ? I am duly flattered by your assumption that the -men who would not listen to Christ would listen to Bernard Shaw; but the churches have come out of the war so badly that if they did listen to me now I should ask, like the Greek orator, 'What foolish thing have I said ?’ All the men and women in America to whom anything I could say would be likely to appeal seem to be in prison, where my words cannot reach them. If any of the few who were faithful to a religion which I, being only a connoisseur and not a devotee, do not profess, are still at large,' I can only congratulate them* I can hardly congratulate the churches on having missed a supreme opportunity; for I am afraid that supremo opportunity may prove to have been their last chancel*

Henry Newmann is not a clergyman either, but he says some things that fit in very well with those of Mr. Shaw. In an address delivered October 5,1919, before the Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture he said in part:

"Perhaps I am too biased; but it looks to me aa if in the main the conduct of the churches during the war revealed a fundamental defect in their beliefs. To put it bluntly, I think that what most of the churches have done has been of a sort *to inflame the world's illness ‘ rather than to heal it. Have not the churches outdone even the newspapers in preaching hatred and vengeance ? Certain young men, called to take up arms; replied, ‘We believe that the war lust js found not only in Prussia but everywhere. We find it in ourselves. We will not kill There is a better way of driving out violence than to repeat the enemy's evil.’ These young men went to jail. Some died there. Did the church, custodian (as we thought it) of the sanctities of conscience, plead for them? Did it raise its voice in behalf of a , • juster treatment than they have received ? In the main 'With but a few honorable exceptions, it joined the pack in hunting them down. As George Bernard Shaw says, the churches resisted the invasion of the Prince of Peace more fiercely than that of the Kaiser. Few things have been more distressing than the way in which everywhere ministers of religion have been the most intemperate in reviling the enemy, in extravagantly lauding their own people, in confusing justice with sheer vengeance."

A clergyman in New York, catching the first faint glimmerings of what is coming, made the naive statement, “It was too bad we stepped on the conscientious objector so hard during the war ; it is so difficult to explain now”.

During the war the young men were encouraged to rush headlong into death by those who in ordinary times would have offered them no hope of God’s favor except by compliance with many and heavy ecclesiastical rules and expensive masses. It is well known that the R^man Catholic religion holds out no hopes of dodging purgatory for hundreds of years even to the popes and cardinals; but Cardinal Mercier, of Belgium, imbued with the usual spirit of the clergy in war time, said in his Christmas pastoral in 1914:

"I am asked what I think of the eternal salvation of a brave man who has consciously given his life in defense of his country's honor, and in vindication of violated justice. I shall not hesitate to reply that without any doubt whatever Christ crowns his military valor, a-nd that death accepted in this Christian spirit assures the safety of that mans soul. Must we suppose that God requires of j^he plain soldier in the excitement of battle the methodical precision of the moralist or the theologian ? Can we who revere his heroism doubt that God welcomes him with love?"

But if the souls of those who died in battle

were safe, what about the souls of those who: went through the same battles unscathed! Are; not they safe, too; and if not, why not! But anyway, Canon William Chase, of New York, says they are not. He said at Washington, January 14, 1921: A ' :-'-7

"Our men did not come back spiritually uplifted, we had hoped. They have not gone into the churches/,? they have not brought any new spiritual force to hearj in our national life. Many of the veterans of the wai| show a cynical disregard for the higher life, rather than $ an awakened moral conscience." ’ .

It is pitiful to see the work that some of these:] clericals perform in trying to make their Christian conduct agree with their professed': Christian religion. The Protestant Episcopal Church of America held a convention in Newl; York City in Ma^, 1919, and The World morrow in its June issue of that year said:

"But perhaps the most significant of all was tlfe-con^ fession of Bishop Rogers Israel of Erie that throughout? his entire service at the front he was haunted with question. ‘Should we have met might with might, hor^ ' ror with horror, slaughter With slaughter?' Th^ bishop denied that he was a pacifist; but his question would/ have been regarded as the kind of pacifism which mighty be punished under the Espionage Act, had he spoken :* in 1918 instead of 1919. It is hopeful that a Bishop of* the Church should have come so far; and yet isitnot>? an ironic commentary on our faith that 1900 years after Christ, we should hail as encouraging the fact that one bishop in the Christian church is doubtful whether waiv-is the way of Christ or effective for the redemption the world?" - .

Some go a step farther’and admit that they'?, are sick of war. Note Jhe belated conviction ol Reverend J. H. Hopkinson, vicar-of Holy Trinity Church at Colne, England, as reported in the New York Globe, May 7, 1920:

"We have learned that war is not a matter of flutter* ing banners and clashing swords and beating drums, but merely a sickening and dirty butchery of lads in water-logged or fly-infested trenches. We shall be less ready than we were to compare the movement of the church to that of a victorious army. Hymns that we could sing unthinkingly before the war have become • lying blasphemy. Who would now sing, Take a mighty army moves the church of God’?” ’ '

An Episcopalian pastor, writing in the Statesman magazine goes still farther. He says:

"I for one will step down and out of my pulpit if there is any Japanese war. I shall not play hanky-pank with the word or gospel of the Prince of Peace and turn the House of Prayer into a recruiting station . for gassing off yellow men. I did it in the World War, want over seas and received a decoration. But I’m through. They may call me a pacifist, clap me into jail or anything else. But no more of it for this laddie. I will preach the flag of Christ’s Cross, but I will be hanged if I will preach any other kind of flaggery. Never again I At least I’ll be a Christian, whatever the results may be. And churches could stop another war. They could and can preach the Prince of Peace, and follow peace.”

-That there were some clergy that actually did keep a people pacific during the World War (without taking into account the motives that led them to take such a step) was brought out by George Fentrick, writing in The New York World, September 7, 1921. Mr. Fentrick said:

"When, during the World War, England passed the Conscription Act for Ireland, the Irish priests called their congregations together one Sunday morning and asked the people to raise their hands and swear that they would not obey this law. Now this of course was -treason. But since they could not execute 3,500,000 people, the law went by default. This shows what the church can do when it takes concerted action.”

* The magazine Unity, writing of the responsibility for “the next war”, says:

‘ “To our way of thinking, the situation calls for nothing less than a vast international conference of all the churches in all countries, which shall solemnly pledge Christians in the name of God and Jesus Christ: (1) not to pay any taxes to any government which supports a separate and competitive army and navy, and (2) not Co fight in any war under any circumstances, and which shall organize machinery in every country to educate ' people to the acceptance of these pledges, and put them into effect.”

The Papal Empire has come out of the war ■ with greater gains than any other of these institutions calling themselves churches and presided over by “Reverends The Empire is after the almighty dollar, and takes a long look into the future to see what can be done with it.

The Sons and Daughters of Washington, with headquarters at 101 South Manning Boulevard, Albany, New York, are memorializing Congress demanding an investigation of the Knights of Columbus, an accounting for the many millions of dollars collected, from Protestants mostly, under the supervising hand of the United States Govermept and turned over to them by the Tumulty government in the latter part of 191S.

They wint to know why this money, extorted from the American people under the pretense that it was to be used for the benefit of sick and wounded soldier boys, is now being kept by this religio-political organization, while thousands of those same soldier boys are without food and have no place to lay their heads.

They demand to know why it is that $1,000,-000 should be sent to the Pope at Rome to help destroy the Y. M. C. A., and to break up the work of the Methodist Church in Rome, and why $1,000,000 is set aside for the rewriting and perversion of the History of the United States, so that the minds of the youth of America may be corrupted at the fountain by Roman Catholie school books before they get old enough to have them corrupted finally by a Jesultized press.

Mr. John B. Kennedy, director of the publicity’ department of the Knights of Columbus, claims that there were only $8,000,000 left and that this is being used in hospital and educational work. He states further that the gifts to the Pope and for the purposes of rewriting American text-books came from private Knight of Columbus funds. But sometimes such things are mere matters of book-keeping, such as any clerk could do on a moment’s notice.

Service as Spies

AN OCCUPATION to which the clergy are . particularly well suited is that of spies; and the governments associated with the Papal Empire and with the various Protestant sects have always made large use of them for this purpose, especially in time of war.

We have already alluded to the effort made to secure the death penalty for Judge Rutherford and his companions at the hands of a gang of Methodist Reverends in Pennsylvania; they were representative of the clergy, in general, as we have pointed out in The Golden Age Number 27, wherein we narrated more than one hundred cases of mob violence, all or nearly all of which are known to have been incited by men engaged in the clergy business.

During the hysteria of the war period there was an opportunity for the “Reverends” to get at innocent people of differing religion. That they made full use of their opportunities is evident from the following extracts from affidavits by Bible students who were persecuted on false charges of sedition. In all centuries political Reverends have utilized the civil powers to settle grudges against persons of other beliefs than their own. Big Church, Big Business and Big Politics—an unholy alliance—travel hand in hand and stop at nothing. There was no law in the Constitution, the State Constitutions, the State statutes and the local laws concerning freedom of religion that was not violated by a class of men preaching a devotion to law and order. Some of the outrages by Reverends are:

"At Weyser, Idaho, two colporteurs were taken before the Chairman of the Council of Defense, and charged with selling seditious literature. The Chairman, not being versed in religious matters, called in a local minister to pass judgment on the books ["Studies in the Scriptures”] and the latter remarked that if he had the power he would stop the distribution of all those books, not only until after the war, but permanently”

At Winnsboro, Texas, the victim states: "The city lock-up, where I was taken, was an apartment of the city toilet, which had no sewerage connections whatever, thus making it the filthiest place imaginable. My arrest was instigated by one of the Methodist preachers of Winnsboro, who assisted the officers in my arrest and examination held at police headquarters.” r

"At Celeste, Texas,” another victim writes, "two clergymen to whom we handed copies of 'The Kingdom News/ demanded of the city marshal that he arrest us. The marshal refused and attended the lecture that same evening in Celeste; and expressed himself as well pleased with the talk. However, the clergymen stirred up the people, who phone(Dthe marshal demanding our arrest. The marshal called up the County Attorney, Mr. Frank Kemp, and Mr. Kemp told him to put us in jail regardless of character and sex. This the marshal, Mr. Brewer, refused to do. . . . Later, when the marshal, accompanied by ourselves, appeared before the County Attorney, the County Attorney said we had not violated any law, and ordered our release, although six hours before this he had instructed that we be jailed.”

"I was warned by prominent members and deacons of the Baptist Church here [Post Oak, Mo.] that unless I bought bonds, etc., I would get into trouble. On May SOth, 1918, several churches met to pray together. That night my automobile was stolen from my garage, taken to Leeton, Mo., painted yellow, and left in the street-The next morning, while I was inquiring about my car, the Reverend G. L. Newkirk, Pastor of the Providence Baptist Church, called me over the telephone and told me my car was in Leeton, Mo. When I arrived in Leeton, I noted Reverend G. L. Newkirk, dressed in common clothes, so as not to be noticeable, standing near the automobile, together with a large crowd. ... I was later informed that the crowd was prepared to paint me yellow in case I made any remarks about my new car being damaged.”

At Denison, Texas, "We were called German propagandists, anjJ Mr. E. J. Smith, head of the War Council, told us that he was 'against us and our d—d religion’, and that his recommendation as head of the W ar Council would be to line us up, both men and women and children, against a brick wall, and shoot us, and not stop until all of us had been killed in the whole country... A committee waited on J. R. May and told him that the persecutions which he received were not given him because he did not buy bonds, ‘but because -of'his d—*4, religion’. . . . The clergymen of this city formed part, of the local War Council.”

At New London, Ohio, "We distributed a special’ edition of The National Labor '(ribune,. The $hen£; and deputy, with a crowd at their heels arrested we were about to board- the train to return home; and] charged us with being Bolsheviks. The crowd yelled^ 'Lynch them’. We were taken to the sheriff’s office*. The Mayor of Wellington, Ohio, vouched for our chiaipr acters. They could find nothing whatever wrong witlT the paper, and were willing to release us. But the.mofr outside, stirred by two clergymen, was growling. KI nally a friend of ours took us back to Wellington automobile.”

In Garfield, Washington, "While distributing *King-J dom News’ . . . the sheriff detained Donald Main in? his hotel. A clergyman questioned him in the hotel;;: and said to him: ‘If you fellows don’t stop putting oiitj your literature, you will find some of your people strung' up to a telegraph pole, and I will be one of the first to-, pull the rope’. . . . The same night he was called before^ a judge, and although it was late in the night, a Bap-; tist minister was present as a spectator. . . . The Courts in Spokane, after investigating the copies of 'The King*^ dom News’, stated they could see nothing wrong in.it*”^

At Chetonak, Oklahoma, “The Council of Defense^ consisting of Walter Brumley, W. C. Canterbury‘anfo A. 0. Johnson, called on me and told me to either’; change my attitude or leave town immediately. I lefV town with my family on the first train. My case camej up in July and no bill was found against me/ I have.] since learned.that our'persecution was instigated by the’’ clergy, and came at the end of »a four-weeks union' meeting of the churches, during which our beliefs were ' made the subject of attack two nights of each week.**"

At Miami, Texas, Mr. and Mrs. R. A. Bayless swear: ■ '

“Reverend J. C. Stalcup, Secretary of the Council of Defense and Baptist preacher, took a copy of the paper from Mrs. Bayless and gave her to understand that he would read it over and notify her to cease distribution if he found anything wrong in it. He did not notify ua. . . . . About a week later ... we were arrested. . . .We were . . . arraigned before U. S- Commissioner A/A/.1 Brown, with Reverend J. C. Stalcup ... as the only complaining witness .... When committed to prison, ’ our two Bibles, some copies of The Watch Tower and two sets of 'Studies in the Scriptures’ were taken from us and never returned, though we repeatedly requested them. While we were in jail in Muskogee the Council of Defense of Miami, Texas, entered our house and ransacked it, taking our hymn books, volumes of ‘Studies in the Scriptures’, issues of The Watch Tower and paper and tracts. . . . The Federal Grand Jury met at McAlester, Oklahoma- Reverend Ji C. Stalcup, Secretary of the Council of Defense and Baptist preacher, made several trips there to prosecute us, but we were released?*

Says Charles J. Crews, of Little Rock, Arkansas:

"I received frequent warnings from the Baptist Minister, Reverend E. D. Cameron, of Checotah, Oklahoma, saying that if I didn’t give up 'that belief’ I would be sent to the penitentiary”.

The foregoing are only a small fraction of the instances that might be related of how, when conditions are right, the Reverends “get” people that diffej from them in belief. How long will these white-walled monsters of iniquity be permitted to darken the land and fill it with violence ?

The Right Reverend Theodore S. Henderson, of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in a sermon in Detroit in the summer of 1918, after referring to the fact that he had been accused of being partly responsible for the mob which did to death the innocent Prager at East St. Louis, falsely accused of being a German spy, went on record as saying:

"If any man or women accused of sedition or disloyalty, and after process of trial by jury should be found guilty, such traitor should be taken out and shot.” The Bishop then went on to laud the Espionage Act, stating that "the passage of this act makes it possible for the legal punishment of all violators, without any resort by the citizens to take the law into their own hands”. [See how narrowly he misses advocating mob violence]

The Reverend John G. Still, pastor of the People’s Church of Louisville, Kentucky, trimmed the bishops in good shape for the part they ' played in upholding the infamous and unconstitutional Espionage Act, whereby the liberties of the American people were taken from them and vested in the Preachers, Profiteers, and Politicians. In a sermon delivered in February, 1920, he said:

"Remember what part you played—you bishops and priests and churchmen? Remember how you stood in your pulpits—and how you raised your voices to cry aloud with prophetic power that the God of Israel hath said, 'Thou shalt not kill’? Remember how you went up and down the land urging, pleading, imploring, demanding that there shall be 'peace on earth and good will amongunen*—remember that ? Of course you don’t. For that isi^’t what you did.

"This is what you did. You converted the churches of Christ, the Prince of Peace, into Temples of the

War God. You fanned the fires of hell and hate into the consuming flames of war. Stand here with me, and tell me this: Tell me what crimes did ’Gene Debs commit? Why, you say, he violated the Espionage Act. . You hypocrites 1 And only yesterday, when I stood in one of your pulpits you told me that religion has nothing to do with politics! What business have ywn to talk about Espionage Acts? To judge by the tone of the Christian church one might thi-nk that Christ said, 'Well done, thou good and faithful servant—thou hast obeyed the Espionage Act—enter into the joys if the Lord!' No, sir. You can’t get by with that. We demand that you tell us in the eternal terms of right and wrong, not in the terms^of transient politics, what crime is it for which this man goes ten long years behind prison bars ? And there is just one answer, ’tis his own, made before his judge, when he said: 'I admit it. I am opposed to war, all wars) and this war, too. And if I stood alone I should nevertheless be opposed to the war-’ That 10 the crime in the terms of your Christian religion—he was opposed to war—in the language of your own orthodox theology—he is guilty of standing by the cross of Christ, the Prince of Peace, in time of war 1” :

Reverend Still hit on a sore spot when he -mentioned Mt. Debs. The clergy know that they are responsible for having this man locked up and having him kept locked up; and yet-here is a man who loves his fellow men sa much that he has been known to give the overcoat off his back to a total stranger, in midwinter, without asking the stranger’s name, merely because he saw that the man was suffering with the cold. This man was locked up and kept locked up, so that he would not, in some strange way, take away the liberties and the happiness of 108,000,000 people that inhabit this broad land 1

The Universalist General Convention^ at Detroit, in October, 1921—in order to prove that their clergy are as narrow-minded and as small-souled as the clergy of any other denomination —voted to strike the name of Eugene V. Debs from an appeal to President Harding requesting amnesty for political prisoners. And, O. Consistency! the same convention urged the full restoration of free speech and the press, which is guaranteed by the constitution anyway—and it was for the exercise of free speech that Debs was sent to prison. Never on earth were there more hypocrites alive than just now.

As respects this matter of spying upon the liberties of others and trying to take away the rights of minorities, Wendell Phillips said in 1860:

"Governments exi$t to protect the rights of minorities. The loved and the rich need no protection—they have । many friends and few enemies. We have praised our Union for seventy years. This is the first time it is tested. Has it educated men who know their rights and Hare maintain them? Can it bear the discussion of a ' great national sin, anchored deep in the prejudices and Interests of millions? If so, it deserves to live. If not, the sooner it vanishes out of the way the better. The ' time to assert rights is when they are denied. The men' to assert them are those to whom they are denied. The । bommiinity which dares hot protect its humblest and * most hated jhemb'er in the free utterance of his opinions,

Bo matter how false or hateful, is only a gang of slaves?’

Prohibition of Liquor

THE Anti-Saloon League is composed of cler-' ." A gymen and was the instrumentality used in , bringing about the prohibition of the liquor J traffic in the United States. The League has ' I been forceful, efficient, and ably managed; and

] it has produced the results it sought. The Pro; hibition Amendment is a part of the fundamen-j tai law of the land; and if anybody in power I in this. country paid the least attention to the

< I Constitution, prohibition would be a reality.

I . Since the Prohibition Amendment and the ; [Volstead Act were passed, the clergy have been ; trying to have the law upheld. Reverend G. E. j Richter, of Stamford, Connecticut, is one ofi - these. Prohibition gives the4 4 Reverends ’' some

! thing fresh to fight about. The New York World : Credits him with having given expression to the following utterances on this subject in the Fall Of 1920:

*1 am not afraid of God, or man, or the devil, or the baptism of eggs that has greeted my efforts to purge

’ these communities of low gambling and drinking. And I shall carry a gun, no matter what the officials of Darien may say.”

After being denied a permit to carry a revolver Mr. Richter said:

*If I had a revolver I would discharge it into the sir, and then my friends would rush out. I see no reason

• why I should not have my constitutional rights. And I you I will have a revolver, and I will fight for my rights in this community!”

The-clergy of the Episcopal church are accustomed to greater personal liberties than those of most other Protestant denominations, and they do not take well to restrictions of their own liberties or spying upon the liberties of others in this matter of prohibition. In January, 1920,’Reverend Doctor Henry Davies, rec- tor of Christ Episcopal Church, Easton, Md., replied to an invitation of Darnel C. Roper. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in such a way as to imply that Mr. Roper had wanted his assistance in the enforcement of prohibition in the vicinity. He said:

“In this church we are not accustomed to such intrusion into private morals and conduct of its members, which looks, on the surface at least, too much like a secret service, or worse, spying. Moreover, I believe that my people would not be so low as to be informers.'’’; .7-4;

Sometimes, when there is no war, the “R^ erends ’ ’ think some laws should not be obeyed} The Dean of St. Paul’s, London, says thatit is all right to cheat the government by. gling in liquor, if the government Exceeds it* rights in prohibiting some harmless act”. On® can hardly help wondering just who are the; people that are to determine when the government has exceeded its rights and how they ar®, to go about the enforcement of their opinion^

Reverend B. S. Bouchier, vicar of St. Jude1* Chureh, does not have a high opinion of pro-5 hibition in America. At a prohibition meeting; in Hampstead Gardens Free Church,’London,' in May, 1920, he startled the supposedly prd^ hibition audience by saying:

“If I had my way I would have emblazoned on bah^ ners 'God save the king and beer for the British people*;; I have just returned from America. I saw how prohibi^ tion works. The rich mon can get his liquor but this) poor cannot. In this country it ill becomes the clergy^ to pour scorn on the brewer who has done so much ta -support our churches and our charities!” :'v

As soon as prohibition went into effect, in September, 1919, Chicago churchmen openedi? church saloon, at 884 South State Street, witS% a Reverend for a bartender. The bar and the " fixtures are of the regular, old-fashioned, rumhole variety. A picture published in the Chicago Herald and Examiner, September 23,. 1919, shows six men, one behind the bar and five lined up in front of it. Of the latter, three have their feet on the bar rail as if it were a familiar position with them, and four have glasses of Some z kind of drink in their hands. All but one of the seven men in the picture are stated to be Rev- :• erends—three of them Presbyterians. .

The Los Angeles Times, November 29, 1919, is authority for the following: .

“It is evident that some of the city churches propose to be fortified with the proper amount of wine for sacramental purposes, as it came to the attention of thedocal Federal officials, yesterday, that the official board of a Los Angeles church has invested in 300 gallons of wine to be used in the ministrations of the body* As there are BOO members of the congregation that means a halfgallon for each one of the communicants. 'Preparing for a large addition to the membership/ was the only comment of Internal Revenue Collector Carter, who refused to give the name and address of the church, perhaps fearing a rush for 'ministrations’.”

Sunday Blue Laws

KRISTIANS are not under the law of Moses, but under the law of love. The seventh day of the week, upon which the Jew was required to rest, represents the great seventh-thousand-year day of human history, the Golden Age, during which the world of mankind will recover from the toil and travail of the six thousand years of sin and death that are now in the past. To the Christian that seventh Klay—our Saturday — typifies or pictures the rest of heart into which he enters when he enters into Christ.

There is a general impression among Christians that in some way they are obligated to a special observance of Sunday, but the Scriptures enjoin no such rule or even hint at it — rather the opposite. Real Christians are glad that by custom there is a day in each week available for restand worship, but it makes no difference to them what that day is, nor have they any wish to push their preferences upon others by onerous and unnecessary laws.

' In revolutionary days there was a strict Sunday (miscalled Sabbath, for Saturday not Sunday is the Bible Sabbath) law in all the colonies, namely, the Act of Charles II, which provided that:

’ "AH and every person whatsoever shall every Lord's Day apply themselves to the observation of the same, by exercising themselves thereon in the duties of piety . and true religion, publicly and privately”.

The law forbade all unnecessary travel and stipulated that:

"No tradesman, artificer, workman, laborer, or other person whatsoever shall do or exercise any worldly labor, business, or work of, their ordinary callings^*.

At present there are no Sunday laws whatever nr the District of Columbia or in California ; nor have there been any in Oregon since -1918, when the people got -tired of them and threw them out. Sunday labor and amusements are perfectly legal in Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico unless they disturb church congregations. \

In the good old days in the city of New Haven, Connecticut, they had some pretty strict laws. No one could vote unless converted and a member of. some one of the churches allowed, within the city; food or lodging could not bo-offered to a heretic; no one eouid cross a river on Sunday except an authorized Reverend; no one could travel, cook victuals, make beds* sweep houses, cut hair or shave, or kiss hi* children on Sunday—and the day began at sundown on Saturday. No one could wear clothes trimmed with gold, silver, ribbon, er lace worth , over a shilling a yard without incurring a fino of $1,500. Bringing cards or dice into the city was punished with a fine of $25. It was illegal to eat mince pies, dance, play cards, or play any other instrument of music than the drum, trumpet, and jew’s-harp. No one could court a maid without obtaining the consent of her parents* under penalty of $25 for the first offense, $50 for the second offense, and imprisonment for the third offense.

Many of the Reverends, encouraged by their success in the prohibition crusade are pressing hard toward the passing of laws for a strict Sunday observance the country ever. Reverend Noah W. Cooper, Chairman of the Methodist Central Sabbath Crusade Committee, representing nineteen southern conference* of that denomination, recently appeared before Congressional Committees and presented a proposed national Sunday observance biU, together with a lengthy petition, both of which were introduced into the Congressional Record of July 13, 1921. The proposed national Sunday law and the petition urge Congress to prohibit the publication and circulation of Sunday newspapers, the operation of Sunday trains and all interstate traffic, the prevention of all professional and other labor, likewise all amusements of every character that are conducted for profit on Sundays. Mr. Cooper claims that 1,500,000 ' constituent members of the Methodist Church South are backing him up in this movement.

Reverend Cooper is not the only one that is pressing for drastic Sunday legislation. Another is Reverend Harry L. Bowlby, D. D., head of the Lord’s Day Alliance, an organization representing in an official capacity sixteen religious denominations. In the Philadelphia Public Ledger, of November 28, 1920, Doctor Bowlby made the following statement of ths intentions of his organization:

"We propose by legislation, to make it easier for people to go to church. In other words, we shall try to dose the baseball pSfcks, the golf links, the motion pio-

hire and other theatres, the concert halls, the amusement parks, the bathing beaches, and so on. We shall fight all amusements where an admission fee is charged. We shall oppose golf, tennis, baseball, and other sports, even if purely amateur and void of financial cost to those taking part, because they set bad examples for children who otherwise might be content to go to Sunday school. We shall seek to restrict the sale of gasoline for pleasure yachts, automobiles, and urge other measures that will stop Sunday automobiling and joy riding. This will not bring the old-fashioned horse and buggy back, because we believe that the Lord's day should be a day of rest for man and beast. Excursion steamer rides on Sunday will be opposed by us on the ground that th,iy are unnecessary to the moral welfare of Christian America.’ No, I see no reason why the public libraries or the art galleries should remain open on Sunday. Wc shall seek to eliminate the huge Sunday newspapers, and establish a censorship [Italics ours] over the stuff that gets into them on other days. Of course, we shall back no law that would compel a man or a woman to attend church. But we believe that if we take away a man’s motor car,’ his golf sticks, his Sunday newspaper, his x* horses, his pleasure steamships, amusement houses, and parks, and prohibit him from playing outdoor games or witnessing field sports, he naturally will drift back to the church.” —

- - The New York World seems to think that there is a good chance that the united efforts of Reverend Cooper and Reverend Bowlby will succeed. It says:

“The same elements that brought about the Eighteenth Amendment [prohibiting the sale and manufacture of liquor] and the Volstead Ijaw [enforcing that ‘ Amendment] are back of the proposed Sunday-observance amendment, and the political influence of these elements can hardly be overestimated.' It is not too much to say that the Anti-Saloon League alone is now the best organized and the most powerful agency of government in the United States. If this lobby now sets out to write the Puritan Sunday into the Constitution of the United States, there is no reason to assume that its campaign will be anything but triumphant.”

The Sunday-observance movement is spreading. The Reverends of the city of London have united in a refusal to conduct Sunday funerals, as they need the rest. They did this after the ’ various common councils had refused to make

Sunday funerals illegal.

It is just possible that some disappointments await some of these enthusiasts who favor closing everytlftng but the churches on Sunday, as Judge Burnell of Los Angeles, California, has ruled that a collection taken on Sunday is virtually an admission fee to thjrSunday services. If everything's closed up that charges an ad

…