Consolation, May 17, 1939
Download: PDF — Consolation, May 17, 1939
Contents
Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Conscience 3
Compulsory Flag Salutes 7
Liberty of Conscience 9
America's New Idol 15
Babylon in California 15
'You Must Salute the Flag' 15
California's Supreme Court Decision 16
The Flag 16
Counsel by J. F. Rutherford 17
Who Tells the Truth? 17
Ethics! "Not Ordinarily" 18
"Let the People Know the Truth" 19
Under the Totalitarian Flag 20
Uses for Vestments 20
Jezebel Is Dolling Up 20
Pope to Control All Radio 21
Not Yet Infallible 21
The Silver Test for Mushrooms 21
Africa 22
Australasia 23
Interesting Information About Agriculture 24
Public Utilities 26
The Poverty of India 27
British Comment 28
The Political Situation 28
Exalting a Fellow Racketeer 28
Saluting the Flag 29
Animal Husbandry 31
Published every other Wednesday by
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC.
117 Adams St., Brooklyn, N. Y., U. S. A.
Editor Clayton J. Woodworth
Business Manager Nathan H. Knorr
Five Cents a Copy
$1 a year in the United States
$1.25 to Canada and all other countries
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS
Remittances: For your own safety, remit by postal or express money order. When coin or currency is lost in the ordinary mails, there is no redress. Remittances from countries other than those named below may be made to the Brooklyn office, but only by International postal money order.
Receipt of a new or renewal subscription will be acknowledged only when requested. Notice of Expiration is sent with the journal one month before subscription expires. Please renew promptly to avoid loss of copies.
Send change of address direct to us rather than to the post office. Your request should reach us at least two weeks before the date of issue with which it is to take effect. Send your old as well as the new address. Copies will not be forwarded by the post office to your new address unless extra postage is provided by you.
Published also in Afrikaans, Bohemian, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Japanese, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian; also special Australian edition in English.
OFFICES FOR OTHER COUNTRIES
England 34 Craven Terrace, London, W. 2
Canada 40 Irwin Avenue, Toronto 5, Ontario
Australia 7 Beresford Road, Strathfield, N.S.W.
South Africa 623 Boston House, Cape Town
Entered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N. Y., under the Act of March 3, 1879.
Appetizers
Enforced Gestures
◆ Editor The Chronicle—
Sir: California has covered itself with glory!
At last we are safe from little children who threaten to destroy our freedom and our liberties; small children who place their trust in God and who believe that honor and obeisance belong to Him only; children who have the courage to stand for their convictions against much opposition and who insist that they have the right to worship God according to the dictates of their conscience.
The State Supreme Court has rendered a momentous decision; it will now be perfectly proper for school authorities to instill by force the principles of liberty and freedom in these small children.
The flag again flies high o'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.—H. R. Alden, in San Francisco Chronicle.
Salute to the Flag
◆ Over in Italy conscientious objection to flag salutes is not permissible. In Germany any parent whose child failed to take part in the morning "Heil Hitler" chorus would probably find himself in a concentration camp. In Russia any student who refused to raise his clenched fist when the pedagogue's order for a Communist salute was given might be taken down into the cellar and shot. But in this country, in blessed contrast, a citizen can join in patriotic exercises or not, as he pleases, without being any the worse for it. Once in a while some public official does run counter to this democratic spirit, but he usually lives to regret it.—Hutchinson (Kans.) News.
Silly Ruling
◆ Add to silly court rulings of the year the recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals that a school child can be forced to salute the American flag because the gesture is not an act of worship, and therefore does not interfere with religious liberties.
Such a misguided and inept ruling proves that not all judges are all-wise. Worse yet, it defeats its purpose of encouraging patriotism and love of country, for a child certainly learns neither by being made to perform an act forbidden by his family. All it does is confuse and embitter the child.—Minneapolis Star.
CONSOLATION
"And in His name shall the nations hope."—Matthew 12:21, A. R. V.
Volume XX Brooklyn, N. Y., Wednesday, May 17, 1939 Number 513
Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Conscience
"COMPULSORY FLAG SALUTES" is the title of an interesting article in the April issue of Law Notes, published at New York. The author, Thomas J. Booth, refers to the fact that the validity of compulsory flag-salute laws has been upheld by the highest court in each of five states and by one federal district court, and that under those judicial rulings public school officials may arbitrarily ignore and override the conscientious objection of children who believe that their participation in the school flag-salute ceremony is an act violating the mandate of Almighty God. He states:
With these decisions a new appendage has been added to the body of case law—a malignant growth which should be cauterized in its incipient stage.
At the time his statement was made there were two cases pending before the United States Supreme Court involving the flag-salute regulation. One of these was the case of Johnson v. Town of Deerfield, which was appealed from a three-judge United States District Court for Massachusetts to the nation's highest tribunal. The other was the case of Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker, carried on appeal to Washington from California's Supreme Court.
With these two cases before it, the Supreme Court of the United States had an excellent opportunity to apply the burning iron and purge this "malignant growth" from the body politic. It failed to use the opportunity. On the contrary, on April 17 it upheld the former decisions. Thus it caused an evil and wicked principle of law to be made a permanent addition to the body of case law of this nation. Additionally, by that ruling the Supreme Court started tolling of the bell signaling the last obsequies of freedom of conscience in this "sweet land of liberty".
What is this new appendage to the law which has been so aptly tagged as "a malignant growth"?
It is a new principle grafted onto the law. It is an alien, un-American conception of law. It is of the pernicious, totalitarian model easily recognized in the forced "heils", goose-stepping and saluting that is epidemic today in what Americans still call "the Old World". It is a concept of law which exalts "the State" to supremacy, subjects all individual rights to state control, and requires unquestioning obedience of every person to those in charge of the regimentation.
In the case of Johnson v. Town of Deerfield, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the three-judge Federal district court for Massachusetts. In the case of Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker, the highest court rejected the appeal on technical grounds. No lengthy opinion was given by the court, but its affirmance of the district court's opinion in the Johnson case implies that the Supreme Court agrees with the reasons and statements set forth in the lower court's decision. The record in that case discloses the issue raised and enables one to evaluate its determination by the high court.
William A. Johnson is a resident of the Town of Deerfield in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. His children, William, Dorothy, and Gloria, attended the South Deerfield public schools until October 17, 1938. On October 14 last, the school committee adopted a resolution requiring all pupils to salute the flag, and providing for expulsion of pupils who refuse to comply with the rule. This was done in conformity with the provisions of Chapter 71, Section 69, of the General Laws of Massachusetts.
The Johnson children refused to comply with the rule. On October 17 they were suspended from school by the superintendent. Later this suspension was confirmed by the school committee. An action was then brought in the Federal District Court to require reinstatement of the children in the public school. In the complaint filed in this action the children informed the court that the act of saluting a flag violates the law of Almighty God as stated in His Word, the Bible. (Exodus 20: 3-6) The court, in deciding the case, said:
They [meaning the flag salute and pledge of allegiance] do not concern the views of any one as to his Creator. They do not touch upon his relations with his Maker.
In affirming that decision of the district court, the United States Supreme Court approved and confirmed this quoted statement. In other words, the court says that no school child has any right to believe that the flag salute is contrary to the law of God. It holds that no school child has the right to decide whether his act is in conformity with the law of God. This tribunal has exalted itself to the position of an arbiter of the validity of the school child's conscientious convictions, and decides for the child that the flag salute cannot in any sense be concerned with the relations of such child to his Creator. The court goes further and holds that because a child entertains such belief, and acts in accordance with that belief, he may be denied the right of attendance at the public schools.
The effect of this decision goes far beyond the mere question of whether a child can be required by state law to salute the national flag. It takes the highest court into a new field. It establishes a new principle, which is contrary to fundamental principles followed by courts in this country for a century and a half. It sanctions the removal of freedom of conscience and religious liberty by means of a state law or an administrative regulation. It authorizes courts to enter into the realm of the individual's conscience and to decide whether or not conscience is rightly educated, exercised and directed.
Only a man with a conscience can be a true patriot
This battle over the right of conscience was fought out in the early days of this country. The struggle finally culminated in the clear-cut declaration that no judge or civil magistrate had the right to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and belief.
The United States Supreme Court made that principle its own in 1889, when, in the case of Davis v. Beason (133 U. S. 333), it stated:
With man's relations to his Maker, and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.
This language is definite and easy to understand. It provides that one may think as he sees fit relative to his obligations to Almighty God. He has the right to make such expression of his belief, whether by speech or by silence, by act or by refusal to act, on those subjects, without interference by any governmental authority, provided that he does not jeopardize the peace and safety of the country and the morals of the people.
Now we find that the court of last resort has disregarded this established principle and stated a new one. In effect, the decision in the Johnson case means practically this: That interference by law, custom or school-board regulation with man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose is permissible and will receive the sanction of the court, regardless of the sincerity and conscientiousness of the person involved.
Today you have liberty of conscience provided there is no law with which your conscience may come into conflict. If you follow a course of action (even though that be ordained and commanded by Almighty God) which brings you into conflict with a law of the state, then it is just too bad for you and your conscience. Under this decision your belief is subordinated to the law of the state. The state is made the supreme power, and freedom of conscience becomes a thing of the past. If your conscientious belief and corresponding action come into conflict with the law, then the court, in all its power, might and majesty, may pass on the validity of your belief and may exercise the claimed right and authority to declare your belief entirely invalid and deny you rights or punish you for entertaining such belief and for acting in accordance with it.
In Germany the children in the public schools are required to sing hymns to an image of Hitler. Mystic and solemn rites are performed in the schools to mark the elevation of a man to the position of a god. This is image worship. It is the exaltation of the creature above the Creator. It is clearly and unmistakably a violation of the law of Almighty God. In Germany it doesn’t do any good for any child or adult to have any conscientious objection to the ceremonies. The school officials, the courts, Hitler, the entire government, will rule such objection invalid. They will hold that no pupil has the right to entertain any belief that the act of singing to Hitler’s image and of exalting him is contrary to the law of God. That’s the totalitarian model.
In the United States, under the decisions in the flag-salute cases, the same condition could be established. School boards could, if they so desired, establish images to Roosevelt in the schoolhouses and require pupils to sing hymns of praise and exaltation to him. They could put in statues symbolizing the “New Deal” and require all pupils to sing hymns of praise to the “New Deal” as being the salvation of the country. Republicans and people of other political beliefs than Roosevelt’s and the New Dealers’ might well object to participating in such ceremony. They might think it sacrilegious. They might even consider the ceremony to be a violation of God’s law; but their right to so think and to so consider has been foreclosed by the decision of the nation’s highest court.
The legislative bodies could go even further. They could put statues of the nation’s chief executive in the churches and require the congregation to sing hymns of praise and exaltation to that personage. Would people object to that in the churches? Many of them would. They would conscientiously object to such idol worship and exaltation of man. But if the matter were taken before the courts, these decisions which have been rendered in the flag-salute cases would be brought before the judges and they would say that the precedent has been established and you have no right whatsoever to believe that this action required by law is a violation of the law of God.
Carrying the illustration still further, it is definitely shown that the groundwork is laid for the establishment of a state religion in this country. Under the principle now fixed by our courts, a state religion could be here established which would receive judicial sanction.
Sowing the wind
TOTALITARIAN PENETRATION
NAZI FASCIST LIES
CLASS HATRED
PRESSURE GROUPS
RACE HATRED
PERVERSION LAWS & COURTS
DESTRUCTION OF U.S. CONSTITUTION
U.S.A.
--The Roman Catholic Hierarchy has long desired to secure power and control in this country. If it should secure a majority in the United States Congress and secure control of the executive’s office, then it would be fully entrenched. It could enact and put in force laws making the Catholic church the official church of the nation and requiring all people to subscribe to its dogmas, to support it, and to refrain from criticizing it in any way.
Some Protestants and Christians would object to this. They would say that we cannot conscientiously support the Catholic church. They would assert their rights in court. The courts could then hold that their beliefs were invalid and would say that the law covers this matter and you must conform your position and belief to the law.
In the early days of this country those people whose beliefs were not acceptable to the majority were banished from the community. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts banished the Quakers. Illinois drove the Mormons from its borders. Roger Williams was compelled to flee from Massachusetts. In these modern days people look upon such tactics as barbarous, cruel, narrow-minded. Patriotic spellbinders are inclined to point with pride to our present “civilization”, so called, and to rejoice in the fact that we have great freedom of religion and belief. Even the courts, while passing upon the merits of these flag-salute questions, have exalted in glowing phrase the benefits of religious freedom, and then proceeded in the next breath to deny such freedom. The time is now here, however, in which Americans cannot point with pride to their great, free civilization. Americans of today are no better than the bigoted religionists of Massachusetts and Illinois who banished the Quakers and the Mormons. Today Americans banish God-fearing children from the public schools, telling those pupils, ‘You must cease obedience to the law of God or you cannot secure your education at the public schools.’
So it appears that the people of this nation have not progressed very far from the intolerant viewpoint of their forefathers.
In another flag-salute case, to wit, that of Gobitis v. Minersville School District (21 Fed. Supp. 581), Judge Maris, then of the United States District Court for Eastern Pennsylvania, gave a clear-cut, definite statement of what the law should be on this issue. We quote from his decision:
Liberty of conscience means liberty for each individual to decide for himself what is to him religious. If an individual sincerely bases his acts or refusals to act on religious grounds they must be accepted as such and may only be interfered with if it becomes necessary to do so in connection with the exercise of the police power, that is, if it appears that the public safety, health or morals or property or personal rights will be prejudiced by them. To permit public officers to determine whether the views of individuals sincerely held and their acts sincerely undertaken on religious grounds are in fact based on convictions religious in character would be to sound the death knell of religious liberty. To such a pernicious and alien doctrine this court cannot subscribe.
In all the cases involving the flag-salute question before state or federal courts there has been no answer made to these fundamental, clear-cut, logical principles stated by Judge Maris. Counsel for the school boards and the judges have studiously avoided answering them. There is a good reason for such avoidance. The reason is that they are unanswerable. When you permit a court or a school board or any other kind of official to decide upon the validity of the conscientious beliefs of another, then you do sound the death knell of religious liberty. The measured tolling of that death knell the United States Supreme Court has now started, and unless some unforeseen event occurs to arrest the spread of this “malignant growth” it will be only a matter of time until freedom of conscience will be interred among other forgotten things. Jehovah’s witnesses and their children will not stultify conscience.
They will not change their conception of the law of Almighty God to conform to a court decision. In many parts of the United States these boys and girls have demonstrated their faith and their integrity under adverse conditions. Although subjected to taunts, abuse, reproach, beatings and chokings, they have not wavered in their determination to render complete obedience to the law of Almighty God. They will continue to obey God, regardless of what judges may say or what school boards and teachers may do.—O. R. Moyle.
P.S. Since the foregoing was written, and as a direct result of the Supreme Court decision, Dorothy Johnson, Gloria Johnson and William Johnson the younger were summoned to appear in the Deerfield, Massachusetts, Franklin Co. Court, May 1, 1939, charged with being habitual school offenders and were committed to a county reformatory.
Yet, in spite of this decision of the Supreme Court against freedom of conscience, and this pending Massachusetts action against it, the president of the United States in the very same month in which both these occurred could write to three Methodist groups at Kansas City of “our American heritage of complete freedom of conscience” and of “the sacred right of freedom of conscience”.
Compulsory Flag Salutes
THE courts of last resort in five states and one federal court have sustained the validity of compulsory flag salute laws requiring school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school exercises. With these decisions a new appendage has been added to the body of case law—a malignant growth which should be cauterized in its incipient stage.
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in the editorial office of the Youth’s Companion by James B. Upham, and first appeared in print in the issue of that magazine published September 8, 1892. It was prepared as a part of the magazine’s campaign to place the flag in every schoolhouse in the United States, that it might be saluted simultaneously. . . .
In about half of our states the performance of this exercise is made a compulsory part of the public school curriculum. The laws of some states specify what flag exercise is to be held, while in others a duty is imposed on the state educational authorities to prepare a program for use in the public schools “providing for a salute to the flag”. Some of these laws were enacted before the World War, but the validity of them was not questioned until recently, when the young members of a religious sect called Jehovah’s witnesses refused to participate in flag salute exercises.
The refusal of these children to salute the flag was predicated upon religious grounds. They were taught by their elders that saluting the flag amounted to worshiping a god other than the God Jehovah—a violation of the commandment “Thou shalt have no other gods before me . . . Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them”. The position of these people was described by their leader, Judge Rutherford, as follows: “The flag of the United States is not the flag of Jehovah God and Christ Jesus. It is the emblem of the power that rules the nation; and no one can truthfully say that God and Christ Jesus rule a government where crime is rampant.”
Nicholls v. Mayor and School Committee of Lynn was the first of these flag salute cases. There the offender, a third grade pupil, was observed to stand quietly by his desk while his classmates recited the pledge and raised their right hands in salute to the flag. In the two preceding years he had joined in the exercises. Upon inquiry it was learned that he had decided not to salute, “because he was being called upon to adore the flag and bow down to the flag and that according to his religious views he could only adore and bow down to Jehovah.” The boy was excluded from school privileges until he should be willing to subscribe to all of its regulations.
The court in its decision used two arguments which have been employed by other courts in reaching the same conclusions. First, it emphasized the importance of instilling in young hearts an early and proper respect for the flag—symbol of the Republic and its institutions. “That is a ceremony clearly designed to inculcate patriotism and to instill a recognition of the blessings conferred by orderly government under the Constitutions of the state and nation.” Second, the court decided that the salute could not be interpreted as religious worship. It found that, “There is nothing in the salute or the pledge of allegiance which constitutes an act of idolatry, or which approaches to any religious observance.”
In the first argument the court appeals to the national desire for self-preservation; that same desire which dictated the opinions in the Draft Cases. In People v. Sandstrom, one of the latest flag salute cases to be decided, the court also used the argument of patriotism.
“There is another strength which is necessary to preserve the government besides military force, and that is the moral strength, or public opinion of its citizens. Public opinion is as vital to the maintenance of good government as an army or a navy; in fact these latter can be destroyed quicker by public opinion than by the attacks of the enemy. Many a nation has succumbed to the breakdown of the morale of its people. The State, therefore, is justified in taking such measures as will engender and maintain patriotism in the young.”
One cannot deny the truth of the last sentence in the case of Gabrielli v. Knickerbocker where the court said: “The simple salutation to the flag and the repetition of the pledge of allegiance, in the judgment of the proper governing body, tend to stimulate in the minds of youth in the formative period of life sentiments of lasting affection and respect for and unfaltering loyalty to our government and its institutions.” But I submit the stimulating should not be done by force.
Militarism, chauvinism, patriotism! Where is the line to be drawn and who is to draw it? Is patriotism a pill to be ruthlessly pushed down young, unwilling throats? In peacetime, particularly, a genuine love for country would find a more lasting lodgment in young hearts if instilled by patience and wisdom rather than coercion and command. Suffer the little militarists to depart from us, for of such are the totalitarian states!
One important thing must be remembered. These children are not Communists, Nazis, or members of any political organization having doctrines subversive to our institutions. They love their country. Their only fault is their unwillingness to salute our flag in an exercise which for them has a religious significance.
Because of their religious scruples as against saluting the flag children have been expelled from public schools in twelve states. In some instances they have been brutally whipped, threatened with terms in reformatories, and otherwise mistreated by educational Storm Troopers with chauvinistic hearts.
“The salute of the flag,” said Judge Lehman in his concurring opinion in People v. Sandstrom, “is a gesture of love and respect—fine when there is real love and respect back of the gesture. The flag is dishonored by a salute by a child in reluctant and terrified obedience to a command of secular authority which clashes with the dictates of conscience. The flag ‘cherished by all our hearts’ should not be soiled by the tears of a little child. The Constitution does not permit, and the legislature never intended, that the flag should be so soiled and dishonored.” Judge Lehman concurred in the ruling of the court that the parents of Grace Sandstrom were not guilty of a failure to send their daughter to school, but did not approve the court’s utterances on the validity of the New York flag salute law.
The second point made in the Nicholls case, as already noted, was that the salute did not constitute an act of idolatry. I ask, Is a court competent to determine what belief is religious and what is not? Can it scrutinize the innermost recesses of the soul and say the belief you hold is not a religious one, or, the thing you do or refuse to do does not amount to worship and therefore is beyond the protection of the fundamental law of the land?
Our Supreme Court defined religion in the case of Davis v. Beason. “The term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. . . . With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.”
Under this definition one is free to eat the ceremonial foods and observe such feasts and fasts as his religion requires, providing only that “the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.” In a federal case from Pennsylvania, the only reported decision holding children were entitled to attend school though they refused to salute the flag, the court makes a strong point of the individual’s right to judge the validity of his own religious beliefs. “Liberty of conscience,” said the court, “means liberty for each individual to decide for himself what is to him religious. If an individual sincerely bases his acts or refusals to act on religious grounds they must be accepted as such and may only be interfered with if it becomes necessary to do so in connection with the exercise of the police power, that is, if it appears that the public safety, health or morals or property or personal rights, will be prejudiced by them. To permit public officers to determine whether the views of individuals sincerely held and their acts sincerely undertaken on religious grounds are in fact based on convictions religious in character would be to sound the death knell to religious liberty. To such a pernicious and alien doctrine this court cannot subscribe.”
Appeals were taken to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Leoles v. Landers and Hering v. State Board of Education but both of these cases were dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Thus, this problem is left in the laps of the state courts. When other state courts are called upon to consider the problem at a future date, they will do well to sail the course courageously charted by the federal court in the Gobitis case.—Thomas G. Booth, in the April, 1939, issue of Law Notes.
Liberty of Conscience
THIS nation was founded on the principle that freedom of conscience is guaranteed to all people. Every person has the right of private judgment. No man, be he judge, governor, president, member of a legislative body, school-board principal, or any other kind of factotum, has the right or authority to determine matters of judgment for another. Each individual has the right to form his own opinions, and the right to act in accordance with those principles.
Centuries ago the Quakers came from England to New Jersey and Pennsylvania in order that they might have this right of conscience and of private judgment. From England also the Puritans and Pilgrims fled to the wilds of North America because their right of conscience was interfered with by the ruling powers. Roger Williams left the church and state union of Massachusetts and fled to Rhode Island, in order that he and others with him might have freedom of conscience and the right to act in accordance with their sincere and honest beliefs.
It took many years of fighting for liberty-loving citizens to finally secure the position where the right of freedom of conscience was crystallized into clear-cut, definite statements upholding and guaranteeing that right for every individual.
It was Thomas Jefferson who first expressed a clear and succinct statement as to freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and the right of individual judgment. This expression is in the well-known Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, written in 1785. Here is a quotation from that Statute:
Well aware that Almighty God had created the mind free, . . . our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions . . . that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen, as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right; . . . that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others, only as they shall square with, or differ from, his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere, when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and, finally, that truth is great and will prevail, if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict . . .
This ringing declaration by Thomas Jefferson concerning the right of private judgment was embodied by the nation’s highest court in the body of case law of the land in the case of Davis against Beason. Quoting from that case:
With man’s relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with.
Not long after the thirteen colonies separated from Great Britain a flag was designed and adopted as the flag for the entire Union. This flag was carried upon the battlefields. It has waved above our public buildings. It has stood as a symbol of this nation and of the principles upon which the nation was founded. If the flag stands for anything at all, it stands for freedom of conscience and the right of individual judgment. Floating from our public buildings, schoolhouses and other places, it has in the past symbolized and said to the world that in this country men are free. It has said that in this country men may think as they please, and may freely act in accordance with their thoughts; and that they may refrain from doing acts which conflict with their sincere, honest convictions. The only limitation to this freedom is that any person in his action may not do anything which conflicts with public morals, the property of others, and the public safety.
People who love liberty have respected the flag and honored it because of these principles for which it stands. For over a century this honor and respect has been expressed by close adherence to these fundamental principles of liberty, freedom of conscience and the right of individual judgment. In recent years, however, there has been a change. A studied effort is being made to eliminate adherence to the principles of liberty and freedom, and to express what is called “respect and honor for” the flag” through a ceremonial observance. In other words, an outward salute to the flag is being substituted in place of performance of the principles for which the flag is said to stand. Occasional ceremony takes the place of continuous, upright conduct. To his neighbors a man may deny liberty, deny the right of freedom of speech, deny the right of conscience, deny the right of private judgment, but if he salutes the flag at stated times and talks with his mouth like a real he-patriot, he is considered a good citizen and is greatly exalted in the public view.
On the other hand, a man may be an upright citizen, he may have fought for his country in war, he may obey the laws, he may uphold the principles of the Constitution, and of liberty, and yet if he fails to perform this ceremony of salute to the flag he is considered a degraded person, is barred from the right to earn a livelihood, his children are kicked out of school, and he is treated as though he were a debased, treacherous enemy of the country.
In 1892, four hundred years after Christopher Columbus landed in the New World, James B. Upham, editor of the Youth’s Companion magazine, wrote a pledge of allegiance and initiated a campaign to have the United States flag placed in every schoolhouse of the land in order that it might be saluted simultaneously by all school children on the anniversary of the landing of Columbus. If he could have foreseen the disastrous results which have come, he would have thought carefully before starting any such practice in the public schools.
A sincere follower of Jesus Christ does not believe in rendering salutes or obeisance to any flag, to any creature, to any image or symbol. If freedom of conscience means anything, he has a right to that belief. He has a right to act in accordance with that belief. He has a right to decline to render such obeisance to any flag, image or creature. School children have that right the same as adults. But in recent years that right has been ruthlessly denied to many school children. In addition, there has been inflicted upon them cruel and inhuman treatment. Because the children have adhered to what they have been taught and believed to be the law of Almighty God, they have been severely punished; they have been beaten with rods; some of them have been choked; they have been thrown against their desks; they have been ostracized, expelled from school, and sentenced to reformatories. A veritable patriotic inquisition has been developed and operated in this country in the past few years.
The most recent case, and one of the most outrageous cases of this Hitleristic style of patriotic instruction, is that of Daniel Morgan and his two sons, Robert and Adrian. Here are the facts:
Daniel Morgan is a resident of Fort Lee, New Jersey. His sons Robert and Adrian have been students in the Fort Lee high school. Until a week or so ago Daniel Morgan was employed as a state motor vehicle inspector on the public highways of New Jersey. He obtained this position by competitive examination. On March 30 he was discharged from his position as motor vehicle inspector without any hearing or opportunity of defense. On April 12 the school board of Fort Lee, at a secret session, expelled his sons, Robert and Adrian, from the right to attend the Fort Lee high school.
Why this sudden and arbitrary action? The boys had been diligent students. They had been on the honor roll, and had always behaved themselves. Why were they thus summarily expelled from school? Why was Daniel Morgan arbitrarily removed from a position where he earned his livelihood? The answer is this: It is the definite policy of the State of New Jersey to deny sincere followers of Jesus Christ the right of freedom of conscience and of private judgment. It is the policy of the school board of Fort Lee to deny such persons the right of freedom of conscience and of private judgment. The same applies to the motor vehicle commissioner of the State of New Jersey.
During the entire school year Robert and Adrian Morgan had stood to one side and declined to salute the flag during the school ceremony. They had good reasons for such action. They believe and are willing to support with proof that the flag salute is a violation of the law of God. Because of such belief, no school board, no teacher, no judge, has authority to require them to do otherwise. The school board and the teachers recognized their right for the entire school year up to this month. Why this sudden change? In about thirty days more Robert Morgan would have graduated from high school with his class. Now, by reason of this malignant and malicious action of the school board, he is denied that right. The session of the school board at which these boys were expelled from school was a secret session. The boys were notified that they could come but that no reporters or others could be present. Why this great secrecy? Is the school board afraid to have its action in claimed support of education, patriotic instruction, love of country, and other alleged advantages in the interest of public welfare, done under the public eye? It looks fishy, and it smells bad.
There is no fault to find with the services of Daniel Morgan as a motor vehicle inspector. Why was he dismissed without the presentation of charges and without a hearing thereon? What is the reason for such arbitrary action?
These questions can be answered best by presenting an illustration from the pages of Holy Writ. The record tells of another man by the name of Daniel who, in ancient time, was an official of the Persian government. He was a man of integrity and honest in all his dealings. He had enemies, however; and they conspired against him. They wanted to see him removed from his job. They knew they couldn't find anything against Daniel, as to his work, or as to his honesty, in his position. But they determined among themselves to “get” him. This conspiracy is briefly stated in the Bible book of Daniel, chapter six, verses four and five, which read:
Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom; but they could find none occasion nor fault; forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him. Then said these men, We shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, except we find it against him concerning the law of his God.
These conspirators knew that in the case of conflict between the law of God and the law of man Daniel would obey the law of God regardless of the results. They knew that he would follow the voice of conscience. They knew that he would exercise his right of private judgment, and they figured that was the way in which they could “get” him. Their conspiracy succeeded, but only temporarily. They persuaded the king to enact a decree that his laws and rules should come ahead of the laws and rules of God. Daniel declined to obey that decree. As a result of that refusal, Daniel was cast into the lions’ den.
Now note the deadly parallel:
It is no secret that Daniel Morgan and his boys are Jehovah’s witnesses. They have given public testimony to that fact by their zealous endeavors to advance the proclamation of the gospel message of Jehovah’s kingdom throughout Fort Lee and other places. It is no secret that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy is engaged in a vengeful war against Jehovah’s witnesses. For the past ten years this has been manifested throughout the entire State of New Jersey and in other parts of the United States. This war is not waged with truth and with fact. The Hierarchy fights its battle by pouring out vituperation, abuse, vilification, falsehood and slander.
In many of the flag-salute cases in various states where children of Jehovah’s witnesses have been expelled from the schools and their parents prosecuted under the law bigoted subjects of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy have been very active in bringing about this form of persecution.
Jehovah’s witnesses are loyal and law-abiding in every way; and like Jehovah’s prophet of old, the only way in which they can be reached is concerning the law of their God. The flag-salute regulation is being used for that unworthy object. It is being used as an instrument by malicious persons to frame innocent and upright people, degrade them in the public eye and put them in jeopardy. Notice carefully the slimy trail of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in this case in Fort Lee.
Approximately two years ago Robert and Adrian Morgan decided that the flag salute is contrary to the law of Almighty God. They thereupon went to the office of the school principal, Mr. Thompson, and asked to be excused from the ceremony. He listened to their explanation and stated that he had no authority to excuse them. Nevertheless, although the boys did not participate in the ceremony, nothing was done about it for two years. The flag is saluted five times each week in that school. Recently, however, a group of students, all Roman Catholics, began to agitate the situation. They raised a rumpus every time the Morgan boys stepped out of the room before the ceremony during the assembly period. Those Catholic students made bright remarks, such as, “Lock the door,” “Come back here; don’t let them out.” They conspired together against the Morgan boys and finally brought the matter to the attention of a history teacher, Miss Brady, also a Roman Catholic. They told her that the boys would not salute the flag and that their father had a State job. Then she fanned the flames by giving a speech to the history class, stating that to consider the flag an idol or an inanimate object was nothing but “dumb ignorance”.
Then somebody in Fort Lee became very much interested in Daniel Morgan’s status as a motor vehicle inspector. He received a telegram to report to the chief inspector’s office. The chief inspector is George Ziegler, also a Roman Catholic. He informed Morgan that information had come from “the authorities” that Morgan was to be arrested for teaching his children not to salute the flag. Without any hearing, and without any complaint that his services had not been satisfactory, Morgan was then removed from his position as a motor vehicle inspector. Thus, for exercising the right of freedom of conscience and the right of private judgment, Morgan lost his opportunity to earn a livelihood as a State employee. And the State of New Jersey pretends to uphold the rights of conscience, freedom of worship, and liberty!
Having got rid of Morgan, the inquisition next proceeded against his sons, Robert and Adrian. A secret session of the board of education of Fort Lee was called for Wednesday evening, April 12. The boys and their father were notified to be present. They appeared, and at the meeting Mr. Thompson, the school principal, stated that the boys had failed to engage in the ceremony of saluting the flag, and that it was necessary for them to be brought before the board. Mr. Whittaker, chairman, thereupon asked them whether they had any reply to the charges. Robert Morgan then presented a statement to the committee, signed by both of the boys, which reads as follows:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Education:
We believe it to be a moral sin to “heil” man, bow to images, and salute flags. Paying tribute to inanimate objects is a pagan worship and an act of idolatry in the sight of God. We love our country and will obey every law of the land that does not conflict with the laws of God. We can be depended upon to render unto the state that which belongs to the state and unto God that which belongs to God. We respect that which the flag stands for and would not hesitate to take an oath of allegiance to our country, for it is the only one we know.
For approximately two years we have not engaged in the flag ceremonies and our failing to engage in such rituals has worked a hardship to no one and has not lessened our love for our country. We are members of the school band and orchestra and have both been on the honor roll.
We love our school, the student body and the officials, and it would be a great hardship upon us if we were expelled at this time. The saluting of the flag is a religious ceremony of pagan origin and to punish us for failing to indulge in pagan worship is religious persecution; therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully and earnestly plead with the board of education and the school officials to allow us to continue in our attendance at school until such time as our education has been completed.
Respectfully yours,
[Signed] ADRIAN MORGAN
ROBERT MORGAN
Daniel Morgan, father of the two boys, likewise presented to the board a statement, a part of which reads as follows:
School children are taught that in America under the “Stars and Stripes” there is freedom of conscience and freedom of worship. They are taught that in the United States people can believe what they will concerning God and His laws, and act accordingly, provided that in so doing they do not violate good morals, infringe on others’ rights, or jeopardize the safety of the state. They are taught that each person has the right to decide for himself whether his belief is right or wrong, and that no official or court can pass upon the merits of his belief. In other words, a Protestant judge cannot judicially decree that Catholic beliefs are wrong and penalize Catholics for practicing them, or vice versa. . . .
If these children are expelled from school because they act in accordance with their conscientious belief, shouldn’t your teachers cease teaching that there is freedom of conscience and freedom of worship for all in this country? You should face the matter fairly and honestly. Whether you think the child’s belief right or wrong is not the question. The question is: Shall the school boards be permitted to make hypocrites of the children of the land, or shall the parents of the children be at liberty to teach them the Word of Almighty God? Can you properly take away the right of private judgment of school children or parents? Can you rightfully deny school attendance to a child who, without injuring anyone, puts allegiance to his conception of the law of God ahead of a school regulation?
If you answer these questions in the affirmative, then you should remove from the civics lessons in your school the statements that all people have religious liberty in this country. . . .
Did the school board justify its position? Did it have any reasons to present why conscience should be stifled and suppressed? Did it give any explanation of the sudden move to dismiss these two boys from school? Did it give Robert Morgan a chance to keep on attending school for about thirty days to secure his diploma? The board did not. Its . . .
members discussed matters freely. They made patriotic remarks, and said that the boys should be glad to salute. One of the members followed the distinctive Roman Catholic method of pouring forth abuse and vilification upon Jehovah’s witnesses. Remarks of the chairman, Mr. Whitaker, included the following:
I heard the Watchtower the other day and it was the most disgusting and disgraceful thing I ever listened to; he was making an attack on the Catholic Church. Judge Rutherford is fit for an asylum or jail.
That is the weighty and intelligent answer of this chairman of an educational committee to the facts and reasons set forth by these high-school lads. Another member of the board advocated hypocrisy. He said:
Why can’t you make believe; make a gesture and have a reservation in your own mind?
A mental reservation is a regular Roman Catholic method of polite, dignified lying.
The chairman displayed his ignorance by denying the fact that the pope’s flag is put above the American flag when religious services are held aboard United States battleships.
After deliberating for about an hour, the board announced its ruling. The chairman said:
The board by unanimous vote has decided that the boys can no longer attend school.
Daniel Morgan then said, “All right, sir, put that in writing, so that my boys will have something definite to point to as the reason for their being expelled.”
This aroused a weighty question among the board members: Should they disclose their ruling in writing? They discussed it among themselves, and finally stated that the clerk would mail a statement to Morgan. Up to this time such statement has not been received by Daniel Morgan.
That is the ugly picture of how the educational storm troopers of New Jersey operate at Fort Lee. Patriotism, militarism, chauvinism—where is the line to be drawn? Who will draw it? Is patriotism a pill to be crammed down young, unwilling throats? What right has the school board of Fort Lee to determine the validity of the conscientious beliefs of Robert and Adrian Morgan? Can that committee scrutinize the innermost recesses of the boys’ minds and say that the boys’ belief is not a Biblical one, not sincere and honest? Can that committee properly say that the boys’ belief is not a conscientious one, and that therefore it is beyond the protection of the fundamental law of the land? That is what the board has assumed to do; and I submit that the board’s decision is entirely contrary to principles under which this country has operated for nearly two centuries.
I presume there are many patriotic citizens in Fort Lee. I suppose that there are some people in that community who really do love liberty and freedom. What about them? Have they done anything about this? What is their attitude? Have they made any protest over this deprivation of civil rights? Has any citizen of Fort Lee appeared and asserted that these boys have the right to act in accordance with conscience? No, not one. They are all silent as the tomb. Of course, residents of Fort Lee believe the flag should be honored. They believe it should be saluted. But to stand up for the principles which that flag symbolizes is another thing. It takes courage to stand up for freedom of conscience under these conditions. It takes a real man to come out and fight against superheated patriots; and real manhood is a rare thing in Fort Lee.
In this wide world there are some people that will applaud the action of the Fort Lee school board. Who are those people? Among them are the Hitlerites of Germany, who “heil” Hitler from early dawn until the setting of the sun. They will agree that children should have patriotism jammed down their throats. The only objection they would find is that the Fort Lee school board didn’t go far enough. They would insist that the boys and their father be put in a concentration camp, to be punished with unmentionable tortures for years to come.
In heathen Japan there are Shintoists who bow down to ancestors, to pictures and photographs. They also would agree that the action of the Fort Lee school board against the Morgan boys is patriotic and worth while. So, after living for a hundred and fifty years under the Constitution and under the “Stars and Stripes”, we have finally arrived at the level of heathen, totalitarian Japan, where, under the guise of patriotism and public welfare, people of all religious beliefs are forced to stultify and smother conscience and engage in ceremonial salutes to ancestors.
And, how about the hated Communists? They, too, are “bears” for salutes. In totalitarian Russia, regardless of conscientious convictions one must give the salute along with the others. So it seems the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, in pushing this compulsory flag-salute business, is sharing the bed of intolerance with Communistic Soviet Russia!
One thing all Americans should carefully note is the participation of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in this flag-salute inquisition. Practical Catholics make a great noise about patriotism. They are very anxious to enforce the flag-salute regulation against Jehovah’s witnesses. They claim to be loyal Americans, but, nevertheless, put church ahead of country every time. They thus state the order in their pet phrase: “For God and country.” By “God” they mean, of course, the church, the leaders of that church, consisting of the pope and bishops, and the policies of that church and “her” supremacy even above the laws of Almighty God and the laws of nations.
Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, that small ruling body consisting of the pope and his bishops, is a political organization as well as a religious one. It is a foreign political power, and when its flag is put above the American flag on an American battleship it signifies that Catholic subjects owe allegiance to that foreign power ahead of their allegiance to this country. That is an undeniable fact every American should bear well in mind. Kindly note, also, that by action of the United States Senate the Catholic flag is authorized to be placed above the American flag when religious services are held on board the nation’s naval vessels.*
In the debate on that subject in Congress, Senator Walsh, a Roman Catholic, said:
I want to repeat, Mr. President, that I refuse to put even the flag of my country or the authority of my country above the emblem of God and above the authority of God.
Further, the senator said:
I for one refuse to depart from the time-honored American custom of placing the emblem of God [meaning the Roman Catholic Church emblem] above every other emblem in the world. I will not haul down the pennant of God for any other emblem.
In considering this quoted statement, do not forget that when Senator Walsh refers to the “flag of God” or the “emblem of God” or the “pennant of God” he refers to the flag of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, a foreign political power.
This proves that the Roman Catholic storm-trooper educators of New Jersey and other places are not sincere in their massive claims as to patriotism and love of country. They are willing to prevent a schoolboy from receiving his diploma just because he does not salute the American flag. But, nevertheless, they put their own flag above and superior to the flag of this country. That is another peculiarly Roman Catholic practice, one of the many practices inspired by their Jesuits.
Another item of interest for all American citizens to consider concerning this foreign totalitarian religious power is the statement made by the Jesuit magazine America, in which it urges that every American Catholic should refuse to participate in any war in which the United States fights as an ally of Soviet Russia. Here again you have the church, the religious-political organization designated the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, put above the government of the United States.
That any and every Catholic has a right to do such things must be conceded, in accordance with the principles of freedom of conscience and the right of private judgment. But they ought to be consistent. If they want to put their political-religious church organization ahead of the country, they can do so; but at the same time they should not deny the right of a sincere follower of Jesus Christ to put the laws of Almighty God ahead of the laws of man. Practical Catholics who deny such right to Jehovah’s witnesses or to any others are inconsistent, malicious and vindictive in their attitude with respect to this flag-salute inquisition.
Thus we find that the American flag has been insulted at Fort Lee. There has been a degradation of the United States flag in that New Jersey municipality. But those insults and that degradation have not come from Daniel Morgan or from Robert and Adrian Morgan. Their attitude has been in full accord with the principles which that banner is supposed to uphold. It is the school board of Fort Lee that has insulted the American emblem and that has degraded the nation’s flag. That board has denied the principles of freedom of conscience and the right of private judgment which that flag is supposed to symbolize. Such conduct, obviously, is a greater insult and a greater degradation to that banner than any refusal to salute based on conscientious grounds. These storm-trooper educational officials of Fort Lee have taken the flag from its high pedestal of civic freedom and have dragged it in the mire of religious bigotry and intolerance.—O. R. Moyle.
* See cover design of this number.
America’s New Idol
And if it seem evil unto you to serve Jehovah, choose you this day whom ye will serve.
—Joshua 24:15, A.R.V.
Babylon in California
◆ The decision of the Supreme Court of California in the case of Gabrielli vs. Knickerbocker et al., the essential parts of which are published elsewhere on this page, is even more curious than The Evening Sun had supposed.
This is the case of a child expelled from school for refusing, on religious grounds, to give a formal salute to the flag. Some days ago, on the basis of short excerpts from the decision, we pointed out that the California court apparently has held that it is within the jurisdiction of school boards to decide what is religion and what is not. The full text of the decision goes even further. Not only may school boards—and, by implication, other public authorities—decide what is religion, but also what is patriotism and what is civic conscience; and, unless there is gross violation of the law, the courts may not interfere.
The decision is decisive on that point. It says,
…