Consolation, June 9, 1943
Download: PDF — Consolation, June 9, 1943
Contents
Supreme Court Reverses Itself to
Sustain Free Worship
Freedom for a Price
Jackson’s Sermon
Nature of Message Irrelevant
Doorbells to Be Used
|Modern-Day Gamaliel
^Constitution Outmoded?
Precarious State of Liberty
The Limited, Balanced, Government of the U. S. A. '
Helicopters
“Thy Word Is Truth” '
Foregleams of Deliverance
Hitler, the Slave-Driver, and His “God”
Hooking Up with the God Odin
The Father of Lies
The Crusaders’ Idea >
A Cunning and Merciless One
A Slave-driving Program
A Murderous, Hateful Anti-God
The Mimic God Is Back of Hitler
Doorstep Setup Presentation of “Good News” 26
What They Teach at Oberlin
Presenting “This Gospel of the Kingdom”
Need for Argumentation
Water and Health
Published every other Wednesday by
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY, INC. 117 Adams St., Brooklyn, N. Y., U. 8. A.
OFFICERS
President N. H. Knorr
Secretary W, E. Van Amburgh
Editor Clayton J. Woodworth
Five Cents a Copy
11 a year in the United States JI,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 Greek. Portuguese, Spanish, and Ukrainian.
OFFICES FOR OTHER COUNTRIES
England 34 Craven Terrace, London, W. 3
Australia 7 Beresford Road, Strathfleld, N. S. W. South Africa C23 Boston House, Cape Town
Mexico Calzada de Melchor Ocampo 71, Mexico, D. F. Brazil Caixa Postal 1319, Rio de Janeiro
Argentina Calle Honduras 5643-43, Buenos Aires Entered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N. Y..
under the Act of March 3, 1873.
Still There Is Tolerance in Places
♦ Editor, News-Press: Concerning the recent controversy in which four children were expelled from school because of their religious differences, I might say that there are still those of us in the good old U.S.A, who still believe tolerance is an essential factor in holding together democracy.
Naturally, preceding every conflict, we find flag-waving, soapbox orators, bands playing stirring marches, etc. People who ordinarily are sensible individuals are found to be swayed by propaganda. They forget the principles upon which democracy was founded. Political and religious ideas that are different from their own become dark and foreboding in their minds. Thus we find such an example in this case of the Jehovah’s witnesses. Perhaps some of us do not understand their beliefs. But does that entitle us to thrust them out of our society? If we believe in the Almighty ourselves, we should not disregard His teachings of tolerance.
A love of God and a love of our country is not measured by the amount of flag-. waving we participate in, nor how much of a hypocrite we can be, but rather is measured by how well we treat our fellow man. Although I believe most heartily in saluting the flag, there is no reason for anyone to be compelled to do so. This only defeats the purpose that “Old Glory" stands for. Let us remember that from those who put patriotism above all else come our Fascists and Communists, and not from those who put [God] first in their minds.—Herb Fred-lund, in the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News-Press. ''.
Those who chisel away the guaranties of the constitutional rights undermine their own, liberties—Selected.
He whodmows only his own side of the case knows little of that.—John Stuart Mill.
CONSOLATION
“And in His name shall the nations hope.”—Matthew 12:21, A.R.V.
Volume XXIV Brooklyn, N. Y., Wednesday, June 9, 1943 Number 619
Supreme Court Reverses Itself to Sustain Free Worship
AS MILITARY battles rage on distant shores, the fight for liberty on the home front continues unabated. A signal victory, after long battle, was won on this vital front when the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a decision upholding the most precious of all freedoms—the right to worship God according to the dictates of your own conscience. To do so it was necessary for the court to take the rare action of reversing itself. On June 8,, 1942, the court ruled that cities could rightfully tax the distribution of religious literature. Approximately eleven months later, on May 3, 1943, the high court vacated that erroneous decision and restored to its high, constitutional plane the liberty to worship God freely. That day will go down in history as one of triumph for constitutional rights.
This timely victory was made possible by the unflagging zeal and integrity of Jehovah’s witnesses, who, though an unpopular minority, are the foremost sentinels of freedom on the home front. When ruled against a year ago they did not give up the fight. Man-made laws that conflict with God’s law are not obeyed by them, for God’s law is perfect and right, and obedience thereto results in harm to no one. They believe, in such eases, as did the apostles, "We ought to obey God rather than men.” (Acts 5:29) Their steadfastness, despite fierce persecution, to that divinely given instruction made possible the revival of the licensetax issue in the Supreme Court and the subsequent victory of May 3. The right-JUNE9, 1943
ness of that Godly principle to which they strictly adhered regardless of the erroneous judgment of men has now been vindicated before all by the high court’s reversal and pushing back of encroachments against freedom. The death of the pernicious license tax on freedom to worship the Almighty is a God-given victory for His witnesses. All freedomlovers will reap its benefits.
Judgments Reversed
Eleven cases involving this issue were before the Supreme Court: the three original ones from Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama, which were up for rehearing, and eight new ones from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Chief Justice Stone handed down the decision on the three wherein the court reversed itself, and assigned the reason therefor as being the same as that expressed in the court’s opinion killing the Pennsylvania ordinances. Justice Douglas wrote that 5-4 majority opinion of the court, and said, in part:
The hand distribution of religious tracts is an age-old form of missionary evangelism —as old as the history of printing presses. . . . It is more than preaching; it is more than distribution of religious literature. It is a combination of both. Its purpose is as evangelical as the revival meeting. This form of religious activity occupies the same high estate under the First Amendment as do the worship in the churches and preaching from the pulpits. It has the same claim to protection as the more orthodox and conventional exercises of religion. It also has the same claim
as the others to the guarantees of freedom, of speech and freedom of the press. . . . The way of the religious dissenter has long been hard. But if the formula of this type of ordinance is approved, a new device for the suppression of religious minorities will have been found. This method of disseminating religious tfeliefs ean be crushed and closed out by the steer weight of the toll or tribute which is exacted town by town, village by village. The spread of religious ideas through personal visitations by the literature ministry of numerous religious groups would be stopped. . . . The judgment in Jones v. Opelika [the Alabama license-tax case] has this day been: vacated. Freed from that controlling precedent, we can restore to their high, constitutional position the liberties of itinerant evangelists who disseminate their religious beliefs and the tenets of their faith through distribution of literature. The judgments are reversed.
This straightforward and unbiased reasoning can be clearly understood by every American, and it has his approval. In sharp contrast thereto are the virulent and bitterly phrased dissenting opinion's of Justices Reed, Frankfurter and Jackson. Their reasoning is vague, their expounding of the constitutional principles involved is unsound, and the arguments they advance betray religious prejudice and discrimination against petitioners.
The Worship That Is Free
Justice Reed, the writer of the court’s erroneous opinion of 1.942, which is now reversed, dissents, and once more the outstanding characteristic of his argument is “words, words, words”. The substance thereof is found in his statement, ’ “The simple answer is that if there had been any purpose of Congress to prohibit any kind of taxes on the press its knowledge of the abominated English taxes would have led it to ban them , unequivocally.” In other words, he argues ' that if taxes were to be banned they would have been specifically named in the First Amendment, and, not being named, the court therefore may not hold them to be burdensome and an abridgment of freedom. He would require the amendment to definitely name every danger, and hence his reasoning becomes more absurd than ever. The phraseology of the amendment is sweeping and all-inclusive in its prohibitions against abridgment of these freedoms and was intended to have construction broad and general in scope placed upon its words Riat protection from any and all unforeseen, future dangers might be assured.
Justice Reed’s personal and arbitrary definition of what constitutes the religion to be protected by the amendment is as follows: “The rites which are protected by the First Amendment are in essence spiritual—prayer, mass, sermons, sacrament—not sales of religious goods.” Prayer, including the repetitious mumbling of them over beads, that Jesus condemned (Matthew 6:7), mass, high or low depending upon the sum of money paid, sermons, oral ones from a pulpit, and sacrament, including the drinking of wine by only a priest and eating of wafers by the laity, these “spiritual” things are what Mr. Reed would have the amendment protect, and not the house-to-house preaching of the gospel as was done by Christ Jesus and His apostles. In contending that the distribution of printed sermons does not come under constitutional protection, he would overrule the worship of God in spirit and in truth by Christians by their obedience to Christ’s command, at Mark 13:10: “The gospel must first be published among all nations.” In thus setting up his own definition of what constitutes religious worship Justice Reed intrudes himself upon the individual’s conscience. Following the standards he sets up for ministers would be disastrous to Jehovah’s witnesses, for those standards are not nearly high enough to meet the righteous requirements of Jehovah God.
Freedom for a Price
Justice Frankfurter dissents in typical professor-of-science fashion and walks
CONSOLATION
a mental “tightrope” that no one can follow without "becoming unbalanced. He. can see no difference in the dissemination of printed matter from selling goods, wares and merchandise. In his opinion he stated; “It cannot be said that the petitioners are constitutionally exempt from taxation merely because they may be engaged in religious activities or because such activities may constitute an exercise of a constitutional right.” In other words, he held that one could properly be forced to pay for the inalienable right of freedom to worship, and if not able to pay that right must be surrendered. The incomprehensible argument of Frankfurter was that if “recognized” clergymen paid income taxes or taxes on their cars and telephones, then Jehovah’s witnesses should pay to distribute printed sermons. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion strikes down this insipidity by the common-sense statement: “It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. . . . The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment.”
Mr. Frankfurter takes the attitude that the rights under the Constitution are granted bythe government, and that the state has “given something for which it can ask a return”. He says, in effect, that if the state can grant a right, the state can also tax it. This is an amazing ideology brought forward by Mr. Frankfurter. Schoolboys know that the right to freely worship God in accord with one’s conscience is an inalienable and inherent right, granted by Jehovah God, and that the government was created to protect and guarantee its free exercise. Furthermore, the forefathers did not intend that the government be supported by the taxation of the privileges safeguarded by the Bill of Bights. To sustain such a tax is like shackling these cherished freedoms and abandoning them in
JUNES, 1943 .
the path of the totalitarian monstrosity.
Jackson’s Sermon
The dissenting opinion of Justice Jackson could not be distributed in the heretofore “license tax” towns without paying $1.5.0 per day to do so, for it was a printed “sermon” on religion. His “text” was a new, strange, fantastic doctrine, namely, the “right to be let alone”. He contends this “freedom” is equally as sacred as the freedom to preach. Like the proverbial ostrich, he wants to keep his head in the sand. Jesus told His followers to ’let them alone”, meaning the religious “goats”, but the “sheep” do not wish to be “let alone” by God’s ministers. It is necessary to call on all persons to determine who are the “sheep” and who are the goatish ones. The “goats” would pass laws to cause the “other sheep” of the Lord to be let alone’ without proper spiritual food and force them to feed on religious husks. This is ‘framing mischief by law’ and ‘fighting against God’.—Matthew 15:14; John 10:16, 26-29; Psalm 94:20; Acts 5:38, 39.
Mr. Jackson crusaded in the field of private religious opinion and betrayed much religious prejudice and discrimination against Jehovah’s witnesses. He complained of the orderly and systematic manner in which the witnesses worked, and their going “by twos and threes”, just as Christ Jesus sent out His apostles. (Mark 6:7) He was greatly disturbed by the message itself, and the resulting expose of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. He quotes at length from the phonograph recording “Snare and Racket” and the books Religion and Enemies to show how the poor Hierarchy monster is “abused” by having the truth told about it. As these excerpts were read many in the packed court chambers smiled and nodded in agreement with the message read. Obviously the statements fitted the pestilential and political Hierarchy. Jackson would protect this “sacred cow” that drove the founding fathers to this country to escape its totalitarian besti-
ality. He then shows discrimination in its baldest form, stating: “To put them [Jehovah’s witnesses and their activity] on the same constitutional plane [with 'recognized’ churches] seems to me to have a dangerous tendency towards discrediting religious freedom.”
, If the courts are permitted to say that a particular practice is not religious, nor an act of worship, because it does not harmonize with the orthodox religions, then that would be a permanent limitation upon free worship. The court is supposed to be neutral in the field of _ religious doctrines and tenets of faith.
He frets because the Watchtower Society offers no balance sheet of financial matters to prove it is charitable. The fact that handsomely bound books of 384 pages are left with the people on a maximum contribution, not a minimum price, of 25c, to partially defray publishing and distributing costs, and that annually millions of copies of books and-booklets are given free, does not prove to Justice Jackson its charitable nature. "Doubtless he is convinced, without seeing a balance sheet of the fabulously wealthy Roman Catholic Hierarchy, that the sale of “blessed” medals and other trinkets turned out in mass production for a fraction of a cent to a few cents at most, and then .these images sold for a sum of dollars under false representations of “spiritual” benefits, is not commercialism, but beautiful “charity”. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that the setting of a price on literature does not disqualify it for inclusion under the freedom of speech and of press clauses of the Constitution. It is a ridiculous stalemate to hold that one must “go bankrupt” by forced “free” A distribution to enjoy constitutional rights.
Mr. Jackson states: “The First Amendment grew out of an experience which taught that society cannot trust the conscience of a majority to keep its religious zeal within the limits that a free society can tolerate.” He infers that the Witnesses, by exercising the right of freedom of worship, do not keep their zeal within the limits that a “free” society can tolerate. His inference misconstrues the purpose of the First Amendment and would defeat the object of the amendment. The ones who made it had fresh in mind the suppression and physical tortures and restrictions placed by the majority Hierarchy on helpless minorities that would not bow to the pope’s autocratic rule. It was this Hierarchy “religious zeal” as evidenced by the Inquisition that was to be limited and forbidden if a free society were to exist. Jehovah’s witnesses do not deny others their rights, but favor freedom of speech and worship for all. It would be incongruous to call any other kind of society a “free” one. The victories relating to civil liberties won by Jehovah’s witnesses are equally beneficial to all. Mr. Justice Jackson opposes obedience to God and the witnesses’ fight for freedom, saying that the Watchtower publications advocate “obedience to the law of God instead of the law of man, and an interpretation of the law of God as they see it”. How else should. they believe in a country where democratic principles still hold and there is freedom of worship? As lie, sees it’? or as the Roman Catholic Hier-* archy 'sees it’? If Jehovah’s witnesses had not continued obeying God’s law to preach, but rather closed down because of the prohibitive unrighteous licensetax law made by man, as sustained by the Supreme Court a year ago (1942), this latest victory for freedom would never have been won.
Nature of Message Irrelevant
The clear-visioned decision of the court, written by Justice Douglas, strikes down completely the unsound doctrine of Justice Jackson as to the message contained in the literature, and the objection that it was “sold” as raised by all the dissenters.
The mere fact that the religious literature is “sold” by itinerant preachers rather than
CONSOLATION
“donated” does not transform evangelism into a commercial enterprise. If it did, then the passing of the collection plate in church would make the church service a commercial project. The constitutional rights of those spreading their religious beliefs through the spoken and printed word are not to be gauged by standards governing retailers or wholesalers of books. The right to use the press for expressing one's view's is not to be measured by the protection afforded commercial handbills. It should be remembered that the pamphlets of Thomas Paine were not distributed free of charge. It is plain that a religious organization needs funds to remain a going concern. But an itinerant evangelist, however misguided or intolerant he may be, does not become a mere book agent by selling the Bible or religious tracts to help defray his expenses or to sustain him. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion arc available to all, not merely to those who can pay their own way. ... ■
Considerable emphasis is placed on the kind of literature which petitioners were dis-tributing—its provocative, abusive, and ill-mannered character and the assault which it makes on our established churches and the cherished faiths of many of us. . . . But those considerations are no justification for the license tax which the ordinance imposes. Plainly a community may not suppress, or the state tax, the dissemination of views because they are unpopular, annoying or distasteful. If that device were ever sanctioned, there would have been forged a ready instrument for the suppression of the faith which any minority cherishes but which does not happen to be in favor. That would be a complete repudiation of the Bill of Rights.
Doorbells to Be Used
This victory in eleven cases involving the license tax was not the only one on May 3. A twelfth case, in which Jehovah’s witnesses also figured, was decided in favor of liberty. The city of Struthers, Ohio, had an ordinance that*made it unlawful to ring a doorbell or knock on doors by persons distributing literature. Appellant, one of Jehovah’s witnesses, contended that the law abridged freedom of worship as applied against the distribution of Bible literature, and that on its face and as applied it destroyed free speech and press by denying the right of distribution from house to house. According to this law a minister could not call at a home and knock to leave literature with one of his church members ; the postman could not ring the doorbell to leave printed matter he thought should be delivered direct to the householder.
The same division of justices existed in the disposition of this case as in those involving the license tax: Justices Stone, Murphy, Douglas, Black and Rutledge Jr. forming the majority which killed the unconstitutional ordinance; Reed, Roberts, Frankfurter and Jackson making up the dissenter ranks. Justice Black wrote the opinion of the court. In that decision the following logic was presented :
For centuries it has been a common practice in this and other countries for persons not specifically invited to go from home to home and knock on doors or ring doorbells to communicate ideas to the occupants or to invite them to political, religious, or other kinds of public meetings. Whether such visiting shall be permitted has in general been deemed to depend upon the will of the individual master of each household, and not upon the determination of the community. In the instant case, the City of Struthers, Ohio, has attempted to make this decision for all its inhabitants. ...
We are faced in the instant ease with the necessity of weighing the conflicting interests Of the appellant in the civil rights she claims, as well as the right of the individual householder to determine whether he is willing to receive her message, against the interest of the community which by this ordinance offers to protect the interests of all of its citizens, whether particular citizens want that protection or not. The ordinance does not control anything but the distribution of literature, and in that respect it substitutes the judg-
ment of the community for the judgment of the individual householder. It submits the distributer to criminal punishment for annoying the person on whom he calls, even though the > recipient of the literature distributed is in fact glad to receive it. . . .
The federal government, in its current war * bond selling campaign, encourages groups of * citizens to distribute advertisements and circulars from house to house. Of course, as every person acquainted with political life knows, door to door campaigning is one of the most accepted techniques of seeking popular support, while the circulation of nomination papers would be greatly handicapped if they could not be taken to the citizens in their homes. . . .
Freedom to distribute information to every citizen wherever he desires to receive it is so clearly vital to the preservation of a free society that, putting aside reasonable police and health regulations of time and manner of distribution, it must be fully preserved.
Modern-Day Gamaliel
As shown by this cogent argument, such a law allows the municipal officials to set up their rule as a total state, to control the minds of the people by saying who may and who may not call on its citizens and disseminate opinion. Justice Murphy, in a splendid concurring opinion, reminds one of the wise Gamaliel of apostolic times. (Acts 5: 29-40) He stated: '
I believe that nothing enjoys a higher estate in our society than the right given by the First and Fourteenth Amendments freely to practice and proclaim one’s religious convictions. The right extends to the aggressive and disputatious as well as to the meek and acquiescent. The lesson of experience is that —with the passage of time and the interchange of ideas—-organizations, once turbulent, perfervid and intolerant in their origin, mellow into tolerance and acceptance by the community, or else sink into oblivion. . . . ‘If a religious belief has substance, it can survive criticism, heated and abusive though it may be, with the aid of truth and reason alone. By the same method those, who follow false prophets are exposed. Repression has no place in this country. It is our proud achievement to have demonstrated that unity and strength are best accomplished, not by enforced orthodoxy of views, but by diversity of opinion through the fullest possible measure of freedom of conscience and thought. . . .
The primary concern is with the act -of canvassing as a source of inconvenience and annoyance to householders. But if the city can prohibit canvassing for the purpose of distributing religious pamphlets, it can also outlaw the door to door solicitations of religious charities. . . . Freedom of religion has a higher dignity under the Constitution than municipal or personal convenience. In these days free men have no loftier responsibility than the preservation of that freedom. A nation dedicated to that ideal will not suffer but will prosper in its observance.
Constitution Outmoded?
All the dissenters start out with professions of the need for freedom and the necessity to guard against abridgment thereof, and then proceed to laboriously pick their way through a vague line of reasoning to justify their abridgment of those freedoms in the case at bar. Americans find it impossible to follow. Mr. Justice Frankfurter dissented by saying in effect that the Constitution is an antiquated document and needed to he revamped by the modern-day construction and .understanding of things as viewed by him. He said:
The habits and security of life in sparsely settled rural communities, or even in those few cities which a hundred and fifty years ago had a population of a few thousand, cannot be made the basis of judgment for determining the area of allowable self-protection by present-day industrial communities. The lack of privacy and the hazards to peace of mind and body caused by people living not in individual houses but crowded together in large human beehives, as they so widely do, are facts of modern living which cannot be ignored. ’
Justice Reed fell into the same snare of reasoning, saying, “Changing condi-CONSOLATION
tions have begotten modification by law • of many practices once deemed a part of the individual’s liberty.” In this dis-sent Reed was joined by Jackson and Roberts. They all must feel the Constitution to be out of date. Reed speaks of this unconstitutional ordinance of the city of Struthers as a “trivial police regulation”. A violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions cannot be regarded as of trivial consequence. Each case of denial of rights to an individual or to a small minority may seem to be relatively unimportant, but the real fighters for liberty know that callousness and disregard for the rights of such minorities is merely the opening wedge that will eventually split wide open the defense of cherished freedoms and lead to their complete destruction unless checked at the very outset, trivial though that beginning may seem to be.
Let the people of this nation consider the profound expression made by Mr, Justice Sutherland, dissenting, in Associated Press v. N.L.R.B., 301 U.S. 103, 141: “Do the people of this land—in the providence of God, favored, as they sometimes boast, above all others in the plenitude of their liberties—desire to preserve those so carefully protected by the First Amendment: liberty of religious worship ... ? If so, let them withstand all beginnings of encroachment. For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished liberty is that it 'was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was time.” Jehovah’s witnesses may be an unpopular minority; the Lord’s servants always have been. But remember, if you permit and wink at the building of legal “gallows” for i the ‘stringing up’ of Jehovah’s witnesses, in the end you will find yourselves swinging from that very scaffold. It has happened before.—Esther 7: 9,10.
Public Reaction
In these decisions, disposing of eleven JUNE 9,1843 cases involving either the issue of license fax or of anti-doorbell ringing, the Supreme Court was sharply divided, and, from the tenor of the dissenting opinions, debate must have been very heated. Not so, however, was public reaction, as reflected in the press. In 1942 the press was almost unanimous in its condemna- . tion of the court decision authorizing a license tax on literature; now it is unanimous In acclaiming the reversal of that pernicious “stamp tax”. The four dissenters stand alone in their favoring of constitutional liberties for a price. You will read with interest the following editorial comments made in various papers from widely separated parts of the country. It is a representative crosssection of the nation’s reaction.
The New York Times, May 4:
It is a gross understatement to say that Jehovah’s witnesses are not popular in this country. Their beliefs are their own concern, but their methods of urging them upon other people are annoying. Almost everywhere they have gone they have stirred up antagonism. Hence the local ordinances intended to drive them out or at least discourage them. But their case is just another illustration of the old truism that moderate and popular groups seldom have to fight for free speech. It is always the extremists who get themselves kicked around and raise the issue. Yet if we permit extremists of an unpleasant sort to be deprived of their rights it is hard to tell where the line can be drawn and who is to be deemed secure. We think the rights of all Americans are a little safer because Jehovah’s witnesses have had their second day in court.
The Washington Post, May 5:
The question of whether the guarantees of religious freedom embodied in the First Amendment—and, incidentally, incorporated into our war aims—are absolute or limited has been raised several times within the past few years by the behavior of members of the sect called Jehovah’s witnesses. Both the tenets and the evangelical practices of the Witnesses are distinctly unpopular with many
Americans in many sections of the country. The question, however, is not whether the Witnesses have invited persecution but whether religious liberty can be said to exist where the suppression of any sect, however fanatical, is given a legal sanction. . . . Last Mondays ■. action by the Court is of tremendous historical ^importance. It riot only reaffirms the traditional American concept of the relationship of church and state but it is counter to the tendency of all modern states to extend their control over all human activity, physical and spiritual.
New York World-Telegram, May 7
We welcome this reversal. Religious tolerance means nothing if it is limited to popular doctrines. The sincerity with which we fight for freedom is tested by our willingness to extend to those with whom we disagree, and whose teachings we may even detest, the same rights we claim for ourselves.
The Baltimore Sun, May 4:
The almost chaotic state which has characterized the law on the civil liberties of certain aggressively evangelistic religious groups like Jehovah’s witnesses is illustrated by two decisions of the Supreme Court yesterday. Happily, these decisions in themselves go far to restore order in this field and on a basis which will appeal to laymen interested in the widest maintenance of religious freedom. . . . Certainly these are times in which religious liberty must be granted every protection fairly suggested in the Constitution.
The Kansas City Star, May 4:
This seems a sensible view, entirely in accord With American tradition. Probably the vast majority of Americans do not agree with several of the fundamental tenets of the faith to which the Jehovah’s witnesses subscribe. Moreover, their method of propagating that faith may at times annoy a good many of us. But the Constitution is clear. Neither Congress nor any other legislative body may enact a law “respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. These local ordinances did so by subterfuge. If they were allowed to stand, a precedent would have been set equally applicable in the future to other churches and other faiths.
Samuel Grafton, writing in the Philadelphia Record, May 5:
Last year the Court ruled that Fort Smith, Ark. (and other communities), had the right to impose a tax on the sale of pamphlets. The tax in Fort Smith happened to be $10, which meant that if you had only $9.99 to spend you did not have the right of free press, but that if you had one penny more, the Constitution would be allowed to protect you.
That decision (with Mr. Justice Frankfurter, shockingly, on the majority side) would have allowed each local community to set up a kind of juridical Sears, Roebuck catalogue, so much money needed to enjoy free press, so many dollars for free speech, and so on. The doctrine would have had the Constitution reserve its favors for those with the price, a very immoral thing.
Now there has been a reversal. (With Mr. Frankfurter still on the wrong side.) It makes me proud of my profession to note that the American Newspaper Publishers Association, practically every member of which has $10, nonetheless joined in fighting this curious concept, that you have the right of free press so long as you are sound asleep in bed, but if you want to get up and use the right, it will cost you money. The implications of the reversal are vast. Isn’t the poll-tax the same kind of business, a local fee set gn the exercise of a basic right 1 So we had this sudden, liberal turn this week.
St. Louis Star-Times, May 4:
When the constitutional history of the present era is written, not the least important chapter may tell how, despite the strains and stresses of war, the people’s civil liberties were saved, and in that chapter this second Opelika decision may be deemed a decisive turning point. ... It [the license tax] was the very antithesis of the great doctrine of the late Justice Holmes—“freedom for the thought you hate.” . . . The propaganda scattered by Jehovah’s witnesses is, as all justices have agreed, frequently ‘provocative, abusive and ill-tempered.’ We are at wax, when emotions run high and tensions are severe. It is in such a situation that our constitutional liberties often are subject to
strain—but it is just such a situation whicjj they are designed to meet. That is the whole meaning of the right of minorities to freedom from majority suppression. . . . The reversal of the high court’s 1942 judgment is a notable victory for the people’s bill of rights.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, May 5:
The first two of President Roosevelt’s four freedoms—-freedom of speech and freedom of religion—have been stanchly bulwarked in the United States by the Supreme Court in the reversal of its sorely mistaken Opelika decision of last June 8 [1942], . . . The plain fact is that .this reversal is made possible only by the substitution of the Rutledge vote for religious freedom in the place of the Byrnes vote against it. The lineup is still 5 to 4. Justices Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter and Jackson stand where they stood last year. Justice Rutledge has tipped the scales on the side of the cherished freedoms of the Bill of Rights. In his first few weeks on the court, the former dean of the Washington University Law School has enabled the final tribunal to clear its conscience and to make judicial history. . . . The country can only regret that, having become established in nationally recognized error,. Justices Roberts, Reed, Frankfurter and Jackson are unchangeable. . . , Be that as it may, Opelika is vacated after a life of less than eleven months. May this striking record shine out as a warning signal if the Supreme Court is again tempted to whittle away the Bill ■of Rights.
The Chicago Sun, May 6:
The majority position is simple. It is that a tax laid upon the exercise of a right restrains the right and can be used to destroy it; also that the religious activities of Jehovah’s witnesses do not lose constitutional protection merely because they are unusual and, to many, distasteful.
Indeed, the guarantee of religious freedom in its origin was partially intended to protect certain unpopular minorities of the 18th century, including the Methodists and Baptists, who certainly are not unpopular today. It is the most elementary principle of liberty JUNES, 1943 ' that the rights of all are most surely lost when taken away from an unpopular minority. These latest decisions of the Supreme Court are therefore ground for rejoicing by all believers in liberty, however repugnant certain ideas of minority groups may be to them.
The Arizona Daily Star, May 7:
Just because some activity is bothersome to some people is no reason why it can be forbidden or taxed out of existence. Part of the price of freedom constitutes what many of us consider annoyances or nuisances. What we must learn as a principle of government is to tolerate such nuisances rather than establish legal precedents wrhich can at a later time be used to curb the freedom we expect for ourselves. . . . Indeed, if the views of those so-called ‘liberal” justices, Frankfurter, Reed, Jackson and Roberts, had been upheld, municipalities would have had nearly the same power to restrict religious liberty that the officials of Palestine had back in the days of Christ. Christ, it might be remembered, was quite a nuisance to some of the people of His time.
The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, May 5:
By a 5 to 4 decision which, in our opinion, deserved to be unanimous, the United States Supreme Court Monday vacated its 5 to 4 decision of June 8, 1-942, which upheld three municipal ordinances under which the taxing power was used to obstruct or lay heavy burdens on the distribution of religious literature by the Jehovah’s witnesses sect. . . . The Virginian-Pilot, which regarded this whole series of restrictive Supreme Court decisions, since and including the Gobitis decision [compulsory flag saluting], as they are now regarded by [he Court which is reversing them one by one, welcomes this return to the principles of the Bill of Rights. The decisions now in the process of accelerated junking encouraged an obnoxious authoritarian effort to arm the ruling majority with the power to trespass on minority rights of religious self-determination. When the Court vacates the Gobitis decision—a reversal now clearly foreshadowed—we shall be back on the solid ground of the Bill of Rights after spending three'unpleasant years in a wilder-
ness of our own legislative and judicial making. ' .
Frauds magazine, La Crescenta, Calif., under the very fair headlines "Jehovah’s 'witnesses Win Freedom for You”, states:
Say what you will about the followers of . Jehovah’s witnesses, but individually and * collectively they have done more for freedom of the press and freedom of worship than any other group. They have been beaten, robbed, attacked, framed, and jailed in hundreds of cities. They have undergone the same treatment that the Nazis render to the Jews. Yet these religions fanatics, stalwarts or whatever you wish to call them have caused the If. S. Supreme Court to finally decide that America shall have free speech, free religion, and free press, regardless of narrow, bigoted, flag-waving and religious nuts of other sects. And the "fanatics” among other sects (Catholics, Protestants, Jews) are more guilty of movements to destroy the things for which the nation is fighting. If you are an honest individual you’ll salute the true Jehovah witness for obtaining guarantees for three of the four freedoms—and they obtained these freedoms by fighting!
It is truly heart-warming to Jehovah’s faithful servants to see that at least one publication has the fairness and honesty and courage to express its appreciation for the liberties .won by Jehovah’s witnesses to the benefit of all. Most papers, while agreeing with the rightness of the decision, make it a special point to disclaim any sympathy toward the Witnesses, and never express appreciation of the fight they wage, fearing what others may think of them. This last write-up, from Frauds magazine, is as a refreshing cup of cold water to Christ’s followers in the heat of battle, for, be it known, the fight for liberty on the home front must continue on. During the month of April Jehovah’s witnesses began a distribution of upward of 12,000,000 booklets entitled Fighting for Liberty on the Home Front. The pamphlet details the battle being waged for freedom by Jehovah’s witnesses. It recounts victories won. Now, one month later, new triumphs are added to the list, and this only after a long and hard uphill fight. The faithful witnesses in the ‘ field who call at your door are the ones that made possible the raising of these issues in the high court, and their God Jehovah gave them the victory in reward for their integrity and steadfastness in His service under enemy fire.
Precarious State of Liberty
Reflect, the decision was 5-4. Just one man could have turned victory into defeat, and lost religious freedom for the entire nation. This should rouse everyone to the sinister peril hovering over democracy right here on the home front. The fight must be pushed with unrelenting vigilance. On this very point the Chicago Daily Tribune, May 5, expresses its deep concern:
The court upheld this and like holdings by a five to four vote. The narrow margin is a matter for apprehension. The case of the Jehovah’s witnesses was a hard one for local authorities to meet. The sect is a cantankerous one whose members, in promulgation of their own beliefs, have indulged in vicious attacks on other groups of Christians. With laymen who passed local ordinances these circumstances, no doubt, bore weight, but their extraneous character should have been apparent to judges trained in the law and familiar with the necessity of protecting minorities, even tho they be unpopular. It is not comforting to find so close a vote on such vital questions of liberty in a court seven of whose nine members have been the appointees and the expounders of the philosophy of an administration that pretends to make human liberty its first concern.
Informed persons who have followed the history of the persecutions of Jehovah’s witnesses are aware of the fact that their enemies who engineer such persecution are also "home-grown” enemies of the Bill of Bights. Those persecutors are the enemies of every person who cherishes liberty. While mechanized armies lock in deadly battle to determine if these liberties stand or fall, there continues to be a persistent internal aggression against the four freedoms on the home front. Whether the prosecutors of such internal sabotage realize it or not, they are blindly attempting, to “pull the house down” upon Jehovah’s witnesses, in utter disregard of the fact that in so doing they are destroying the whole structure of democracy. Justice Brandeis very aptly states: “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning, but without understanding.”
This nation claims to be Christian. “Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Corinthians 3:17) Let the physical facts prove the claim true. The people should rally and safeguard their liberties. The judges of courts should deal wisely with Jehovah’s witnesses, and .stand firm for freedom. (Psalm 2:10-12) As for Jehovah’s people, they will continue to ‘stand fast in the liberty to freely worship that Christ has given, and not be entangled with the yoke of bondage’. (Galatians 5:1) They will fight for freedom, not only for themselves, but will continue to diligently “proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof”. —Leviticus 25:10; Isaiah 61:1,2.
The Limited, Balanced, Government of the U. S. A.
IN WHAT ways is the power of our government limited?
First, it is limited as to purposes. Second, as to the ways by which it fulfills these purposes. Third, by the spheres of liberty which are reserved to individuals. Fourth, by its dependence on the people, on the voters. Firth, by the fact that each set of governing, authorities is held in check by the powers and ambitions of other sets. This is the American system of checks and balances.
The Constitution gives federal authorities the power to tax, to raise and support armed forces, to wage war, to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, and to do many other things in the interest of the Union. Undoubtedly these are great powers. But they are not the limitless powers of despotism. When war is raging, freedom of press may be abridged; freedom of speech may be curtailed, but it cannot be blotted out. The Constitution forbids this; and as long as enough people are devoted to the theory and practice of limited government, such suppression cannot happen here.
Besides being restricted in purpose, government in the United States must follow pre-established ways of fulfilling these purposes. No branch of govern-JUNE9, 1M3
ment—federal, state, or local—can do just as it pleases.
For example, all legislatures have the power to tax, but none of them can single out individuals, Jew or Gentile, and impose higher taxes on them than on others. The power of Congress is unlimited as to the amount of money to be raised by taxation. This is necessary in the national interest, for the amount of money needed to defeat enemies is not within the control of Congress or the people. But the way in which taxes are imposed and collected is decidedly limited. Taxes, for instance, must be uniform throughout the United States. Congress cannot tax the same brand of cigarettes at five cents a package in Maine and ten cents a package in Missouri. The $5,000 salary of one person cannot be taxed at $500 a year and the $5,000 salary of another person at $2,000 a year.
Again, Congress can pass acts imposing penalties for crimes, but it cannot provide that persons accused of nonmilitary crimes shall be tried secretly. They must be tried openly in courts of law, and the accused is protected by a long list of rules designed to assure him a fair hearing.
On the power of Congress and of all
states and local legislatures are imposed two special restraints that are precious to human liberty.
No legislature can pass a “bill of attainder’’. That is, no American legislature can charge any person with a crime xand condemn him to fine, prison, or fleath. In ages past the British Parliament sometimes resorted to bills of attainder and, amid tumults of passion and debate, condemned individuals to death. N o such thing can be done in the United States.
No legislature can pass an ex post facto law. That is a law which makes a crime out of an act that was not criminal when it was committed. Owing to this restraint, every citizen can feel sure that what he does today lawfully and innocently will not be made a crime tomorrow by a legislature.
Moreover, there are reserved to the people great spheres of liberty. People have the right to choose their own religion or none at all and to be wholly free from the dictates of any established church. Congress can make no law “respecting the establishment of religion”.
Once police officials felt free to break into anybody’s house at will and do about as they pleased. The Fourth Amendment preserves the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. No search warrants shall be issued except when supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized by federal officers. Similar rules restrain state officers.
In the United States no one can be secretly thrown into prison and kept there indefinitely. The humblest of the accused is entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, which gives him a quick hearing before a judge, testing whether there are just grounds for holding him for trial. At his trial, which must be public, he is entitled to have counsel, to compel the attendance of witnesses on his behalf, 14
to confront his accusers, to be heard in his own defense, and to receive impartial treatment at the hands of the presiding judge. Unnumbered millions in other countries sigh for such privileges.
The quartering of soldiers in private homes was among the grievances which led to the American Revolution. The Third Amendment to our Constitution provides that no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war except in a manner prescribed by law.
Government is power. The holders of power—executive, legislative, and judicial—might, theoretically, combine against the people from whom they derive their power. The framers of the Constitution knew and feared that possibility. Indeed they believed that it would come to pass unless restraints were devised to prevent it.
Consequently they pitted the powers of office and the ambitions of men in office against one another, while allowing for the co-operation of public authorities in the discharge of their duties. If men were angels, it is written in The Federalist, there would be no need of government; this may be “a reflection on human nature. . . . But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?” Election by the people is “the primary control” over the arrogance of officials, but “experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions”. Here is a list of the chief precautions that appear in the Constitution;
The legislative, executive, and judicial powers are vested in three distinct departments so interconnected that they act as checks on one another.
The president has the power of veto over acts of Congress. Although he is the chief executive, he cannot execute anything until Congress has provided the money. The president is independently elected, but Congress,, by the process of impeachment, may remove him
CONSOLATION
or any of his administrative agents.
Federal judges are nominated by the president The Senate, however, passes upon his nominations and may approve or reject them. These judges are “independent”, but Congress, by the impeachment process, may remove them, too. Congress has the legislative power, but the federal courts may'set aside acts of Congress as contrary to the Constitution.
While Congress is set against the executive and the judiciary, it is also divided against itself. The members of the House are elected for two years and the senators for six years. All members of the House, unless re-elected, lose their office at the end of the two-year period. Only one-third of the senators are retired biennially. ■
It may be said that the people, in whom all power is vested, may in a great passion and uproar one day resort to a tyranny. Many despotisms in history have sprung from popular unrest and have been swept into power by popular approval. That of the first Napoleon did. So did the tyranny of the third Napoleon, and of Hitler.
So long as the Constitution prevails, this cannot happen in the United States. Under the Constitution the voters at no single election can, by a mere majority or plurality vote, choose all executive, legislative, and judicial authorities and thus force the J enactment of any law they please, either in the states or throughout the Union. Only in making amendments to the Constitution of the United States is the power of the voters limitless, and for this high act special processes and extraordinary majorities are necessary .—Char les A. Beard, in Liberty, February 6, 1943.
Helicopters
THE helicopter is a kind of air machine that does not require the use of air fields, runways or catapults. It can land slowly and vertically without injury on any chosen point—field, street, housetop, ship deck, body of water—and ascend with the same ease. It has proved to be a practical plane, as shown in this account by Henry Hazlitt, in TheNation:
This type of machine is not a mere inventor’s dream. It is not a mere set of engineer’s blueprints. It exists. It exists in the helicopter, impressive flights of which were made in April a year ago by the noted airplane designer, Igor Sikorsky. Mr. Sikorsky has been constantly improving his machine.-You do not have to take his word regarding what it can do. He has shown colored motion pictures of its remarkable feats. In these you can see him rise vertically from land, water, and marsh. You can see him rise a foot or two above the water, skim over it at this level, or hover stationary at the same level, and alight like a feather, without even a splash. You can see him circle around a lake, come to a dead stop in front of a dock, hover in the JUNES, 1943
air at the height of a man’s shoulder while a man on the dock hangs a suitcase on the helicopter; then you can see Mr. Sikorsky circle around the lake a few times with the suitcase hanging on, and stop dead again (in the air) in front of the dock, while the man lifts his suitease off. You can see Sikorsky’s helicopter come to a sudden stop in midair from a high speed. You can see the helicopter stop in midair at the height of a man’s shoulder, while an assistant takes hold of one of the wheels and pulls the machine with him, which is made to- follow docilely by the man at the controls like a great floating camel.
Sikorsky also explains that the helicopter is extremely easy to fly. You can learn to fly it indoors, in a moderate-sized auditorium. It seems to be at least as easy to master as an automobile. A striking comparison suggests itself here. Suppose one had to start learning to drive an automobile at a minimum speed of sixty miles an hour? How many people would learn to drive automobiles? Yet this is the situation with regard to the airplane. But with a helicopter you can start as slowly as you like.
THyWORD is Truth’
—John. 17:17
Foregleams of Deliverance
TO FORESHADOW the coming deliverance of those who will enjoy life everlasting in the new world of righteousness, the great Builder of the new world caused certain types or prophetic patterns to be made by His chosen people.
For about a century the Hebrews, the children of Israel, had been subjected to slavery in ancient Egypt. On the night that Jehovah their God led them out of the land of Egypt He caused a lamb to be slain and its blood to be sprinkled upon the doorposts of their houses and His people to eat that lamb. He arranged that at midnight the death angel should pass through all Egypt and smite the firstborn of every house where the blood did not appear upon the doorposts. Israel’s firstborn, who were passed over and spared, pictured the “church of the firstborn” under Christ Jesus their Head and who are saved firsfrbefore the divine blessing comes to men of good-will in general. (Hebrews 12:23) The lamb pictured that One who should be the ransomer or redeemer of humankind, namely, Christ Jesus, and the lamb’s blood pictured His life poured out to provide a redemptive price.—Exodus 12:3-17. .
When Jesus appeared in Palestine, at the age of thirty years, John the Baptist, pointing to Him, said: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1: 29) And we read concerning Jesus, at Revelation 13:8, that he is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. These scriptures and others show that the sacrifice of the passover lamb foreshadowed the sacrifice of the great One who should become the redeemer of humankind and take away the sin of those gaining life in the new world.
A few days after this passover in Egypt, the Israelites were completely delivered from the Egyptians when God commanded Moses to smite the waters of the Red sea and they passed over on dry land; and when the Egyptians attempted to follow by the way through the sea they were swallowed up in its waters and drowned. The deliverance of Israel here pictured the deliverance from the great enemy, Satan and his organization, of Jehovah’s covenant people and His “men of good-will” at this end of the world.
After the children of Israel were on the other side of the Red sea, they marched on in the desert; and when they came to Mount Sinai God confirmed with them the covenant which had been made operative by the blood of the passover lamb. In connection with this law covenant animals were sacrificed. This covenant was instituted at the hands of Moses as a mediator between Jehovah God and Israel. Moses here wTas a type of Christ Jesus, who in due time inaugurated the new covenant on behalf of spiritual Israel. .
In connection with the law given to the Israelites at this time, God instructed Moses to 6reet in the wilderness a tabernacle, which was to be used by the Israelites in connection with their ceremonies of sacrifice. One day of each year was known as the “atonement day”. What was done on that day particularly foreshadowed the great sin-offering to be made on behalf of humankind.
The tabernacle was constructed of two parts. It was 45 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 15 feet high, built of boards and then covered over with a tent of three thicknesses of material. The first division of the tabernacle was called the Holy. It was 15 feet wide and 30 feet long. The second, or rear compartment, was known as the Most Holy, and was 15 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 15 feet high, an exact cube. The tabernacle was situated inside, of a court, or yard, which court was 75 . feet wide and 150 feet in length. The fence enclosing this court was made of linen curtains, suspended from hooks' which wTere fastened on wooden posts, the posts being set in copper sockets at the base.
On the atonement day the high priest took a bullock, which must be ‘without spot or blemish. Inside of the court he killed the bullock, took its blood in a vessel, went from the court into the Holy and from there into the Most Holy, and, after burning the incense in a golden censer, he sprinkled the blood before the Mercy Seat of the ark, which was in the Most Holy. Then he went back and slew a male goat, which likewise must be without defect, and did the same thing with its blood. These two constituted the atonement sacrifice. After them a scapegoat, over whose head the sins of all the children of Israel were confessed, was let go into the wilderness as a sin-bearer. The atonement offering for sin foreshadowed the great sin-offering for the sin of the world.
The apostle Paul plainly tells us that the things there done foreshadowed “good things to come”, better things. (Hebrews 10:1) God required in the law covenant that the Jews should keep this day of atonement and offer these sacrifices through the high priest once each year. You will remember that God had promised the patriarch Abraham: Tn thy seed shall all families of the earth be blessed? (Genesis 12:3; 22:18) So the apostle Paul says that the law was added thereto 430 years later; why? “Because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.” (Galatians 3:19,24) In other words, Jehovah was teaching the chil-dren-of-Israel concerning the great sin-offering that must be made on behalf of humankind for their redemption, and He was using the Israelites to make living ; pictures in accordance with their law covenant with God. The inspired record of the events concerning the Israelites has enabled all students of the Bible since to see how Jehovah foreshadowed the redemption and deliverance of mankind from the bondage of sin and death. To foreshadow means to foretell the outline of something coming. This shows how important the great ransom and, particularly, God’s Theocratic Government of tM new world are for mankind’s deliverance, inasmuch as God took so much time and went into so much detail to teach the people by such ancient living pictures. Hence this should encourage us to study the subject earnestly, that we might see, understand, and appreciate it.
…