Awake!, November 8, 1952

Download: PDF — Awake!, November 8, 1952

SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Framers of Constitution vs. modern courts

East Meets West in Olympics

Athletes conscripted for '*cold war”

Religious Belief in America

Leading creeds of U. S. religions tabulated

Facts About Thanksgiving

What was its origin and original purpose?

NOVEMBER 8. 1952 SFHWTMnNrrPfT.v

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital Issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. “Awake!” has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, to free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it la unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trooden on; it Is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This journal keeps Itself fires that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.

**Awake !’* usee the regular news channels, but to not dependent on them. Its own correspondents are on all continents, in. scores of nations. From the tour corners of the earth their uncensored, on-the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal's viewpoint to not narrow, but is international It to read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its cover* age to aa broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.

"Awake!” pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom tor all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope tor the establishment of a right* ecus New World.

Get acquainted with “Awake!” Keep awake by reading "Awake I”

Published S^himontult Br watchtower bible and tract society, inc.

117 Adams Street Brooklyn 1, N. Y.( U„ S. A.

N. H. Knobs, President Grant Suiter, Secretary.

Printing tht« iMue: 976,000

Five cent* a copy

LSMiadM l« whi«1> t*h U

Semimontbly—ATflksang, foellsb, tTtonfcft, French, Centrum, HoJliriilteh, Ncrwisiiui, fynninh, Swedish. Moclhly^Dtnlflh. GrWc, rortWi«£, Utailmm.

Oftlcs Yearly pubicriptltRi Bite

Am«Ici, U.S., 117 Adirm St., Brooklyn 1, N.Y. SL JcttalJ*F 11 Bd., StritltflsM, N.8.W. 8*

Cinlla. 40 Irwiti Ave.. Toronto 5. Ontario (1 EnfJamfc 3# Crt(w Tfmtee, Lnudto?, W. 3 7s Sooth Afeta, Private P,0. HHuidstaiteta.

Trinsvsal 7i

IteMlttiBwt strwdd be Hnt io office In your «w-tey Jb ncmpliancj with regulations to manatee safe delivery <rf nwaty, BemltUneefl ate araepcerf Brooklyn from countries where no office Is located, by international money order only, SutMErlptton rata in different countrfea are here stated in local currency. Notice of wcalratlM (with renewal blank) it mt ot lent tiro .fewi before sobecriptloD w-ptfea CtanfO tf tUrr» when wnt to w nffite may be expected effective within one month, Send jour old aa well as new addrttt.

Entered ns seeontf-tfeai at Byrjatljn?. NY Art of Maiet 3, 1879. Printed In V. 8. A

CONTENTS

Maintaining a Christian Standard

East Meets West in Olympics

Poor Uncle Sam

Nationalism Sours Olympics

Separation of Church and State

Arguments Against

Complete Separation

"An Almost Unique Experiment1’

Enforcing the Consequences

Patron Saint of the U. S. A,

Religious Belief in America

Nature’s Clumsy Clowns

School of Hard Knocks

Facts About Thanksgiving

The First Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving and Feast of Tabernacles

Has Religion Succeeded?

"Your Word Is Truth”

Religion in Helsinki Olympic Games

Do You Favor Corruption?

Watching the World

£/ “Now it is high time to awake”—Romans 13:11 &

Volurne XXXIiI ^Brooklyn, N. Y-, November 8, 1952 “ Number 21

Maintaining a Christian Standard

FALSE religion, commercial grafting, political corruption, rejection of God's simple but specific instructions are all involved in the bad example set by today's world. Maintaining a Christian standard of morality is made increasingly difficult by a continual flood of propaganda for loose living. It is a matter of going upstream against a swiftly flowing current. The Christian must be on his guard to see that this old world's bad habits do not slowly and subtly draw him under.

Ours is a crucial day, a time when Satan is doing his utmost in a final desperate attempt to prove his side of the great issue of universal sovereignty—to prove that he can tempt all men away from obedience to their Creator. The extent to which he would go to keep the people in bondage, even wrathfully bringing woes, world war, famine and other distresses to earth, is shown in Revelation 12:12 and Matthew 24:7. Yet a few have withstood the Satan-inspired flood of lawlessness, immorality and wild living, and have held to the Christian standard.

Not only must they resist the inclinations of their own imperfect flesh, but they must guard against a monstrous propaganda barrage that implies that loose living is a lot of fun. When weighed in the balance of common sense the world's feeble rewards are poor pay for what is lost by following its course. Pay as poor, m fact, as the bowl of food, one short meal, for which Esau sold his God-given birthright to Jacob in order to satisfy a momentary craving of his normally well-fed belly. (Genesis 25:27-34) Jesus foresaw that some would likewise sell their right to everlasting life for a few doubtful moments of sensual living, and he pointed to the wisdom of vigorously withstanding such temptations: “Because of the increasing of lawlessness the love of the greater number will cool off. But he that has endured to the finish is the one that will be saved.” —Matthew 24:12, 13, New World Trans,

Today widely circulated publications seem to take great delight in publicizing anything that implies a questionable sexual circumstance. Life magazine of July 14 did this in its article entitled “Fumble Party”, calling it “an item of the American scene". It would be better described as “an item of the American obscene”. This “lively indoor game”, to quote Life, played by a mixed group of men and women gets off to a bang when the participants swap items of clothing. Pictures show one man giving the “daughter of an oil company president” his pants. But that is only the beginning. After everyone is disguised, men and women together fling themselves down into a huddle on the floor, the lights are turned off, and the one who is “it” paws among the tangled bodies trying to identify someone. Said the host-

ess: "Nothing melts the soda] ice like a game or two of fumble.”

But do not misunderstand. Life pointed out that all the fumblers were well-bred. "The guests, all seasoned tumblers, included a surgeon, a state senator, the granddaughter of a former U. S. senator and the daughter of an oil company president.”

Life boasts of having a terrific impact on the nation, and if you are thinking about the suggestion this article makes to youth, you are not alone. Protested one reader, "You really hit rock bottom.” Another: "You win the limburger Oscar for that story. The thing hits a new low.” A third: “I write this letter as a teacher in the American public school system. When a magazine read by thousand^ of teenagers publishes such an article I feel helplessly inadequate in the job I have chosen to do.” Another reader wrote: "We think that Life fumbled.” Said the editors, "Life agrees that, it did indeed fumble in publishing the story,” and, "The editors apologize to those readers who were offended.” Why not to everyone? In other times a general apology might have been in order, not just for offending some readers, but for contributing to the example of delinquency.

Such conditions, however, should surprise no one. The Bible calls these the “last days” of this corrupt old world, and it well predicted what to expect. “ Tn the last time there will be ridiculers, proceeding according to their own desires for ungodly things.’ These are the ones that make separations, animalistic men, not having spirituality.” It further says men would be lovers of themselves, self-assuming, haughty, disobedient to parents, without self-control, without love of goodness, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God, slyly working their way into households to lead away captive weak women loaded down with sins.—Jude 18, 19; 2 Timothy 3:1-6, New World Trans.

Will you reject knowledge? Mock, imitate, mimic this old world’s questionable practices? Bow to its propaganda barrage? Join with those who “publicly declare they know God, but they disown him by their works”? (Titus 1:16, New World, Trans.) No, wise persons will take Paul’s counsel, "What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom?” And again, "For you know this, recognizing it for yourselves, that no fornicator or unclean person or greedy person—which means being an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of the Christ and of God.”—1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Ephesians 5:5, New World Trans.

One does not have to be guilty of all these things to be denied the Kingdom, but it is denied those that keep practicing any of them. A man may not worship idols, but is he an adulterer? He may not practice homosexuality, but is he a thief or greedy? He may not be a drunkard, but does he revile God’s name, either by speech or by course of action? Such is the world’s course, but it is not the Christian’s standard. Psalm 145:20 simply says: “The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.”

Though in the world, the Christian must guard against letting the world’s sensuality, lust, greed and corruption influence him; guard against falling victim to its destructive propaganda. Such a system repels the Christian, for he is no longer a part of it. He now wishes to receive God’s favor and he is happy to know that God’s kingdom is no part of this loose-moraled world. (John 18:36) However, he recognizes that maintaining his Christian standard takes alertness and determination to follow right rules, but he knows the reward is well worth the effort. What is gained is far greater, more valuable, more lasting than what is lost, for it leads to Jehovah’s favor and everlasting life!

East Meets West in

ivmpics

OFFICIALLY, no country “wins” the

Olympic games. There is no official team scoring system. So those understanding the rules did not expect West to win over East or East over West The big question prior to the 1952 Olympic games was, What would the Russians do at Helsinki, since they were making their first Olympic appearance since the czarist days of 1912 ?

On July 19 the Olympiad began. Over sixty-seven nations, some of whom are still nursing the wounds of World Wars I and H, crowded under one “roof” to enjoy as one happy family the “most rich and historic of all the sports man has enjoyed through the centuries”. What politicians have failed to accomplish in their political arenas, as evidenced by the many years of bickering in the United Nations, the Olympic games, without much effort, succeeded in doing. The world family threw off its “political views or government instructions” and, at least for fifteen days, “behaved like amiable human beings,” It is reported that Americans and Russians have been “hitting it off” from the start, and that the “free world” athletes and officials are ready to call the Russians “good fellows”, “friendly,” “generous and hospitable.”

What a blow to the Russian propaganda machine, which for years has been feeding their people with a “hate America” campaign, calling Americans everything from assassins to warmongers, to see all their hard

efforts go up in smoke when Russian athletes, both men and women, willingly and enthusiastically congratulated Americans and wined and dined with them. And too, what a blow it must be to the “McCarthys” and “McCarrans” to find the cream of American youth hobnobbing, joking and back-slapping with the “Reds”. Commenting on the fraternization during the Olympics, The Nation for August 2, 1952, under the subtitle “The Subversive Olympics”, said:

“We call the attention of Senators McCarthy and McCarran to the scandalously amicable attitude of the American Olympic athletes toward their Soviet competitors—and vice versa. Our boys have permitted their pictures to be taken arm in arm with conspiratorial high hurdlers from Uzbekistan. An American pole-vault champion gratefully accepted the congratulations of his defeated Russian rival, acting as if there were no such thing as Aesopian language. In direct defiance of the Battle act prohibiting the transfer of war materials to the Soviet Union, our pistolshooters presented a box of ammunition to Russian competitors who were having trouble with their own. Worst of all, an American runner referred to by the Times correspondent as 'Horace Ashenfelter of the FBI’ showed his heels to the Russians when, as is well known, the reverse should have happened.

"Truly, all this is not only scandalous but positively alarming. Events at Helsinki, in demonstrating that we and the Russians can coexist peacefully on the athletic field, may give rise to popular suspicion that the same might be true in other fields. What would happen, then, to the cold war? To armament contracts ? To the Republican and Democratic foreign-policy planks? To Senators McCarthy and McCarran? We respectfully request that the Olympic com-

ittee be added to the attorney general’s st of subversive organizations.”

Poor Uncle Sam

And to add some more unreasonableness that has arisen from the Olympic picture that might give rise to “popular suspicion”. Russia, reportedly, is a land impoverished by her mismanagement and drained to the extreme by her tremendous war effort, yet at the Olympics she can afford to splurge and entertain even the wealthy capitalists; while rich America cannot adequately provide for her own. The New York Times for July 27, 1952, reported:

. ""The Russians and their fellow-athletes from the border satellites are in some respects more comfortably installed than the Westerners, At Kapylae, where the Western competitors are housed, concrete floors and plain camp beds and stools are the rule, and meals are served in a cold and drafty marquee. At Otaniemi it’s different—the furniture is nicely upholstered, floors are carpeted and there is a permanent dining hall, plus the only indoor running track and gymnasium in Finland, . . . They are more or less constantly entertained. Russian folk dance groups from virtually every province in the Soviet Union appear in relays at Otaniemi, as do ballet companies and actors and singers famous east of the Iron Curtain. Food and drink are brought to the Russian team from Leningrad every day.”

The very next day, the New York Times, commenting on a lavish dinner that the Russians had spread for U, S. officials, stated Soviet hospitality would go unretiirned because "it's too costly to reciprocate”. The article stated: “Officials of the United States Olympic team decided today no attempt would be made to reciprocate the hospitality extended by the Russian team last night, ‘We have troubles enough trying to raise money to send the team here, and we don’t have any left for entertainment/ said one highly placed American who declined use of his name.

“The Russians gave a lavish dinner, replete with caviar, vodka, wine, fancy meats and cakes at their Iron Curtain camp at Otaniemi. The twenty-four top men of the United States team were invited. . , . The Russians expressed keen disappointment that no American track and field champion came. United States officials said they had understood the invitations to mean officials only. Several American athletes said today they might take up the Russian invitation. , . , "Too bad we couldn’t have them over for lunch in the cafeteria/ said Simmons [of Charlotte, North Carolina].”

“Too bad” is right, especially since America’s supposed aim is to win over the friendship of the Russians and their sateJ^ lite people. Rich Uncle Sam spends billions of dollars each year for booze and cigarettes, yet when time comes for him to spend dollars where the dollar would really count, the capitalistic capital suddenly goes broke. He does not have enough for one fancy dinner! What if the Russian gesture was a propaganda scheme? Is not what is good for the goose also good for the gander? Or are we to believe that America is not engaged in any propaganda warfare? Whatever the case may be, Uncle Sam’s face should be blushing red—if you will pardon the expression.

Nationalism Sours Olympics

Olympic discussions usually recall to mind Baron Pierre de Coubertin, who dreamed up the modern revival. Coubertin could not have believed that the Olympic games would bring peaceful relations between hostile nations, no more so than any intelligent sport enthusiast would expect the same today. The Olympics did not bring peace, or even keep Greece from eventual enslavement, during the twelve centuries intervening between their establishment about 776 B.C. and their suppression A.D, 392. Discord and scandal degenerated the contests until finally, at one contest, the Romans, infuriated by Greek charges of professionalism, went on a rampage and set fire to the buildings used to house the athletes and wrecked the stadium. After that debacle Roman Emperor Theodosius called a halt to the whole affair.

About the only thing the Olympics did offer was a temporary substitute for armed conflict. The high ideals that were avowed were not always in the hearts of men, but they were there. As De Coubertin said: “The important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, the important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle, the essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well. To spread these precepts is to build up a more scrupulous and more generous humanity.”

With just a glance around the world today we see sufficient contradiction of these principles. We see “whole nations attempting to win unworthy victories by vicious means. We see vast numbers of people who are being carefully taught to be strong but not to be scrupulous and not to be generous”. Reporters have also observed that during the 1952 games, the public breathed heavily with nationalism. In this respect, “the public definitely has not caught the Olympic spirit?’

The artificial "team” rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union was created, even though the games “are not held to demonstrate the superiority of one national group over another”. Propaganda artists on both sides of the Iron Curtain were responsible for this stench of nationalism. The New York Times stated that “Finnish Communists newspapers have at least struck a note by playing up every Russian success, of which there have been plenty, especially in the side show events, such as gymnastics, as definite proof of Russian superiority over the 'decadent youth of western imperialist countries* Avery Brundage, president-elect of the International Olympic Committee, was himself fed up with the excessive display of nationalism reflected in the obsession with national points scores. Said he: “Olympic competition is between individuals t not nations. Any form of team point totals is a violation of the true Olympic spirit and antagonistic to the best Interests of the Olympic movement.” About the only nation that did not violate this rule was the nation that did not score. Coubertin’s statement about *the important thing in the Olympic games is not winning, but taking part* seems to have lost its appeal.

Back in 1948 the London Evening Stand-ardj in a biting editorial, wrote: “Even in norma] times British enthusiasm for the games ranged from lukewarm to loathing. We do not regard sport as primarily an occasion for n a tion alistic self- assertion. Yet the Olympiad atmosphere tends notoriously to take on an unpleasant edge of jingo rivalry which is the antithesis of real sporting competition.”

As with the ancient so with the modem Olympiads, it is still bickering and rivalry. It appears that mankind will Just have to learn to wait for the kingdom of God to teach them how to work and how to play.

SEPARATION of church and state has ever been held as a basic principle of the United States. However, ever and anon there have been not only disagreement, but bitter and even violent disputes over how far the principle should be carried or applied. For some years now there has been controversy over the extent to which the principle should be applied to public and parochial schools.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, on which the whole policy of separation of church and state is based, reads; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.’’

In 1947, in the Everson case, the Supreme Court interpreted those words to mean that “neither a state nor the Federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. , . , In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wail of separation

between church and state’ ”, And the following year, in the HfcColhim case, the Court ruled that "a utilization of tax-established and tax-supported schools to aid religious groups to spread their faith . . . falls squarely under the ban of the First Amendment".

Outspoken in their condemnation of this interpretation have been the spokesmen for the Roman Catholic Church. Says Msgr. J. S. Middleton, secretary to Cardinal Spellman, for Education: “The complete separation of church and state gives support to irreligion and such is in direct violation of the spirit of the First Amendment," because “guaranteeing the freedom of religion was not meant to be an aid to irreligion". According to him, absolute separation between church and state “is impractical, impossible and against the best in our American tradition”.

Former Attorney General McGrath, prominent Catholic politician in the United States, made a speech in which he stated: “If anything, the state and church must not have any fence between them.” And most fully stating the Roman Catholic ^position regarding separation of church and state is J. M. O’Neill, in his Religion and Education Under the Constitution, whose chief arguments we will presently refute.

While Roman Catholic policy is thus seen to be strongly opposed to complete separation of church and state, opposition thereto is not limited to that sect. Certain Protestant spokesmen have expressed themselves to the effect that if the government is going to insist on complete separation in the matter of public schools they will be obliged to resort to parochial or day schools to teach their children religion.

Arguments Against Complete Separation

Among the arguments advanced against complete separation of church and state is that the framers of the Constitution were opposed to the government’s giving aid to just one religion, “single establishment,” but not to its aiding all religions, “multiple establishment.” The facts, however, do not bear this out.

James Madison, who had more to do with the writing of the Constitution than any other one man, wrote and distributed his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments for the very purpose of defeating a bill which provided for “multiple establishment" of religion in Virginia; a bill which was to require all persons “to pay a moderate tax or contribution annually for the support of the Christian religion or of some Christian church, denomination or communion of Christians or for some form of Christian worship”. Arguing against this measure he said: “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same* ease any particular sect of Christians to the exclusion of all other sects?” As a result of his efforts Virginia was fifty years ahead of Massachusetts in the matter of separation of church and state.

Another argument advanced against complete separation of church and state is that the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids the individual states to do what the First Amendment forbids Congress to do, does not specifically mention anything about the establishment of religion, and therefore the individual states may give aid to religion. However, this again ignores the facts of history. Strenuous efforts were made at the time of the writing of the First Amendment to forbid the individual states from establishing religion, etc., and the measure even passed in the House, but was defeated in the Senate. Such states as Massachusetts were not ready then to give up establishment of religion.

Foes of complete separation further argue that the framers of the Constitution were friends of religion and therefore would not harm religion by forbidding all government aid to it On the contrary, these argued against government aid, on the premise that it was best for both government and religion. According to Madison, the example of Virginia made it “impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth”, continued he, “that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.”

In the treaty made with Tripoli in 1794, we find the following words in Article XI, which treaty, of course, was made with the approval of President Washington and Congress: “As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulman—and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mohammedan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious Opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony exist-

ing between the two countries/’—Statutes at Large, Vol. 8, p. 155.

HAn Almost Unique Experiment”

As an argument against complete separation of church and state, Catholic spokesmen are wont to cite the examples of European countries where religious freedom is enjoyed, but where the governments do give aid to religion. These, however, overlook the fact that the uniqueness of the United States in this matter of separation of church and state was just the novel experiment that the founding fathers were undertaking. As Justice Story, nine-teenth-eentury constitutional authority, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, pointed out in 1833: “It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. The future experience of Christendom, and chiefly of the American states, must settle this problem, as yet new in the history of the world, abundant, as it has been, in experiments in the theory of government.”

Yes, as Nevins, a Pulitzer prize-winning historian, well observes, church and state separation was “an almost unique experiment” when begun in the United States. “It is the basic fundamental of our religious liberty. It helped lead the way toward more tolerance and equality tn the rest of the world.” Regarding which fact the New York Dispatch, February 11,1952, stated: “Since the United States put the idea into practice, 33 countries have promised free and equal treatment of all religions, while religious tolerance has become general in most of the 27 countries with established churches.” For the United States now to imitate other lands would be for it to take a step backward.

Enforcing the Consequences

Those opposed to complete separation of church and state argue that it is both impractical and impossible. They point to the use of chaplains in legislative assemblies and in the armed forces; to Sunday-observance (“blue”) laws and tax exemption for religious property; to religious holidays such as Christmas, and religious proclamations, such as for Thanksgiving Day.

From the tenacity with which religious organizations hang on to these “minor vestiges of early state support of religion” one can see how far ahead of their times were the framers of the Constitution, yes, even ahead of our times. A striking example of this is Jefferson’s activities in connection -with the establishment of universities in his day. In no instance did he recommend professorships of divinity, even though in his day theology played the foremost role in educational circles. Even as regards elementary schools he recommended: “Instead, therefore, of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious inquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history.” Certainly that does not sound as though he supported religion in education, as some have contended.

And regarding the subject of chaplains in Congress, Jefferson said: “The Constitution of the United States forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion . , . The establishment of the chaplainship to Congress is a palpable vi<x lation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles.” And showing that it was his sense of justice and not animosity toward re/igion that prompted him to take such a position, note further the following argument of his: “The tenets of the chaplain elected (by the majority) shut the door of worship against members whose creeds and consciences forbid participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of roman Catholics and Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a chaplain? [No true prophet was Jefferson!] To say that his reUgious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers, or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.” As a remedy Jefferson suggested that the congressmen pay for the chaplain.

And Madison was not One whit behind Jefferson in his ideas. According to him, “Chaplains for Congress when paid by public funds, chaplains for the army and navy when paid by public funds, and religious proclamations by the chief executive,” were all establishments of religion.

One of the chief difficulties in the way of properly evaluating the purposes and motives of the founding fathers of the United States intended by the Constitution is the modern tendency to picture them as devout sectarians. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Thomas Paine, avowed atheist, had much influence at that time. Alexander Hamilton objected to the assembly’s being opened with prayer. Benjamin Franklin, in his autobiography, tells how it came about that he got disgusted with his Presbyterian preacher and quit going to church; his clergyman was more interested in making good Presbyterians out of his parishioners than in making good citizens out of them.

According to The American Political Science Review^ March 1951, Jefferson, Franklin and John Adams were deists. According to Webster, a deist believes in the existence of a supreme being but neither accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God nor Jesus as the Son of God. And Washington and Madison are said to have had more than average skepticism in regard to these points. Religious sects like to claim these men because they may have had nominal membership in the churches of their day. But how good a Presbyterian was Franklin when he listed in his biography, as examples of humility, Socrates alongside Jesus, and when he asked Voltaire to bless his grandson?

According to the framers of the Constitution the most that the state can do for religion is to protect its freedom, its right to worship as it sees fit. The state cannot render aid to any religion. Man is to be not only free to practice what religion he wants but also free to have no religion at all, to be free from religion if he so chooses. As Cooley shows in Constitutional fions, 469, “Not only is no one denomination to be favored at the expense of the rest, but all support of religious instruction must be entirely voluntary?’

So, instead of complete separation of church and state being against what is best in American tradition, as some claim, just the opposite is true. As the Supreme Court expressed it: “We have staked the very existence of our country on the faith that complete separation between the state and religion is best for the state and best for religion.”

Supreme Court Retreats

The Supreme Court of the United States on April 28,1952, however, retreated from this staunch stand. That was in the case of Zorach v. Clauson, 72 S. Ct. 679. In that case the court held that the practice in New York of releasing children from school to attend religious services and receive religious instruction during school hours each week was not unconstitutional The decision was not unanimous. The court divided six to three, Mr. Justice Douglas wrote the opinion for the court He said:

"There is much talk of the separation of Church and State in the history of the Bill of Rights and in the decisions clustering around the First Amendment. . . . There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the ‘free exercise’ of religion and an ‘establishment’ of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute. The First Amendment, however, does not say that in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That Is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other—hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. . . . Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; ‘so help me God’ in our courtroom oaths—those and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: ‘God save the United States and this Honorable Court? ”

In the conclusion of the opinion for the Court Mr. Justice Douglas put the McCollum case aside so as not to prohibit the New York released time under the doctrine of separation of church and state. He distinguished the case on the grounds that the Illinois schoolrooms and system were used to promote religion. In the New York case he said that they were not so used. He refused to expand the doctrine of separation of church and state further. He ended with saying: “We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

The strong views of Jefferson and Madison did not impress the Supreme Court. This recent decision impresses the reader on the subject of church and state separation with a pungent statement made by Chief Justice Hughes during his lifetime. He did not say that the Constitution means what Madison and Jefferson and others wrote. The Chief Justice said the Constitution means what the majority of justices of the Supreme Court says. With this responsibility and power in that court it will be interesting to the American people to watch, in the future, where the line will be ultimately drawn by the Supreme Court on this issue of separation of church and state.

Patron Saint of the U. S. A.

"This is probably the most nervous generation of Americans who ever lived,” said Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, pastor of New York's Marble Collegiate Church

at the convention of the National Congress of Parents and Teachers, May 22,

1952. "The patron saint of the Irish is St. Patrick; of the English, St. George.

The patron saint of Americans is St. Vitus. . . . The American people are so tense and keyed up that it is impossible even to put them to sleep with a sermon, . , .

That’s a sad situation?’ he said.

Th« foHowFntf article provides Tn ilmplffiod form factual information on America'* religions. It wat gathered by queitionnair* and personal research by a young minister who communicated with official* of each ol America's religious bodies to find out what they believe. The results have been offered to u* for publication. We have checked them, believe the report to be accurate and fair, and are publishing it for It* value to our reader*.

- - 'It—. LL ~L HL- • -fc. . T.im 1 njU ■ ~H- ~B- X

CHURCH membership in the United States in 1951 (the last year for which a complete report is available) was the highest ever reported, about fifty-eight per cent of the total population. More than eighty-eight million persons were members of over two hundred religious bodies which varied in belief from ultramodernist to ultrafundamentalist Not many persons recognize the wide variety of religious thought tn America today, but the accompanying chart compares the varying beliefs of America’s religious bodies.

This information was gathered through the kindness of officials of each denomination, who generally responded promptly and courteously to a questionnaire about their belief- The questions that were asked are listed below, together with the total replies to each question. On following pages each religious body is listed separately. An asterisk [*] marks the ones from which no reply was received. Reference works and encyclopedic sources had to be consulted for information on these. No attempt has been made to interpret or evaluate the relative merits or demerits of various doctrines. The sole purpose has been to report on actual beliefs. Thus, though simplified, an over-all picture is presented of some of the doctrinal differences in America.

Where neither a “Yes” nor "No” answer is given it may be that (1) the information was not available, (2) a "Yes” or "No” answer would misrepresent the body’s belief, or (3) it does not have a definite doctrine on this point.

Some organizations place emphasis on doctrine, others on the individual. Some have no creed at all, others a specific set of doctrines. In bodies where independence of belief is stressed, the opinion of the one contacted by this survey may not represent the position of every individual, but the questionnaires were sent to the overseer, president, moderator, correspondent, headquarters office, or other official so the reply would be as authoritative as possible.

Membership figures are in the vast major-

WHAT THE CHURCHES BELIEVE

The questions below were asked of officials of more than 250 religious bodies.

Does your organization recognize any authority on religious truth as beiAg equal to or superior to the Bible?

ROTES NO PLIES

Does It hold that both the Old Testament and the New Testament are necessary now?

Does it teach that the Bible is God’s inspired Word (not just a valuable moral guide written by wise men>?

Does It teach that Christ Jesus died as a ransom to take away the sin of the world?

Does it teach the existence of a personal devil ?

Does It believe that man has an immortal soul?

Does it teach eternal torment for the incorrigibly wicked?

Does it teach the doctrine of the trinity? '

Does it teach that eventually the earth will be burned up?

10.

Does it teach that the sabbath of the Mosaic law (either Saturday or Sunday) is binding on God’s servants today?

18&

11.

Does it teach that tithing is required?

(For Information on individual replies to these questions see pages 14-17.)

ity of cases from the 1952 Yearbook of American Churches or the World Almanac, Interfaith membership comparisons are difficult because of the wide variation in the methods of counting, Roman Catholic^ the Protestant Episcopal Church and many Lutheran bodies report all baptized persons. Jews estimate all Jews in communities having congregations. Many Protestants count only those who have come to full membership. The membership figures shown on the chart are according to the body’s own way of reporting and should also be qualified by the practice of some religions of not dropping former members from the membership rolls.

How Many Religions

in America?

The Yearbook of Amer-* lean Churches, 1952, contains a directory of 252 American religious bodies. The last U. S- government religious census (1936) listed 256. The World Almanac contains the longest fist, with 265 entries. Then just how many religions are there in America?

The answer depends on several factors. It is claimed that sixty-seven bodies each with over 50,000 members have about ninety-eight per

1 Tfc

JUwiHst biNles:

< >

Advent Christian Churdi

81.064

Cbun^i tJ God

(Adventist, Abrshtnik Filth)

LjTe and Advent Union

Primitive Advent Chrislian Church

EfefeflUi-Dtr Adrmifru

African Vrihodix Church*

6.021

Amana Church Society

Amarlan Ethical Union

(FovtnotB1)

5.000

American BMfm Waters

1.240

Anflliun (See Protestant Episci&al}

Ttoc ApBttollti Christian Chert* Nazunan

4.500

Afoctolk Chrlitiu Church of Anter lea

7,300

AlvtQlEe Falrt Hlulon

2.288

ApMtoGe OnreMlnQ Hily Clturth of God*

70,000

Arson Inn Orthodox Church In Avorico

130.000

Apanbllee of God

310.478

Aiifrlan Janhlti Apwtolle Church*

1.400

Sih ’If*

5,232

Boot kt badiet:

American Baptist AB&oeiiitiw

296.601

American Baptist Contendcn

1,554,304

ChrlBlUn Unity Baptist Aswrlatic*] *

Duck River (and Kindled) Aasocluiws of

Bapdlits

9,362

Kvangellcal Bipt Is I Chureh, Inc.

1,520

Free W1D Baptists

400,000

General Association c( Regular Baptist

*■

Churches

100,000

Genera) Bapllala

50,487

Genera) Six-Principle BajnEsLa

In&pentleiDi Baptist Churoft of America

UN)

National baptist Cunventloii Aiserlm*

2,646,789

NaUciisl Baptist Convention, U. S. A.

4.467,779

National Baptist Evacaelitai Life and

tinul Saving A&semhty of U, S, A.

67,074

National Primitive Baplht Convention of

U. 8. A. (foraorty eailud Colored

Primitive Baptists) *

76,000

North American Baptist General Conf.

43,061

Northern Baptist CciirentkD (now called

American Baptist Cob'eutioo)

Primitive Baptists (also calleJ Old School,

Anthnlseion, Hard-Shell; *

72,000

Betfetljr ifapriw^*

If J SB

Separate Baptists

HorenUi-Day Baptists

6,137

berenlh-Uajr Baptists (German, 17231*

Southern Baptist Convention

Y,373,493

United American Free Will Baptist

78,850

United Baptiste

11,000

Bible Prateatut Chunh

2,000

■retkru (German Baptists, Omtirt)

Brethren Church (Pregnssstye piauhort)

18,818

Church of God (New Dunkeml

Church at the Brethren

(Consenttire Quakers)

186,358

Old German Baptist Brethren*

4,000

Brethren, Ptymerth (Efett fnwpfi

Sfi.BGB

Brethren, River

Brethren in Christ

5,630

Old Order or Yorker Brethren*

United Elon's Children

1,008

Baddhlit Ch tf ci it if America*

73,000

Catholic Apaetylle Bhnh*

3.577

ChrltUdelphiaai

S.T55

Chrhtiao a*d Mtaioatry Alliance

52,825

The Chrlttiu ConirepaUan

(See

fontnol#*)

6,127

Christian Natiaa Char th*

Chriitlait Sciinlhh (See Church of Christ■.

Helen tUt)

• AH FoJtnfJtoa Appear cn page J 7.

MbuMh

ChrlrtfM Union

15,400

Clrltt Unity Sclent* Church1

682,172

Church of Chriit Hollnm, U, 5, A*

8,676

Cfcarth of Cferlit, Seitfiiltt

(Footnote*)

Chinh of Danltf’v Baud

201)

Chireh of Etonal Life

Church tit Goi and Saints «f Christ*

34JJ0

Ctiirok of God u Oruaniied by Chriit

2.192

Chmh d God Christ

323305

Church of II Fumi nation

5,OGO

Church of Rewlatlnn

1,174

Chore* of the Gospel Chart!) of the Living God

5(1

(Christian Wurken fir Fellowship)

Church of the Lltinfl G*d, The Pillar and

Ground tit frith

4,m

Church of fha Naz a re ne

235,670

Chvrthes of Chriit

1,000,000

Churches d Cbrist in Christian Union Chwthei of God:

5.740

Church of (led (Cleveland, Tenn.)

229,722

Churth of God (Anderson, IiidJ

100,814

Church uf God, Eevenlh-Duy

2,1)00

The Church uf God

5,000

The Church of Go4

The Church uf Cad I Seventh

54,56(1

Denver, Colo.

20,000

Chtfthe) «f Gad, Hollneu

Chyrchei uf God In North A tier its

20,700

(General Eldwikip)

32,353

Churchei of th* New Jeratalem (Swtien-

hrngtan):

General Church of the New Jerusalem

Genera) Cui) lent lull of the New Jerusalem

1,608

in the I’ S. A-

5,119

Cenpeantionil Chriit Jap Chur thus1

1,241.4 77

Congregational Holiness Church

4,102

Diwfplev of Christ

(JSee footnote4)

1,792,085.

Divide Science C lurch Eastvn Chitches;

4,085

Albanian Orihudox Church* American CiLhciie Church

12,000

(Sjro- Antiuchean)

1.307

American Hol? Orthodox Carbolic .. Apoetollt Eastern Church*

4,500

Anwricw Patriarchal Orthodox Church

Apotstollc Episcopal Church*

7.O8G

Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Church

Chimb of the Ea.it and of the AissFiians

3,200

Greek Or<-hodoi Church (Hellenic) Help Orthodox Church In America

1,000,000

(Eastern Catholic end Apostolic >

Y-

1,300

Orthodox Catholic Church in America

Roumanian Orthodox Chunih

Y’

50,000

Ruts tan Orthodox Ctiureh Outside Russia Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church uf

¥•

5D.C00

North America

400,000

Serbian Orthodox Church

75,000

Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Ctiurcti

75,000

Ukrainian Orthodox Church uf America

40,250

EpluunF (See Prukslant Episcopal) EvanWHeal ARE Wormed Church

735,941

EvangelIchI CMgrcprtlanal Church*

27,786

EvangelIcrI United Brethren Chifeh*

720,544

Fire BapiMtd HeHn«M Chtfch (Wetieyan)

1,200

Frac Christian Zion Church ol Chrht FriMde:

12,872

IJhls yearly Meeting of the BYIend? Church Oregon Yearly Meeting ut the Friend*

5,087

Church

4,582

All FwCntitea ajuwar an pace 17.

cent of all the members, leaving only two per cent for all the rest. Therefore, many groups are small, having only a few churches, some only one or two. It is often difficult to locate their addresses to get information. If membership dwindles and they close they may remain on previously prepared lists. There are also several hundred churches usually included under the one heading “Independent Churches” and counted as just one group. Some of these are organized by in-dividualsas evangelistic movements or gospel halls. Others may be community, federated or nondenomina-tional organizations. Within certain denominations there are independent congregations that do not follow doctrines and policies of the parent organization.

More information would be available if the official 1946 religious census had been completed, but no funds were provided to pay for compiling the information after it had already been gathered. While there may be a few more than 253 different religious bodies in America today, that is the number that has been included in this survey of religious doctrine.

Mam^a

Hidtin Frtaub

BeUcMfe Bodacy of Friends

(Certral Turly Mettim)

W" Bodalj of Frlandi (Cianeiratfra)

Batictota Sodeij of Friaidi

(Hn Yun M-tlnf)

feHCtoac Sorlrty of Friends (Qteneral Contaena)

SbIIkMib Satiety of Friends

(Kusu Tenri? Meeting)

Bdl(}uiig godesy of Friends (PttUndalBhia end Vicinity) fin* QrtMOJt (See Eastern OnxNlMe} Ntilave CMth ri God, lac.

■mm « Dtald

Ind^Mat ftnbH

Mwatwt Fwdamental Chanbot ri

Aaritaa

Mriirfloari Chvah ri ths Feer S<mi GbrI

Mratlml ■ h trivial Fedmathn IWtai Christian Chenh ri Nath AwIm* JaMrt’i wHaeaa iMtah Cavmttauf

Iriri Give* ri Inaanal

UHwhIv (taints;

Church of Cbrtst (Temple Ian)

Chrctfa of Jhu Christ (Blckertaulcd) Birt ri Jesus Christ (Cutieriles)

Chari) ri Jam Christ of Miur-day

Batata (Mormon)

taortnlnd Church ri Jess Cbrtet of latter-day Batata

Lflarri Cattelk Cbnrcb

Utbaulu Natknal Refwei Charah* Irittnn bedta:

Amiriciii Idittwau Ccnference— Alhskan Lutheran Cbureh

AiKtfrtana jbaofrilciJ LaiUisran Church

Eraairikal Lutheran Church

Lmhdu Fne Church

United EtuieUtal Lutheran Churri)

Chwrii ri the Lmhsru Bmtavn ri Aanrica

Dudsh Eranpllcal Lmtann Church ri America*

EnnseHnl Lutheran Churri) ri Afiwka (JCtelsen Synod)*

Hhulrfi Apostrite Lutheran CbureU

Flnntah RnuceUcal Lutheran Church

(taal Synod) frrinuH. Erauieltail Lutheran Synod

ri North Aasrtaa*

Indejmdnt Luihsnn Cburdiss*

Lutheran E&nodlal Cuuterffice of Nonh America—

Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod ri Wtoconsta and Other States

Lutheran Charris—Missouri Synod

Negro Minion

Norwegian Synod of the American EvingeUcal Lutheran Chunh

Slovak Evangelical Latberu Churri) National Evangelical Luttami Chaeta Protertaut Cooiereoa (Lutheran) United Luuieraa Chinch In Aueria*

■•aanltt Win:

Ctautii ri Ooi tn Chrirt (Msuxmlte) CriMmUra Amhh Mrimonlte Church*

fl r

N N

Ji N

Y 1

N N N N N K

Fi N

N N

N Ji K

N N N fl N

N N

Y 1

Y Y

T Y

Y N

Y I Y

Y Y

Y y Y ¥ ¥

Y Y

■Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y T

Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y

¥ Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y T

Y T

Y Y T

T Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Ji N T fl Y

(Bet footnote4)

Y Y Y Y Y

(iBterpratatlfflis vary*

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y N Y

{ttoctrinea vary)

Y Y T Y Y

Y Y I Y Y

Y Y Y Y T

T Y

Y Y M H N

N N T N N

Y T Y Y Y

Y Y Y NY

Y I Y T N

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y I

TNT

N fl Y Ji Y

Y T

T Y Y T Y

Y Y Y T Y

T T T T Y

Y Y Y Y Y

T Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y I Y

Y Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y T

Y Y Y Y Y

TITTY

Y Y Y Y Y I

T I I I Y

I Y Y T Y

Y Y Y Y T

T I Y Y Y

Y Y T Y I

Y Y T Y Y

Y Y Y T Y

T Y Y Y T

T Y Y

Y T T Y Y

Y Y T Y T

)

T N

Y Y

N NY

Y T

N N

T T

T Y Y

p p

N N

H Y T

N I

Y Y

N N

■

N N

I N

■

I N

Ji N T

Y M Y

fl If fl

fl N fl

11 V

684 1,030

dflp81S

18,729

8,207

6,748

600 350 40.376

«5F000

04,109 Z f

11,473 (PwUieLeb} 5,000,000

1,603

2,275

2,013 S7

1,111,314

1Z6.45B

3,500

6.072

H5.M0

405,062

825.466

59,880

40.241

4.089

19,899

1,500 14.511

22,144

1,588

S.433

511.477 1,674,901

10,579

10,376

18,870

7.530

5.253 1,925,506

6,000 4,272

ErangdlEal kfeosoulte Brethren RyanCBiiral Mennonite Chant) (formerly Defnaehua MMuallri) astral Ctnferana ri the Ifabotnlte

Cburrii ri flvtb Amvira Huttedan Brethren Krlmser MenntwiiLB BnUm CtmfemM Meflntmlte Brtitren Church ri fl. A. Menntmlte Church Old Order Amlih Mamwite Churri) Old Order MecMnite Oinrch (WWtf) Befonned Mennonite Church staulTer Mennonite Cbiircb

Mltbodltt Ml at:

African Methodist Epiacvpal Chlnb African MrihodU EplMnpal Etan Chmdi AftdcsB Uutao Pint Coltetd MeiiMidU

Protestant Cborii

Catartd MeUnMttt Episcopal Ctanrii* CtmgrtfBUlcDal Methodlsi Chvrii CmcncaUrital MeUwdlfC Cbcmh at

America. Inc.

Cumberliiid Methodist Cborii Free MrtbrtiiL Church of N. i. IToltneaa Method bt Chordi Holiness Hrthoilat Chteth (Lunte BJver Annual Conference)

Independent A. M. E. PeuotalDattan* Independent Fundamenta) Methodist Chteth The Methoditt Cburch* flew ContretattoGti ttathodtat Churri) Primitive Methcdllt Church Refonned Methodist Church Reformed MatbodUl Union Itataavnl

Church

Beformed 21cc Uulnn AjnrUilJe Churrii Soulhym Methodlit Churrii Union American M, E. Church* Wesleyan MettauUst Church of Amriea

■rtnptlltM Chare* AeanatatiM Miliiouy iHdt ri th* Verfd ■ iutaary Charah AtMaiitiaa Mtnrlan bedim:

Bahamian and Moravian Brethren EftDEeilral Unity of (hs Cncb-Minftan

Brethren In fl. A.

Bforarian Church (UnlisJ Fra truss I flriHM (See Latta-dar Batata)

NrflMal Darld Sphrttnl Temjta M Chrtit

Ckarah Unisa (Ina.) U- 8. A.

Naw Apeataik Cbreh ri North Aaartri

Did Cathelle CbanM ri Arnwita:

American Catholic Church. AnbdtocM ri New Tock

Nanh American Old B. C, Church*

Old Catholic Church In America drtWai (See Eastern Ckmriw) PaataaataJ AawuhLiM:

Calvary Pentecostal Church, Inc.* International Pentecrau] AsMtubUei Pentecostal Anoablies ri the World Penteetetal Church ri God ri Amerira Fenlecraul yin-Baptfeed Holtataa Chinch Peniecoatal Boitataa Ctaorii United PKteeutal Church

PHorlie Hellnau Chmb

Pillar ri Fin

Mita NatlMil Crihrik Cbarta*

Pr»kytvi» Mia:

Associate frnbyurian Chacfa of fl. ± Assoclau Reformed PrefliytaiH

Chwti) (General Synod)

N N fl N N N N

N N

Fi N Fi

N N

N Fi N N N N Ft

N N N fl fl fl

N fl

fl T

N T

fl N N fl N Fi N

SI N

TTTTTTNT

YYTYTTYY

TITTY TTTTYTNN I I I ¥ I

I TTT1TFN I I T Y I

T I I ¥ I 1

I I T I ¥ Y

Y I Y ¥ Y N

I T ¥ Y Y Y

■dfefate

2,079

J..90T

35,000 1,350 1,503

10,2B2 55,330 15,270

3,5153 727 279

¥ Y N ¥ NN 1.100,301

t I Y Y T NY 723,150

TYYYYYYN

TIT 392,107

T I ¥ Y t T1 11,180

YTTYTYnY

YYYYYYNN

I Y Y Y Y Y* 48,574

¥ Y 1 I Y T Y

¥ Y T t Y TN

¥ T Y

YYYYYYTY

I Y ¥ 0,085.727

I Y Y Y ¥ t Y

¥ ¥ Y Y ¥ Y Y 12,295

YYTYYYY1Y

YYYYYYYY 11,000

Y I Y t Y ¥ 15,000

¥ Y Y ¥ ¥ ¥ N

T Y Y

¥ Y Y I Y I Y 34.493

YYYYYYYY

Y Y I Y ¥ Y Y

¥ Y F I Y Y Y1

t 1 Y Y

Y Y T Y ¥ / T

I * Y Y Y yi N 43.856

■ambm

Cajared Cumberland pr^irterim Chords

80.060

Cumberland Presbyterian Church

81,080

Orih cmJct Presbyterian Church

3,031

Frcdtvterian Gburrh In the U. B.

702,360

Presbyterian Cburtii in the tL B. A-* Reformed Prsstopirriln Chard! in North

2,364.112

America, General Synod

Reformed Presbyterian Chords At Nurili

1J50

Ameriai (0M flchool)

5.280

United Presbyterian Chureb of N. A.

810.027

Pritirtut EbIimmI Chmh

Qaafari (See Friends)

2,417,404

Reftrmed fadlee:

Christian Erfonsod Church

155,310

Pm Magyar Itefomwl Church in America

7.189

Reformed Church in Aaslca

187.356

Refermad Episiojal Chenh

8,733

Roman Cithdle Chenh

Ruslan fathadm (See Eastern Churches)

29,941,080

SahratlM Army

Seaadlnmrhft Ennoallaal Wh:

327,821

Ennselieal Fret Church of Ameriu

Efsuielleal Mtaion Cuvanmit Church of

21,000

America

01,850

SehwinHelderi

fanntfe'Oay Advantlati (Seo Adventists}

2,400

fimial Brat hr in* $ alritai Hits;

1,001

tncernabima] General Assembly of

Splrttualieti

150,000

Nidonal Christian Spiritual Alliance*

8,157

National Spiritualist AMDdatlon

10.500

Prapmivt Bplriluallri, Church* Triumph th* Chirth end Kin*don of Gad

11,347

la Chrirt*

30,000

UallmLan Cherctai* United Brethren bailee 11

79,901

Church to the United RnUnH in Christ

19,723

Unjtsd Christian Church (See iln Eran^lical United BriUiren}

IlnlM Hofy Char eh *f AMfirt. Inc.

26,300

United Iwaal Werld Union

2.633

United ■iMlMary Chnh

13,920

Uainml Enutipatioe Ckarch

Y»

Uaivmaiiif Chirth *f Anariea

(Sa* footnote4)

63,975

Yadtnfa Sadety

1,200

VaiantM’i at Aaarfat

24.840

YYTYYYNY 40,615 Y Y I Y I NY <069

I I

Y ¥

8.435

Y Y

48,820

fl. 274

20,000

10,000

50,000

43.000

. T

2,875

41,700

100.000

29,075

5.100

285,879

Y .

26,544

FOOTNOTES:---

[1] The auswxi "Yes" Is jlm for belief in th* runatn, whether for nil, for «n)y bis pavptr, or for wly Umbb who gtrhv tw iia benefits,

T2] The sinter "Yes" is given for belief In eternal tamant, ihonih severe! orginlzatirms qjjaWled • Incorrigibly wnied” with "uDair^d" or “unbeUcTers1'.

F3J The answer "Ies" k glm for belief lint Ulhlnf is "BcripLmw)” whether It Is requiftrf f<rr membership or d»L

* These orjanlziLkus either did not mply or sent'only literature InfarnuUim wu obtained fam reference uutcas.

1 Belief ih» "Christian sattath'', ih« "Lord's dir", th* "Mora] law". oc the "law ad Qod" requires ulUnf Mid* ufl? day In whu.

2 Believes Jesus death was ’'lacrirlrt' or "moans” U) remore aln, but not necessarily a "ransonr", 3 Believes Bible Is principally hteturj but that nm* of Naw ThaLsuwt Is inspired,

4 Eicher hat do set creed, avoid* wscurlan honironnY, or beUtns spirit eupcrecdo arah

5 Believes Dia it an Immurul soul.

ft Belterre Inly LndlUoa equal, pel® to er superior to Scripture.

7 Believfi dlrlM melaUon (a Indfrldual La equal w BINc,

8 "BdJma In hall".

ft Aeapu lahem Uhli.

• The Church d Christ, Sciential, publishes no membership ftpm, b Jrixnib’a witnenea htw tn "nAbmhlp". bm ihnr* wan 135,356 pfadman —h1-*™ fa the 0. S. fa 1951, 443,830 wld*wUa.

Mischievous or Malicious—Which?

TITLE bears and big bears are never bores. To be with them is about like being with circus clowns. There is never a dull moment. They are imitative and unpredictable in nature. Like humans they differ in temperament Some remain wild and suspicious all the time; others become fairly friendly and gentle.

In captivity their keen sense of fun enables them to get by. They find a great deal of amusement out of about almost anything—an old hat, an empty barrel— especially if they have an enthusiastic audience looking on.

The black bear, moreover, is almost always interested in observing the curious ways of the humans in front of his cage. Sometimes he will sit down and amuse himself by watching people. After they leave he will try his best to imitate the actions of the ones that impressed him most. Even in the woods he often exhibits a desire to study the habits of men. Creeping up under cover from behind, he will watch man very studiously as man fishes, or gathers blueberries, just as he himself does. To him the study of human creatures is fascinating. They seem to do the craziest things.

Bears are timid by nature. A rabbit can be approached within a few steps before it takes fright and goes bouncing away, but the black bear is much more easily frightened. Long before you are within sight of him he runs for his life in the opposite direction. Yet he is a fearless and courageous animal in his encounters with dogs and other animals. The fact is, his dread of man is about the only thing that could possibly save him. (Genesis 9:2) If the American black bear had assumed the same fearless attitude toward man in this country as that of the brown bear in Europe, he no doubt would have been killed oil long ago.

As a rule the black bear will not charge man except on real provocation, although the mothers are inclined to be touchy about their cubs. In defense of its cubs, the mother is one of the most dangerous of wild animals, attacking furiously with teeth and claws, lashing and biting its foe and clamping on a bone-crushing hug from which an enemy seldom gets away alive. No animal of equal size is as powerful.

With a single swat of his paw he can crush the head of a steer or take a twenty-foot-high oak tree and break it in two with the ease with which man breaks a match stick. Few traps will hold him. When caught in a trap attached to a 300-pound log, the bear will lift log, trap, chain and all and walk away with it The black bear stands about three feet high on all fours and is about six feet long. The male bear weighs from three to five hundred pounds. The record black bears for size and weight are one killed in Pennsylvania, December 4,1923, which weighed 633 pounds and was nine feet long, and one killed on the Moqui Reservation in Arizona, in December 1921, said to weigh 900 pounds.

During the cold snap of wintertime, bears have a unique method of managing without fuel or food. They merely stow away in a hollow of a tree or in a cave

…

Refine Search

Index Downloading...

Awake!, November 8, 1952