How Religions Can Live Together in One World

February 14, 1960
Akron

One of the most encouraging signposts on the way to humanity's struggling march is the United Nations' active promotion of "freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the eradication of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief." These words, from the Preamble of the declaration of principles adopted by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, should strike hearty, affirmative response from Universalists because our latter-day emphasis has been to accept and encourage the principle that religious truth is plural, not singular. We have begun to perceive that there is no one interpretation of the personal and group experience we call "religion" which carries any unique supernatural sanction. When we accept the given fact that mankind's religions possess both similarities and differences and when we have the understanding to perceive these like and unlike qualities with both appreciation for another's interpretation and assurance of the value of one's own, then we are in a position to be more than gingerly tolerant -- we can possess both faith and freedom.

This is the second in the sermon series which deals with the "Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices," a report which has been adopted by the sub-committee. The introductory material will not be repeated, as last week's discussion of "The Limitations and Privileges of Worship" is available in mimeographed form.

The importance to the world of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States should be emphasized again. This precious principle of human rights has been of great strength, not only in paving the way for freedom in the United States, but by example, has been a powerful influence in smoothing the way toward freedom for peoples whose path has been much more encumbered by ancient, but not honorable discriminatory and bigoted practices.

This influence can be discerned readily when we compare the definition of religion that the UN report uses as a foundation with the definition of religion which the Supreme Court of the United States has pronounced.

You will recall that the UN Reporter said, "In view of the difficulty of defining religion, the term 'religion or belief' is used in this study to include in addition to various theistic creeds, such other beliefs as agnosticism, free thought, atheism and rationalism." (footnote, p. 95).

In his new book, GOD AND MAN IN WASHINGTON (Beacon Press, p. 59), Paul Blanshard notes that whenever our justices have had to deal with religious problems, of necessity, the word "religious" could not be narrowly defined. "The District of Columbia Court of Appeals probably reflected the Supreme Court's attitude when it granted tax exemption to the Washington Ethical Culture Society as a religious institution in spite of the fact that the Society requires no belief in God for its members. Religion, ruled the District Court in 1957, may include either worship of a ruling power or 'devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness.'"

This principle was established long ago by the court. In a "famous case ... Watson V. Jones (1872), which involved a quarrel between two factions of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky, the Court said:'The law knows no heresy, and is committed to the support of no dogma, the establishment of no sect."

Today's sermon deals with the privileges and limitations of religious communication, custom and conscience.

We are organized in a society that must deal with the sad fact that when differing religious views are broadcast, pronounced or printed, anger and hostility begin to stir. Because words are easily misinterpreted and readily distorted, religious pronouncements bubble angrily on the surface of society and cause currents in the depths of our emotions.

In some parts of the world there is discrimination against the right of minority religious groups to disseminate there views and proclaim their religious faith. In this country, where freedom of speech is guaranteed by the bill of rights and no religion placed in a place of favoritism, if we are to have a concern for the spread of freedom in the world, we should not dismiss this as irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, it could happen here. Some of you know that about ten years ago, a Universalist minister was prevented from delivering an Easter sermon over the air because its content was contradictory to the orthodox Christian belief about what happened to Jesus. This exclusion was made a matter of lawsuit by our Massachusetts Universalist Convention on the grounds that the censorship violated the first amendment. The suit was lost because the radio station, from whom the time had been purchased, was deemed to have the right as a private enterprise to decide what it would or would not permit to be broadcast over its station. This may be an issue of the right of private business, but with the increasingly close relationship between broadcasting stations and public communication authorities, no great stretch of the imagination is required to envision the possibility of public censorship of minority religious views. As a religious minority, we should be grateful that the U.S., a voice of world conscience, has asserted that (Rule 8, part I)

a) "Everyone shall be free to teach or disseminate his religion or belief, either in public or in private.

b) "No one shall be compelled to receive religious or atheistic instruction, contrary to his convictions, or, in the case of children, contrary to the wishes of their parents, and, when applicable, legal guardians."

Some religions, like Judaism, do not actively engage in making converts. Other faiths, e.g., Roman Catholic and Evangelical Protestantism, because of the belief that theirs is the "only, true" faith, actively compete for the faith of followers of other religions. Obviously, the propaganda of one group runs head-on into the opposite propaganda of another group.

The attitude expressed by the UN report is, that recognizing the sharpness of the problem, particularly in countries having an Established religion, or a strong tradition of one faith, the right to communicate one's religious ideas should not be curtailed except under aggravated circumstances.

Consequently, the U.N. Sub-Commission recommends strongly that all nations consider the right of dissemination of religious ideas to be within their basic framework of freedom. Any limitation on religious agitation should be imposed only when violence seems threatened unquestionably, peace and tranquility in imminent danger. Under such circumstances, the State has a social responsibility to maintain order.

The subject is extremely complex in some instances. We are just seeing the end of the Colonial period and the dissolution of imperialistic governments in many portions of Asia and Africa. In some of these instances, missionary activities were linked with the colonizing power. Thus, countries which have sought their independence from an imperial power have sometimes restricted the activities of Christian missionaries who represented the foreign power, as well as their denomination.

But even in this difficult, revolutionary world, freedom to proclaim and advertise a faith should be the foundation of government attitudes. Even though restrictions may be temporarily imposed in order to maintain peace and tranquility, these limitations should be removed as quickly as possible so that the largest possible measure of freedom may be achieved.

Secondly, the reporters for the UN urge that there be equal protection for the differing customs of the several religions. The main area where this principle impinges substantially in our own country is the matter of the observance of Sunday. Most of the other concerns reported by the UN apply to other lands, particularly where difficulties may arise over burial places which may be for the exclusive use of the dominant religion; where protection is needed against the desecration of cemeteries, worship and places and customs of minority faiths, or where government monopolies prevent the keeping of religious dietary laws, etc. On the whole, these problems do not vex us in the United States, although there are clouds the size of a man's hand apparently forming on the horizon.

The problem of Sunday has been judiciously moved away from the arguments of religious groups. There is no easy settling of the religious problem when Seventh Day Adventists, Jews, and other groups believe the correct Holy Day to be other than the Sunday observed by the majority. Most certainly, there are different degrees of importance attached to Sunday in our culture. For many persons, Sunday has no organized religious significance at all. It is a day for "sleeping-in", sports, parties, shopping, relaxation.

Our courts have tended to adopt the idea of the day of rest for social welfare, rather than for religious observation. If equal status were given to all the holidays of all the complex of religions in the United States, organized commerce, manufacturing and education would be completely chaotic and scheduling would be impossible. Therefore, the courts of our country have tended to look upon the American Sunday as a uniform day of rest - not a fixed day for religion. Uniformity is necessary for obvious reasons involving the close interlocking of the ways we work together and are educated together.

But there are other senses in which religious custom may favor particular religious groups. In our country, there are states where one religion strongly influences the divorce laws, because of the attitude of that religion toward divorce. In the view of some of us, some marriages are bad and should be ended. The persons involved in such marriages should not be forced to perjure themselves, or conspire to narrowly-restricted divorce laws. In New York State, the only grounds for divorce is adultery. Many marriages should not continue because of good reasons. (And where adultery is part of the problem.) In that state, such couples must resort to deceit and feign these grounds, rather than having the honest privilege of having the judge decide their difficulties on the actual grounds. It is fairly assured that the power of the Roman Catholic church prevents amendment of these divorce laws in New York State.

Now while the UN report does not deal specifically with this kind of restriction imposed by the religious customs of one group on other groups, Rule 9 does say, (2) "The right to seek and obtain a divorce should not be denied to anyone whose convictions admit divorce, solely on the ground that he professes a particular religion or belief."

In our country, where we should be particularly aware of the tendencies to discriminate against minority religious groups, we know that there is an increasing frequency of disputes over public authorities observing the religious customs of majority groups. Public schools celebrate Christmas -- and usually, the interpretation of Christmas believed by the majority, orthodox groups. Occasionally, municipal authorities sponsor a crèche or Bethlehem scene on public grounds. It appears to many of us that such practices violate the first amendment which prohibits the establishment of any religion by the public authorities. Up to now, the courts have not enforced this strict interpretation of the separation of church and state.

Last, but most vitally, the power of UN opinion is brought to bear on those who would restrict the right of individual conscience. This is the first rule of Part One of the UN declaration: "Everyone shall be free to adhere, to a religion or belief, in accordance with the dictates of his conscience.

"Parents, or when applicable, legal guardians, shall have the prior right to decide upon the religion or belief in which their child should be brought up. In the case of a child who has been deprived of its parents, their expressed or presumed wish should be duly taken into account, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle.

"No one shall be subjected to material or moral coercion likely to impair his freedom to maintain or to change his religion or belief.

"Anyone professing any religious or non-religious belief shall be free to do so openly without suffering any discrimination on account of his religion or belief."

Such a declaration of the integrity of conscience should certainly strike a sympathetic chord with Americans. The settlement of our country was accomplished largely by those who left England and Europe on account of the grounds of religious conscience. They willingly accepted the dangers and hardship of an unknown continent in order to enjoy the privilege of a free conscience.

On the whole, in our country, the right of an individual conscience has ever emerged more clearly as an inherent right of man. Although the procedure of law courts ordinarily requires the taking of an oath to make substantial the testimony which follows, the privilege is given to the Society of Friends and others not to be forced to take an oath against their conscience. Those who believe with Jesus, that one should swear not at all, but be guided always by the compulsion of truth, are not forced to take an oath. Actually, the practice of oath-taking is a cultural hold-over of quite primitive religious practices as any examination of the cultic nature of oaths in the Old Testament will reveal.

We permit persons to abstain from military service on the grounds of conscientious objection to war. There is an unfortunate gap in this law, however. A person must be associated with a theistic religious group in order to acquire the right to this exemption. An agnostic, free-thinker or individual who disbelieves in organized churches, could not secure exemption in our country. Under the searchlight of world opinion as reflected by the Sub-Commission on Discrimination, this is a violation of the right of individual conscience.

In these two sermons, I have only touched the beginnings of the complexities of the subject of religious freedom and its relationship to public order and public good and individual freedom and individual welfare. But of this we may feel sure -- the struggles for freedom of speech, thought and conscience throughout long centuries have borne fine fruit. But this world is no paradise. Evil casts shadows on the same path that is lighted by goodness. Human emotions, individually and in the mass, still run amuck and crush the innocent under the gargantuan wheels of self-hate, self-pity, fear, greed and striving. Nevertheless, freedom has acquired strong support in its principles and considerable advance in achievement. As Mr. Krshnaswami says ably (p. 84)

"The new things learned in the forward march of humanity, the pressures of new hopes and even new fears, the consciousness that discrimination tends to narrow public spirit and pervert the noble ideal of citizenship, may lead, sooner than many realize, to a change of values and a consequent removal of stains that mar present-day society."