Senator BRICKER. Which mean no more than paragraph 7 of section 2 of the United Nations Treaty, being violated every day by the United Nations subcommittees. It is the subtance you have to look to, not a few pretty words and one clause. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Is Reverend Scott present? STATEMENT OF REV. DeLOSS M. SCOTT, PASTOR OF THE NATIONAL TABERNACLE OF WASHINGTON, D. C., AND PRESIDENT OF THE POTOMAC VALLEY FELLOWSHIP OF THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES Reverend SCOTT. My name is Rev. DeLoss M. Scott, pastor of the National Tabernacle of Washington, D. C., and president of the Potomac Valley Fellowship of the American Council of Christian Churches. I am not present to speak on my own behalf but rather on behalf of Rev. Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the American Council of Christian Churches of California. Reverend Mr. Bunzel was extended an invitation to appear as a witness on this hearing, but because of the great distance involved is unable to attend in person. Accordingly, having been vested with authority to appear on behalf of Reverend Mr. Bunzel, I express my appreciation of this opportunity. I hold in my hand a copy of a message delivered by Mr. Bunzel to the ninth annual State convention convened at Pasadena, Calif., on November 6, 1952. It is not my intent to read this rather lengthy message in full, but to draw attention to certain excerpts which have most direct bearing on this assembly and the matter at hand, although, doubtless the message in its entirety would be valuable for the record. The CHAIRMAN. It will be inserted in the record. (The information referred to is as follows:) THE U. N. AND THE CHURCH-A GLIMPSE INTO THE FUTURE Message delivered by the Reverend Claude Bunzel, executive secretary of the American Council of Christian Churches of California, at its ninth annual State convention, Pasadena, Calif., November 6, 1952 When the San Francisco Conference of the United Nations Organization was convened on April 25, 1945, the meeting was opened with a minute of silence. That minute of silence, however, was one of the loudest noises ever heard. It was a shout heard 'round the world, announcing that God Almighty had been ruled out of His universe. From that time on, it has been possible to think of the United Nations as a practical fulfillment of the Second Psalm. Listen to these words, and you will perceive what is meant: "Why do the heathen (or nations) rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against His Annointed, saying, 'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us'" (verses 1-3). Before this message is over, it is hoped you will agree that, in contrast to the high moral standards and true individual liberty presented in the Bible, the nations are raging, and the people are imagining a vain thing, when they expect to solve the complex problems of our time through the medium of an organization like the United Nations. Our subject is, The U. N. and the Church: A Glimpse Into the Future. Lest any of you think we are out of our realm in dealing with such a subject, we remind you that John Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister educated in Scotland, was one of the signers of our Declaration of Independence. Not only did John Witherspoon preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, but he implemented his faith in political freedom by adding his name to those of such notables as Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin, on July 4, 1776. This is not all he was also head of the College of New Jersey, now known as Princeton University. Still further, he was an author, one book bearing the fundamentalist-sounding title, "Essay on the Connection Between the Imputed Righteousness of Christ and Holiness of Life." Actually, there are two reasons why we of the American Council of Christian Churches must deal with the subject of the U. N. and the church. First, as Christians we realize that religious freedom is about to be brought into jeopardy. We dare not stand idly by while others busy themselves with devices which will ultimately deprive us of our present privilege to preach the Gospel. The second reason is that we are citizens of these United States of America, and our political freedom is about to be brought into jeopardy as well. When these two reasons exist side by side, they unite to form an undeniable responsibility to speak out. DEMOCRACY OR REPUBLIC What is the United States of America, a democracy or a republic? It ought not to be necessary to ask such an elementary question, but it is. The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy, regardless of all the sentimental talk about democracy we are hearing today. When did you ever pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the democracy for which it stands? When did you ever join in singing the Battle Hymn of the Democracy? As Benjamin Franklin left the final meeting of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, back in 1787, some woman in the crowd standing outside Independence Hall asked Franklin what type of government the Convention had produced. His reply was, "A republic, if you can keep it." Remember this: We are living in the midst of an age in which everyone is using the word "democracy," regardless of the kind of government that lies behind such a claim. The word "democracy," however, does not so much as appear in the Declaration of Independence, our United States Constitution, Washington's state papers, or Jefferson's inaugural. There is one place where it is found, though. The word "democracy" is found many times in the Federalist, that remarkable series of 85 essays which forms a commentary on our Constitution, by some of the very men who helped to draft it, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Within its pages these three worthies of our political history have made it very plain that a democracy was the very thing they sought to avoid, because of its many defects. What are some of the defects of a democracy? James Bryce, the famous historial, enumerates them in his American Commonwealth. According to Bryce, a democracy is weak during emergencies; it is unable to act promptly; it exhibits fickleness and instability; it can become guilty of insubordination and may manifest a disregard of authority; it seeks to level down everything [how true this is of much U. N. propaganda]; it deprives minorities of their rights, for the simple reason that a democracy is majority rule; it succumbs to the passion, for changing customs; and it favors the arising of a demagogue who does not hesitate to play upon the feelings of the masses. We sincerely hope this recital of the weaknesses of a democracy has not offended you; but if it has, it demonstrates how far we have moved away from a basic understanding of our own form of government. The real purpose of these remarks, however, is to provide a background for considering how it is possible for this Nation to have been committed to membership in an international body such as the United Nations, without such committal ever having come before the people for a vote-which would have been the case in a true democracy. Our Government is a government by law, not a government by men—or at least it should be. We elect our Senators and our Representatives who, in turn, act in our behalf to make our laws. This is government by representation of the people, in the form of a republic, and not government directly by the people, in the form of a democracy. By official action of our Senators and the President, the United States of America has become a part of the United Nations, after having adopted the United Nations Charter as a treaty. We shall have more to say about treaty ratification later, but this brief statement will serve for the present to lead us into a consideration of the United Nations as an international organization. STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED NATIONS At present there are 60 nations, or states, in the United Nations.' These 60 nations have just about every kind of government possible to be devised. There are republics such as our own; absolute and constitutional monarchies, democracies, Fascist states, socialistic states, and, of course, totalitarian dictatorships. The United Nations is held together by its Charter. This Charter lists six main "organs" of the U. N.: The General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat. Some of these organs do not concern us in relation to the subject under discussion, and others only in a limited way. Each The General Assembly is composed of all 60 of the member nations. member has not more than 5 representatives. Each member state has but one vote. The Assembly meets once a year, although special sessions may be convened under certain conditions. Did you notice that each member state has but one vote-including the United States of America? What chance does our Republic, based upon freedom of the individual, have in a body with contrary beliefs, when a given matter comes to a vote? We can be, and we have been, voted down overwhelmingly. This is not meant to sound like the whining of a little boy who cannot always have his way, but as a serious matter in the field of everyday human affairs. The Security Council is composed of 5 permanent members and 6 nonpermanent members, elected by the General Assembly for 2-year terms. The permanent members are: China, France, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Russia); the United Kingdom, and our own United States. At present the nonpermanent members are: Brazil, Chile, Greece, the Netherlands, Pakistan, and Turkey. The Security Council functions continuously, and is the body that can call our boys to Korea, and force all member states to carry out its decisions. UNESCO, as we know, is the unit that has recently come under so much fire and rightfully so. The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization has as its purpose such high-sounding tasks as contributing to peace and security, by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science, and culture. Its ultimate and altruistic goal is declared to be the guaranteeing of human rights and fundamental freedoms for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language, or religion. UNESCO, in short, is the propaganda arm of the United Nations. It can easily be documented, however, that the underlying purpose of UNESCO is to educate the masses for world-mindedness, thus preparing the way for eventual world government. For a time this was denied, and those who opposed UNESCO were brought under the most vicious smear attacks. But now there can be no doubt about this underlying purpose. Because of the mounting opposition to UNESCO's program of indoctrination for world-mindedness, the United States House of Representatives (H. R. 7289) has ruled as follows: "None of the funds appropriated *** shall be used (1) to pay the United States contribution to any international organization which engages in the direct or indirect promotion of the principles or doctrine of 1-world government or 1-world citizenship; (2) for the promotion, direct or indirect, of the principle or doctrine of 1-world government or 1-world citizenship." It is the International Court of Justice that chiefly concerns us now, in connection with the U. N. and the church. This international court is the "principal judicial body of the United Nations." All member nations can refer to it "any case they wish." A body of 15 judges, elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, is empowered to pass judgment upon any case brought before the Court. After judgment has been reached, the Court itself may call upon the Security Council to "give effect to the judgment of the Court." In simple language, this means that the Court has been given ready-made machinery to enforce its own decisions. But the appalling thing is this: Although composed of 15 judges, only a majority of the quorum of 9 judges are necessary to bring conviction. In other words, a minimum of 5 judges have been granted the power of decision over the lives and property of literally millions of people, including the 150 millions of people in the United States of America. Is this what you want? 1 Material for the structure of the United Nations is taken from Basic Facts About the United Nations. 7th ed., January 1952, United Nations, New York. Any changes which have taken place since then are beyond our control. COMMUNIST INFLUENCE AT WORK No doubt you remember that Alger Hiss was the first General Secretary of the San Francisco Conference, and that he had a hand in drafting the U. N. Charter. Of course, he has now been replaced by another; but some still hold him in high esteem, including our own former United States delegate to the U. N., Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. In the latest book of Louis Budenz, The Cry Is Peace, we find this charming exhibition of esteem: "In her syndicated column, appearing in the New York World-Telegram, on August 16, 1948, Mrs. Roosevelt rushed to the defense of Alger Hiss, whose case was then being considered by the House Committee on Un-American Activities*** Mrs. Roosevelt said: 'Yet I disapprove very much of the way in which these legislative committees work. Smearing good people like Lauchlin Currie, Alger Hiss, and others is, I think, unforgivable. * * * Anyone knowing either Mr. Currie or Mr. Hiss, who are the two I happen to know fairly well, would not need any denial on their part to know they are not Communists' (pp. 126-127). Mr. Budenz, himself a former editor of the Daily Worker, later states: "One Alger Hiss is worth more than 500,000 undisciplined and loosely organized members. [He means, of the Communist Party.] By his advice to official Washington, Hiss aided in giving Stalin 600 million people, and untold resources" (ibid., p. 198). By the way, here is something interesting. The People's Daily Worker, Communist newspaper of the West, is advertising a new 12-inch record by baritone Paul Robeson, containing both the national anthem of the U. S. S. R., and the United Nations song. If any of you folks wish to add it to your collection, you may purchase a record for the low price of 59 cents. UNESCO AND WORLD GOVERNMENT Earlier we stated that UNESCO is educating the masses for eventual world government. Let us consider some of the evidence behind this assertion. First, there is the new book by A. H. Feller entitled United Nations and World Community. Since 1946, Mr. Feller 2 has been the General Counsel of the United Nations, so that his book bears an authoritative tone. According to this author, there is a very real barrier to a world community. That barrier is national sovereignty. Hence Mr. Feller writes: *** international cooperation can exist only if states are willing to yield some portion of their sovereignty for the common good. Every step in fostering cooperation therefore involves an assesment of the extent to which cooperating states are willing to restrict their freedom of action" (p. 12). Here is a question for you: How can sovereignty be divided? If we give up some portion of our national sovereignty, and bow to a higher power, we are no longer sovereign-unless words have lost all meaning. We go on to say that the latest political heresy is that sovereignty can be divided. Sovereignty cannot be divided. It can only be relinquished. They say the worst thing that can be done to an American is to make him think. We hope to do that to you, on this matter of world government-unless you are like the hard-working lady whom a minister commended for her faithful attendance every Sunday. "Yes," she admitted to him, "it is restful to come here and just sit down, and not have to think about anything." A short while ago Milton Mayer, an educator, spoke in Pasadena at the First Congregational Church. The meeting was sponsored by the American Friends Service Committee. Mr. Mayer has become quite notorious as the man who refuses to salute our flag. We picked up from the literature table a peace service bulletin of the Friends Committee, dated October 1952. The very first paragraph heading was "UNESCO and World Citizenship." The paragraph reads: "On the heels of the banning of 'The E in UNESCO' by the Los Angeles and Monrovia school boards, it is good to come upon these remarks by the editors of the Saturday Review of Literature (July 19); if UNESCO is attacked on the grounds that it is helping to prepare the world's people for world government, then it is an error to burst forth with apologetic statements and denials. Let us face it: the job of UNESCO is to help create and promote the elements of world citizenship. When faced with such a charge, let us 2 This message was originally delivered 1 week before the newspapers announced the suicide of Mr. Feller. It will be noted that nothing derogatory to the character of Mr. Feller has been said. High United Nations officials endeavored to blame, at least in part, the death of the General Counsel on the questioning he underwent at the hands of the grand jury and others. by all means affirm it from the housetops. Let us say that we are moving heaven and earth to create a human community on this planet, that world citizenship is the ultimate goal and no one need apologize for it.'" During the question period afterward, we asked something like this: Are we to understand that the American Friends Service Committee is on record as approving world government as the ultimate goal? The moderator of the meeting, personally connected with the friends committee at its Pasadena office, very frankly stated that, although they realized the task could not be accomplished immediately, and that they would have to go ahead a step at a time, yet their ultimate goal was world government. When the Quakers themselves admit it, who can deny it? Another church body that has put itself on record as favoring some form of world government is the Protestant Episcopal Church. The pastoral letter issued by The House of Bishops of General Convention, dated September 19, 1952, includes these sentences: "It is right that nations seek stronger and more enduring unity, and find the way to put behind them old and now meaningless nationalisms. For all the blessings which national life has brought us, the conception of absolute national sovereignty is an anachronism. In the words of a resolution of this convention, "The only possible pathway to world peace lies through collective security.' Indeed, with all thoughtful citizens, we pledge our support to the United Nations Organization, and hope for its future development into a world federation open to all peoples, and capable of maintaining can be free" (italics supplied). Do you think nationalism is meaningless? Do you consider the United States of America to be out of date because it is a sovereign nation? The bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church do, according to their own pastoral letter. Surely no one would doubt that the Nation magazine is favorable to things pro-Russian. In the issue of September 20, 1952, Aubrey B. Haines writes on Hubub over UNESCO. The last paragraph reads: "The ban on the UNESCO booklets imposed by the Los Angeles Board of Education is of national interest. America is today one of the few great democracies remaining on the face of the earth. If the brotherhood of man and world government cannot be taught in Los Angeles public schools as truth or even as opinion, education everywhere. should rise up and protest. Only those who know the truth and will the good can be free" (italics supplied). ENCOURAGING WORDS FROM STALIN Do you know why those to the left of center are so desperately anxious to save these so-called cultural agencies? One answer is found in Joseph Stalin's pamphlet, Dialectical and Historical Materialism. In concluding the section on historical materialism (materialistic interpretation of history), and the claimed relation between the mode of production and human character, communism's present leader goes on to say: "After the new productive forces have matured, the existing relations of production and their holders-the ruling classes become that insuperable obstacle which can only be removed by the conscious action of the new classes, by the forcible acts of these classes, by revolution. Here stands out in bold relief the tremendous role (Stalin's italics) of new social ideas, of new political institutions, of a new political power, whose mission it is to abolish by force the old relations of production. Out of the conflict between the new productive forces and the old relations of production, out of the new economic demands of society there arise new social ideas; the new ideas organize and mobilize the masses; the masses become welded into a new political army, create a new revolutionary power, and make use of it to abolish by force the old system of relations of production, and firmly establish the new system. The spontaneous process of development yields place to the conscious actions of men, peaceful development to violent upheaval, evolution to revolution" (pp. 43-44). This is the official word from Moscow that Kremlin agents everywhere are to educate the masses for the new social order, and Moscow is never more pleased than when it can encourage others to do the work and pay the bills. Further confirmation of Stalin's behind-the-scenes part in these things is found in his Foundations of Leninism, in the chapter on Strategy and Tactics. After giving the moving history of communism's rise to power in Russia, Stalin refers to a period (1907-12) when the party had to go underground. During this underground period we are told that "the revolutionary mass organizations were superseded by cultural, educational, cooperative, insurance, and other legal organiza |