Would you believe in sending over $400,000,000 to Turkey and Greece? Mrs. STEWART. Our organization testified against sending any military aid. We believed that we should work through a program of economic reconstruction and particularly through the proposal of the FAO, which had already given a report before this crisis developed. We believe that we should have followed their suggestion even if we had to supply the $100,000,000, which would have been less expensive than the program now. Mr. FELLOWS. I think your ideas are excellent. The trouble is, until we get to that point where people are ready to accept certain things, I feel that we should be reasonably well prepared in arms, in battleships, and in planes. You do not agree with that? Mrs. STEWART. Of course, at present we are more than reasonably prepared, because we are the strongest nation militarily and economically in the world. Mr. FELLOWS. Economically, do you think we are? Mrs. STEWART. Yes. We have the greatest developed economic resources. Russia would have more that are not developed. Mr. CHELF. In other words, you believe that if we are attacked or struck, we should turn the other cheek, rather than the old, familiar teaching from the Bible, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth? Mrs. STEWART. Yes. Mr. CHELF. In other words, you do not subscribe to the part of the Bible that says, "When he sheds a man's blood, then shall his blood also be shed." That is where we differ. Mrs. STEWART. The "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" is the Old Testament. I believe Christ in the New Testament gave us a higher level of living. Professor Scott, whom I had in the Union Theological Seminary discussing the passage that you referred to from the New Testament said: I am not a pacifist. But no one could ever use that verse as an analogy for war, because if you will read your New Testament accurately, you will see that Christ never used the scourge on people. The New Testament says, 'He took a scourge and drove them out, cattle and sheep alike.' He never used it on persons. And the professor went on to say: Jesus did not need to use that kind of force, because He had a moral and spiritual authority, and they knew that they were doing wrong. He set a higher standard for mankind to follow. Mr. FELLOWS. We thank you for your statement. Mrs. STEWART. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mr. FELLOWS. Is there anyone else who wishes to be heard? (No response.) Mr. FELLOWs. If there is no one else to be heard I would like to place into the record at this point, without objection, a letter from the Joint Conference on Public Relations and another from the Board of Christian Education, Presbyterian Church in the United States. (The documents referred to follow :) THE JOINT CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC RELATIONS, Hon. EARL C. MICHENER, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. MICHENER: Someone has reported to me that the bill offered by Representative James I. Dolliver, now before your committee, includes provisions affecting freedom of conscience on the part of the members of the so-called peace churches, such as the Quakers, the Mennonites, etc. As a Baptist I can say that my denomination is not pacifist. Although my office seldom expresses itself concerning matters of legislation, I am compelled to represent to you something of the convictions of the four Baptist conventions which I represent here in Washington in relation to public affairs. The denomination, according to the 1945 Yearbook of American Churches (interdenominational) numbers some 14,000,000 members in the United States. As you may know from the days of Roger Williams, John Leland, the friend of James Madison, and other notables among the founding fathers, sought to incorporate into our American organization the utmost guaranties for freedom of conscience. We have consistently and persistently stood up for this basic freedom. I must, therefore, be allowed to say on their behalf that the denial of the rights of conscience in respect to these religious groups is contrary to the aim of the founders, in violation of the Constitution, and against the definite pronouncements of the United States Supreme Court. I trust that you will not see fit to report this bill out of your committee for congressional action unless this glaring defect is first corrected. With expressions of high esteem, I am, J. M. DAWSON. BOARD OF CHRISTIAN EDUCATION, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Hon. FRANK FELLOWS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Washington, D. C. STATEMENT OPPOSING H. R. 2286, FOR THE COMMITTEE HEARING DEAR SIR: We wish to present the position of the Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., with regard to freedom of conscience and urge serous consideration of the infringement of this basic right of our democracy as you consider H. R. 2286, to amend the Naturalization Act of 1940. We quote you the official action of our legal body as of 1930, reaffirmed and restated in 1931, 1934, 1940, 1942, 1947. "Whereas the standards of the church declare that God alone is lord of the conscience * * * Therefore "Resolved, That the assembly declare its belief that the right and duty of citizenship should not be conditioned upon the test of ability or willingness, contrary to conscience, to bear arms or take part as a combatant of war". (1930). "God alone is lord of the conscience, and the church must oppose all who bind a man's conscience to any lesser lord or master. We seek to preserve the timehonored Protestant principle of the freedom of conscience for both those whose consciences forbid them to engage in military service and those whose consciences permit the same. And we are concerned that this principle be maintained during wartimes as well as during peacetimes. We further reaffirm the historic loyalty of the Presbyterian Church to the Government of the United States of America" (1940). "Freedom of worship, press, assembly, and conscience are a source of spiritual strength to a democracy that is at war as well as when it is at peace" (1942). We would therefore oppose H. R. 2286 as being an infringement upon the rights of conscience as it makes citizenship dependent upon bearing arms. Moreover, this bill if it would become law, would be infringement of the freedom of religion from another angle as related to the teachings of many of our groups, such as the Society of Friends, the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites, Jehovah's Witnesses, and others. As indicated above it would be an infringement too upon the teachings of our denomination. Since religion knows no nationality lines we believe the intent of this bill in uncalled for particularly in days when we hope to build peace in the world. The Presbyterian Church, U. S. A., consists of approximately 9,000 churches and over 2,000,000 members. Very truly yours, DIVISION OF SOCIAL EDUCATION AND ACTION, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, U. S. A. By FERN M. COLBORN, Legislative Representative. (Thereupon at 11.45 a. m., the subcommittee proceeded in executive session.) |