« ÎnapoiContinuați »
selves, and keep ourselves informed, of all agencies and forces which seek to * for e do us harm.
Most important of all is that we pray for God to rule and overrule in our behalf, for God is the author of liberty ; it is His battle, even more than it is that the e ours.
We began by reference to the second Psalm : "Why do the heathen 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 anointed." We close in the same vein, by noting the admonition with which the spirit of God has been pleased to conclude this same Psalm : "Be wise now therefore, O ye kings : be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, and ye perish from the elite way, when His wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him” (ver. 11-12).
I LIBE FILCO IX.
Oath administered to all employees of the United Nations :
“I solemnly swear to exercise, in all loyalty, discretion, and conscience, the orias functions entrusted to me as a member of the international service of the United Nations; to discharge those functions and regulate my conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view, and not to seek or accept instructions in regard to the performance of my duty from any government or authority external and lift to the Organization." [Italics supplied. ) (From Activities of United States Citizens Employed by the United Nations, Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 82d Cong., p. 10.)
Excerpts from the testimony of Alfred J. Van Tassel, United States employee at the United Nations, together with questions propounded to him:
"Senator O'CONNOR. I would like to ask you some questions now as to any participation on your part, prior to your becoming a member of the United Nations. Were you ever a member of the Communist Party?
“Mr. VAN TASSELL. Sir, on that question, I would like to decline to state. Ibig would like to be able- I would like to say that I uphold the Constitution of the two United States. I have had a lot of occasions to use the Constitution of the United States in the last few months in the course of the grand-jury hearings, and I can personally testify that it is a very fine instrument. I would like to pay tribute to the foresight of the founding fathers, who knew that 150 years later there would be people like myself who would need their protection.
"Senator SMITH. If you were not a member of the Communist Party, you would have no fear in saying so, so far as your rights of a citizen being protected ?
“Mr. VAN TASSEL. I am afraid, sir, that that question is too involved for me to understand.
“Senator SMITH. I will put it another way. Do you think it would be wrong for an American citizen to say that he was not a Communist? Do you think there is any infringement of his rights by his saying, "I am not a Communist" ?
"Mr. Van TASSEL. I think, sir, one shouldn't be called upon to "Senator FERGUSON. To ever answer that?
"Mr. VAN TASSEL. To ever answer, yes, sir. . And I feel, incidentally, that it is certainly irrelevant to the question of employment in the United Nations, which includes among its members nations of every political complexion.
“Senator SMITH. If you answered that question by saying that you were not and had not been a Communist, don't you think that would be something that would be inspiring and refreshing for those who want to bolster the forces of the United Nations? Would it not clear things up?
"Mr. VAN TASSEL. I think that it will be a sad day for the United Nations when it does not include the Communist countries of the world, because on that day, the day on which the great powers split apart, we know that at that time we are headed for war.
"Senator Smith. So you think it is all right to have American Communists in the employment of the United Nations?
“Mr. VAN TASSEL. I see no objection whatsoever to having American Communists, French Communists, Soviet Communists, every other kind. They have to be loyal to the United Nations" (ibid., pp. 4, 16, 19, (italics supplied]).
Department of State reply to queries on the relationship of United States citizens employed by the United Nations :
"The United States Government does not attempt to instruct the SecretaryGeneral as to whom he may employ or may not employ; it neither recommends
isted States citizens for employment nor gives loyalty or security clearance ob ise employed.
"At the same time, the Department of State has made known to the Secretaryceral its view that the employment of United States citizens who are Com***is is not in the best interest of the United Nations, and the Department ** lonz had assurance of the Secretary-General's agreement to this prin
*” (From Department of State Foreign Policy Briefs, vol. II, No. * Visernber 7, 1952.)
Sitement of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate on ativities of United States citizens employed by the United Nations, published
ary 2, 1953:
The records in our Government files regarding the nature of the Communist 211Dent. both nationally and internationally, establish beyond a doubt that a 1:?munist, wherever he is placed, can be counted upon to carry out his chosen en of espionage, sabotage, and activities against the United States. It is ward to believe there are high-ranking officials in the United States Department
Sare who do not know this. But the State Department's record in connection riit the agreement respecting security checks on United States employees, and 2. State Department's action and inaction pursuant thereto, appears to indi25 that responsible officials of the State Department either had no conception, ** willfully disregarded, the present and potential danger to the national security mesent in the clustering of subversives or other persons disloyal to the United ***** under the aegis of the United Nations."
Revlution on religious and civil liberties unanimously adopted at the Ninth unoral State Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches of fornia, Pasadena, Calif., November 7, 1952:
RESOLUTION UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED AT THE
LITO'S AND CIVIL LIBERTIES--A
SINTH ANNUAL STATE CONVENTION, AMERICAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES OF CALIFORNIA, PASADENA, CALIF., NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1952 Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of erica declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment -ligion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and Wbereas article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, declares that all trea* made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law
baland, to the extent that they may supersede the national and State laws, a of this become the law of the land; and
Whereas the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of 3-rica guarantees the right of any person accused of crime to a trial by an =artial jury of the State and district in which the crime was committed ; and
Whereas such instruments as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide HTTPntion, as forinulated by the United Nations, would curtail or eliminate izious liberty as protected by the Constitution of the United States; and
Whereas violation of these instruments of international law could result in **• transporting of American citizens to a foreign land to be tried by an interunal tribunal without benefit of trial by jury: Therefore, be it Risored. That the delegates to the ninth annual State convention of the
rican Council of Christian Churches of California, convened at Pasadena, if. Sovember 6 and 7, 1952, respectfully beseech our Senators and the Presi. -1 of the l'nited States of America not to ratify as treaties any covenant or Tention formulated by any international organization in such a way as to
be a part of our domestic law; and be it further Roxolred. That a copy of this resolution be sent to every Senator, Senator.
I the President, the Vice President-elect, and to the President-elect. Reverend Scott. First of all, I present a resolution which was unanmly adopted at the said ninth annual State convention, November
947, 1952. Copies of this resolution were sent to each Senator, Vator-elect, the President, the Vice President-elect and to the Presi
mont-elert. This resolution is captioned "Religious and Civil Porties."
Fator BRICKER. Who was it that passed the resolution?
Council of Christian Churches of California.
Reverend Scott. A group of churches that are given to preserve the testimony of the word of God versus liberalism and modernism as we know it in the church ranks today.
Senator BRICKER. It is not the Christian Church that we know in em the Middle West then?
Reverend Scott. I do not presume so.
bremse are behind that organization ?
Reverend SCOTT. The American Council of Christian Churches was it ! organized in 1941. It is composed of 16 denominations, has more than 6,000 congregations and over 1 million Christians who adhere to the American Council of Christian Churches' position.
Senator BRICKER. The reason I ask you was because I belong to a Christian Church myself, and I was wondering whether they were sponsoring this.
Reverend Scott. A resolution unanimously adopted at the ninth cut a annual State convention, American Council of Christian Churches of
tract t California, Pasadena, Calif., November 6 and 7, 1952.
Whereas the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and
Whereas article VI, paragraph 2, of the Constitution declares that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land, to the extent that they may supersede the national and State laws, and thus become the law of the land; and
Whereas the sixth amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the right of any person accused of crime to a trial by an impartial jury of the State and district in which the crime was committed ; and,
Whereas such instruments as the Covenant on Human Rights and the Genocide Convention, as formulated by the United Nations, would curtail or
* eliminate religious liberty as protected by the Constitution of the United States; and,
+ Whereas violation of these instruments of international law could result in the transporting of American citizens to a foreign land to be tried by an international tribunal without benefit of trial by jury: Therefore be it
Resolred, That the delegates to the Ninth Annual State Convention of the American Council of Christian Churches of California, convened at Pasadena, Calif., November 6 and 7, 1952, respectively beseech our Senators and the President of the United States of America not to ratify as treaties any covenant or convention formulated by any international organization in such a way as to become a part of our domestic law; and, be it further
Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to every Senator, Senatorelect, the President, the Vice-President-elect, and to the President-elect.
The title of Reverend Bunzel's message, parts of which I wish to emphasize, is “The United Nations and the Church: A Glimpse Into the Future.”
My subject is, "The U. N. and the Church: A Glimpse Into the Future." 'Lest any of you think I am out of my realm in dealing with such a subject, I remind you that John Witherspoon, a Presby- designer terian 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 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. Further, he was an author, one book bearing the fundamentalist-sounding title, “Essay on the Con
Pation 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 s about to be brought into jeopardy. We dare not stand idly by while others busy themselves with devices which will ultimately depove us of our present privilege to preach the Gospel. The second reason is that we are citizens of these United States of America, and T 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.
Republic or democracy? What is the United States of America, a democracy or a republic? It ought not to be necessary to ask sich an elementary question, but it is. The United States of Amercca is a republic, not a democracy, regardless of all the sentimental ak about democracy that we hear today.
The real purpose of these remarks, however, is to provide a backTuund for considering how it is possible for this Nation to have been committed to membership in a body of nations known as the United Sitions, without such a committal ever having come before the people for a vote
as would be the case in a real democracy. Our Government is a government by law, not a government by st-or at least it should be. We elect our Senators and RepresentaLres who, in turn, act in our behalf to make our laws. This is goven ment by representation of the people, in the form of a republic, as a not government directly by the people, in the form of a democracy.
Br official action of our Senators and the President, the United Sates of America has become a part of the United Nations, after Caring adopted the United Nations Charter as a treaty. I shall have Lure to say about treaty ratification later, but this brief statement will serve for the present to take us into a consideration of the United Nations as an international organization.
At present there are 60 nations, or states, in the United Nations. The 60 nations have just about every kind of government possible she devised. There are republics such as our own, absoltue and titstitutional monarchies, democracies, fascist states, socialistic states, azd of course, totalitarian dictatorships.
The United Nations is held together by its Charter. This Charter 75 six main “organs” of the U. N.: The General Assembly, the Sety Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice, and the Secretariat.
me of these organs do not concern us in relation to the subject under usion, and others only in a limited way. The General Assembly is composed of all 60 of the member na
Each member state has not more than five representatives. Ech member state has but one vote. The Assembly meets once a
-11, although special sessions may be convened under certain condiXs Did you notice that each member state has but one votezing the United States of America? What chance does our re
c. based upon freedom of the individual, have in a body with iminary beliefs, when a given matter comes to a vote? We can be riwe have been outvoted overwhelmingly. I do not mean that to -:d 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, as you will discover before we are through.
It is the International Court of Justice that chiefly concerns us now, in connection with the U. N. and the church. The International Court is the “principal judicial body of the United Nations." Allama member nations can refer to it “any case they wish.” A body of 15 judges, elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council, are 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 readymade machinery to enforce its decisions. But the appalling thing is this, although composed of 15 judges, only the majority of the quorum of 9 judges is necessary to bring conviction. In other words, a minimum of five men are granted the power of decision over the lives and property of literally millions of people, including the 150 million people of the United States of America. Is that what you want?
Earlier I 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 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. llence, 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 assessment 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. I go on to say that the latest political heresy is that sovereignty can be divided. Sovereignty cannot be divided. It can only be relinquished.
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 famous as the man who refuses to salute our flag. I picked up from the literature table a Peace Service Bulletin of the Friends Committee, dated October 1952. The very first paragraph is headed "UNESCO and World Citizenship.” The paragraph reads:
On the herls of the banning of the “E” in UNESCO by the Los Angeles and Monrorist shool 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 11s 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 by all means affirm it from the housetops. Let us say that we are moving heaven and earth to crente 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, I asked something like this: Am I to conclude that the American Friends Service Committee is on