Religious Freedom—a Good Security Risk?

• Author: Philip E. Jacob
• Published date: 01 July 1955
• Date: 01 July 1955
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625530000108
• Subject Matter: Articles

Religious Freedom—a Good Security Risk?
By PHILIP E. JACOB
FREEDOM of religious belief and faith therein.&dquo; 2 If there should be
practice has been accepted as so
question as to the relative claims of in-
integral a part of the American politi-
dividual right and the authority of gov-
cal and social heritage that to challenge
ernment, the Supreme Court majority
its &dquo;loyalty status&dquo; appears heretical.
has actually recognized a &dquo;preferred
Are we not the proud spiritual descend-
position&dquo; for the religious freedom, to-
ants of Pilgrims and Huguenots? A
gether with the other &dquo;First Amend-
Congress dominated by an overwhelm-
ment&dquo; freedoms. Not that they would
ing orthodox Protestant majority pays
admit an absolute freedom, even in re-
its respects on appropriate occasions to
gard to religious belief or practice, but
t
papal authority, Jewish law, Quaker in-
that government, they insist, must not
dividualism, and Mormon revelation.
allow its sense of responsibility for pub-
We generally believe with Justice Doug-
lic convenience and even the security of
las that the legacy of Madison and Jef-
society a free hand at the expense of
ferson as expressed in their Virginia
private conviction. To do so might well
&dquo;Bill for Establishing Religious Free-
jeopardize rather than preserve the es-
dom&dquo; has become part of the American
sential security of the national com-
ideal; that, as he summarizes it:
munity. &dquo;Those who begin coercive
elimination of dissent soon find them-
The community will tolerate every re-
selves
exterminating dissenters,&dquo; to
ligion.
The state will establish, favor,
quote again from Justice Jackson as he
or sup-
took a second look at the
port no religion.
implications
Each man’s religion is his
of
own affair.
compelling a Jehovah’s Witness child
Religious freedom and sanctity of rights
to salute the flag in school. &dquo;Compul-
of conscience go hand in hand.’
sory unification of opinion,&dquo; he goes on
to say, &dquo;achieves only the unanimity of
SUPREME COURT OPINION
the graveyard.&dquo; 3
Indeed, this marriage of national
NEED FOR REAPPRAISAL
unity to religious diversity is confirmed
by our highest judicial authorities.
So we have the word of our courts
Speaking for the Supreme Court in the
and the testimony of our political credo
second of the historic flag-salute cases,
that religious freedom can be cleared as
Justice Jackson found that &dquo; if there is
a security risk.
But is this enough?
any fixed star in our constitutional con-
Time and circumstance-are they not
stellation it is that no official, high or
different from the days of Madison’s
petty, can prescribe what shall be or-
&dquo;Great Remonstrance&dquo; against the es-
thodox in politics, nationalism, religion,
tablishment of a &dquo;safe&dquo; state-approved
or other matters of opinion or force
religion in Virginia? At a time of ex-
citizens to confess by word or act their
ceptional crisis in the war for men’s
1
William O. Douglas, An Almanac of Lib-
2
West Virginia State Board of Education v.
erty (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday &
Com-
Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943).
pany, 1954), p. 210.
3
Ibid.
41

---

42
minds can we really count on individual
Communist Party enjoys no immunity
religious freedom to buttress or at least
from investigation, regardless of his
not to impair the political and ideologi-
rank or calling&dquo; and that an individual
cal foundations of our national com-
member of the clergy identified as a
mitments ?
Is not the political reli-
member of the Communist Party (or as
ability of some persons’ religious beliefs
in the case of Bishop Oxnam, identified
and practices open to question and, if
as associated with front organizations)
so, should we not restrain those found
shall be subject to the same security
to operate against the national interest
checks as anyone else. Said Repre-
regardless of religious considerations?
sentative Donald Jackson, defending the
Is it not time that we took a fresh look
committee’s activities in this regard:
at this so-called preferred right of re-
I feel
ligious freedom,
no
to
greater service can be rendered
see whether it is
to God and man.alike than to find out what
actually as &dquo;safe&dquo; as we blandly have
men, if any, would place the thorny crown
thought?
of the Kremlin upon the brow of the
If we conduct a security investigation
Prince of Peace.... A churchman who
of religious freedom, not only within the
serves the Communist Party compounds
immediate American context but in the
his treason.... The man of God who
broader perspective of what is happen-
treats with the conspirators betrays those
ing in other countries, we can detect
things which are of transcendent impor-
four main tension points between state
tance-his oath, his moral obligations and
and church, government and religious
his Creator.... Their responsibilities as
believer: first, the opposition of
citizens
re-
are no less than those imposed on
ligious
other Americans in meeting the godless
persons and organizations to the
ag-
established political order; second, the
gression confronting our people.4
rejection of public duties on the grounds
In a public warning, the committee
of religious belief; third, the challenge
charged that Communists are trying to
of religious proselytizing to public peace
corrupt religion in the United States,
and morals; fourth, the enlistment of
that as a result there are clergymen and
religion in the nation’s service and the
other church members who are Com-
promotion of national interests.
munists or play the Communist game
RELIGIOUS CRITICISM
as fellow travelers and that Communist
OF THE STATE
propaganda is sneaked into church pub-
First, and most dramatic, is the in-
lications, sermons, and organizations.
sistence of religious believer or organi-
The committee viewed Communism as
zation on a political mission, a role of
a &dquo;real&dquo;
danger inside our churches,
critic or opponent of government con-
quoting J. Edgar Hoover as confessing
duct which is considered morally wrong.
&dquo;to a real apprehension, as long as
How far can the government tolerate
Communists are able to secure minis-
attacks on itself from behind the sanc-
ters of the gospel to promote their evil
tuary of religious freedom?
work and espouse a cause that is alien
House Committee
to the religion of Christ and Judaism.&dquo; 15
on Un-American Ac-
tivities
4

Congressional Record, Vol. 99, part 2,
The House Committee on Un-Ameri-
p. 2024 (Eighty-third Congress, first session,
March 17, 1953).
can Activities, while denying any intent
6
See House Committee on Un-American
to &dquo;investigate religion,&dquo; has proceeded
Activities, "100 Things You Should Know
on the premise that &dquo;a member of the
About Communism," released August 15, 1949.

---

43
Regardless of the accuracy or inac-
security of its tenure imperiled by the
curacy of the charge of subversive ac-
thrust of a powerful religious opposition.
tivity in a particular case, or the fair-
To this challenge, the Communist po-
ness of the procedures followed to de-
litical leadership gave a response identi-
termine such activity, the issue raised
cal to that of the House Un-American
here seems to me fundamental. Unless
Activities Committee:...