« AnteriorContinuar »
religious man and a servant of the church, but he passed by on the other side. If he had lived today he might have justified himself as others are doing. Humanitarianism has been called "a mawkish travesty of Christianity which transforms morality by basing it on pity, and transfers guilt from the individual to the state under which he lives. Man is always innocent; the government always guilty." Perhaps the Levite was a humanitarian who held that the state was responsible for robbers on the Jericho road, and that therefore it was the duty of the state to care for the victim of robbers; perhaps he held that pity is not kindness, and that men who stumble and fall in a hostile country need to be taken by the nape of the neck and shoved back into line. Much can be said for both positions. But, according to the Master, the test of a man is not his philosophy, but his deed. The Levite passed by on the other side.
Both priest and Levite, had they lived today, might have justified their attitude by a third argument. "Humanitarianism," recently said a distinguished visitor from abroad at Yale University, "is a religion which promises the nations an earthly paradise at the end of a flowery path." True religion, on the contrary, points to progress in the victory of the spirit over the flesh, but promises nothing as prizes of warfare, and pronounces the creed which carries war into the individual soul to be the only way of peace for the nations. Such is the creed of naked individualism in the field of religion, and it matches the theory of the survival of the fittest in sociology. In national life the fruits of that creed are twelve millions of dead, a burden of debt beyond our imagination to realize, and Christian civilization threatened with destruction. In industrial life such a creed arrays steel magnate against steel worker, dispossesses women and children from company house, and makes it impossible for a workingman to secure justice in any court as against a corporation. Humanitarianism may "not avoid sloppy sentimentality," but it avoids cruelty, neglect, and wrong.
Priest and Levite, if alive today, would have fallen back upon a fourth line of defense. This emphasis on the second commandment, to the exclusion of the first, is called today secularized Christianity; love of the neighbor, it is held, means merely an attempt to improve the physical condition of mankind and to make life more pleasant. Whereas one of the vital parts of Christ's teaching is that all good and all evil come from within. Reform begins with the will and conscience of the individual, and proceeds outward. It affects social amelioration by working on the moral character. Make the seed good, say these advocates, and its fruit will be good. Is it true that the man, had he been all he ought to be, would not have fallen by the wayside on the Jericho road? Is it not true that a road infested by robbers was a factor in the case, no less than the individual man who was robbed? Good seed is necessary, so is good soil, if there is to be a good harvest. Good physical conditions are good soil in which character may be grown more easily and generally than in stony ground. I would clear the Jericho road of robbers, and I would then send men down it ever ready to
serve their fellows in every way: not only serve their bodies, but serve their He minds; not only serve their minds, but serve their whole manhood.
'Tis life, not death, for which we pant
The supreme task of real religion and true humanitarianism is one and the same. It is to assert the love of man and to keep it from degenerating into the unethical sentiment of charity; it is to assert the love of God and to keep it from degenerating into an other-worldly or antisocial pietism. The ideal of a regenerated human society, the kingdom of man and the kingdom of God, is the inspiration of the religion of human helpfulness. To bring this ideal into life and to try to realize it on earth is the supreme mission of men.
They who so strive fulfil their destiny and win from Him who made the vision clear, the welcome, "Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."
WHAT SHALL WE DO ABOUT WAR?
Sherwood Eddy, Associate General Secretary, National Council,
Before speaking about "What Shall We Do about War?" shall we make a brief survey of the situation, as we see it, throughout the world? Omitting China because, however serious things may seem to be there, I believe the present difficulty will prove to be only local, without involving other nations I believe there are four great danger zones today from which there may possibly arise war for the world.
First, there is the danger zone of Russia. Any nation which professes to be out for the violent overthrow of existing government and the substitution by force of another social order has embarked on a course that must make for war. Then there is a danger zone in the Balkans. In Bulgaria we see a conflict between the forces of the Red and the White, both equally ruthless, and where there may easily be found an occasion for world-war, as it was found in the Balkans for the last war. Third, there is a danger zone between Germany and France, made all the more acute by the election of General von Hindenburg. I believe he is too good a soldier to think now of warlike measures. I believe he sincerely desires peace, nevertheless his election plays into the hands of the military party. I believe Germany desires peace, but I found at the extreme right a nationalist party, both in Germany and in France, preparing for war and believing in war, 100 per cent suspicious and bitter, each toward the other, and looking forward to war as a possible settlement. Some of you may be surprised, some may challenge the fourth danger zone I shall mention, but millions
there are today who look to America as one of the chief danger zones in all the world. Millions in Latin America and millions in Europe are looking to us, the great creditor nation, fearing lest we develop imperialism; looking also, to see what may happen as a result of our exclusion of the Japanese. The fact that there is a demand for increasing our fortifications in Hawaii, and that our fleet go on a costly voyage to Australia, to many this warlike gesture means that we are taking a stand for the white races as against the yellow races. The fact that we profess innocence does not settle the question. In Germany I heard a college professor claim that the Germans were 100 per cent innocent of bringing on the Great War, that they never dreamed of using their fleet for warlike purposes. One might wonder if this old man expected they were going to be used for Sunday school picnics. I met many in Germany who felt themselves innocent, but that did not make Germany any the less a danger zone. Take our Japanese exclusion act. I believe no country more than Japan recognizes our right to protect our people from the indiscriminate dumping of undesirable populations upon us, and no country more readily would respect wise immigration laws, but haven't we done the right thing in the wrong way? Suppose we had admitted them on the quota basis. While admitting over 100,000 a year from some countries, we would have admitted only 150 Japanese, about 100 Chinese, and about 10 Indians a year. More than that are coming by the route of evasion. Our course has not closed our doors, nor settled the question. If we had permitted President Coolidge to call a friendly conference with that friendly nation, how gladly would they have agreed to any arrangement to keep back even the 150. They want their people in Korea and Manchuria. But no. We said, "We will keep them in their place. We will show them where to get off." We have thereby left a lasting and a growing wound in the heart of that people. Would we permit the Japanese ambassador to express the fear that our action might lead to serious consequences, as it already has? For, having driven out Japan, we have driven her into an alliance with Russia, a combination that may easily become significant. Would we permit the Japanese ambassador to tell us that he feared our act would lead to serious consequences? No. And as a result I fear it will lead to very serious consequences. Are America and Japan going to become a danger zone of the world? We are increasing our munitions, our defenses in Hawaii, sending a fleet on this voyage to Australia, lining up against the yellow races, as it seems to them. I hope we shall not become one of the danger zones of the world, but there is occasion for some fear that we
But over against these four danger zones of Russia, the Balkans, Germany and France, and America and Japan, let me speak of four great movements making for peace, because I believe that greater are the forces making for peace than those that make for war. First, the churches have taken their stand against war. I have not time to read these voluminous resolutions which I hold in my hand, that have been passed by all, or nearly all, of the great religious bodies,
such as the Methodist Episcopal church, the Friends, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians, the Protestant Episcopal church, the Lutherans, and various other denominations, the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, the World Alliance for International Peace, and many others. That means something.
Second, I note other organizations making for peace. Take the bulletins of the National Council for the Prevention of War, that fellowship uniting some seventy-five other organizations into one great movement for peace, among them the Fellowship of Reconciliation. These are significant. Again, take the movement in the world outside America making for peace, for conciliation, for international understanding and cooperation. Take the proposed disarmament of brave little Denmark, to reduce its army to a police force, to destroy its forts and fortresses, and no longer to have a minister of war and navy, but only a minister of peace. Take the movement under Gandhi in India. Take the various movements inaugurated by the missionary societies in this country in order to make the 18,000 missionaries sent from America, the 28,000 sent from other Christian countries of the world, the 600,000 bible students in the mission schools in the various lands of Asia and Africa, one vast international agency for peace, an agency of good will and mutual understanding.
Third, take the great agencies making for peace in still other parts of the world. In Germany today there are many organizations whose sole object is peace. It has not all been made public yet—it is still in part confidential—but Germany is proposing, first, to be the first great nation to follow Switzerland in denouncing war and taking a stand forever against it; second, though they believe it unjust, to accept the western boundaries laid down by the Treaty of Versailles and to count Alsace-Lorraine a closed issue and lost to them forever; third, to apply for entrance into the League of Nations, to refer all justiciable questions to a world court, and to make provision that non-justiciable questions go to boards of arbitration.
Fourth, I would call your attention to the World Court and League of Nations, and to the great movement for the outlawry of war. I mention these two movements together, which at first thought might seem antagonistic. I believe it will be with the loss of all vision and of all statesmanship if we in this country allow ourselves to be bitterly divided and to bring the country to disgrace over this issue of the World Court, as we have permitted it to be over the issue of the League of Nations. We must have a vision of statesmanship, a vision of tolerance, a vision of sympathy and understanding, in order to work together so that our forces for peace shall not be defeated. On the one hand there is a large majority out for the World Court and ultimately for the League of Nations; on the other hand is a powerful minority out for the outlawry of war. All of us are in favor of the abolition of war, but I appeal to you social workers to join the small but powerful minority group who look upon outlawry as the panacea to solve this problem. It is a small but powerful group which cannot be ignored. It stands for three things: first, let the nations get together to outlaw
war as piracy and slavery have been outlawed; second, let them agree to codify international law, based not upon war, but upon peace. The bulk of international law now seems to take war for granted. Let the first article be that all war is outlawed. Third, the World Court with plenary jurisdiction is to be looked upon with alarm if based upon the antagonisms of the last war, but with favor if divorced from the present rules of war. I was recently at the most hopeful conference I have attended in many years, where this powerful minority representing outlawry and the larger majority standing for the World Court and the League of Nations were trying to see if they could not find common ground and finally come to a common mind. We felt if we could combine the great passion for idealism and the splendid personnel of this minority group with the plan for immediate entrance into the World Court it would be a great thing. If this plan goes through it will mean something like this. Let America propose in good faith, in the Senate on December 17, immediately to enter the World Court; but let America enter it upon a basis not of war but of peace; let America hold the right to withdraw if the nations are unwilling to outlaw war or to codify international law on the basis of peace. This would mean that we would not stand aloof, but go into it wholeheartedly and in earnest. It would mean that all the nations would have to discuss the outlawry of war within the next two years. I believe it would lift the whole question to a higher plane.
At Geneva, as I studied the situation, I was impressed with the growth of the League of Nations during the preceding year. I found fifty-five great nations supporting it, practically seven-eighths of the civilized world-all the great nations except Russia, Germany, and the United States. I found that already they had averted six wars, had made powerfully for disarmament, for there are a half million less men under arms today than there were a year ago, and that they were helping economically in Europe with tremendous effect.
Take the World Court. Why should we not go into it? It was indorsed by President Harding, by Secretary Hughes, by President Coolidge; indorsed by the leaders of both parties that were unsuccessful in the last election, and supposedly by the Republican Party also; indorsed by the leading institutions of the entire country-by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the American Bar Association, the Federation of Women's Clubs, the American Federation of Labor. The House of Representatives voted more than ten to one in favor of it last March. Even the vote of the Senate lacked only seven votes of a twothirds majority. Can it be that a little bit of an opposing group can, by their own tactics, after two year's delay already, continue to defeat the issue until the whole country is as sick of the World Court as it has become of the League of Nations, and thus render the Republican party devoid of influence among the forces for peace? Can we not find a common ground? Can we not outlaw war and join a world court and try to make it do what it ought to do? I do not claim that the League of Nations is perfect. It is no more perfect than was our feeble Continental Congress, when thirteen jealous colonies got together and tried