{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

You remember that I tried to dramatize the story of society in this country by distinguishing people, public, and masses; and by giving the leadership of -- of peoples in the churches of this country to the 18th century; and the development of a public under secular government as the task of the 19th; and today the problem of corporations, and wards of government or corporations, as our own problem in the days of a split atom and a split individual, of schizophrenia. So that in order to understand the history of society, it is not legitimate always to talk as though society was composed of the same elements of individuals; but it is composed in a constant shift of a trinitarian mankind; that is, half -- one-third involved in living in families, one-half involved in -- emphasizing its own individuality, and one-third entrenched in making a living, in producing the goods of this earth which cannot be done either by individuals or by families simply, but must be done in -- by the process of production which is in every time very different indeed, and therefore has no constant principle of organization, but is always changing.

We went back then and saw how the people, feeling im- -- threatened by the development of the secular state, tried to remain the people in their church, and how they couldn't do it. And we were -- involved last time, as you know, in giving this strange story of Mormonism, the most American story of all these religious struggles, because it was based on the assumption that there was a new religion for the whole continent of America, for the aborigines--or already ex- -- given to the aborigines--and it is the one truly American religion. It was based on s- -- several very strange assumptions. One, that all the churches had apostasized, and that there was no church left, except now this new one, the new dispensation of the latter-day saints.

I brought you--because it is, I think, quite important to document these sayings--I brought you the speech, the discourse of Brigham Young, the heir of the prophet Joseph Smith, the speech which he gave at the dedication of Salt Lake temple. It isn't usual that we -- people today in history write in terms of the official documents of inaugurations, or solemnifications, or however you call it. I think the other way around. I think these very official documents are the best documents to know what really happens, and not the behind-the-scenes revelations of bosses, and -- and this detective story business is not for me. The story is usually quite open. And I'm not believing in these deep secrets.

"Address at the Laying of the Cornerstone of the Salt Lake City." And I think for some of you perhaps quite useful to know that the Mormons themselves printed this, "Discourse of Brigham Young, Second President of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," in the Deseret Book Company, Salt Lake City, Utah, printed in 1925. Now on page 636, there occurs this very bold paragraph:

"Soon after the ascension of Jesus"--

--that is, at Pentecost and Ascension -- since -- these two words, "Ascension" and "Pentecost," as I have found out to my dismay no longer are known to many of you: Pentecost, or Whitsunday is the 50th day after Easter, and is the day on which the Holy Spirit conquered the followers of Jesus, who, as you know, in His lifetime had not understood what He was after.

"Soon after the ascension of Jesus, through mobocracy, martyrdom, and apostasy, the Church of Christ became extinct from the earth. The man-child, the holy priesthood, was received up into Heaven for whe- -- from whence it came, and we hear no more of it on the earth until the angels restored it to Joseph Smith, by whose ministry the Church of Christ -- Jesus Christ was restored, reorganized on earth 23 years ago this day, with the title of "Latter-day Saints" to distinguish them from the former-day saints."

Now, you see, that's quite a bold -- a bold postulate. And here, this explains to you however the reason why the Mormons are to this day the most American, and the most radical heresy of Christianity. They abolished everything between Paul and Joseph Smith. That's all wrong, that's all abuse. And they say that the -- Gospel has already been revealed 500 years ago to the aboriginous people in this country and has only been hidden. The importance is -- of this is that therefore Joseph Smith was able to find the true Gospel on this bleak beach of America.

The second thing we have to stress is the persecution. I told you that the strange story of success of Mohammed and Islam, as well as of Joseph Smith, is the anticipation of the persecution. Knowing that the things of the spirit have to be achieved by con- -- persecution, or entail, or produce, provoke persecution -- as far as I can read the story of Joseph Smith, his genius is in that he provoked the persecution pr- -- before it was, so to speak, there. That he began with being persecuted. I -- the greatest -- fact of this is that he made known the revelation of The Book of Mormon, then accepted the ensuing slander, persecution, scorn, injury; and after this had worn off, only translated the book and published it. That is a diplomacy, or a tactic, or a strategy of the first order, so that the persecution could not ruin the case, not being allowed to come after the event, but being invited to run its course before the event.

I have another document which I think we may have time to go into, because it -- shows you the tragedy of all religious movements in a settled, and a

secular or a secularly organized country. These are the minutes of a public meeting at Liberty, Missouri, at the time before the Mormons tr- -- had to transfer their property and their quarters from -- Missouri to Illinois, where Joseph Smith then later perished.

June 1836 we are. And here's what happened. I think it's very touching.

"On the 29th of June, a respectable number of the citizens, being previously notified of the meeting, met at the courthouse in the town of Liberty, Missouri. They appointed a committee of nine"--and we don't have to go into the details of the names--"and then they came back with fol- -- the following unanimous report, which was read.

"Report: it is apparent to every reflecting mind that the crisis has arisen in this country that requires a deep, cool, dispassionate consideration, and immediate action of every lover of peace, harmony, and good order. We cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that at this moment the clouds of civil war are rolling up their fearful masses, and hanging over our devoted country. Solemn, dark, and terrible. This painful state of things has been produced mainly by the rapid and increasing emigration of that people commonly called Mormons during the last few months. It is known to all that in November 1833, these people were expelled from their homes in Jackson County without money, without property, without the means of subsistence for themselves, their wives, and their children--and, like Noah's dove--without a resting place for their feet. They came to our county thus, friendless and penniless, seeking as they said, but a temporary asylum from the storm of persecution by which they were then buffeted.

"Their destitute and miserable condition at that inclement season of the year excited the deep sympathies of the philanthropic and hospitable citizens of this county. And notwithstanding, the thousands -- reports that were borne on the wings of the wind, charging them with almost every crime known to the laws of our country; yet, our feelings of kindness and sympathy for human suffering prevailed over every obstacle; and they were received with friendship and treated with toleration, and often with remarks of peculiar kindness. They always declared that they looked not upon this county as their home, but as a temporary asylum, and that whenever a respectable portion of the citizens of this county should request it, they would promptly leave us in peace as they found us.

"That period has now arrived. Duty to ourselves, to our families, and to the best interests of our country, require that our hands to demand the fulfillment of that pledge. They are charged by those who are opposed to them with an unfriendly determination to violate that pledge, their rapid emigration, their large purchases"--of land, of course--"and offers to purchase lands, the remarks of the ignorant and imprudent portion of them that this

country is destined by Heaven to be theirs, are received and looked upon by a large portion of our community as strong and convincing proof that they intend to make this county their permanent home, the center and general rendezvous of their people.

"These are some of the reasons why these people have become objects of deepest hatred, and detestation to many of our citizens. They are Eastern men, whose manners, habits, customs, and even dialect are essentially different from our own. They are non-slave holders"--listen to this--"they are non-slave holders, and opposed to slavery, which in this peculiar period when Abolitionism has reached -- reared its deformed and haggard visage in our land, is well-calculated to excite deep and abiding prejudices in any community where slavery is tolerated and protected.

"In addition to all this, they are charged, as they have hitherto been, with keeping up a constant communication with our Indian tribes on our frontiers, with declaring even from the pulpit that the Indians are a part of God's chosen people and are destined by Heaven to inherit this land in common with themselves."

Here you see, of course, the necessity of this aboriginal gospel to be comprehensive, to include the newcomers from Europe, the New Englanders who emigrate, and the red Indian out in the West.

"We do not vouch for the correctness of these statements"--that's also very interesting--"We do not vouch for the correctness of these statements, but whether they are true or false, their effect has been the same in exciting our community. In times of greater tranquility, such ridiculous remarks might well be regarded as the offspring of a frenzied fanaticism. But in this time, our defenseless situation on the frontier, the bloody disasters of our fellow citizens in Florida and other parts of the South, all tend to make a portion of our citizens regard such sentiments with horror, if not alarm.

"These and many other causes have combined to raise a prejudice against them, and a feeling of hostility that the first spark may, and we deeply fear will, ignite into all the horrors and desolations of a civil war, the worst evil that can befall any country.

"We therefore feel it our duty to come forward as mediators, and use every means in our power to prevent the occurrence of so great an evil. As the most efficacious means to arrest the evil, we urge on the Mormons to use every means to put an immediate stop to the emigration of their people to this county. We earnestly urge them to seek some other abiding place where the manners, the habits, and customs of the people will be more consonant with their own. For this purpose, we would advise them to explore the territory of Wisconsin. This country is peculiarly su- -- suited"--who is from Wisconsin? Anybody? Nobody from Wisconsin? Who is from Iowa? The migration has stopped.--"Wisconsin is peculiarly

suited to their conditions and their wants."

It isn't.

If you will kindly listen to this as an eternal example of the problem of religious and secular forms of life, because this is nothing accidental. This is not the Mormons, and this is not the county of Mi- -- in Missouri -- Liberty, Missouri. This is the eternal story. You can read it in the Old Testament. You can read it in the New Testament, and read it in the religious history of Islam. Now you read it here.

Only when you see that this is not an American problem, but a problem that happens in America, because of the clash between people and public, between voters and families, between creeds and opinions, can you see that the public spirit, which is a com- -- strange adulteration between spirit and opinion, will always be torn by -- for having proposed a new way of life to {examine}. And this, you must therefore -- I think the document should be placarded. It is hidden now in a never-read book, History of the Church of Chri- -- Latter-day Saints. Here you have one History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, by himself, Volume 2, 1904 it came out, on page 448, page 452.

So if you ever deal with religious propositions, some of you may become -- go so -- as far as becoming ministers, or adult education men, or teachers, turn to this document and you have an example of something that goes through the ages.

Now the recommendation of Wisconsin:

"It is a territory in which slavery is prohibited and" -- et cetera. "The religious tenets of this people are so different from the present churches of the age, that they always have and always will incite deep prejudices against them in any populous country where they may locate. We therefore, in a spirit of frank and friendly kindness, do advise them to seek a home where they may obtain large and separate hold- -- bodies of land and have a community of their own. We further they -- to say to them, if they regard their own safety and welfare, if they regard the welfare of their families, their wives and children, they will ponder with deep and solemn reflection on this friendly admonition. If they have one spark of gratitude, they will not willingly plunge a people into civil war who held out to them the friendly hand of assistance in that hour of dark distress when he -- there was few to say, 'God save them.'

"We can only say to them, if they still persist in the blind course they have he- -- heretofore followed in flooding the country with their people, that we fear and firmly believe that an immediate civil war is the inevitable consequence. We know that there is

not one among us who thirsts for the blood of that people."

Now comes this very important paragraph which I recommend to your special attention, because I think it is a very magnanimous and very rare statement:

"We do not contend that we have the least right under the Constitution and laws of the country to expect -- expel them by force."

I think that's a great sentence. I would like you to take that down. That a meeting that is bent on destroying the Mormon settlement admits this, you see. "We do not contend that we have the least right under the Constitution and laws of the country to expel them by force." That I think is a very generous sentence.

"But we would indeed be blind"--you got it?--"We do not contend that we have the least right under the Constitution and laws of this country to expel the Mormons by force."

If this would induce you to look behind legality and beneath legality in the -- all important issues of life, you would then see that second -- legality is always second-rate. That it is important, that we must live -- of course, try to live by law. But that the greater passions of mankind will always say, "Yes. It may be the law, but that isn't the whole story." You cannot live by the law in the Christian era, and that's what Christianity means.

"But we would indeed be blind if we did not foresee that the first blow that struck at this moment of de- -- excitement must and will speedily involve every individual in a war bearing ruin, woe, and desolation in its course. It matters but little how, where, or by whom the war may begin. When the world { } destruction commences, we must all be borne onward by the storm or crushed beneath its fury. In a civil war, when our homes are the theater on which it is fought, there can be no neutrals. Let our opinion be what they may. We must fight in self-defense."

That's of course -- is a tragedy, you see -- when war is declared, there are no five and six parties. There are only two. Solon, the great hero of Athenian legislation, legislated as his last law when he left the city that in a civil war, every citizen had to take sides. There could be no neutrals. Very strange.

"We want nothing. We ask nothing. We would have nothing from this people. We only ask them for their own safety and for ours to take the least of two evils."

This again is a very instructive thing. These good people, these secular

people who say, "We have no -- not the same faith as these other people," have as their last insight the very important insight, which -- you must learn--because it's the difference between secular government and religious order--that government is always the choice between two evils, and is always the choice of the lesser evil. Governments are not there to be daddies and mothers, let alone sugar daddies. And they are not there for philanthropical purposes. They are there for the minimum of order and law. And therefore in secular order, the choice is always between the lesser evil of legislating, which is always evil. One more law is always worse than no law. And this is forgotten today. Our legislation, manufacture laws, they cannot be obeyed. Five thousand laws a year, that's just nothing. That -- undermines the authority of the Congress today, that they -- have to legislate far too many things.

Laws must be parsimonious. They must be few, because every law is an evil. But it is the lesser evil to not passing the law. And Calvin Coolidge, the strange president who never said anything, as you know, and nobody knows whether he had anything to say--although he did translate Dante--he s- -- used to say when a law came to him for sign -- signature, he said, "Is it necessary?" And he would not sign a superfluous law. And I think there was great wisdom in this one remark, "Is it necessary?"

Our modern society is so foolhardy, being completely secular, that you think the only thing society can do is pass le- -- laws, and that they are blue laws -- become blue laws, and they are never observed. And the fewer the laws, the better the society obviously is off. You can only understand this if you do not impart to the processes of the secular sphere religious fervor and sanctity. If you say that this is a saint business--the business of saints to be in Congress--then you must of course think that a law has the qualities of -- of a religious, you see, conviction. And then it is not an evil in itself, because religion is, after all, an attempt to do the holy thing, the wholesome thing, the things that express health. But all government interference expresses concern with sickness, with evil. And therefore, that you have to pass a law is already a symptom that something is wrong, that this -- the country is not held together by a common faith, but only by necessity -- by a law, as we call this.

And so I think this sentence again -- deserves to be picked up, written in the year 1836, because I think this is the true American mistrust of central government which expresses itself here. That they -- they knew at -- that time, still in the presence of the churches and the -- the Gospel, that legislation was a secondrate thing. With the modern masses, you are no longer even persons. You are just -- as I said, wards of some institution. You quote the institution to which you belong in order to identify yourself. You say, "I am UCLA." And I told you that I think that's a poor reference. Because all these references, that "I am General

Motors," and "I'm General Electric," you see, this means that I no longer have the courage as Mr. Smith to be somebody in my own right.

And so, with this modern man, legislation seems to you so exalted that you are even still voters, that you are still in the political process treated as persons, that you do not want to have this perspective that if the social process -- is dealing -- making you very small indeed, what I would call subnormal, and if the -- in the normal process of secular government, you -- you deal with politics and laws --. Here we deal with rules and regulations. But in religion, we deal with divine commands. That's something quite different. -- In a command of religious fervor, there is no separation between legislator and obedient -- subj- -- you see -- citizen. They are not split. The command, in the command, I am king myself. I am king, ruler and ruled.

And this has completely disappeared from the American thinking. If you are -- read modern education and modern psychology manuals, the difference between a command, a law, and a rule is lost sight of. You have to drive on the street and have to keep right: that's a rule of social behavior. The beehive has to be regulated. That's not a law in the sense of -- in which Congress should pass laws, you see. To keep right is a rule of behaviorism. You are not asked what you think about this law. You aren't even asked beforehand what laws you would prefer, you see. The -- a city ordinance has to be passed, because otherwise we get accidents on the road. You see, that's a very minor thing. -- For my personality, it has nothing to do that I have to keep right of the road -- is treating me a part of the general process of floating traffic.

As soon as this is lost sight of, you will not understand the agony of these good people, here. What happens to this secular group of the -- at the committee in -- in -- in Missouri? They are faced with a religious maelstrom, with a religious onrush, these Mormons. Fanatics certainly, you see, increasing every day, a flood, de- -- living under a command that ends finally with the candidacy of Joseph Smith for the presidency of the United States, by they way. In 1944, he was on the ticket for the presidency of the United States.

So it is unlimited, as all commands are. And there--and this is so important--in a negative way, these good people discover their own religion. If you want to speak to people who are acting under a divine command, of course you cannot break their will by a secular command -- law. And so they say in all humility, and they discover as they go along--and that's why I think this document is of primary importance in American history--here are decent people who have tried to leave each other alone and not to talk religion to each other, but talk on the affairs of the market place, and to cope with each other in the -- under the laws of the country. Here, in comes this fanatic group, and these people are

forced in dialectical answer to discover, so to speak, to state their own religious principles. That's -- always will happen. A new group always forces the people of old to get together and formulate their principles. The Christians today, because of the Communist onslaught, suddenly must state general principles of Christianity. The ecumenic movement is an attempt to this. You see it, even the pope has to fall in with this. He's just forced as an antidote against Communism to become generally Christian.

Well, it's a quotation, Sir. I once wrote a book on this fact, on revolution. And when the -- my friends in -- in Boston talked about it to a Frenchman--who comes from a country where you are either an atheist or a Roman Catholic, and there is nothing third in between, you know--he said, "What's this man thinking? What's he believing? Ah," he said after a time. "C'est g‚neralement chr‚tien." And he discovered, you see, this "in general"; in America, this is nothing new, that we have to be in general Christians, you see. But in France, it was a complete discovery that somebody could have a -- un peu { } g‚neralement chr‚tien.

Now this is what these people are forced to discover. And -- as to the dialectics of any religious life, in any country, you can sta- -- state it -- this -- put it down, that secular groups, in the -- under the onslaught of a religious or qua- -- quasi-religious movement are forced to become religious themselves. This is what happens at this moment in this country, and it is so very difficult to understand, that it is at this time purely a dialectical compulsion to gain -- meet these people on the ground on which they are -- seem to be invincible, because no secular statement will hold out against a religious command.

"We want nothing." All these are religious conv- -- statements, you see.

"We want nothing. We ask nothing. We would have nothing from this people. We only ask them for their own safety and for ours to take the least of the two evils. Most of them are destitute of land; they have little property, are late emigrants to this country, without relations, friends, or endearing ties to bind them to this land."

It is interesting that the thinking of America at this moment in 1836 is still so European that these people are not called "immigrants" but "emigrants." Because "emigrant" is a name that only makes sense in Europe. "Immigrant" is a term that only make sense here. And everybody here speaks today of the immigrant, you see, of immigration. But in 1836, all these people had still so much a European head that they, so to speak, obediently called the people who came newly "emigrants."

"At the risk of such imminent peril to them and to us, we request them to leave us when their crops are gathered, their business settled, and they have made every suitable preparation to remove. Those who have 40 acres of land, we are willing, should remain until they can dispose of it without loss, if it should require years. But we urge--most strongly urge--that immigration cease, and cease immediately, as nothing else can or will allay for a moment the deep excitement that is now unhappily agitating this community. If the Mormons will comply with these friendly requisitions, we will use every exertion among our citizens to arrest this evil before it is forever too late. And -- but if they are disregarded, we can promise that neither them nor us ourselves a long continuation of the blessings of peace and harmony."

Now -- now comes the resolutions.

The religion then of a people that are driven to defense are, as to the brotherhood of the moment, {with the enemy}. They are, at this moment, religiously minded, because they go beyond the necessity of the law in admonishing these people, in warning them against war.

So it is very touching that the antagonism, the dialectical "no" to a new religious movement, must always take the form of immediate Marshall Plan help. The Marshall Plan is a typical assertion of a religious conviction of the solidarity, you see, of the human race, because it was offered to the Russians, too, you see, this help, at a moment when we cannot agree on the lasting commands of living together. And therefore you must not think that the behavior of this little group in Missouri county -- has no significance for you and me. Whenever you get -- are up against such a fanaticism, you must reassert that part of religion which already ties you together with the man of the other command. He can indulge, so to speak, in following his articulate command, whatever that may be, you see. You are forced to convince him that he already shares some religion with you. And so you have to open up your hearts and your arms in a way you would never have done it before. I think that makes all the racial issues at this moment in the United States so very urgent, and so very different from what they were before. And -- it is of course also true about our social order.

So I thought I sh- -- you should receive this document with a feeling that this is only a sampling of something eternal.

The Mormons had to leave Illinois after the death of Joseph Smith to -- and they were now -- became a nationwide religion in this sense: that when they moved across the country into -- Salt Lake City and its neighboring territories, they first had to serve in the army of the United States government. That is, the Civil War came around and they were--no, it was the Mexican War; pardon me, the Mexican War--in the Mexican War they had to immediately furnish soldiers.

And the government was very severe on them, and said, "If you do not send your young men serving with us in the war, we will not allow you to pass."

And here you have then this crucial moment in which a religious movement, which still tried to believe in the single-covenant community, was made a part of the nation's history, because at that moment, you see, the -- general war, the war -- Mexican War fell upon them as parts of the larger American community. And I tried to -- I said in the beginning that the religious movements of the 19th century had to com- -- accomplish this very difficult task: to change from a local, covenanted church--like the Amish men in Pennsylvania, or the Moravian brethren--to a nationwide religion, as we see the Mormons today displaying their power over the whole of the United States.

So the migration into a new territory from Illinois produced this effect that they now became part and parcel of the universal American history, and no longer were a church in the wilderness. This transition from the na‹ve idea of a new Jerusalem in one spot, to the growing into the size of a national -- nationwide movement, is also expressed by the necessity of putting missionaries -- to work. The covenanted community of the Congregationalists did not have any feeling of mission. The mission -- Congregationalism was very poor at missions in 18th century -- 17th -- as a matter of fact, it had none. And it's a very belated development that they went out -- in for missions. They were self- -- -satisfying, and if they colonized, simply people from their own town would go and settle the other town. That's not mission, because they didn't conv- -- convert any outsider to their religion.

Now Christianity in this country, if it wanted to be nation -- become nationwide--any group, the Mormons--had to have missionaries. And the transformation of the Mormon in Utah to the most lively missionary society we have at this moment in this country is therefore a -- a part and parcel of their problem to create this congruity, this i- -- this -- this identity between the -- their religion and the religion of America. Because mission means faith. Mission means expectation. It isn't necessary that everybody is converted now. But as long as you send out one missionary to Africa, you still believe in Christianity, that it is the true religion. Otherwise you don't.

And there are therefore two consequences which I would like you to bear in mind, because we are faced today with the complete death of this faith in the future of Christianity. One, that every Christian must make one convert or he is not a Christian, that Christianity without conversion is dead. Because the works of Christianity are faith, the spreading of the faith, the fruitfulness of the faith, not works. Nothing external, but another Christian. Whether you bring you -- up your children in a -- in a Christian church, that's one way, a very cheap way--or

whether you convert your best friend, or whether you insist that in your marriage -- husband and wife must have the same faith, or at least gain gradually the same faith, it's all the same. The problem is that there is no religious command upon you if you do not identify your brother with yourself. Now the preaching of the Gospel may not be the best way of converting somebody. You may be silent, but that's a conversion, too.

A famous story of the missionary who lived among the Eskimos for 16 years. And after 16 years, one Eskimo opened his mouth finally and said, "Tell me, who was this man, Jesus?" So it had taken him 16 years, you see, to -- to get the Eskimo to ask any question. And of course you cannot teach anybody who isn't asking a question; and you cannot convert anybody who is not expecting -- asking you to give him advice. Un- -- unwanted advice is no advice, is -- is worse than -- than ad- -- no advice -- is never taken. If you advise somebody -- who doesn't -- hasn't asked you to give the advice, you only make an enemy.

The second point about missions. Our oil companies here, Aramco oil company in Arabia, is now flying over their camps the green flag of Allah and his prophet. And it reads, "Allah is great and Mo- -- Mohammed is his pro- -- their -- his prophet." Now these people are of course writing off our whole history, and our whole civilization. And that this is permi- -- the -- the same people, as you know, who are not allowed to have a Christian service in -- Saudi Arabia on Sundays, and who are not allowed to land a Jewish officer of the navy on the shores of Saudi Arabia.

So you have three abdications of our faith in one act, so to speak, in our relations to this gentleman, pirate king, Ibn Saud of Arabia.

This is important, because the second law of missions is that if you don't care to state your faith, if you have given up this, you will be forced to confess another faith. In religion, there is no neutrality possible. You cannot evade the issue. If you say, "I'm nobody," you are somebody. But you are somebody else's somebody. This flag of Allah and the prophet is after all a catastrophical surrender to Islam. It is not neutral. And the American tradition at this moment of a purely secular society is that there is such a thing in the highest order of life of neutrality. There is no { }. You cannot be neutral in -- questions of marriage, in question of children, in question of peace, in question of war. As -- as these people say, you are forced under the import of the command of somebody else to say under whose command you are acting. And so Aramco is acting obviously there under the commands of lying, cowardice, and greed. That's a religion, too, but it's an anti-religion.

Now we come to the second movement. Oh, pardon me. In 1890, or 1889,

the Supreme Court of the United States was faced with the fact that the Mormons by that time had spread -- had established statehood in -- in a territory in Utah, and now claimed that they had a right to become a state in the Union. It was denied to them, because there was still polygamy. And the -- before the United States came the great question, whether the -- new state of -- the territory of Utah could become a state unless polygamy was uprooted. I think this case is not often quoted. And again I feel the document is worth your while. It is to be found in the United States records -- reports of the cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at the October term of 1889. And if anybody wants to use it for his doctor's dissertation, it is in Volume 136 of these, you see, bulging decisions of the Supreme Court.

It's a long decision, and I wish some of you would go into it, because it is not for lawyers. It's written for historians and it's written for churchmen. We have only to deal with the interesting statement, that the United States government is a -- what I would call a post-Christian government, that it cannot go back on the standards of a Christian country, although it is a secular government. And in order to understand then secularism in this country, you must always know that it cannot go behind that which al- -- was already implied in the religious sen- -- settlement of this country.

It is distinctly stated in the Pleadings and Finding of Fact that the property of the Mormon Church was held for the purpose of religious and charitable uses. So that would free them, you see, in- -- in- -- interference, because religious and charitable uses, as you know, to this day are not even taxed. That's -- one way of getting rid of your income tax is, of course, to give it to religious and charitable uses. But it is also stated, the court says, in the Findings of Fact:

"And it is a matter of public notoriety, that the religious and charitable uses intended to be subserved and promoted are the inculcation and spread of the doctrines and usages of the Mormon Church, or Church of Latter-day Saints, one of the distinguishing features, which is the practice of polygamy, a crime against the laws and abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world. Notwithstanding the stringent laws which have been passed by Congress, notwithstanding all the efforts made to suppress this barbarous practice --."

Will you kindly take down these words?--"abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the civilized world" and "barbarous practice." So we have two expressions. It's not civilized, and it is barbarous.

"The sect or community composing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pre- -- perseveres in defiance of law in

preaching, upholding, promoting, and defending it. It is a matter of public notoriety that its emissaries are engaged in many countries in propagating this nefarious doctrine, and urging its converts to join the community in Utah. The existence of such a propaganda is a blot on our civilization. The organization of a community for the spread and practice of polygamy"--you now have a paper for homosexuals on this campus--"is"--same thing--"is in a measure a return to barbarism. It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and of the civilization which Christianity has produced in the western world.

"One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polygamy or in the right to indulge in it is a religious belief. And therefore, under the protec-"-- what I called a command--"under the protection of the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom."

Now here we come to an important point. It's of course very important for you today just as well.

"This is altogether a sophistical plea. No doubt, the thugs of India imagine that their belief in the right of assassination was a religious belief, but their thinking so did not make it so. The practice of suttee"--when the widows are burned--"by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed religious conviction. The offering of human sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain was no doubt sanctioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one on that account would hesitate to brand these practices now as crimes against society, and obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. The state has a perfect right to prohibit polygamy and all other open offenses against the enlightened sentiment of mankind."

And I'm very glad to read here the word of -- "mankind," which shows the solidarity, you see, of the law of the 18th -- 19th century in America with the laws of the human race.

"Notwithstanding the pretense of religious conviction by which they may be advocated and prefaced."

I think that's enough for -- for -- for our own purposes. But then it goes -- there's one more sentence.

"The principle of the law of charities are not confined to a particular people or nation, but prevail in all civilized countries, pervaded by the spirit of Christianity."

I tried to show you in 1776, that the flag, with its Egyptian star--this fivepointed star instead of the Star of David -- is six points--that the -- the dollar bill,

you see, that the pursuit of happiness, instead of salvation, that all these have been secular translations of the common denominator in the religious traditions of the pre- -- the preceding 1700 years. We have here in the year -- 110 years later, after the Constitution -- just 100 years after the Constitution was passed, the same expression of the firm belief of the Supreme Court that the country -- civilized countries simply are countries permea- -- permeated by the spirit of Christianity. And you will not understand the term "civilized nations" if you do not understand that it means Christianized peoples, without regard to their denomination. It doesn't mean Roman Catholic. It doesn't mean Greek Catholic. But it means Christianized.

And I think for our future it is terribly important that you should bear in mind that in this sense the Russians belong to the same tradition. They are not Asiatic people, as some cheap -- commentators dare to say. They are certainly -- in the 19th century have -- they have produced greater Christians than anyone in the West, like Tolstoy and Dostoevski. And many others, by the way. And you are in great danger today, because you live s- -- in a completely secularized society which you want to run nations by factories and education, and the -- and by law only, that we have a tradition on a much wider scale -- from the Ural, or from Siberia to Los Angeles, which permeates what we call "civilized state."

Saudi Arabia is not a civilized state for this very reason. And we -- but we treat at this moment Saudi Arabia as a civilized state, as you know. Mr. -- Mr. Eisenhower went to the airport to receive Ibn Saud. He certainly did not receive Mikoyan at the airport.

Thank you.