Page 7


TEXAS LAWMEN Charles Goodnight, Empire 13uilaer “Live and let live .. except cattle thieves!” Back in the stalwart seventies cattle herds and cattle thieves were the fastest growing crops in Texas. Then Charles Goodnight declared war on the latter and, with some like-minded friends, organized the Panhandle Stockmen’s Association. Those of the bandit brotherhood who didn’t hit the trail out were soon decently interred, one by one. Goodnight was always a cattleman and only incidentally a lawman, but he served Texas well. Born in Illinois, 1836, his 21st birthday found him in Palo Pinto County, a Texas Ranger and Indian Scout, and starting his first herd. By 1865 he,had more cows than he could sell thereabouts, so he and a friend, Oliver Loving, drove them to New Mexico. The route they marked became the well-worn Goodnight-Loving Trail. By 1877 he and a partner, John G. Adair, established the JA Ranch and in time ran a hundred thousand cows on a million Panhandle acres. There they introduced Hereford bulls and developed one of the nation’s finest herds. He also developed the cattalo, breeding buffalo to Polled Angus cattle. After 93 colorful, active years Charles Goodnight died in 1929. The good citizen and the lawman have always possessed the courage and good judgment to uphold justice and keep the peace. We need that now .. to keep our good life and liberty. When an industry provides employment and enjoyment for so many, it “belongs.” In Texas, “Beer Belongs.” The United States Brewers Foundation is constantly at work, with brewers, wholesalers and retailers, to assure the sale of beer and ale under pleasant, orderly and law-abiding conditions. Texas Division, UNITED STATES BREWERS FOUNDATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 206 VFW Building ‘Living Participants in One National Unity’ \(A sermon, here published almost in its entirety, delivered from the pulpit of the University Baptist Church of Austin Sunday morning, Sept. 11, by Blake Smith, pastor, before more than 1,000 perHistory has thrust us into a position of great leadership and responsibility in the world. . .. The poet, Rilke, says, “There are cracks in things,” meaning that things do not neatly fit together in an understandable pattern of cause and effect. . . . The emerg 7 ence of the United States to a position of world influence and responsibility is one of the “cracks in things.” This fact forces us to face a question in which the very meaning of our existence is involved. This question is not, How did it come about? but What are we going to do with it? . . . Perhaps our nation and the world of nations have never faced more critical times than the years immediately ahead of us. Problems which we have never faced before thrust themselves to the center of our existence. This is a new day in which old issues, once meaningful and urgent, must give way to new realities which history has created. We are now called on to exercise one of the most costly and precious freedoms which free men in a free society can exercise; namely, the choice of our own rulers. It is an awful responsibility. If ever we needed to be at our best, to “see things clearly and see them whole,” it is now. At this critical moment we see a great nation being threatened with division at the center. Issues in which our existence and, indeed, the existence of the whole civilized world, are involved are pushed aside or forgotten while emotionally charged sectarian concerns move to the center of the stage, take over the act and receive most of the cheers or the jeers. Meanwhile, a troubled world, threatened with its very extinction and looking to us for leadership, stands heartsick and dismayed. This tragedy is compounded by the fact that a segment of the church, taking counsel of its fears, is stirring up doubt and distrust among our citizens. What is even more ominous, occasion is given for the felease of dark, demonic passions which lie dormant in every society. It is frightening to contemplate how diabolical these passions can become once they are given religious sanction. Apostles of Discord We have among us apostles of discord who are taking the supposed “religious issue” in this campaign as an excuse for spreading the poison of hate wherever they can get a hearing. There are not many of them, thank God! but their influence among the people is very great. They pronounce personal fears as if they were the very voice of God, and they do not hesitate to communicate falsehoods and half-truths which are nothing more than rumors or the fabrication of evil imaginations. An illustration of the first those who pronounce personal fears as if they were the voice of Godis a man standing in a great and influential pulpit and saying, “If a Roman Catholic is elected president,’ religious freedom in this country is doomed.” That may be his personal opinion, born of his own fears, but it is not necessarily true and it is not the voice of God. An illustration of the other tactic of the apostles of discord speaking untruthis the use that has been made of the supposed “Knights of Columbus Oath.” One clergyman occupying a pulpit once made famous by the illustrious ministry of one of the greatest men of this century, recently quoted that fictitious “Oath” as gospel truth, without any explanation of the source of his information. To show the hideousness and immorality of these tactics, I shall quote from that sermon as it appeared in mimeographed form with the explanation that it was “Part of . . . Pastor’s talk . . . July 27, 1960.” “If Kennedy is elected . . . and the day comes when America is 51% Catholic we can expect the Knights of Columbus to carry out the obligations they swear to upon being admitted to the ordera part of which I quote: ” ‘I promise . . . and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secret and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex, or condition, and that I will burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infants’ heads against the wall. . . . That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poinard, or the leaden bullet . . . as I at any time may be directed so ‘to do by any agent of the Pope or superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. ” ‘In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood.’ ” If this oath were actually required and taken by the Knights of Columbus or by any other group in this country, it would constitute one of the most frightening perils imaginable. This pastor quotes it without any reservations or qualifications whatever. When a man takes it upon himself to broadcast a statement of such serious import is he not morally obligated to investigate the truth or falsity of the statement? He could have learned from indisputable authority that this supposed “oath” is a malicious fabrication, that it never existed in fact, that it was conjured up in 1912, that our responsible Baptist leadership have repeatedly warned against the use of it, and that Senator. Ralph W. Yarborough in the current session of Congress has placed in the Congressional Record a denunciation of it. “Such material,” says Senator Yarborough, “has no place and should have no place, in free, honest elections.” If this pastor had been interested in the truth, he could have quoted the actual oath which the Knights of Columbus take. For the record, here it is: “I swear to support the Constitution of the United States. I pledge myself . . . fully to enlighten myself upon my duties as a citizen and conscientiously perform them entirely in the interests of my country, regardless of all personal consequences. I pledge myself to do all in my power to preserve the integrity and purity of the ballot and to promote respect for law and order. I promise to practice my religion consistently and faithfully and to so conduct myself in public affairs and in the exercise of public virtue as to reflect nothing but credit . upon our Holy Church, to the end that she may flourish and our country prosper to the greater honor and glory of God.” So much for the apostles of discord. I have confined my illustrations to those within our own denomination. But they are not limited to the Baptist fellowship. They are in the ranks of all churches, and we may hope that lovers of truth and fair play in those denominations will condemn their apostles of discord with equal candor and firmness. These irresponsible apostles of discord are an infinitesimal Minority and in no sense represent, nor should they be identified wtih that larger group of responsible, serious clergy and laity who are deeply troubled and apprehensive about the future of religious liberty in this country. These men and women are not rabble-rousers or hate-mongers. They may be mistaken, as I believe they are, but their misgivings must not be construed as narrow intolerance or blind prejudice. I think they are mistaken, and this morning intend to tell you why I think so. Deep, Radical Difference But before we can fairly evaluate their fears and misgivings, we must recognize honestly and as dispassionately as possible the fact that there are deep and radical differences between Protesand Roman Catholics. To pretend that there are not real differences or that those which do exist are trivial would be to commit the ostrich-like folly of burying our heads in the sand of good will and hoping that thereby the radical differences which involve us in inescapable conflict will somehow disappear or prove to be unreal. . . . One of these genuine conflicts involves the attitude of the Roman Catholic church with respect to inter-faith marriage. We seek earnestly and honestly to rear our children in the nurture and knowledge of God. In our homes and churches great effort, and no small. amount of money are expended to give our children religious knowledge and experiences. We are not as successful as we want to be or hope to be, but God knows that we try. When our children come to that ‘age where they begin to think about establishing their own homes and having their own families, We hope that we shall not have failed to prepare them for that high and holy vocation. We believe that we are doing a fairly good job and we are convinced that our children have something to contribute to the spiritual health and sta bility of their homes, no matter whom they marry. But when our young people marry Roman Catholics, that church assumes from the very beginning that they have no spiritual equipment to bring to that marriage. Even if they do not join the Catholic church they are required to pledge in writing that they will have no part in the religious nurture and training of their children. However it may be explained or justified on grounds of ecclesiastical structure and necessity, it comes down to a denial of the validity and value of everything we have taught our children at home or in the church, and considers useless the profoundest Christian experiences which they have had. This is an affront which we deeply resent, not only with our heads but in our hearts. Much of the highly-charged emotional antagonism which Protestants feel toward Roman Catholics in other than religious areas stems from this practice which we believe is unjust and lacking in Christian charity. Apart from this highly personal and emotionally charged difference, there are other areas of genuine conflict. We believe that separation of church and state is fundamental to Christian faith. To us separation is not a tentative accommodation to a particular and temporary historical situation. We are committed to the formula, “a free church in a free state,” believing that it is absolutely necessary for the welfare of both the church and the state. We firmly believe that whenever the wall of separation is breached at any point, both the church and the state suffer. This is not the position of the Roman Catholic church, as set forth in unambigious language by the Popes. It would be tedious to spell this out with lengthy quotations from Papal encyclicals, Catholic theologians, and responsible church officials. or from expositions which are easily available in ‘authorized Catholic textbooks and periodicals. This is not a criticism but a statement of fact which any competent Catholic scholar will readily affirm. In brief, the position of the Roman Catholic church is that in matters of faith and morals, truth and error, the church has absolute and final responsibility. Whenever faith and morals, truth and error, concern and involve the public over which the state has final authority, it then becomes the duty and obligation of the state to implement and, if necessary, enforce the decision of the church in these matters. There is a real difference here, and it is not trivial. No amount of good will or side-stepping for the sake of expediency can make it otherwise. So far as I know, no responsible Catholic or Protestant denies this fundamental conflict of beliefs. Logically, the two positions are irreconcilableat least they are until more light comes to us. There is no way to escape this tension; we simply have got to live with it as Christians. The Catholic church does not believe in total separation of church and state. We do. It does not recognize “the wall of separation” as doctrinally sound and democratically necessary. We do. But there is nothing new about this. These differences have been with us since the founding of the nation. We have been able to live in this tension because of our mutual respect for, and loyalty to the Constitution which guarantees equal right and freedom to all without favoring any, and because of our common devotion to our THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 6 Sept. , 16, 1.960