◆ SpookStack

re) The curious and confusing costs of reedom Of Worship “ Se ell the flag, could easily be extended to cde Supreme Court in interpreting the Pi iret nelling oHathe from persons who have ‘e- Amendment are doubtless due to the “com- ligious scruples against swearing. The prin- plexity of th: problem raised by the sec- taries caliedfehovah’s Witnesses who for several years past have been providing the court with a series of troublesome test eases, The creed of the Witnesses is apocalyptic; they believe that Armageddon is close at hand when the righteous (mean- ing themselves) shall triumph and their enemies he laid low, ‘Their faith and) their methods are fanatical; they regard ‘jother religions not merely as heresies, but 5a- tanical inspirations; and consequently have littke regard for the religious sensibilities of thers. They consider the Government itself odless and rejoice in the theught of its im- inent destruction,’ yet rarely hesitate to invoke its protection. They appear to invite rather than to avoid repression or perse- cution, and there is some reagon tofibelieve that they welcome the publicity which their frequent conflicts with local and 5 au- thorities have brought them. The dilemma of the court lies in this: in upholding local ordinances or State laws under which the Witnesses have been prese- j cuted, precedents may be established which Tin ultimately react against other religions. he principle, for example, that schoo! chil- | ren belonging to the sect may oe compelled, ven against conscience, to offer homage to | ‘ciple of regulating religious activity by 1li- .cense or taxation could, if it became ex- pediontpbe directed against almost every re- ; Ugtous body. The principle that a secular ' court may prescribe which actions do or do not constitute worship, is one that scarcely any religious body could accept. Such he cipjes, in iact, if once established in ! would modify the constitutional princisle of freedom to one of mere toleration. we It may be granted, of course, that there is a theoretic limit even ‘to freedom of worship. The limit would seem to be ‘pre- cisely at the point where the. freedom of one religion collides violently and injuriously with established moralities. No one would say seriously, for exam le, that ritual can- nibalism as practiced by the Aztecs or infant immolation as practiced by the ancient vetaries of Moloch, or polygamy as practiced in certain patriarchical societies are entitled to protection under the Jaw. But in the ab- rence of overt injuries to persons or to tra- ditional moralities—and, as far as we know no one has alleged either againgt Jehovah's Witnesses—we should like to sed these cases ‘dedided on the side of freedom. For if th ne vital freedom is narrowly réstricted, uj j other constitutional rights will be Pfeoparty. - oe ~~} 5 \ 4 £7 A Sf This is a clipping from - SE as 7 “ ast Government, Washington Post for Clipped “aE the Sat of ml