Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TBEIST
/'I %bttf~M
November-December,
1964
One Dollar
1
"AttIIIIINf
oJWNlllHl',
MANACMMIN'r
(..or.,_.J,'~'_.,.,.TIII<,.,U
__AND CIIIC\ILATION
CM)
No
<l
...
=-..rt.IIJ.t.h.~.n
.:=~-=..
.
(_."
,."u,_.ujoft{
'"':.::=-
,,400
,.""
2,200
l,I'7
In T.his Issue ..
Lower Court RuJ ing Against The Tax The Church Property Case
Page 1
Memorandum Opinion, Judge Wilson E. Barnes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
2
A Question Answered By Leonard J. Kerpelman, Corporation Counsel
" . . . . . . . . . .. 26
Tax Exempt Religious Property in Baltimore, Martin A. Larson. " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 27
Church, Charity Real Estate Valued at $135 Billion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
28
Tax-Exemption is Doomed, According to St. Petersburg Clergymen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .. ,. 29
President Johnson's $1.5 Billion School Aid Plan, Editorial
31
Horace Mann League Challenges State Aid to Church-Affiliated
Colleges, Editorial
33
Mixed Marriage Edict Oue Soon, Editorial
34
SCIENCE AND FREETHOlJGHT
A Physicist's
View of Ethics, Dr. George A. Fink ..................................
37
The Philosophy of Dr. Willard E. Edwards
43
The Perpetual Calender
44
Youth Section, Edited by Steve Wagner
45
Letters to the Editor
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46
Advertisements
;
". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 51
English History -- A Poem By Joseph E. Nutter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Back Cover
The Christmas Myth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Back Cover
Lemoin Cree, EditoFoin-Chief / Ralph Blois, AI Stahl, Henry Laing Watt, Associate
Editors /
Steve Wagner, Youth Section Editor.J Lou AIt, Stephen Burglund, Pearl Cline, Gus Goltz,
leonard Kerpelman, Virgil McClain, Stewart Smiley, Contributing
Editors /.
bv..
PRESS.
Notice
In the area of separation of church and state there
have recently been three important developments,
all
revolving around the issue of government subsidy of
religion.
They are (1) The ruling of the lower court
against our suit brought before it to force the church to
pay its fair share of property taxes, (2) The suit brought
before the Maryland Courts by the Horace Mann League
challenging the constitutionality
of State aid to church
schools, and (3) Endorsement by the President's
1.5
Billion School Aid Plan of the ltshared time" programs,
in which private and parochial school students use
some facilities
of the public schools.
All three of
these issues are of major importance; their resolution
will have far reaching consequences.
Therefore, a
substantial part of this issue will be devoted to a discussion of these developments.
Page 1
*
*
Original Plaintiffs,
LEMOIN CREE and
MARIE CREE, his wife, and
FREETHOUGHT SOCIETY OF AMERICA>
IN THE
*
*
*
Intervening Plaintiffs,
vs.
LOUI~ L. GOLDSTEIN, Comptroller of the
Treasury of Maryland,
ALBERT W. WARD, Director,
State Department of Assessments,
ROBERT L. MAINEN, Supervisor of
Assessments of Baltimore City,
JOHN G. ARTHUR, Director of Assessments
of Baltimore City,
Original Defendants,
*
*
*
*
OF
and
THE MOST REVEREND LAURENCE J. SHEHAN,
Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Baltimore, a Corporation Sole,
THE CONVENTION OF THE PROTESTANT
EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE
OF MARYLAND>
UNITED CHRISTIAN CITIZENS, INCORPORATED,
TEMPLE EMANUEL OF BALTIMORE, and
MARYLAND SYNOD OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH
IN AMERICA,
Intervening Defendants.
BALTIMORE
CITY
*
*
*
No. A-38851
Docket 72-A
Folio 343
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Original Bill of Complaint was filed in this Court on October 15, 1963
by Madalyn E. Murray, Trustee and Leddie Mays, the Original Plaintiffs, against the
Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland, the Director of the State Department of
Assessments and Taxation, the Supervisor of Assessments of Baltimore City and the
Director of Assessments of Baltimore City.
Page 2
November-December 1964
(1957
unconstitutional.
be enjoined
from carrying
out Article
any further
exceptions
81,
from
appurtenant
and parsonages, and also be directed to levy and collect taxes upon such houses,
parsonages and grounds appurtenant
services
or for
4.
five religious
bodies to intervene
Temple Emanuel
of Baltimore,
of Maryland,
of Baltimore,
as parties
the Convention
Synod of the
as additional
Plaintiff.
This inter-
is a taxpayers
and on behalf
of the United
as
of all
(the
November-December 1964
parties
of a
City, Maryland.
Page 3
regard to the assessment and collection of taxable property in the State and City;
that taxes are levied by the Original Defendants against the property of the Original
Plaintiffs and are levied uniformly against all other like property owners whose
property is not exempted from taxation; that owner-s of property, like in kind and in
-z:
CI
z
Q
situation to the property of the Original Plaintiffs are not being taxed uniformly
ylith them by the Original Defendants but are being exempted from assessment and taxation where such properties are being used for public worship, i.e., pUblic religious
services, or are being used as parsonages in connection with such places of public
worship and appurtenant grounds, such exception being purportedly granted by Article
81, Sec. 9(4) of the Maryland Code; and, that these actions by the Original
Defendants place a direct detriment and financial burden upon the Original Plaintiffs
"whose tax burden is thereby increased for the sole purpose of aiding and supporting
the religious practices and religious institutions of others, since a decrease in the
taxable baSiS, does by law require an increase in the rate of taxation of those.
taxed. II
Five grounds of unconstitutionality
Constitutions of the State and of the United States are then alleged~
1.
These are:
of Rights providing for uniformity of tax assessments so that taxes may be imposed
upon all members of the connnunity for pUblic purposes only and the furtherance of
public worship is not a valid public purpose.
3. These acts, practices and statute deny. due process of law contrary to
Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
Page 4
NQvembeI'-Decem,ber1964
4.
o
Z
0.
to the
:2:
:::)
CI
z:
~
r::c
Amendment
of That ~onstitution
o
::!:
LI.I
5.
:2:
a law respecting
an establish-
Fourteenth Amendment.
It is further alleged that declaratory
Declaratory
Code), that
have no ade~uate
remedy at law.
As the constitutionality
General of Maryland was served with a copy of the Original Bill of Complaint
re~uired by Article 31 A, Section 11 of the Maryland
Code.
Defendants.
as
and on behalf
had sufficient
Original Plaintiffs
Section
9(4)
of the
United States and that the exception under the Ma.ryland Statute was unconstitutional.
In the original answers filed on behalf of the Original Defendants,
was admitted that the Original Plaintiffs
it
25> 1964
with leave
of Court.
November .December 1964
Page 5
In the answer filed on behalf of Temple Emanuel of Baltimore, the interesting and novel defense is raised that not only is the exemption of the s~ogue
from taxation by Article 81, Sec. 9(4) of the Maryland Code constitutional, but that
a failure to except that place of public worship from taxation by the State and City
would result in "an unlawful and unconstitutional
the free exercise of religion and the separation of church and statell in violation
of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and
the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
The suit came on for hearing on its merits on July 1, 1964.
Leonard J.
Kerpelman, solicitor for the Original Plaintiffs asked leave of Court, in open Court
at the hearing, to move for the intervention of Lemoin Cree and Marie Cree, his Wife,
and of Freethought Society of America, ("Freethought Society"), an Ohio Corporation,
as additional parties Plaintiff, and for leave to file an Amended Bill of Complaint
setting up their position as taxp~ers
Mrs. Murr~
and Mrs. Mays had removed themselves from the State of Maryland
to the state of Harlaii shortly prior to the hearing under circumstances which need
not be recited here.
The solicitors for the Original Defendants and for same of the
time and directed the hearing to proceed, subject to the exception of the Original
DetendSnts to the motion for intervention.
~~e testimony established the following:
(See American Atheist
lor
Aug-Sept.
con
t ad.ni.ng entire
testimony)
The Original Defendants offered the testim<my of John G. Arlhur ,aae of the
Original Defendants and Director of the Department of Assessments of Baltimore C.1ty
for the past 12 years.
Page 6
for U ~ea.rs.
November-December
1964
~
~
o
=
::!l
Dep~ent
He is a
which include the assessment of property in the City for tax purposes and the appli-
cation of the laws of the State in regard to such assessment, Mr. Arthur pointed out
:!iE
that the taxable basis in substantial part is determined by the assessments made by
his Department, the budget is formulated by the Budget Director, approved by the
Board of Estimates and is then submitted to the City Council of Baltimore City for
final action.
eliminate or reduce items in the budget, but may not increase them.
amount of the City's Bu~get is determined, the tax
the principal part of the taxable basis is fixed.
assessable basis is, the less each taxpayer has to pay on his own real estate as
Property which is exempt ~rom t~~tion
At the request of the Attorney General, Mr. Arthur had assembled the
computer sheets of the City which showed the tax exempt property in the City as
exempted by Article 81, Section 9(4) of the Maryland C~de, as places of public
worship, parsonages, and appurtenant ground.
"Roman Catholic",
marked with a red check mark, and "Protestant" marked with a blue check mark.
Jewish congregations were marked with a green check mark.
be an absolute check, the study is roughly accurate and shows the following total
assessments exempt in the levy for 1964 from taxation in the City under Article 81,
Section 9( 4) :
November-December
Protest.ant
Roman Catholic
Jewish
1964
$41,031,430
31,339,880
6,136,510
$78,507, 820
Page 1
The records of the City indicate the total assessable basis of the City
:II:
ia..
I
o
$2,263,708,768.00
578,997,400.00
:II:
a:
$2,842,706,168.00
:E
used in real estate appraisal and spelled out in the Manual issued by the State
Department of Assessments and Taxation, which, in time, is based on Boeck's Manual
for Appraisers.
a front foot calculation in many instances and in some, but not many instances, a
unit value, based on an acreage valuation.
In some instances
a comparable sales value for the entire property may be used and in other instances
an income capitalization method with appropriate allocations as between land and
improvements, may be used.
Under the policy established by the State Department of Assessments and
Taxation, the final figure for purposes of taxation of land assessed by the methods
described is &::!fo of the current full cash value.
assessment of property for taxation, even using the established methods outlined,
"is not an exact science".
Article 81, Section 9(4) provides:
"(4) Churches, parsonages, etc ,, - Houses and buildings
used exclusively for public worship, and the furniture _contained
therein, and any parsonage used in connection therewith and the
grounds appurtenant to such houses, buildings and parsonages and
necessary for the respective uses thereof."
Page 8
November-December
.~
In applying this exemption, Mr. Arthur and the City Department of Assess-
-zii:
C)
Houses.
:E
CI
buildings and appurtenant lands used for teaching or contemplating the beliefs of
,0
:E
belief in a Supreme Being, are considered to be exempt under Section 9(4) and such
exemptions are granted in the regular course of administering the tax laws.
For
example, the property used by the Baltimore Ethical Culture Society which does not
,
teach any belief in a Supreme Being, but which confines its teachings to moral and
ethical standards and educational purposes has been exempted under Section 9(4).
Property used by Buddhist organizations for their religious teachings are exempted.
The Philosophical College of Occult Science has had its property exempted under
Section 9(4).
after ~aving heard Mr. Cree describe his p~ilosophical system, if app~ication were
made, the property ot t~e FreethougAt Society would be granted an exe~ption under
I
Section 9(4).
The State tax rate is 15 cents for $100 of assessed value.
This is levied
tion of the Convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the Diocese of Maryland
was agreed upon in Agreed Exhibit 3, its authorization to intervene was established
and a complete li~t of the properties of the Convention was given, with an aggregate
value of Diocesan properties in excess of $2,000,000.
1964
Page 9
I'" '
I
The American Atheist
in the suit.
$16,945.00
21,300.00
l38,245.00
It was established also that the property 2502 North Calvert Street,
Baltimore, Maryland was assessed for taxation for 1962 as follows:
Land
Improvements
Total
$ 1640.00
6600.00
$ 8240.00
Plaintiff and of a. new Paragraph 2-A setting out the properties of these new
Plaintiffs.
Page 10
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
On August 10, 1964, the Court passed. an Order granting leave to Mr. and
Mrs. Cree and the Freethought
Society to intervene
as additional
parties Plaintiff,
to file a Supplemental
No Supplemental
2.
exclusively
the present
and Intervening,
and parsonages
and necessary
in the affirmative,
These are:
suit?
used in connection
Assuming
voul.d be deemed to be
as of the date of
contained
therein,
used
uses thereof"
as provided
in Article
81, Section 9(4) of the Maryland Code, violate Article 36 of the Declaration
of the Maryland
maintain
Constitution
or contribute
prohibiting
to maintain
of Rights
anY person to
4.
uniformity
of
of taxation?
violate Article
Rights prOhibiting
of law'?
23 of the l1J.!'ylandDeclaration
of
5. Does the exemption violate. the Fourteenth Amendment to the Cons'titutiop of the United States prohibiting
States, life, liber~y or property
6.
November-December
1964
of law?
to the Constitution
of
Page 11
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Congress (and nowthe General Assemblyof Maryland) from making any law"
or prohibiting
plaintiffs
standing
as
State or Federal.
have sufficient
no constituttonalprovision,
and the
suit.
The Plaintiffs,
have sufficient
,
has sufficient
but
The
suit,
established
have earnestly
'
situated
Maryland Code.
Although the total
from taxation
all real estate
in Baltimore
fJage 12
assessed value
va.lue. It is
approximately l3~
Jaltimore City.
5!
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
a.
Q
oaintain this suit as the testimony was clear that a reduction in the taxable basf s
raises the rate of taxation upon the property subject to taxation, mld increases the
taxes
it will increase the taxes of the complaining taxpayers, and this is alleged and
proved, as in the case at bar, taxpayers have established special damage, or special
interest, distinct from those of the general public enabling them to maintain a class
suit challenging the validity of the statute and its enforcement.
When, however, the statute and its enforcement benefit the taxp~ers
financially and r~duce the amount of their taxes, they have no standing ~
to challenge the financially beneficial statute.
taxpayers
J.)
~ommissioners of Anne Arundel County, 233 Md. 398, 197 A. 2d 108 (1964, Horney,
See the review of the Maryland Cases on pages 401-~ of 233 Md.
A. 2d).
taxpayers, individually and as a class, which distinguishes the case at bar from the
Citizens Committee Case.
It was also suggested at the argument and in one of the Memoranda that
there was no standing in the plaintiffs, as taxpayers, to maintain a suit i~ the
Federal Court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in
Frothingham v. Mellon,
There are two answers to this suggestion:
1.
This suit is in the State Court and not in the Federal Court.
The
Maryland law clearly gives relief to taxpayers in a class ,action in this type of
situation.
November-Decemoer
1964
Page 13
2.
authority for holding that a taxpayer class action may not be entertained in the
federal courts, but as to this no opinion is e~ressed,
as none is necessary; it
involves a federal question best left to the decision of the federal courts.
The natural plaintiffs, both original and intervening, may also have a
special interest, different from the public generally.as active atheists, which
migh~ well give them sufficient status apart fram their status as taxpayers, to
maintain this suit in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United S~
in Abington School District v. Schempp,
As to thiS, however, the Court expresses no opinion as none is necess~
since it too involves a federal question best left to the federal courts for
decision.
2, 3, and 4.
The ex
J.).
Section 9 is headed
II
then many subsections granting exemptions from State, County and City taxationof
which Subsection 4 is one. At the time of the filing of the Bill of Complaint m
suit there were 57 specific exemptions including the property of fraternal bene
associations, graveyards, war memorials, hospitals, charitable institutions,
Page 14
November-De
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
b~atute adopted in Maryland since the original Act of 1797, Chapter 89 until the
present time.
Article 38 of the Declaration of Rights of the Maryland Constitution for
many years resuired the sanction of the General Assembly for any gift, sale or devise
of land Qr gifts or sales of personal property to take place after the death of the
Seller or Donor for the support or benef'L t of any Religious Sect, Order or Denommation "except always, any sale, gift, lease or devise of any quantity of land, not
e~ceeding five acres, for a church, meeting-house, or other house of worship, or
parsonage, or for a burying gromld, whiCh shall be improved, engaged or used o~lY
for such purpose. il
A constitutional amendment to Article 38 was adopted by the voters at the
election of November 2, 1948 which gave the General Assembly pOifer to require such
sanctionbut did not itself require such sanction without such a statute, to gifts
and conveyances subsequent to November 2, 1948.
It is thus seen that houses of worShip, parsonages and appurtenant ground
November-December
1964
Page 15
.,
The exemption
attack heretofore.
J.),
(1907, Rogers)
declar:i,ngunconstitutional,
a special act purportinG
under Articles
of Maryland,
in cpnsidering and
strongly
and appurtenant
of Rights,
indicated
land was
stated at page 386 of 106 Md.:
lilt will not be denied at this late day that the Legislature
has the pover, within reasonable limits, to exempt certain species
or classes of property from taxation, when the public interests so
require.
This is actually done in the case of houses used
exclusively for public worship, and the grounds appurtenant thereto,
in the case of graveyards and cemeteries, and in the case of
hospitals? asylums and benevolent institutions.
(Code, 1904, Art.
81, sec. 4). The validity of provisions of this kind is too well
established to be nov questioned.
But it will be perceived in these
cases all the property of the class indicated is exempted.
The
LegiSlature does not exempt some houses of public worship and tax
others.
It does not exempt some gra.veyards and cemeteries, some
hospitals, and then tax otherproperties
of exactly the same kind.
It does not arbitrarily say that this particular house ofpublic
worship shall be exempt, but that one shall be taxed. On the
contrary, all property falling within anyone of the classes
mentioned in Sec. 4, is exempt.
There is therefore no arbitrary
discrimination between different properties of the same kind, but
all are treated alike.1I
There is no Maryland
case indicating
similar property
Pa~e 16
the Maryland
st!
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Indeed there is
a similar exemption in all of the other States of the Union, and in the District of
Columbia.
In the
other States and the District of Columbia, there are statutory exemptions, as in
Maryland.
admitted to the Union - Alaska and Hawaii - there are similar exemptions.
See Van
Z
Q
--
a.
Q
:l!:
::J
CI
Z
c:c
liThe C.::>urts
of Maryland hold that the rule of uniform! ty
established by these provisions does not forbid the creation of
reasonable exemptions ;n furtherance of the public good.
It does not even prohibit an exemption in favor of an
individual as distinguished from one for the benefit of the members
of a class. All that it exacts in respect of the narrower exemption
is thepresence of a relation, fairly discernible, between the good;
of the individual and the good of the community.1I
IlC
Q
:l!:
loLl
==
desirable results and most certainly have a fairly desirable relationship between
the exemption and the good of the community.
The Supreme Court of the United States has sustained a similar exemption
in the District of Columbia.
"*** the power of Congress, legislating as a local Legislature for the District, to levy taxes for district purposes
only, in like manner as the Legislature of a State may tax the
people of a state for state purposes, was expressly admitted,
and has never since been doubted. 5 Wheat. 318 (18 u.S. bk.
5 L. ed. 98)j Welsh v. Cook, and Mattingly v. District of
Columbia, 97 u.S. 541, 687 (Bk. 24, L. ed. 1112, 1098). In the
exercise of this power, Congress like any state Legislature
unrestricted by constitutional provisions, may at its discretion
wholly exempt certain classes of property from taxation, or may
tax them at a lower rate than other property. II
See also United states v. Department of Revenue of Illinois, 202 F.
757 (1962, N.D. Ill. three Judge Court, LaBuy, D.J.) sustaining,
Page 18
and constitutional,
a retailer's
ing to non-governmental
occupation
institutions
religious,
or
educational purposes.
The three-Judge
This decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States,
without opinion, in United States v. Department
of Revenue of Illinois,
371 U. S.
November-December
Hl64
Amendment
to the Constitution
of the ll. S)
Page 19
6.
z:
z:
a..
The exe
Amendment,
prohibiting
Congress
of religion
or prohibiting
contained
Amendment
that Amendment
J.)
majority
v. Connecticutl
guaranteed
concept
v. Schespp,
supra.
This
exercisesll
of any cases,
School District
of the
the discussion
Amendment,
upon the
of prior decisions
of the Fourteenth
'lrlithoutdiscussion
history
(1940, Roberts,
of this question,
is "entd.re ly untenable
He suggests that to
the brilliant
in his concurring
opinion
considerat100
in Abington (253
prevailing
Constitutional
doctrine,
however,
Page 20
J. J., dissenting)
~y
of the consideration
several States.
from making ~
question.
At the threshold
powers of Congress
of Maryland)
of Maryland in Murr
J., Brune, C.
and dissenting
opinions.
Baltimore,
Iviarytand 21218
It merely files
QI
~z
a caveat now, with a view to setting out its views in regard to this doctrine at a
QI
:=
Q
a::
power to impose
real estate taxation upon houses of worship, parsonages and appurtenant land, it
also has the power to exempt them and that the exemption in the case at bar is a
reasonable, proper and non-discriminatory exemption which does not re~ult in an
establisbment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.
Temple Emanuel urges upon the Court thl.t, as properly interpreted in the
light of several recent decisions of the Supreme Court and their logical application
to the present problem, the State of Maryland has no power to impose real estate
taxes upon houses of worship, parsonages and appurtenant land as this would result in
prohibiting the free exercise of religion contrary to the provision of the First
Amendment.
This is a faSCinating thought, but the Court does not find it necessary
to pass upon this application of the First Amendment as it is not necessary for the
decision in this case.
1964
The First
the principle
Amendmentas presently
of government neutrality,
and non-believers.
An interesting
religious gr
recent bookanti
Chapter entitled
"Epilogue.
Neutrality
91:
"Through the foregOing lectures runs the theme that the
impact of the First Amendmenton religion is best understood in
terms not of church-state separation but of government neutrality.
neutrality not merely between sects, but also between believers
and nonbelievers.
This broad neutrality
is promoted by judicial
action checking legislative
aberrations in either direction. But
in many fields where laws affect religion inCidentally, the
promotion of neutrality requires affirmative provision for
religion.
Here legislatures
have been left with discretion; in
this area provisions affirmatively fostering religious freedom
are not invalid as "establishing" religion, but their omission
does not make the legislation
invalid as a restraint
on "free
exercise" of religion."
The exemption involved in the case at bar represents
not prohibited
by the First
governmentneutr
Such validity
is indicated
by Mr. Justice
of Columbia,
Baltimore
Maryland 21218
~is
States Court of Appeals fot tbe Tenth Circuit on December 12, 1963.
The Supreme
regard to the exemption in the case at bar, there is much in the prior decisions of
the Supreme Court which gives aid and comfort to the position of Temple Emanuel.
It would appear that the Supreme Court would likely move in this direction.
In Murdock v. pennsylvan~a, 319 U.S. 105, 63 S. Ct. 891, 87 L. Ed. 1292
(1943), Douglas, J. speaking for the majority consisting of himself and Stone, C.J.,
Roberts, Black, Murphy and Rutledge, J.J. (Reed, Frankfurter and Jackson, J.J.
dissenting), indicated that the City of Jeannette, Pennsylvania, had no power to
impose upon a Jehovah's Witness promulgating his religious teachings and selling
(or giving away) religious books and pamphlets published by the Watch Tower Bible
&.Tract SOCiety, a rather small general license 'tax upon persons canvassing for or
soliciting for goods, paintings, pictures, wares or merchandise of any kind.
In dis-
cussing the activity of the "itinerate preacher", distributing tracts from door to
door, Mr. Justice Douglas indicated at page 109 of 319 U.S.:
"It has the same claim to protection as the more
orthodox and conventional exercises of religion."
.November-December
1964
Page 23
-za::
religion
==
other rites
c:c
itinerant
:)
:)
=z
:)
II:
in a house of worship where the sermons are preached and the sac
performed is also entitled
preacher.
==
In his dissenting
1.&1
:::E
states
Reed, points
by the provisions
For the state
of the First
to the religious as t
tha
Amendment.
pe
rea
of other
tha
Greenberg indicates
is prohibited
of "neutrality"
amc
ing
me
Pm
and would,
as a practical
matter,
to avoid discrimination
between tl1.eas
beliefs
from
taxation
as pointed out
system of taxation c
part,
lys
--
well have the ~remonition that the ~rovis10ns of the First Amendment prohibit such
::2!
As
C)
=
Cl
Z
c::c
cc
:E
w
:;:
the holdings in this Opinion, on December 14, 1964. The Decree indicated ':thatthis
Opinion would thereafter be filed.
the suit.
Wilson K. Bames,
Judge
January 7, 1965
Along with Justice Douglas, Justice Black repeatedly states that "no law" means "no law." Yet, quoting
from the Opinion, "In 33 States, constitutional provisions expressly provide for the exemption and in 15
of those states the constitutional
language is mandatory." Obviously the states have taken it upon themselves to do much legislating in an area prohibited by
the Federal Constitution.
There seems little question
that this legislation of special laws by the states goes
far beyond the idea of neutrality and clearly constitutes an establishment of religion. In this connection
Justice Douglas has said,
November-December
1964
Page 25
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Actually the increased revenue that would be collected with equitable taxation of church property is not
small' , it is estimated between $3.5 and $7.0 million
per year in Baltimore City alone.
Nor is the entire
problem of tax exemption for church property and income
a small one. Dr. Eugene Carson Blake, Chief Administrative Officer of the United Presbyterian Church, Past
President of the National Council of Churches, has
warned, "With prudent management, the" churches ought
to be able to control the whole economy' within the
predictable future."
The companion suit to the property suit is the "Unrelated Business Deduction" suit to force the church
to pay income tax on its income from businesses unrelated to its religious function.
This suit was filed
August 13, 1964 in the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland against the United States
of America and the District Director of Internal Revenue
A QUESTION ANSWERED
BY
LEONARD J. KERPELMAN
CORPORATION COUNSEL
Page 26
Religion, in other words is singled out, by our Constitutions, as a private matter, a matter of singularly
personal concern, a matter which cannot be the subject of
public action or public expense.
This is not so, for example, of a hospital, or a university, which are considered to perform, and indeed, without doubt (as to a free university), do perform public functions of an exceedingly important nature. That.is to say,
functions which affect the public welfare.
To put the proposition another way, the Constitution
provides that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion. But the prohibition is unique as
to religion. It does prohibit a law respecting the establishmentof a hospital, university, a non-profit research foundation, a volunteer fire department, a veteran's home for the
aged, a boy scout office building, or a girl Scout cookie
drive (all of which are in Maryland, and legally will, remain tax exempt).
Of course, interesting other problems are raised (which
I understand you intend, in the future, to pursue), as borderline cases attempt to sidle up to seek the protection and
advantages which have been granted by tax exemption
statutes. Thus, the question arises as to when a supposed
educational institution run by a sectarian organization is in
fact no longer educational, but entirely religious; Likewise,
when is a "fraternal" organization serving private and not
public ends. When it excludes members because of race?
Or do such organizations really ever serve a public rather
than a private purpose?-They are all granted tax advantages.
What about those which are closely allied with
churches? Knights of Columbus, for example, \\hich owns
Yankee Stadium and pays no taxes on the profits? I don't
know all of the answers, but I do think that the questions
are very interesting.
ESTATE ASSESSMENTS
IN BALTIMORE
Classification
1964Basis
Taxable.
. ... $2,006,208,768
Exempt Categories: Total , , , , , '. , , , , ,
578,997,400
I. Federal,
22,667,510
2. State.,.
.,,,,,,,,
25,671,480
3. City (Including Public Schools), .
249,266,000
4. Churches, Synagogues, Parsonages, Church Schools, etc. , , , , ,
89,430,950
5. Colleges, Universities, etc. , ... , .
33,142,610
6. Cemeteries , , , , , , , , , , . , , , , , , , ,
4,577,530
7. Lodges, Benevolent and Cultural
Societies. .
,.,,.,,,. ,
7,858,110
8. Hospitals, Infirmaries, etc ... ,
43,216,020
9. Wholesale Produce Market " , . ,
552,400
10. Railroads , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
,,
16,539,770
II. Housing Authority . , , , , , , ,
.
39,284,940
12. Homes and Asylums , ,
17,393,720
13. Miscellaneous , , , . , , , , ,
,
8,060,970
14. Market Authority , , , , , . , ,
,,
4,212,760
15, Blind Persons,
1,124,790
16. Maryland Port Authority .. , ....
15,997,840
%of
Taxable
28.86
TABLE II-THE
$144,219,290)
Category'
Jewish
% Protestant
%
Catholic
%
4: Churches, etc. 7,416,360 5.14 34,661,780 24.03 47,352,810 32.83
5: Colleges, etc.
881,860 .61
786,060 .55. 7,884,950 5.47
6: Cemeteries
1,190,940 .83
138,050 .10
700,570 .49
7: Benev., etc.
175,040 .12 1,076,640 .75
926,510 .64
8: Hosp., etc.
56,940.04
7,267,560 5.04 12,323,980 8.55
12: Homes and
Asylums 11,096,940 7.69
608,400 .42 4,672,400 3.24
13: Miscel.
3,833,480 2.66 1,010,600 .70
157,420. 11
TOTALS 24,651,560 17.09 45,549,090 31.59 74;{)l8,640 51.33
Reproduced from the Church and State magazine" for Octo ber
published by POAU with permission of the editor.
Page 28
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
ey."
.
L~said his study disclosed a
"complete census is impossible"
since there "is much hidden information that even the Government
in many instances does not have
the authority to demand.
"Churches and other nonprofit
organizations have enormous taxexempt revenues
identical to
those on which individuals and
corporations pay huge levies to
state and Federal authorities," he
charged.
Church-Owned Enterprises
"They own stocks, bonds, hotels, farms, book and department
stores, publishing houses, restaurants, television stations, newspapers, banks, land, theaters, a
ste.el mill, winery, nursing homes,
food processing
plants, citrus
groves, steamships, controlling interest in petroleum companies
and have big investments in aircraft corporations,"
he pointed
out.
"Different treatment is accorded various religious functionaries
under
the
Internal
Revenue
Code," he asserted. "This is in
violation of the First Amendment
to the United States Constitution
because
it give. preferential
treatment."
A church group he added: is
permitted "under the code to operate radio .and television stations
with complete immunity from
taxation. A private university in
Illinois bought hoteIsin California
with a $200,000down payment and
a $9,800,000mortgage.
"Educational
institutions may
operate a business tax free for
five years and during that period
the university made 'an interim
operating profit.' Then, for $700,000, it sold its equity to a church
in Chicago.
. "There is no essential difference between outright cash subsidies and preferential tax treatment for an activity which
operates in competition with normal tax - paying business and
which is in no way related to any
act of religious worhip," he
charged.
::-------
November-December 1964
TAX-EX'EMPTION IS DOOMED,
CCORDING TO ST. PETERS8URG
CLERGYMEN
RONYOGMAN
Independent
Reporter
November-pece,mber
1964
Express
Their
Views
REV. JOHN CLARKSON
of where you
RABBI SUSSKIND
RABBI CHAPMAN
Page 29
Interest
On Bonds
A tf' ~.f~eked
WASHINGTON
A U.S.
Church of God
Gets land Offer
CLEVELAND.
TenD.
The 11 members of the
Countv
Court signed aDd
sented to Church oC God
cials 11~re vcsterday Il
offering
to make 30 ac:reI
land available for R new cb
world headquarters,
"The Rev. Wade Hortoa.
oral overseer of the church.
said Thursday
he w~
pointed,
em b a r r a s se d
shocked"
over failure bv
county to make the land
able to the church. wbicb
made its .headouarters
In
southeast
Tennessee
elty
many years.
He said county ]IIdge
Fulbright
had indicate.
county could provide no
than eight acres. perhaJII
for the headq uarters,
The petition
was ei
among
county court me
Thursdav
and all memba
the court signed it. y
a delegation
of Cleveland
ir.essmen met with church
cials to try to iron out
robleru.
At :i: I"C~Cllt
conventloe
Dallas, 'rex .. the church
'0
retain
its Cleveland
nuarters,
des pit e bids
Memphis.
Chattanooga aa4
lanta to have the church
f'rorn their cities.
Memphis
Mayor William
Ingram
Jr. said today
door
is st.ill open" for
chu rch 10 move 10 Mempblr.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S
$1.5 SILL ION
SCHOOL AID PLAN
In the "u.s. War on Poverty " the Catholic church in
various American cities is receiving large sums for
participation in the program. In Chicago four Catholic
parochial schools received aid from the program (amount
unknown); the parochial school system of'-the Detroit
archdiocese received $191,572 to expand "services."
This fraud on the American tax payers issimiliar
to
those private, semi-private,
and govemmentprogranrs
which raise funds for the -Iess fortunate in foreign
countries. Often these funds and supplies are given to
Catholic church in various countries to distribute as it
pleases, thus helping it to .win converts.
Now President Johnson has sent to Congress a $1.5
School Aid PIal}. which most. agree is an extenuation of
the "War on Poverty" and will be. integrated accordingly. There is no doubt that theplan,if
it becomes law,
will further violate Church-State separation because it
openly encourages public and parochial school cooperation to aid needy children. and endorses the use and
expansion of shared-time programs. in-which private and
parochial school students use some facilities
of the
public schools.
The shared-time programs are already operative on
a large scale as are all teorts of other 'impositions by
the church on the public schools,including
the use of
public.financed, educational television and 'the staffing
of public schools by Catholic nuns.
The people of
Antonio, Colorado ate bemoaning the fact that people
are by-passing their town because its public school is
staffed by Catholic nuns.' Now it appears that of the
$1.5 billion proposed in the President's
plan, one-third
of this money is to be made available to private and
parochial schools to further these programs which constitute a very serious.. substantial,
and flagrant violaQ.onof the principle of separation of Church and State.
Page 31
Baltimore,
The first major hearing (trial) has already occurred in both suits.
The Court has ruled
against the property exemption suit and it has
already been appealed to the Maryland Court of
Appeals.
A decision will soon be returned in
the Horace Mann League suit and it will be
appealed to the same court.
Both cases will
probably be he ard in the fall of 1965. Then,
the next step is appeal of both cases to the
United States Supreme Court.
There is every
indication that the Court will accept both cases,
probably linking them together more or less.
The decision returned by the Supreme Court must
be the same in both cases-either
win or lose!
Plaintiffs in both suits are confident that they
will be successful
in having the existing misuse of state tax funds that they
challenge
declared unconstitutional.
COLLEGES
at secular activities,
ignoring the fact that in
all four church-affiliated
schools chapel attendance is compulsory and that religious influence
is exerted in the interpretive
and scientific
subjects-not
to mention the preventim of a
secular examination of the myth of religion. Unofficial sources report that well over 50 per cent
of our colleges
are still church affiliated to
some degree and that parochial
school s are
being built at a ratio of 4:1 over public schools.
Maryland 21218
Page 33
Both suits are vigorously opposed by the Catholic church and portions of other sects that
now enjoy great advantages
from the unconstitutional practices being challenged.
On the
other hand, both suits have widespread public
support from religious and secular circles alike.
The Register,
America's
National
Catholic
Newspaper,
comments on the Horace Mann
League Suit; " .. no matter which way it is de-
MIXED MARRIAGE
EDICT
DUE SOON
Finally the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state laws
prohibiting sexual relations between races are unconstitutional. The ruling came when the Court overturned a Florida
statue prohibiting cohabitation between whites and colored
persons. Granted, the much overdue ruling is welcome and
important; however, the court failed to take the opportunity
to deal with two far more important issues. First, it did not
rule on the miscegenation laws, barring interracial marriages,
now enforced by 19 states.
Secondly, it did not rule on
"What is a Negro", an issue directly in question since one
of the plaintiffs was a Honduran, claiming to be part Irish.
The case had the potential to change American habits and
customs more than any other high court decision.
Page 34
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
or.
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
lity and the danger of racial mixing take the trouble to enlighten themselves, we cannot eliminate racial prejudice.
In fact, it will not be overcome until we eliminate separate
races. Today all societies are color-conscience, not a very
encouraging situation.
Christianity, historically the white
man's religion, cannot be allowed to continue race as a
false criteria for human evaluation.
It certainly has in the
past.
Novembel'-Decem
her 1964
Page 35
The NEGRO
The APE
skull
capacity
the Caucasian
cranial
ot
bones
the brain
Is much undersize
brain.
that
the
black
brain
weiahs
eyeball
is tinled
with
is 70 des reea as in
(7)Tbe Negro's
nose is concave
at the
inner
lining.
The lips
are everted
and
core or
be felted.
duct.
It
is
not
a true
yellow
as is the ap e-s , The jaws protrude
the ape. The white man's
tacial
angle
is
bridge
as is the ape's.
The nostrUs
turn
show the red mucous membrane.
size
and
there
another
80
35 ounces
(S)The Negro's
h af r Is flat
and without
a center
resembles
the wool of the lower
animals
and it can
so
than the
control,
person-
human
so tbat
as
11te.
11118
shortly
bair
the
but
tacial
82.
up and
show
the
red
stench
glands
as does the dog and
in place
of a name. This stench
when the Neg rc is exci ted.
(lO)The
black
skin of the Negro has nothing
matter
between
the true
and the scarf
skins.
are signs
of mental
and spiritual
inferiority
in his
(from
natural
state
these
extra
sweat
glands)
11I&1' ee
is
rve
partly
as a
under
to do with climate.
It is caused
by animal
coloring
It Is proven
the .orld over that
black
and yellow
akins'
and that no tine,ed
race can create
a civilization.
-c
fn.st1l1
a' c re at
>
t ve
'.'
r in Yen t1 ve "inst1n.ct
.
in to . the
Negro
.
of ,.ears have
his r.elicion?
its
deadly
human blood
and has a sickle
the ..deep animal
81 eep to fall
sickle
celled
blood
is
separated
shaped
cell
bas destro,.ed
upon China, portugal,
Sp ain
fro.
the
wbite
race
it
wri"",.
p,.,"',
!NCK..w"
Baltimore
Maryland 21218
Page 37
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Page 38
same
intellectual
or mental
type.
1h
n
.1'
eo
e
y
le
H
cof
m
ng.
led
111
f a
XI'
poogalses
itathe
the
ys.
111-
ifing
leaous
modes of action possible in a 'given situation. In this way the maximum pleasure is obtained in different directions
by different persons. The gravitational
case would be similar to the psychological one if different masses were polarized in some way such that the components of the gravitational
field were
given different relative weights. A lil~e
caseis that of an electron in a magnetic
field. Electrons moving in different directions at the same point of the field
willexperience forces acting in different
directions. Here the difference in the
directions of motion of electrons corresponds to the difference in the psycholosical natures
of individual=
'The
"
physical
case is, still much simpler than
thepsychological one, since the electrons
vary only in velocity, a quantity having
three independent
components.
while
human beings vary in innumerable
distinct ways.
A - person for whom the
greatest pleasure is found in association
with people and in the feeling of power
that comes, from being a person in authority will attempt to become a leader
in business, politics or other fields. One
for whom the greatest pleasure is the
self-satisfaction that comes from doing
apparently unselfish things will become
a charitable 'person. And one, such as
I think I am, for whom the greatest
pleasure is found' in learning and in
understanding will naturally
become a
student and a scientist.
Although altruism,
strictly speaking,
doesnot exist, this concept is a convenient fiction which is often useful in the
concise description
of human actions.
Actions which are apparently
altruistic
or unselfish, and usually pass for altruism, have always appeared to me, on
dose study, to 'be efforts to satisfy some
obscure desire for self-approval.
The
person in question is often unaware of
thenature of his feeling of self-satisfaction,and he sincerely believes that he is
doing an unselfish act. This ability to
obtainpleasure from a superficially unselfishact, which is usually the result of
religious training that assumed the existenceof genuine altruism, is one of the
thingsthat enable fundamentally
selfish
peopleto live together more or less harmoniouslyin a society where immediate
selfish interests often conflict.
On a
higher,at least more abstract, level is an
understanding of the fact that to obtain
maximum pleasure from civilized life it
is necessary to curb one's immediate
selfishinterests in favor of higher selfishinterests which advance the welfare
of society, and incidentally
advance
November-December 1964
Page 39
Page 40
I
T
tal
lie
eel
as
1el
n-
nut.
ve
n-
be
tat
r'!
nan
lcs
:ly
tal
len-
ees
(1,
xdo
rs,.
IS.
ne
lef
November-December 1964
self-control,
but it assumes that higher
and. lower are absolutely defined, and it
is oversimplified
in that it neglects the
fact that the splitting into two selves
takes place in different ways on different issues. The exercise of self-control
in the usual situation requiring a decision is more accurately described as follows: A man having a complex mental
nature resulting from years of development and experience is confronted with
a situation in which he sees two fairly
distinct alternative
courses to pursue.
Some parts of his mind-psychological
forces or whatever you wish to call them
-tend
'to produce the choice of one of
the alternatives, while other parts of the
same mind tend the other way. In the
case of a situation
involving a moral
Issue, one at the courses is called yielding to temptation.
The other is called
resisting
temptation,
and the person
choosing it is said to have used selfcontrol.
The psychological
mechanism
operating is the same in a case involving no moral issue, say the choice of the
color of a hat, as in a case with a moral
issue, although the strength of the conflicting forces may be much less. The
choice that is made in any particular
case depends, exactly as one should expect, both upon the nature of the man
and of the situation" in which he finds
himself.
The development
of self-control
is
then nothing but mental development
and training
which
strengthens
that
side of the mind that tends in the general direction
of resisting
temptation,
Though the faculty of self-control
is
one of our highest faculties, ranking
with understanding
and intelligence, its
development by a long process of adaptation to environment
is an essentially
selfish process, as adaptation always is.
It is generally considered that a weIldeveloped faculty of self-control is necessary" for a well-balanced mind. With
this I agree, though I do not, believe in
self-control
as most people conceive of
it. I try to use as much self-control as
possible, because I believe that I will
enjoy life better and on a higher level
if I can be as much as possible conscious
of what I am doing, and for what purposes I am doing it, and choose my
course of action with regard for others
and for the future, rather than let habit
and thoughtless
emotion be my guide.
This is not to imply that emotion is to be
eliminated in favor of reason. Though
we may try to live by reason, it is .al;vays emotion that we live for. Reason-
Page 41
creed,
or r~
I believe
(maturity),
quest for
pressed in
the greatest
aim in life is self-development
and that the principal
impulse' of life is the
happiness.
Nowhere are these concepts
exthe Jewish or Christian Holy Scriptures.
~o
~l'
c-
(tongrcssional Record
United States
oj America
PROCEEDINGS
J~
.\.ND DEBATES
OF THE
82dCONGRESS,
FIRST
SESSION
Jl
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Jll
OF
11-
of
111
1)'
er
Dll
111
111
CONGRESSION AL RECORD
ready considered as beginning on Monday. However, for those who prefer it
that way. l''l'Hj Perpetual Calendar may
\le readily printed with Sunday as the
nrst day.
In this up-eo-date calendar, the
month lengths fall into the easily remembered pattern of 30-30-31, and the
starting days into the well-known sequence of Monday-wednesday-Friday,
days on which many weeklyevents regularly occur. The day of the week for
any day in the year can be easily figured
in a few seconds by remembering "30,
30, 31; Monday, Wednesday, Friday."
No other rhyme or "jingle" is necessary
to compute any future date.
The first and the fifteenth, important
monthly and semimonthly payroll, billpaying and accounting days, always fall
on weekdays in The Perpetual Calendar.
This plan thus becomes tb~ most practical one for a new fixed up-to-date international civil calendar.
There is no unlucky Friday the 13th,
or Black Friday, in The Perpetual Calendar to worry the superstitious or to deter
them from business sales and the signing
of contracts. The elimination of this
ancient bugaboo will actually help in
many businesses. Executives know that
a great many people are not willing to
sign contracts, buy insurance or transact
business on a Friday the 13th. The
elimination of all Fridays the 1. .h on
this calendar has been favorably noted
and commented on by thousands of
people. This is important to businessmen. Even though they themselves are
955270-39541
PERPETUAL
CALENDAR
~r~IJ
January
February
March
F S S M
F S S M TW TF
WIT
TWIT
7--12
-1 2 I
12
56
34 58 9
1213 14 6 7 8 9 1011 12 4 5 6 7 8 810
1516 1718 1920 21 13 141516 1718 19 11 1213 14151 11
2425 2e 18 1920 2122
22123 2425 2627 ~20
2930
27
25 2627 2829
April
WT FIS
!~
I:~
~~I~
S MT
12 34 567
MIT
May
June
WT F S S M TW TF
12 l4 5-
8JI
-1
,:ilt
~I~
October
'/d"l'
WIT FSS
Novemller
M TW T F SSM
December
TWTlsI
1234567--1234~----1
8 9 10 U12 13 14 67 8 9 10 1112 4 5 6 7
15161718192021
13141516171819
111213141
~~~2526272E~~~~242526~~=~
'These two year,days are definitely named and _
B definite purpose.
When considered apart from .,
eek, they allow the Calendar to beoome ~
perpetual.
ORIGINATOR
OF "THE
DR. WILLARD E.
PERPETUAL C
If
The American
Atheist
Baltimore,
YOU1H
Maryland
21218
SfCl10n
important
please
It is urgently
We will send
join us in an all-out
be addressed
as
Editor,
The Medford Mail Tribune,
Medford, Oregon.'
KEEP PURE
To the Editor:
And now an authoritative newscast
came through that Madalyn Murray is adding to her
public "fame" by her activities.
The report alleges
that Madalyn is laboring to get prostitution liscensed
I 6U:-
V.S,
What next?
Do you recall she is ex-preaident of the freethinkers,
freeactors,
infidels and atheists?
What an exalted
aura must have pervaded their meetings, and what a
personnel the component members who should follow
their leader.
The Bible says, "A whore is a deep
ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit, "and the
Bible pronounces the direst woes on all who go her
way. In fact two horrid diseases,
gonorrhea and syphillis both have their origin directly from prostitution,
and are a direct visatation of Divine justice!
Being
both contagious and infectious, often times the innocent
also suffer the woes!
Pag
Baltimore,
captive
by the
Maryland 21218
LETTERS TO THE
OITOR
realized before all its components parts and qualifications? Want your blooming young daughters and sons to
ioin them? Take an objector's
advice, keep yourself
and yours free of their besmirchment.
"Keep thyself
pure. "
An added note.
The gist of the news item says
when Gus Hall was glibly answering questions before
some 500 students at Swarthmore College, one student
insisted on knowing the relationship
between communism and religion.
Suddenly Hall lost his veneer and
snapped, "I presume you are asking whether I believe
in God."
There was a moment of stillness,
then defiantly Hall declared,
"I do not believe in God."
He was booed so lustily that he had to scuttle from the
hal] by the back door. Thank God for the student booerst May their number be multiplied!
Come to consider
all the facts as they accumalate, isn't milatant atheism
brazen and wonderful!
Gus scuttles from the back door as the irate students
vociferously
boo; and Madalyn scuttles
by plane to
Hawaii to evade trouble with the courts and her irate
neighbors!
H. R. Bulman
.,. ~
Route =/t'l.J,-,
bOX
lJIedford,
3l~
0
Oregon
Samuel Untermeyer
(1858.1940)
Lecturer -
Jurist
* * * *
Page 46
is
Dear Editor:
The hierarchy of the National Council of Churches do not
believe in the Christian Bible and do not believe in the
PROTESTANT Reformation.
This also applies to most
preachers who have attended theologicai schools since
America became an arsenal of marxism. They have made
"Protestant" a dirty word. These subversives have adeep
feeling of guilt when they approach their Catholic and Jewish
preachers because they think that they teach a lie. The
hierarchy of the Catholic Church and many priests do not IJe..
lieve in the teachings of the Christian Bible and they also
have a deep sense of guilt when they meet clergymen from
other demoninations.
The hierarchy of the Jews and many Rabbis do not believe the teachings of the old or Jewi sh Bible and they are
li ving and teaching a lie. Because of their sense of guilt,
all these groups of spiritual leaders succumb to the BIGLIE
of International Subversions.
This is evident when we consider that the top clergymen
of the three faiths entertain the Anti-Christian King and
allowed him to direct their activities.
Their spiritual bankruptcy is evidenced by everything they do or say, as for
example, their conduct before Lincoln Memorial in Augustof
1963. All of these characters fawned over their spiritaal
leader, Rustin, when they well knew that Rustin is a leader
of an international conspiracy to subvert and destroy America
and everything that decent people stand for. They knew
should have known that he had been convicted of crimesthat
are so hideous and filthy they cannot be reported in a pap
that goes into an American home.
Jenkin's,
Rustin's
and. BaKe-!:'
s Johnson tllmed out
Dear Editor:
Edward G. Naege
La Feria, Texa
<Racist,
Segregationist,
Anti-Communist,
Anti-Anarchist,
The most likely result of all this activity of our government through religious institutions abroad is gradually to Anti-Socialist, Anti-Religious.)
break down the prohibition of mixing church and state - and
once the prohibition is dispensed with abroad, it will be
easier to ignore it in our own country.
Dear Mr. Cree:
One very much interested
Hollywood, Florida
Novembel'-December 1964
Page 48
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Dear Editor:
I most certainly want to answer Mr. Due's letter in
August -Septernber issue.
From his letter it is evident he is a Latter Day
perhaps a converted member or inherited, and as
cases, naive as to the real story that is Mormonism.
Here, of course, if you run for public office, andare
L.D.S., you have had it. You are black-balled, ridi
condemned and all sorts of trumped up charges are Ie
again st you with the most vi cious attack on character
then the saints are told how to vote and they, beinga
people, do as their leaders say.
I am sure that every free-thinker is well aware ofthe
that the Constitution was not written by "God-Fearing
and women". Thomas Paine, the first man to write the
gnize
~ and'
uinda
rentawill
liners
the
muuioned
four-
od in
the author of
life in prison
one of' the
with any rereading about
ipaie
ilson
ontriIs as
need
betic
s is
re'n
of
hom
'ditor
your
aint,
most
e not
uled,
eled
. and
led
fact
men
ords
964
In the Discourses.
November-December 1964
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Page 49
This nonsectarian
organization
is being honored
its humanitarian
activities
and its contributions
the American way of life. Its multi-service progr
touch every strata of our society and place it in
unique position.
Due to the nature of the Salvation Army's activiti
we in the Department, and the Stamp Advisory
mittee, feel that the issuance of this stamp in no
infringes on the principle of separation of Church
State.
Sincerely
G. June Williams
Salt Lake City, Utah
Dear Editor:
I have today written Joseph Lewis re that matter of a
stamp to honor the Sal vation Army; perhaps a protest from his
organi zation and from ours will get this thing stopped in its
tracks.
It is a Commemorative stamp and is due for issuance
sometime this year.
yours,
Mr. Kl inkert - the atheist politician in Wisconsin suggested to me that we seek an opinion of the office of the Attorney
General in D. C. re the honoring of a blatantly religious
group like the Army who believes
in "salvation"
of the
"soul"
and being "washed in the blood of the savior" and
other such bull - and who attempt to proselytize
with all
their might and use their humanitarism works to accomplish
same.
Perhaps a coordination of our efforts
might do it, or what do you think?
Page 50
for
1S to
[rams
in a
ties,
Com-
way
I and
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
De-
live
anrered
Paul King
Bedford, Massachusetts
.rrn
.ive
'ian
.on-
Dear Editor:
Was very glad to gee you are going to change the name of
your magazine, but want to express a negative vote for the
name you proposed in the October issue.
Free Humanist infers that the "other" humanists are not
free. This may be so, but I don't care for the inference.
Freethinker infers that organized religions are not free to
think in matters religious and this is so. Websters New World
Dictionary College Edition gives a very good definition of
freethinker I think. As for me, don't know what I am. I
accept the appelation "fuzzy minded liberal" or Pseudo
intellectual"
as put forth by my fasci st buddies at work.
Bob Fleming
Brecksville, Ohio
lot!
of
l's
! a
rve
et
ess
obpe-
ice
ering
its
is
ifi:o?
n"
'ar
Dear Editor:
As a recent subscriber to your magazine, but an old timer
where a discussion of religious beliefs are concerned, I want
to commend you for your decision to change the name of your
magazine to "The Free Humanist". There is no doubt that
the use of the name 'Atheist' cuts deep into your fmances
and If I may say so the word God could as well be called
something else.
To use the word God today is just 01cJ,..
fashioned and only sends more people away from you. Since
the word God came down from heathen mythology some
6,000 years ago and my dictionary says that it means Energy,
Spirit or any deified person or object. why not superimpose
another word on as much of your magazine as possible, and
make it a more Scientific and educational organization.
Dear Editor:
I have been following the correspondence and letters
concerning the title of your magazine with much interest;. and
I had been intending to write to say that it might be ve
good policy to change its name back to The Free Humanist.
I see in the latest issue that you are now inclined to do this
and I most sincerely hope that this will become its name a
soon as possible.
Martin Larsoi
Phoenix, Arizon
iH
1964
November-December 1964
Page 5
Dear Editor:
Just got the October issue and glad to see we are still
going strong. I hadn't heard anything from Baltimore since
August-September issue and didn't know if we were still in
rosiness or not.
I'm pleased to learn that the magazine is going back to
the old name "Free Humanist"-although I think its' original
name way back with issue #1 was even better - the "Freethinker". That's what Lou Alt called it when he first started
the magazine. It's true that I'm an atheist, but I see no
sense in using that name for the title of a magazine. By using it we put up a brick wall that prevents many people from
even reading it.
If I might make another suggestion.
I find the present
size of the American Atheist cumberson, and I'd like to see
us return to the smaller format. Maybe we didn't get as much
in the rook, but it was easier to handle and store.
Ralph S. Blois
Loves Park, Illinois
Baltimore,
Maryland 21218
Recommend
Dear Editor:
Today, I finally received the October issue of the American
Atheist.
In one of your articles you stated that you deem it wise
and necessary to discontinue calling the publication The
American Atheist.
It is the smartest move you can make. If you recall, sometime ago I asked you to ship 25 copies of the American
Atheist to a news stand here in Minneapolis.
Certain clergymen or religious brainwashed people noticed
it and put up a howl! The result: They were sent back to
you I presume.
of
This
space
the
"American
for advertisements
Over a year ago, I got this same news stand started with
the Humanist that is published in Yellow Springs, Ohio.
journal
ments interesting.
November-December 1964
Atheist".
is a standard feature
This
is
will reflect
a free thought
this - AND
NO OTHER - philosophy.
We encourage advertisement,
eueti solicit it. We think you will find our advertise-
~--------------
Rates
Block advertisement
is sold at the rate of $100.00 per
page (fraction of page - % page or over - priced pro
portionally
BELIEVE
ne con-
OR
BURN!
r Goldie
APPEAL TO REASON
nnesota
John W. Webster
P. O. Box 1829
Milwaukee, Wiseons
nd The
Goltz
consin
Atheist"
vill con)ogma of
iimonthlv
material
Subissue for
reo
A FREETHOUGHT
Sample lO.
PAPER
THE RIPSAW
P. O. Box 3002 Sta. B
South Bend, Indiana
.~=-------------------------------~
Tebruory,
Ie Editor
. AND
~ment,
Dear Sirs:
~ature
tough:
ertise-
I am enclosing my contribution
ement.
.00 per
~d pro-
Send to:
Name:
---------------------------------------------------------------
Address:
City
State
Zip Code
ENGLISH HISTORY
E. Nutter, Octogenarian
~~~-------------
Make checks
payable
FREETHOUGHT
SOC., OF AM., (for subscription)
or OTHER AMERICANS, INC., (for OA membership
or Legal Fund donation,)
Date:
N~:
~D~S~:
CITY
STATE
Zip Code