The churches and prejudice (Part 1 of 2); Patterns of American prejudice

My name is Walter Wagoner and I will serve as chairman of this symposium presentation this morning and welcome you to it. Major event in the Centennial program here at Berkeley. Now we have official delegates here as well as. Students and faculty and townspeople who are attending. We have some I believe more than 200 people from all over the United States who are who have come here for this occasion. Particularly welcome to them. The chronology of this morning will be something like this that the the papers and responses all together will take approximately an hour and a half no more and then we will be open for both enter. In trop panel discussion as well as

questions from you. But since the nature of this hall makes it rather difficult to. Have you pop up in your chair and shout back and forth. Would you be good enough if you have a question which comes to mind during the speech. To write it down and meant at the proper time we will send somebody scurrying up and down the aisles to collect these written questions. I have another favor to request that the questions be addressed to the topic. And not lead us too far astray. And if they be as concise as possible. I wish to introduce a bill he will not be speaking on this occasion. Professor Charles block chairman of the Department of Sociology here at Berkeley. The key person.

If any one person is behind this occasion would you simply stand Professor Block. Thank you OK. Professor Glock and Mr. Rodney stark working together as part of the Survey Research Center have developed some findings which will be the first springboard for our consideration. Mr. Rodney Stark who will present these matters is has degrees from both Berkeley and the University of Denver. He is presently research sociologist here. I'd like to hustle some books which he has been in on. Religion and sociology intension Christian belief and anti-Semitism. And he and Professor Glock have a new book out American piety the nature of

religious commitment. Presenting the findings of their studies with regard to the churches and prejudice. Mr. Rodney Stark. Virtually every clergyman in America would agree that authentic religious commitment precludes racial and religious prejudice. But despite such unanimity it is not at all clear what role religious convictions and religious institutions actually play in contemporary prejudice. One is often tempted to accept the picture of the Church Militant suggested by the sight of rabbis priests ministers and marching in Selma in Washington in Chicago. Or by the claims that clergymen such as Milwaukee's father James grow up the are the vanguard of a new breed of Christians who disdaining preoccupations with churchly edifices are leading the new crusade against Cindy find in social rather than personal

terms. These temptations are never more acute than at symposiums and conferences on the problems of prejudice especially when religious leaders participate. For the vast majority of such clerical participants eloquently testified to the compassion and humility that religious convictions can serve. But despite all of these signs one must not assume too readily that religion is always a powerful or reliable force against prejudice. Further there are many discrepant indications that must also be considered. Indeed here seated in this very audience there are a clergyman who have been forced from parishes for expressing even moderate views on racial and religious prejudice. And for every father droppy there always seems to be another clergyman willing to lead a counter-demonstration. Similarly for every every clergyman who speaks out against prejudice.

There are a number of others who either don't want to get involved or who fear to do so would upset the laity. Furthermore while it is obvious that many Christians are moved by their faith to regard all men as brothers it is equally obvious that the majority of persons who throw rocks at negro marchers picket schools to prevent integration or who become agitated about keeping Jews off their local school boards and out of their clubs regard themselves as devout Christians. What is one to make of these contradictions. This morning I'd like to attempt to bring together what we have learned about the role of religion in contemporary prejudice from the Berkeley research program and from related studies of prejudice done elsewhere. First of all we shall assess the extent to which prejudice exists within the churches and then consider specifically religious factors some of which give rise to prejudice and some of which tend to reduce it. Finally we

shall offer a few reflections on what the churches can do. However we shall leave the president has spurred the major burden of challenging the church is to a more effective witness against prejudice because of the limits of the available data. We shall confine our attention to American Christian denominations. All right. How much prejudice exists within the churches. The answer to this question is I hope to show shortly. Depends very much on the level at which the churches are examined. First of all I will try to describe the churches that the official or bureaucratic level. Then we will examine them at the level of the general clergy. And finally at the level of the laity at each of these levels we will concentrate on three main topics. First religious prejudice that is prejudice against persons of other faiths Jews Moslems atheists and of course Christians of other denominations. Secondly we shall examine racial prejudice and finally we will investigate what is regarded

as the proper role of the churches in combating prejudice. Now by the official rich churches we are referring to the national bureaucratic and organizational apparatus of the churches church leaders commissions agencies governing bodies councils of bishops and the like. At this level there is virtually unanimity. Nearly all of the major denominations have spoken out forcefully and repeatedly against prejudice both religious and racial. Let's briefly examine some recent recent actions on religious prejudice. All major denominations are officially opposed to anti-Semitism. Furthermore while the recent Vatican Council statement condemning the widespread belief that Jews are collectively guilty for the crucifixion received suitable publicity. Similar statements have been made a good deal earlier by most American Protestant bodies. Indeed at the present time only the Missouri Synod Lutherans in the Southern Baptists seem to be having difficulty taking this position at the official level and

religious prejudice against other non-Christian groups. The churches have been less specific but there is a growing moral sensitivity at its next convention the Lutheran Church in America will consider adopting a position on religious liberty which explicitly involves freedoms for atheists and agnostics. On matters of racial prejudice. The churches have been Im even more unanimous and outspoken. On major denominations of issued sharp condemnations of racial prejudice and specifically oppose discrimination in school housing jobs and the like. In addition to noble words the official churches have even done some impressive deeds for a commission from commissions to rewrite Sunday School and devotional materials to agencies devoted to direct action to oppose prejudice and discrimination. However when we look behind the superstructure of the churches and consider the views of the entire clergy rather than only those of religious leaders we must make some important qualifications of the picture we have just examined. If the

official church is unanimously denounce prejudice and are committed to an active role to oppose the clergy as a whole are not unanimous on these matters. It is unfortunate but surely not surprising to discover that a substantial minority of the clergy are themselves religious and believe in racial racially prejudiced. Furthermore even among unprejudiced clergyman there was a minority who do not believe the church ought to take an active role in the struggle for brotherhood. Nevertheless the majority have relatively enlightened attitudes towards persons of other religions and races and do support the official actions of the churches to give Stubbs substance to these general remarks. Let us consider some relevant research findings as already mentioned officially the churches denounce the notion of collective and continuing Jewish guilt for the crucifixion. The majority of clergy support the official denunciations but a minority retain their conviction in these notions even in extreme forms of them. A

recent national study of Protestant clergy and conducted by Geoffrey K. Hadden revealed that 6 percent of the Methodists seven of the Presbyterian 21 percent of the American Lutherans 22 percent of the American Baptists and 38 percent of Missouri Lutherans in his sample of clergymen agreed with the statement. The reason the Jews have so much trouble is because God is punishing them for rejecting Jesus. As with attitudes towards Jews clerical racial attitudes are also mixed. Again however what data there are reveal that the majority of Christian clergy have relatively enlightened attitude. It's for example 80 percent of the Protestant ministers in the Haddon study rejected the statement that negroes could solve many of their own problems if they were not so we are responsible and carefree about life. And only about one in ten actively oppose the civil rights movement among Roman Catholic diocesan priests also about one in 10. Disapprove of

the civil rights movement according to Father Joseph Victor's recent study. Thus the clergy by and large also support an active role for the church in the struggle against prejudice. But here again one finds a minority who deny that the Church has any business trying to bring about reforms. However a substantial majority do support an activist role for churches in the clergy. More than 75 percent of the Protestants in the Haddon samples agreed that for the most part the churches have been woefully inadequate in facing up to the civil rights issue. Similarly large majorities favor direct action by the churches on so social and moral issues. Indeed nearly 80 percent felt that if the church did not speak out on such matters its very existence might be threatened. When direct action on the part of the clergyman to protest racial injustice was considered. The clerical support was somewhat diminished. Still a majority were in favor as would be expected of course such support declined

considerably among Southern clergy and among clergy and conservative denominations. Thus although marred by some blemishes the picture that emerges of an examination both of church pronouncements on prejudice and of clergy attitudes is a hopeful one. It would appear that the churches ought to be able to play a significant role in the struggle against prejudice. We turn now to the rank and file in the churches. And this puts matters in an altogether different light. The facts are that Christian life as a group are rather prejudiced twat. Now it is perfectly obvious that there are large numbers of people in the churches who are not prejudiced and for whom Christian ethics provide an important basis for love understanding and compassion. But our basic guide must be proportions not simply numbers and compassionate unprejudiced Christians are in the minority. The majority of church members hold religious and racial prejudices. And

furthermore they deny the right of the churches to challenge their prejudices. Looking first at religious prejudice the picture is depressing. From half to two thirds of American Christians would deny civil liberties to a person who does not believe in God. They would bar him from holding public office or remove him from a teaching position in the public schools. Similarly half of American Christians continue to blame the Jews for the crucifixion despite official pronouncements to the contrary. Worse yet 33 percent of American Christians scored high and another 40 percent score medium high on an index made up of rather virulently anti-Semitic statements. Religious prejudice various from the nomination to the nomination Catholics are a bit less prone to such prejudice than are Protestants and conservative Protestant bodies are somewhat more prejudiced than liberal groups. Nevertheless religious prejudices sufficiently widespread among laymen in all Christian bodies to constitute an important problem.

Turning to racial prejudice offers no change in this depressing picture among white Protestant and Catholic Church members in this area of California. Nearly half say they would move several Negro families moved into their block. A third think negroes are less intelligent. Nearly half blame communists and other radicals for racial tensions. And these data were collected in 1963 before the riots. Undoubtedly things are worse today and due to a recent national survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center for Jeffrey had in January of 67. Show that 89 percent of the Christian laymen felt that negroes ought to take advantage of the opportunities society offers them and quit their protesting. And sadly too only those who rarely or never attended church drop significantly below this proportion by way of contrast only a third of Protestant clergy would support the view of Negro protest. And this brings us

to a final point about the contemporary Christian church member. Not only does he differs sharply from the official church and the clergy on the matter of prejudice he strongly opposes the role being played by the church is to overcome prejudice. The 70 percent of the laity in the hadn't studied clerical involvement in social issues such as civil rights and the data from a variety of recent studies indicate that the majority of laymen want their church to stick to attending the private religious needs of its members and to stay out of such questions as peace justice and human rights. Now it is obvious to put one besides about the role of the churches in the battle against prejudice depends greatly on the level with which he examines the churches. For a moment let us think of the churches as a system having three parts. If we think of the official level as formulating the intentions of the churches and the clergy as the means for achieving these intentions it follows that the

laity are supposed to exhibit the fruit of these intentions. But it is clear that although the intentions and the means are there the intended consequences of not been forthcoming. The majority of laity continue to bear ill will towards other races and religions. They may claim to love their brothers but they are very finicky about whom they will call brother. Thus the system by which the words of the official churches are supposed to be translated into the hearts of the laity simply fails to operate. The critical question we think is why it seems clear that many Christians are able to justify racial and religious prejudice to themselves despite the official opposition of the churches to which they give their devotion. Thus one must ask is it possible that the churches are perhaps unwittingly doing something that contributes to this ability to rationalize prejudice. And this is the question that will guide the remainder of my discussion this morning.

Broadly speaking we are concerned with two classes of factors which influence prejudice among the laity. The first of these comprises theological factors those aspects of Christian teaching and doctrine which bear upon racial and religious prejudice. We will try to show that some aspects of theology as they are understood by a layman. Alter the meaning of brotherhood and seem to promote prejudice. Other aspects of theology however seem to provide the churches with means for overcoming prejudice. The second class of factors make up institutional constraints. These are pictures of the of the organisation of the churches which affect the power of religious leaders to influence the views of the laity. Well we consider both theological and organizational factors important. There was insufficient time this morning to deal with both. Therefore we will limit ourselves to discussing theological factors affecting prejudice. Now the idea that Christian beliefs may be a source of prejudice is likely to be

rejected out of hand by theologians and churchmen. Their view of the faith rules out the possibility of such a connection. Nevertheless we suggest that there can be a link between theology and prejudice because of the fact that there is no one to one relationship between the faith as it is understood by the theologian and as it is comprehended in the pew. It turns out that interpretations of the faith that are widespread among laymen are often not conducive to tolerance. Instead they serve as a supporting dynamic of prejudice. This is true both in the case of religious prejudice and of racial prejudice although the theological elements active in nature are sometimes different. Examining first the prejudice of Christian laymen towards persons of other faiths such as Jews or Hindus or even between Catholics and Protestants a significant theological buttress of such prejudice is what we have called particularism particularism is the notion that only one of one's own religion is true and

legitimate and that others are therefore falls. In contemporary Christianity particularism continues to flourish in interpretations of the doctrines that Christ offers the only way to salvation and that to reject Him is to be condemned to eternal damnation. Unless such notions are held with a degree of sophistication that seems beyond the capacity of most laymen they readily support prejudice. If others are seen as committed to a false religion and thus condemned to hell it is but a short step to seeing them as inferior and immoral. Indeed a commonly held particularistic doctrine holds that only through Christian teachings is morality made possible. The greater the strength with which particularistic theological views are held by Christ Christians and the more narrowly they already find the greater hostility Christians harbor towards persons they see as religious outsiders for example towards Jews Hindus Moslems and of

course atheists and agnostics particularism generates considerable hatred between Catholics and Protestants and even among various Protestant groups. When particularism is combined with the New Testament teachings that the Jews crucified Christ and call down a collective blood curse upon themselves in doing so. Christians display a considerable vulnerability to General anti-Semitic beliefs. A Christian who sees Jews as religiously illegitimate finds it difficult to resist other Nemec other negative tales about Jews. These days few if any theologians would advocate a narrow particularism which would deny all religious virtue to non-Christians and so far as we know no church officially endorses such doctrines. Indeed the statements on religious liberty issued by various churches in the past several years uniformly condemn intolerance towards persons of other faiths. Nevertheless these actions have

had little impact upon the rank and file Christians a great many laymen continue to find theological support. For their religious prejudices in such doctrines as the necessity of accepting Christ in order to be saved. Indeed many people feel that persons who refuse to accept the glad tidings have only themselves to blame for subsequent misfortunes. Turning from religious to racial prejudice the part played by theology is not so obvious. If particularism generates prejudice towards Jews and other non-Christians it can hardly be expected to affect Christian attitudes towards negroes simply because the overwhelming majority of Negroes are Christians. Nor has any other theological rationale for racial prejudice immediately apparent. For example only a few extremists would argue that racial inferiority and segregation are proper Christian views despite some unfortunate passages in the Old Testament. Furthermore all of the major denominations oppose

racial prejudice and the overwhelming majority of the clergy are similarly opposed. In our initial investigations we failed to detect any very important relationships between customary measures of religious commitment and racial prejudice. For example conservative theological views were only slightly related to racial prejudice and the same held true for participation in church activities private devotional as I'm alive. Now while it was depressing that such aspects of commitment were found to be even weakly related to prejudice instead of serving a strong bull works against it. Nonetheless the investigation did not immediately reveal any theological factor which seemed to contribute importantly to racial prejudice. But the evidence of widespread racial prejudice among professing and practicing Christians and the opposition among parishioners to active involvement on the part of their churches and civil rights prompted further investigation. These

persistent facts hinted that a subtle theological factor might be at work. Despite superficial appearances to the contrary early in the investigation. Thus we pursued the matter and our investigations are still not complete but briefly I'd like to tell you what we've found so far. I underline will traditional Christian thought is an image of man as a free actor as essentially unfettered by social circumstances free to choose and thus free to affect his own celebration. This freewill conception of man has been central to the doctrines of sin and salvation for only of man is totally free. Does it seem just to hold him utterly responsible for his acts to punish him for his sins and to demand repentance correspondingly to the extent that a man's destiny is fixed by eternal external forces. To that extent the notion of guilt seems unjust. Now at least since the work of Mach's vapor it has been widely recognized that this conception

of future of human nature has been a main spring in the development of Western civilization and has greatly influenced our attitudes and personal accountability in the ingredients of personal success and image of man is free yet responsible lies behind all such notions as rugged individual ism the self-made man and the justification of wealth on the basis of personal merit. In short Christian thought and thus Western civilization is permeated with the idea that men are individually in control of and responsible for their own destinies. Now if I am really the captain of my soul and the master of my fate I have no one but myself to thank or to blame for what happens to me. In the modern world of course these radical notions of unfettered free will have been somewhat modified. Still a great many persons that here do them in relatively pristine form and they serve as lenses through which these people view and judge the behavior of others.

The significance of this for prejudice is the radical in traditional Christian images of man prompt those who hold them to put the blame for a disadvantage upon the individuals who are disadvantaged. A radical free will image of man makes for an inability to perceive the effect of those forces outside the individual which may dominate his circumstances. Thus efforts to change the condition of the disadvantaged through social reforms appear irrelevant at best. Instead one is led to dismiss the misery of the disadvantaged as due to their own shortcomings. Now in pursuing this line of thought in our and Pericles studies we found that such an image of man tends to be concentrated among more active Christian church members and is also widespread among the clergy. The results of our analysis lend themselves quite convincingly to the following interpretation. Free will in the age of man lies at the root of Christian prejudice towards negroes and their

negative attitudes towards other minorities towards the civil rights movement and also their rejection of church and governmental programs to improve the situation of minorities. The simple fact seems to be that a great many church people because they believe men are mainly in control of their individual destinies think that Negroes themselves are mainly to blame for their present circumstances. It is not that these Christians condone the social forces that think prive negroes but that they simply do not recognize the existence of such forces in the world. They do recognize that Negroes are collectively disadvantaged but the conclusion that logically follows from their theology is that such a collective shortcoming must be a racial trait. For how else can one explain such a widespread racial circumstance. If one sees the world primarily in a class in individual terms. To the extent that Christian

theology and institutions support a radical view of individual freedom and accountability their members can be expected to reject the very premises upon which the battle against prejudice and discrimination rests with the disadvantaged condition of minority groups is proof of their own unworthiness. How can people be expected to support measures to help them in the arms of such christian laymen the doctrines of the church and its efforts on behalf of human rights seem contradictory. This provides a source of conflict in the charge and is one factor in what seems to be a growing alienation between the churches and the laity. Furthermore the prevalence of such doctrines among negro Christians similarly affect negro definitions of their own circumstances. Gary Marx is a recent study of militancy in the black community. One of the studies also that was part of the Survey Research Center's five year program on prejudice revealed a strong negative correlation between religious commitment and the desire for justice and equality.

The morra negro was committed to Christian beliefs and institutions. The readier he was to see the lowly condition of negroes as self-inflicted. Indeed two thirds of the urban negroes in Marx's sample agreed that Negroes who want to work hard can get ahead just as easy as anyone else. And about half a grade before negroes are given equal rights they have to show that they deserve them. Our analysis show the conceptions of man is wholly free will related to racial prejudice but were even more powerfully related to opposing social action to improve the lot of the disadvantaged. The bulk of opposition among the led to black and white alike to permitting the official churches and the clergy to take part in and support actions for human rights seems to stem from their conviction that people get put 30s oeuvre in this life and in the next.

Thus far we have concentrated on theological factors which seem to provide a basis for prejudice Now obviously it would be an extremely biased assessment if we did not try to also give attention to the capacities of theology to serve as a bulwark against prejudice. Christian claims about the superb stimulus for brotherhood compassion and love provided by the teachings of Christ are hardly partisan distortions. Rather the ethical and moral teachings of the New Testament are rightfully used as a basis for all official church pronouncements on brotherhood. In our cultures such as central ethical notions as Love thy neighbor and do good and others are preeminently Christian teachings. Consequently we investigated the power of commitment to Christian ethical ism as a bulwark against prejudice both religious and racial. Our findings produce an ironic contradiction of basis both for future hope. And for present dissolution.

First of all we found that as one might both hope and expect individual commitment to Christian ethics provided a powerful antidote for prejudice persons high on ethical commitment were much less likely than others to hold religious and racial prejudices. But the contradiction a lot arises from the equally persuasive evidence that commitment to Christian ethics is not related to other forms of Christian commitment. Thus will the ethics taught by the churches are a potent weapon against prejudice. It is not at all clear that the churches can take claim any direct credit for this fact. Instead we found that those church members who accepted the other doctrines of the church or who were more reg or who more regularly attended church or participated in church activities were somewhat less likely to accept Christian ethical ism than those who were less orthodox in their beliefs and rest less regular in their participation.

That is to say Christians who are somewhat poor are church members judged on other criteria were more likely to be committed to the ethical teachings of the New Testament than where those who were otherwise better and more active members. Thus one is faced with the fact that Christian ethical ism is a powerful weapon against prejudice. But it is not clear that the churches are presently playing an important role in wielding this weapon. We must emphasize that a great many devout Christians do accept Christian ethical teachings and are undoubtedly thereby inspired in the resolve to oppose prejudice. One need not look far to find many splendid examples. But when the whole range of Christians is examined ethical ism is not seemingly the typical product of religious commitment. When the church is search for support for their ethical teachings they are slightly more likely to find it among their most dormant members than they are to find it among the most active thus Christian ethical is and

has the effect attributed to it. But the churches have not been effective in getting these doctrines across. In conclusion we would like to give some attention to the implications we see in our findings for the future policy of the churches. Now admittedly we are not theologians in many of these problems require considerable feel logical understanding. Nevertheless there seem to be some general lessons here which theologians will have to contend with if the churches are to begin to play an important role in overcoming religious and racial prejudice. The first lesson in our judgment is that ideas are important social forces. There's been a tendency in our society and unfortunately encouraged by social science to regard the ideas that men hold is somehow phenomenal as simply reflections of other factors such as social class and education or of the deeper psychological factors such as

authoritarianism anxiety neurosis and of me and the like. Now this tendency has been especially pronounced in regard to religious ideas and even a good many churchmen have somehow come to think that religious ideas play little part in the way many evaluate and act upon the world around them. Now weight may well be true that religious side is have little influence in some aspects of modern life. However the main conclusion to be drawn from our studies is of the important role played by theological ideas and convictions in religious and racial prejudice. It matters greatly whether or not Christians hold particularistic conceptions of Christianity whether or not they blame the Jews for the crucifixion whether or not they hold a radical freewill image of man and whether or not they are strongly committed to the ideals of Christian ethical ism. These factors are all of considerable power in influencing prejudice and quite independent of the effects of class education

authoritarianism and the like which of preoccupation applied most to social science. Enough we accept the evidence that religious ideas are important in prejudice. We must then face the fact that at the present time they are more commonly functioning to state sustain prejudice than to overcome it. From this it follows that if the churches are morally committed to conquering prejudice they must take theological issue seriously. We would pose the following as some central questions for theological consideration. Do the churches mean for their adherence to believe that only Christians can be saved. How can doctrinal reformulations which are meant to provide religious legitimacy to non-Christians be stated simply so they can be widely understood. It is a free will in the age of man as we have earlier described it essential to Contemporary Christian doctrine. If not what can be done to supplant these notions since they are widespread among both clergy and laity and play a powerful role in supporting

prejudice. And how is it possible for persons who ardently proclaim their Christian orthodoxy to reject the doctrines of Christian ethical ism. Is not this heterodoxy. And if so does it seem pertinent to suggest the proclamations of Christian ethics should be so inextricably implicated in Confessions of faith and the nature of true out that Orthodoxy is taught by the church is that such a separation is no more possible than it would be to find police people who believe in the divinity of Jesus but not in the existence of God. Could the churches under taken emergency measures to give as much emphasis to the ethical demands of the faith as they do with salvation or promise. Now speaking as non theologians we suspect the particularism. And or radical notions of free will are not essential to Contemporary Christian thought. And if this is then we believe it is essential

that the churches concentrate on convincing their members of this fact. By doing so they could make an extremely important contribution to reducing our capacities to hate one another. Indeed of all the major institutions in society the church is maybe in the best potential position to make deep inroads on contemporary prejudices. This is true partly because of their past failures. For on Sunday morning those Americans who most need to have their prejudices shaken are more likely to be found in church than at home reading the newspapers or watching the football game of the week. Thus the churches are faced with both a great opportunity and a great challenge. But before they can truly aid the cause of brotherhood they will have to decide more clearly what it is they want their members to believe. Thank you. I wish to thank Mr. Starke for that that hair shirt.

Address. It reminds me of this. The story of the turtle in the deadly scorpion. The scorpion wanted to cross the river begged a ride from the turtle. The turtle said how do I know you won't sting me and we'll both drown the scorpion said on my word I promise not to to sting you. Whereupon the turtle said hop on. Half way across the stream the scorpion stung the turtle and they both started down toward the bottom when the turtles last words were why did you do that in the scorpion simply said. Well that's my nature. There seems to be some sort of intractable factor in this relation between religion and Prejudice which an army of psychoanalyst would have to get at. May I ask Mr. Stark. Will these findings be published.

Oh yes. I interrupt only because I've had so many people come up to me and asked whether the proceedings of this symposium will be published. I say yes as soon as we possibly can and they will be distributed copies will be distributed to all of them. Thank you Professor Bloch. Remember that questions are to be written. And they will be collected immediately after President has Berg's address and if you have and if the question has to be directed to one specific person down here please so indicate that he a vigorous president of the University of Notre Dame has a veto here which would take thirty five minutes to read it. If the words were hyphenated it would sound like a

University commencement address. Vatican hyphen Carnegie hyphen Rockefeller hyphen foundation on religious action hyphen commission on humanities congregation of the Holy Cross Vatican delegate national conference on family life. You simply embarrass him beyond words and take more time than from away from his speech than we wish to do for me to read all of these things. But I do wish to give him a hearty welcome and ask him if there's any good news he can bring us from South Bend. The only good news from South Bend is the roof was I when I left yesterday but I'm not promising anything for today. I gather from the deep silence that it's not a good thing to have the roof on but

it's Anyway my pleasant task today to speak to you about the churches in the struggle against prejudice. Someone might think this is an unenviable task. There are many times when I have thought so myself. The task that was given to me is was one of prescription rather than analysis. Although I think within a singular point of view and presentation it's difficult to prescribe a remedy without some diff indication of one's own analytic judgment of the malady in question here being prejudice. I'd like to begin with a few disclaimers. It's always good to say what one is not. The previous speaker said he was not a theologian I think I must say in all honesty I am an ex theologian. It was my field of doctoral studies but I've been so long involved in the ministration that I would be going on false pretenses to pretend to be a

theologian today. Neither can I speak for all of the churches of the world or even for all of the churches in America. As a Catholic priest of some 25 years standing I can speak of my own observations and judgments. And to this extent one hears a voice from the side of the churches even in the matter of prejudice one must. Understand that we're talking here about a very broad field that contains prejudiced of many many kinds. I tend to think of the legal categories and body of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. That is prejudice by reason of race color religion or national origin. Someone might say what's what's left. I would assure you there is a lot left in my observations on the matter. Prejudices are largely colored by my personal experience as a member of United States Commission on Civil Rights since its beginning some

10 and a half years ago here on the commission we have dealt mainly as you know with prejudice from a racial rather than a religious origin. Prejudiced in the theological context. At least in the theology I studied many years ago it was always referred to as rash judgement. And fundamentally this means passing judgment. Normally detrimental or negative judgement on someone or some group without sufficient evidence to justify the judgement and rash judgement. It is a classic book on the nature of prejudice. Gordon Alpert quotes Charles Lamb. And I repeat the quote. I confess that I do not that I do feel the differences of mankind national and individual. I am in plainer words a bundle of prejudices made up of likings and disliking the veriest thrall to sympathies.

Apathy Zen antipathies and quote There's probably no nation on earth where it's easier for any one of us to be a bundle of prejudices than our own America which is such an amalgam of religions and races and nationalities and colors. And I think conversely there is probably no nation on earth that has more of an opportunity for a noble experiment in the art of being a human being than here in America which goes under the motto they Pluribus Unum that out of many many people and many many cultures we make one nation and you all remember standing in school I'm sure every day and speaking about one nation indivisible. This always brings me back to the recent report of the civil disorder where it says that we are creating in this country one nation divisible divided into two nations one black and one white.

But there is our challenge a pluribus unum. Despite our vast ethnic mixture despite our long history of black white Protestant Catholic Jewish gentile antipathies. What makes prejudiced so spiritually dangerous is the rashness and the irrationality of all of the nasty little things that come when it's trained fear suspicion. This like disdain revulsion hatred all unfounded and all leading inevitably and irrationally to discrimination to social disunity and most often to the denial of human dignity. What makes prejudice so difficult to understand much less to cope with. Or to cure is that it is a generalized feeling that goes beyond our values beyond our interests and even far beyond our knowledge. A prejudiced person feels antipathy or

hostility towards another or towards a whole group without any definable or sufficient reason and then attempts to justify himself by saying he's just up holding his special values or his special interests or even some imagined or presumed facts. This generalized feeling of prejudice easily encompasses a whole group and then goes on to denigrate any single identifiable member of the group without any prior reference to the individual's quality or merit or value. Hence the theological categorizing of prejudice as rash judgment and indeed it is rash both in general and in particular I think here one should distinguish for a moment rash judgement and erroneous judgment. All of us make many erroneous judgements but it seems to me when we're shown the factual error of our erroneous judgments most of us are large enough to change our minds and to do so quickly because we don't like to be caught with the wrong facts.

Not so with prejudice. Demonstrate the erroneous basis of a prejudicial judgement and the prejudiced person will quickly find two or three other bases for his judgement. Shifting the bases no problem at all for prejudice because it puts out false roots in every direction. Destroy one. There are always several others available. Demonstrate for example that negroes are not biologically or genetically or humanly inferior. Then the negroes become condemned because they are too lazy to exploit their talents. Prejudice therefore is not only faulty but also inflexible judgment characterized more by emotion than by reason and almost always accompanied by some degree of discriminatory action against the person or the group who is the object of this personal irrational prejudice prejudice. As far as I can see it could best be described as the poison of personal relations.

The most divisive element in our society is the most corrosive element in our human nature. Since it goes against reason and since it falsifies our judgements of so many other persons and makes us as well as those others the prey of irrational fears and deep hostilities. Now one of the most damning aspects of prejudice is is that we are not born with it. We learn it. We develop it and we pass it on to others. How does it all begin. Basically I think it begins with a difference and a comparison. The difference may be many things or any one of them may be color language religion social or economic situation. Physical appearance even sex following the difference is an evaluation and a comparison. What we have is good or the best. Therefore anything different is inferior or bad.

Even historical circumstance war oppression conquest slavery can be the condition for the birth or growth of prejudice against a whole group. And every single member of that group now and for all time to come Jew an Arab western an Oriental Irish an English German and French northerner and Southerner and a whole series of countries Korea Vietnam here South Africa all of these groups have seen prejudiced against each other be born and develop and then get passed down almost inevitably to each succeeding generation. And how is this done. Gordon Alpert outlines two main methods which I'll really briefly comment upon categorization and stereotyping. I think we all naturally tend to categorise as we sort out our knowledge by generalization which is a good scientific way of approaching

the increase of knowledge. And then we easily attribute unfavorable qualities to this or that category of human beings. We easily form senseless stereotypes that we then irrationally and without evidence apply across the board. And Prejudice is born. All Jews are crafty or sly. All negroes are lazy or shiftless or can all Catholics are politically ambitious or Irish all. All Chinese are cruel and of course our own kind whatever we happen to be. We are the best and to be preferred over all others of whatever religion or race or nationality or color. And this last reality which is in fact positive prejudice prejudice in favor of one's own group is something that the theologian would call pride and I suppose the

sociologist would call mostly ethnocentrism. Now we begin to see prejudice as much more than just an individual quality. It becomes an integral part of a religion or a race or a nationality or a color or ultimately I think what is the complex of all of these things that becomes an integral part of a culture the culture in which we happen to be born and belong or some subgroup of that culture prejudice in this sense gets passed on to all the members of the society or the culture that gets passed on in the most intimate fashion in the family and in the neighborhood and in the school. And unfortunately even in the church. It is now apparent I think how very alone the reality we are dealing with when we attempt to deal with prejudice is propagated in the very process of acculturation or maturation or education falsely conceived or socialization within one of their own social group. No inside force

no part of one's own culture can oppose it. No outside force can normally oppose it without seeming to be inimical to one's culture or nationality or religion or race. And all this are touchy about such inimical approach to those things we hold dear. I am of course overstating the case. But I think you will agree that unconsciously if you are very honest about it we are all each one of us in some fashion. In the words of Charles Lamb bundles of prejudice all of which we have acquired since birth and not from Martians but from those with whom we have lived. Those who are most dear to us. In a very real sense to divest ourselves and our future generation from prejudice will require a profound cultural change in our attitudes. A change that must come from within. Now few forces can bring this kind of change about. I like to believe that

the church is one such force. There are of course others. Please allow me to put this in context. The ultimate values of a society are mostly expressed in the form of religious beliefs negatively. Religion has been at the heart of much of the prejudice the world has seen the conflict of Jew and Christian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Protestant and Catholic of Muhammad and Christian a whole series of of conflicts just to mention some of the most historic basic forms of prejudice and discrimination that we have seen and observed in the western world ethnocentric pride as almost always had a religious base and has almost always focused on cultural practices relating to religion. Moreover people have often portrayed religious beliefs different than their own in the most in the worst possible sites or light and have used their own religious beliefs in defense of their most cherished secular values such as preserving their neighborhoods even when these were largely economic or cultural

or social values not religious values at all. I think it must be said that until very recently the most segregated hour of the week in the South was 11 o'clock Sunday morning in church parochial schools in the south while perfectly free to desegregate generally generally did so only shortly before or just with or just after desegregation of the public schools took place. And I can recall one of the most difficult times I had in the area of religious involvement in prejudice was in the common room at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. It's the Afrikaans University just south of Cape Town University. And I had just finished reading a number of articles put out by the Dutch Reform Church in defense of apartheid. As a matter of fact I just come from a lecture by a friend of mine named Ollie fear at the University of Cape Town which was entitled The moral justification of apartheid. And after the lecture he asked me as we were

driving down to Stellenbosch which was his home university. He said What did you think of my lecture and I said well you use at least to sold me on one thing and he brightened up a bit and I said you sold me on the fact that there is no moral justification of apartheid. And he said well I was trying to do the opposite and I said well I only tell you what came through. We went to his university and it was tea time we went to the common room and we had there are an economist and a theologian and a philosopher. A number of people from the faculty. They said Have you read are our religious justification of of apartheid as a form that is most acceptable for our country in this university. And I said Yes I've read most of the things you put out they had a group there called Sabra the South African bureau of race affairs and all the fear was the vice president this group. And they said well what do you think of our arguments. And I said you mind if I move over towards the window because I may have to make a quick getaway. And they said fine so.

I said Well philosophically I think your arguments are irrational and that's the worst thing I can say philosophically and theologically I think they're blasphemous. I didn't have to jump out the window but it might have been a good move. Three years ago the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights had a 10 day hearing in Jackson Mississippi. And at the end of several days of very gruesome testimony I had the unenviable task of conducting on television a seminar made up of all of the top religious leaders of that state right across the board. I reviewed for them what horrible testimony we had heard regarding man's inhumanity to man in Mississippi over the past years and these acts of murder and arson and brutality I noted were committed by those who attend your churches in your synagogues. Why can't you get together and speak out against this perversity I asked one High Churchman one of the highest there in fact suggested that they would

all be expelled from the state if they were to speak out forcibly. And yet it seemed to me that there was no alternative there or here or any place else ethnocentric pride and perversion must be combative from within the culture not by some outside critic as I was in Stellenbosch University. The two great acts that have made religious witness vital and forceful across all ages I think are the acts of prophecy and the acts of martyrdom. All religious leaders must be perfectly clear today in standing out strongly against popular opinion what is morally wrong what you're talking about Vietnam or war or civil rights or anything else that you strongly feel is wrong. That is the essence of prophecy. To stand out against the crowd. And today in this precise matter to point out the BLAST FROM THE of prejudice before the tide has turned out afterwards to be willing to be a martyr if necessary for this most important

truth that you happen to believe in. This calls for heroic courage at times especially in Mississippi. But if religion is to lead and not to follow then there is no other way than the courageous way of prophecy. And at times the way of martyrdom. There is a curious correlation between the different kinds of religious commitment and prejudice. Those who have a vertical commitment if I could use that word towards God in the organization of the church often show a high degree of prejudice has been remarked by the former speaker. Those who are more deeply spiritual if you will more interiorly committed to religion are more directly committed to the love of God through the love of man in horizontal kept horizontal commitment if you will to change the social condition which we all live. Are these people show little if any prejudice. Some have tried to demonstrate the same truth here by a different route showing that the authoritarian personality types who are insecure and threatened by religious differences

are the prejudice ones. They only seem secure themselves by being against others who are religiously different. We have Notre Dame with the help of the Carnegie Corporation made a study of Catholic parochial school systems and students and we found some interesting variables in this matter of prejudice. We found for example that the students who attended Mass which we call the sacrament of unity most frequently were the least prejudiced. We found that A and B students for example were less prejudiced than C and D students. This just confirms my original opinion that prejudice is stupid. The. The education of parents. That's the parents of the students whether Catholic or not had a direct relationship on the prejudice of their children especially towards negroes and Jews. The more educated parents having the least prejudiced children. There is also a strong indication in these studies that Catholic students did not so

much have prejudice against Jews as they really did not know Jews and therefore were somewhat confused by the current Miss they had heard about Jews. What really seems important here is not more knowledge but more personal contact and I'll say more about this in a moment. There was also an understandable variation of these studies depending on the percentage of minority groups present in the geographical area as we studied this variation went as high as 50 percent. Destroying any idea I think of monolithic response from the Catholic group even on so fundamental a point of Catholic morality is prejudice. Now this may be as good a place as any to reiterate that there can be no real doubt about the position of the Christian churches viz of the prejudice towards any other human being. I realize that in briefly saying what I'm going to say there may very well be some Christian theologians such as those I mentioned in South Africa who will disagree with me but I think what I say here would apply to at least 90 to 95 percent of the theologians.

Well let me say the theologians who think. When queried about the most important of all moral laws. Or if you will the one law. Jesus said Love the Lord thy God with my whole heart and the whole soul and with my whole mind with my whole strength and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. This second aspect of the law is confirmed before Jesus in the Old Testament shalt not bear false witness against the neighbor. And in the New Testament Whatsoever you do for one of these my least brother and you did it to me. Jesus identifies himself in our neighbor and in our treatment particularly of our least brother and especially as he points out if he should be hungry or thirsty or naked or in prison. And I take it here that we can take prison as meaning many things. All men are equal as children of God because God is the father of all all human beings have equal dignity and equal eternal destiny

despite the difference of talent or grace all these are of our interest our understanding our compassion and our help especially the least brother and the Son of God became man so that all may have life and have it more abundantly. Not the few not the white not the Westerners. All salvation and redemption are indeed for all never for a chosen few. We will only be known as His disciples if we love one another as he has loved us. Now the whole thread of Christian anthropology is one of equal spiritual and human dignity before God and before men a dignity that must be respected and buttressed by the same love with which God loves us and we him as St. Paul says we are all one body in Jesus Christ. He is the head and we are the members. What we think and do for others we think and do for him. If we despise and disregard them his

least brother and we despise and we disregard him. Which means we despise and we disregard God who must be found in all of these people. There is no other alternative. Human dignity is universal and so must our respect for every human being made in the image and likeness of God. The universal most basically the unity of the human race as an ideal and as a fundamental belief is central to all the Christian churches. To think otherwise is to be unchristian. Even if the one or ones about whom one thinks otherwise be not Christians even if they be atheists or nonbelievers.