(This is the text of a speech delivered May 6, 1953, to 1,150 guests at the annual banquet of the Washington State Parent Teachers Association. At the time this speech was given the author was serving on the faculty of the Brigham Young University.)
One hundred years ago there was a little school of philosophers in Europe who called themselves “pure materialists.” They had their headquarters in Germany. Two of those materialists carved a place for themselves in history. Through their speeches and books they lighted a flame which, in a century, has created more distrust, insecurity, bloodshed, war-mongering and destruction of property than all the criminal and gangster elements in the world combined.
One of these men was Frederick Wilhelm Nietzsche. It was Nietzsche who rose up out of the school of pure materialism to advance the idea of a superman. His ideas could be summarized as follows: “Since there is not any God and since human beings are only graduate beasts without any souls and without immortality, men should not therefore follow a system of ethics and morals. The natural law of force should prevail in the universe. The weak deserve to serve, the strong deserve to rule. Somewhere on the earth there is a nation which is just naturally superior and which should ruthlessly subdue the rest of mankind. Within that nation a single individual should rise up as the natural leader and dictator to rule over humanity because he is a superman.” It was Nietzsche who made up Superman, not the comics.
Now it was Nietzsche’s thinking which inspired Adolf Hitler with his apocalyptic nightmare of total war. Hitler envisioned himself as the man of destiny—the superman—who would one day rule the world. When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf it was as though Nietzsche were speaking from the dead. Said Hitler, “Look at these young men and boys! What material! I shall eradicate the thousands of years of human domestication. Brutal youth—that is what I am after…. I want to see once more in its eyes the gleam… of the beast of prey. With these I can make a new world… and create a new order!”
Mankind felt the crushing, brutal impact of Hitler’s mammoth war machine during World War II as he forced millions to join his ranks of imperialistic conquest which was designed to make him dictator of the world. In this country we watched in amazement as he rose to power. Finally, after several years of seeing the black boots of National Socialism stomp out the light of civilization wherever they marched, we rose up in our wrath and joined forces with other nations of the world to smash Nietzsche-inspired Nazism.
However, the spirit of total war which was spawned by the materialists was not confined to the National Socialists in Germany. It had been projected into the ambitions and philosophies of the leaders of several nations. It was codified into the political aims of the military leaders of Japan and Italy who also collapsed under the mighty blow which struck down National Socialism.
However, with the ending of World War II, many people felt that the conflict with materialism was at an end. Almost immediately the spirit of sacrifice seemed to wither within us. Virtually overnight our armies were demobilized, the world’s largest air force was practically scrapped, and the world’s largest navy was put into mothballs. All this was on the presumption that the war with materialism was finished. Time, of course, proved this presumption to be a mistake.
In putting down National Socialism and the Axis we had only conquered one form of materialism. Another form, equally strong, immediately rose to take its place. This new form of materialism came from Nietzsche’s comrade-in-arms—Karl Marx—a man out of the same school of philosophy, with the same motivations as Nietzsche. Karl Marx thought of himself as the father of dialectical materialism, more commonly known as Communism. Today, the great force of conquest and imperialism which he envisioned stands arrayed against the people of the free world and marches under the banner of the hammer and sickle.
Some people have mistaken the mission of Karl Marx and his followers as purely economic in nature, but like all other materialists their mission was to gain power through ideological warfare. Note how they denounced any competitive ideology, even religion: “We must combat religion—this is the ABC of materialism, and consequently of Marxism.”{236} And another disciple declared that when they took over, “God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.”{237}
Now since we are dealing with the field of ideological warfare, one might well ask, What is the objective of these militant atheists? What are they trying to set up as the new ideal for human relations? Listen to the words of Lenin:
“We must hate-hatred is the basis of Communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not Communists.” And listen to the amazing declaration of the former Russian Commissar of Education, Anatole Lunarcharsky: “We hate Christians and Christianity. Even the best of them must be considered our worst enemies. Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution. Down with love of one’s neighbor! What we want is hate…. Only then will we conquer the universe!”{238}
I am sure you would agree that when men like these rise to positions of power in the earth it is indeed a challenge to the youth of the free world. When Karl Marx was asked what his object in life was, he said, “To dethrone God and destroy capitalism!”
In a declared war against morals, ethics, and spiritual values among the people, Marx and his associates resolved to completely eliminate the worship of the Almighty among men. Heinrich Heine declared: “Our hearts are filled with compassion for it is… Jehovah Himself who is making ready to die,”{239} and Nietzsche, so successful in the atheistic campaign, said: let the “death of God” be boldly proclaimed.{240} Ludwig Feuerbach announced that: “The turning point of history will be the moment man becomes aware that the only God of man is man himself.”{241}
The strategy of the materialists was to appropriate to themselves the toga of “science” and take credit for all scientific accomplishments. Then they determined to ridicule and rationalize away all the things which they opposed by pronouncing them “unscientific.” Thus they attacked the Bible, called themselves higher critics, and attempted to explain it away. They explained the worship of God as being merely the effort of man to project the qualities of his own better nature into some fictitious superior being. They called Jesus Christ an itinerant preacher whose life and writings were effeminate and weak. They ridiculed the possibility of his resurrection; They denied the immortality of human life or the existence of the spirit or soul.
They said that man was nothing but a graduate beast and that human life—especially the other man’s life—was no more sacred than that of a centipede, a caterpillar, or a pig. In other words, the materialists turned their backs on six thousand years of human history and achievement. As Marx and Engels boasted in their Manifesto: Our program “abolishes eternal truths; it abolishes all religion and all morality… it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.”
But having denounced God, the scriptures, morals, immortality, eternal judgment, the existence of the spirit, and the sanctity of individual human life, the materialists turned to worship themselves. They decided that man, collectively speaking, was the epitome of perfection among nature’s achievements and therefore the center of the universe. This gave Nietzsche an excellent opportunity to teach his concept of “superman.”
As Nietzsche exalted himself and all other men as the most superior of all existing things he burst forth into statements like this: “Now this God (of the Bible) is dead! You higher men, this God was your greatest danger…. Do you understand this saying, Oh my brothers? You are frightened? Do your hearts fail you? Does the abyss yawn at your feet? What of it? Forward, higher men! Now at last the mountain of man’s future is about to give birth. God is dead; now it is our will that superman shall live!”{242}
In the egotistical tunnel vision of these men who sought to dethrone God there flamed the phantom hope that somehow they may have made the discovery of the ages. Nietzsche made a studied attempt to assume the proper humility which he felt was becoming to such a genius as himself. Said he, “Great heavens!” Who has any idea of the burden that weighs upon me and the strength that it takes to endure myself! I don’t know why it should fall upon me of all people—but it may be that I am the first to light upon an idea which will divide the history of mankind in two…. It takes some courage to face that thought.”
But it took more courage than Nietzsche realized. His writings groaned with the burden: “Since there ceased to be a God, loneliness has become intolerable.” But then he bolstered his timidity by reminding himself that after all he was a superman and resolved that he, as “the man who overtops the rest must set to work.”{243}
But if there is no God, no design, and nothing for the future but an accidental destiny, what is there to work for? In the dark hours of his anti-theistic reasoning and just a short time before he went insane, Nietzsche could not help asking himself:
“How did we come to do that? How did we manage to empty the sea? Who gave us a sponge to wipe out the whole horizon? What were we about when we undid the chain which linked this earth to the sun? Are we not wandering through an endless nothingness? Do we not feel the breath of the void in our faces? Isn’t it growing colder? Is not night always coming on, one night after another, more and more?”{244}
Such was the final, fearful lamentation of the men who started the chain-reaction of pure materialism.
Now we have reached an interesting point in the history of the United States when the word “Communism” has become universally unpopular. If the label of Communism is placed upon a person or an institution it may bring ruin overnight. The disgraceful conduct of Communist leaders has given their name a deep-dyed stigma in the United States.
But how many Americans could recognize a Communist without his label? What does a Communist really believe? Most people identify Communism as “state-ownership of property” or Socialism. It is interesting, however, that the economics of Communism are primarily for propaganda purposes. The idea of sharing the wealth appeals to the masses. However, when the Communists took over in Russia you will recall that the first thing they did was impose upon the Russian people a form of economics which we got rid of back in the feudal days. It is a system where a privileged few dispense the necessities of life to the serfs who work for them and rely upon them for protection and leadership.
But if Communist economics are primarily propaganda, what, then, does the Communist believe?
In the interest of time I have endeavored to reduce the basic belief of these people to four fundamental concepts which turn out to be the basis for their philosophy. These beliefs are the heart and soul of dialectical materialism. They pretend to provide a complete explanation for the whole universe. They provide the reasoning which gives an excuse to the Communist for his revolutionary violence and amoral conduct. They are the things which convert a few intellectual people to this foreign ideology, and they are the things which even make a few wealthy people think that Communism is the last great hope of the modern world. Understanding these beliefs helps to evaluate the actions of the Communists when we sit down with them to discuss world problems.
Their first major premise is this: “Everything in existence came about as a result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature.” Everything is a product of accumulated accident. There is no design. There is no law. There is no God. There is only force, the force of nature. Force is right, force is good, and force is natural.
The idea of “dialectics” as propounded by the Communist intellectual is that “conflict in nature” is the womb of all creation; that out of fierce, writhing forces in the elements we obtained all that now is—stars, solar system, plants, animals and the intelligence of man.
When these dialectical materialists first tried to tell me that everything in the universe was the result of force and accident, I could not help but recall the teachings of my high school chemistry professor who said that the major premise of science is recognition of the fact that there is order in the universe resulting from intelligent design. He pointed out that the mission of the scientist is to explore and discover the engineering principles followed by the Master Architect so that these can be used as a blessing for mankind. In other words, the very foundation of science is the recognition of an intelligent designer who used principles which we ourselves can discover and use.
The followers of Marx are so desperately anxious to over-throw the recognition of God that they have denied that there is any design in the universe. They refuse to admit that there is order, law, or an intelligent creator behind the phenomena of nature. They say all of these things are the product of accumulated accident. I wonder what my chemistry professor would say to that? These materialists claim o’ glorify the name of science and to march under its banner, but, in their anxiety to discredit and repudiate God, they have openly denied the very things which science has demonstrated.
Now here is their second major premise: “Human beings are only graduate beasts,” and therefore human life is no more sacred than that of a centipede, a caterpillar or a pig. The completely reckless disregard for human life is the most striking, single characteristic of “materialism in action.” For many Americans, the things which were experienced in the Korean War have brought a rude awakening. It means a big difference when we are dealing with people who look upon all humanity as merely “graduate beasts.”
The third major premise of Communism is this: “There is no such thing as innate right or wrong.” As one of their leaders pointedly declared, “To lie, is that wrong? Not for a good cause. To steal, is that wrong? Not for a good cause. To kill, is that wrong? Not for a good cause.” We can that pragmatism—that the end justifies the means. The dialectical materialists look upon ethics and morals as superficial and fraudulent. V. I. Lenin declared: “The upbringing of Communist youth must not consist of all sorts of sentimental speeches and precepts.” And in the same volume he states that “Morality is that which serves to destroy the old exploiting society…. Communist morality is the morality which serves this struggle.”{245}
It is highly important to Communist discipline to have every person obey blindly. To obey blindly is considered good and therefore morally right. But a system of morals which controls conduct in terms of right and wrong makes each individual a moral free agent. This, Communism cannot stand.
The fourth major premise of Communism is “That all religion must be overthrown because it inhibits the spirit of world revolution.” It was the feeling of Marx, Engels and their fellow travelers that the deep spiritual convictions of the people hindered their acceptance of Communist philosophy and Communist rule. It kept them from capturing the revolutionary spirit. It kept them from lying and stealing and killing when leaders commanded it. As one of their writers declared: “Religion does not fit into a dialectical materialist system of thought. It is the enemy of it. One cannot be a thorough materialist, that is, a dialectical materialist, and have any remnants of religious beliefs.”{246} Marx said: “Religion is the opium of the people,” and as we have pointed out previously, it became a prime objective of the Communist Manifesto to overthrow “all religions.”
The Communist founders were not satisfied to have their disciples merely ignore religion. They felt it was highly essential that religion be methodically replaced with militant atheism.
One of their writers declared: “Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism… consequently; a class-conscious Marxist party must carry on propaganda in favor of atheism.”{247} In one of their youth magazines the following instruction appeared: “If a Communist youth believes in God and goes to Church, he fails to fulfill his duties. This means that he has not yet rid himself of a religious superstition and has not yet become a fully conscious person.”{248}
The Communists have written volumes against religion, but this is sufficient to demonstrate that atheism and the rejection of all religions is a very important part of the Communist program.
So there you have the four major premises of Communism. Some people will say, “Well, if that’s what it takes to make a Communist—so what? What they believe cannot hurt me.” Such attitudes have practically been our undoing. These beliefs can hurt us. For example, let me tell you briefly of an important event which occurred toward the conclusion of World War II.
This incident began in June, 1943, when a young Russian by the name of Igor Gouzenko arrived by plane in Ottawa, Canada. He was immediately assigned to the military attache of the Russian Embassy as a cipher clerk. This was the first time Igor Gouzenko had ever been outside of Russia. He later wrote: “I was surprised during the first days by the complete freedom of the individual which exists in Canada, but which does not exist in Russia.”{249}
He observed that even during war time, the people enjoyed comparative freedom, that they were a happy people and that the government served the people rather than vice versa. He vicariously enjoyed their freedom just by watching them. As he himself said: “I saw the evidence of what a free people can do. What the Canadian people have accomplished and are accomplishing here under conditions of complete freedom, the Russian people, under the conditions of the Soviet Regime of violence and suppression of all freedom, cannot accomplish even at the cost of tremendous sacrifices, blood and tears.”{250}
He was impressed by the vast quantities of goods that were on sale in the stores and he was amazed to find they could be purchased by anyone. He was impressed by the lack of fear and the lack of chaos, which the Russian propaganda machine claimed existed. Most impressive of all was the way democracy worked. He said: “The last elections which took place recently in Canada, especially surprised me. In comparison with them, the system of elections in Russia appears as a mockery of the conceptions of free elections.”{251}
But while Igor Gouzenko was working for the military attache of the Soviet Embassy, he noticed something else. He observed that contact was being made with top Canadian scientists and sometimes with important Canadian officials. Often they were actually cooperating in furnishing highly secret Government data to the Communist military agents. Gouzenko was further puzzled by the fact that he knew these important officials and scientists were aware that the ultimate aim of the Communists was a world-wide revolution which would destroy the Canadian Government as well as all others.
After watching these developments for a period of two years, Igor Gouzenko decided that he would warn the Canadian people of what was happening. Already he had made up his mind that he would never go back to Russia and raise his own child the way he had been raised. He told his wife that he intended to leave the Russian Embassy and warn the Canadian Government of the espionage network in its midst.
To prove his story he secreted a lot of espionage documents in his clothing and then went to the Canadian officials. He thought, of course, that he would be welcomed with open arms—that the Canadians would be delighted to have the in. side story. But as he watched the expressionless face of the first person he contacted, Gouzenko realized he had exposed himself to great danger. The man did not believe him! Only at the last moment, when Gouzenko was actually in danger of being recaptured by the Russian NKVD did it finally dawn on some of the officials that perhaps this Soviet code clerk’s story might be true. He was therefore immediately taken into protective custody so he could tell his story to the world.
The Canadians wondered if the people named by Gouzenko actually would collaborate with a potential enemy, The list included such men as Dr. Raymond Boyer, wealthy faculty member of McGill University, who was a senior supervisor in the National Research Council and co-inventor of the explosive RDX in World War II; Eric Adams, graduate of McGill and Harvard, serving in a top position in the Industrial Development Bank; Israel Halperin, professor of mathematics at Queen’s University in Ontario and doing highly technical research for the Directorate of Artillery; David Gordon Lunin, editor of Canadian Affairs; Dr. David Shugar, employed by Research Enterprises Limited, doing advanced research on radar; Harold Gerson, holding a top administrative position in the Allied War Supply; F.W. Poland, an officer in the Directorate of Intelligence of the Royal Canadian Air Force; and there was Kathleen Mary Willsher, who held a confidential position with the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom in Canada.
These and other persons on the list were promptly arrested and investigated by a Royal Canadian Commission. This Commission later reported: “Perhaps the most startling single aspect of the entire fifth column network is the uncanny success with which the Soviet Agents were able to find Canadians who were willing to betray their country and to supply to agents of a foreign power secret information to which they had access—in spite of oaths of allegiance, oaths of office, and oaths of secrecy which they had taken.”{252}
What the Royal Commission wanted to know was why these high Canadian officials would deliberately turn against the interest of their native land. They asked these people if they had been bribed and one of them replied, “If they had offered me money, I would have been insulted.”
When the Commission inquired into the background of these people, they found they were casualties in the ideological war which is being waged between the materialists and the free world. These people had been raised in freedom. They had gone to Canadian and American schools, yet, when asked why they collaborated with the Soviet Agents, one of them made a typical reply: “I thought I was helping humanity.”
How were these men and women, raised in a free world, converted by Communist agents to believe that if they collaborated they would be helping humanity? Supposing you were a scientist and one of these agents came to you. How would you react? Supposing he said, “My friend, you know that there is no divine intelligence guiding the human race; you know there is no Providential destiny for humanity; you know that if superior intelligences like yourself do not help us gain control of the human race it will destroy itself.” Can you even imagine yourself giving this reply: “I must confess that, in my heart of hearts, I do not believe that there is any God or divine intelligence guiding the human race. Therefore, I suppose I should feel it my duty as one of the superior intelligences of my generation—and for the salve of humanity—to collaborate with your movement which is destined to take over and save the race from itself.”
This was not only typical of the statements which many of the Soviet-converted Canadians admitted making, but they verified their complete devotion to such ideas by deliberately engaging in subversive activities against their own country.
Now what do we deduct from this? Simply that these people were home-grown materialists! As Igor Gouzenko pointed out, there is a defect in your culture when your own people can grow up in your midst without gaining on appreciation of the difference between freedom and slavery, between idealism and atheism, between faith and doubt, or between order and chaos.
Somehow we failed to provide these people with the necessary ammunition to protect them in that critical moment when they were contacted by the agents of a foreign ideology. And we should be quick to recognize that if our culture and system of education is producing materialists, then this is the greatest secret weapon the Communists possess!
This means that we can spend two billion dollars developing the atomic bomb and the Communists can sit back and wait until we have succeeded. Then, they can drain off the information from some of our top security personnel. In fact, that is exactly what they did.
The greatest mistake that is being made in the free world today is the fact that we are mixing iron and clay. We are fighting for freedom but allowing some of our boys and girls to grow up believing in things which turn out to be basic Communistic concepts. Materialism is not Americanism but Communism. Every time we produce a boy or girl who is trained to believe that the universe is the product of accumulated accident, that human beings are only graduate beasts, that there is no such thing as innate right or wrong or that deep spiritual convictions are old-fashioned and unnecessary, then we have caused a casualty among our own ranks in the field of ideological warfare.
Without his ever knowing it, a young American is thereby trained to be a potential Red ally. This is indeed the great secret weapon of Communism.
Now where does an American boy or girl pick up the teachings of materialism? I think I can answer part of that question from a personal experience in an American institution of learning.
I was in my second year—a sophomore—and was taking my first course in philosophy. One morning the Professor said: “Now you young people are sufficiently mature so that your minds should be cleansed from the barnacles of superstition which probably accumulated during your youth. When you were children you were told about Santa Claus. Now you know the truth about Santa Claus. When you were children you were told about the stork. Now you know the truth about that.” He then stated that he was about to clarify our thinking in another field which had been cluttered up with childhood fairy tales. “Today,” he said, “I will tell you where the ideas about God came from and also about religion.” All of us sat back to absorb the gems of knowledge we were about to receive.
“Now in the beginning,” said the professor, “men worshipped things which they created with their own hands. It was called idolatry. Later, men imagined that there were a great many unseen gods—a god of war, a god of love, a god of rain, etc., and all these gods required sacrifices in order to keep them happy. Otherwise they showed forth their wrath. Therefore they were frequently called gods of vengeance.”
The professor then stated that the Bible is an excellent history of the evolution of religion. He said that it is clear from Bible study that the practice of idolatry prevailed among ancient peoples and that the Hebrews finally rose above it to worship Jehovah as a God of Vengeance. He said the people of Israel made sacrifices to Jehovah to keep him happy.
“Then,” he said, “Jesus came along and declared that God was a God of Love possessing the attributes of all the Platonic ultimates. Jesus taught that God was kind, just and forgiving. He taught the higher concepts of the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Golden Rule.”
“Now,” he continued, “This is the God men worship today, A God of Love as taught by Jesus. And it is good to go to church and worship this concept of God because it elevates the mind and stimulates the higher senses.”
“But,” he continued emphatically, “I want you young people to remember this: The idea of God is exactly like other human creations—like a great symphony someone has written, or a great poem; you don’t have to fear God, because we made him up!”
The professor finished by saying, “There is nothing watching over you—answering your prayers, or directing the human race toward some divine destiny. You young people are on your own.”
As the lecture concluded, I looked around at my fellow classmates. On the faces of some there seemed to be an expression of considerable relief. It was as though they were saying “Well, what do you know? Nobody’s watching me after all! So that’s what God is—something we made up—like a great symphony….”
After the class I went to the professor and said, “Doctor, have you ever had an opportunity to read the Old Testament?”
“Well,” chuckled the professor, “only parts of it. I never had time to read all of it. But I studied the history and philosophy of the Bible under a well known authority.”
The following conversation then took place between the student and the professor. The student told the professor that when he read the Bible he did not find the story in it which the professor said was there. The professor looked puzzled, “What do you mean? What story isn’t there?”
“Well,” said the student, “the story that religion started out as idolatry, evolved to the worshiping of a God of Vengeance, and then culminated in the worshiping of a God of Love—as taught by Jesus.”
“Tell me,” asked the professor, “what did you find in the Bible?
The student said that as far as he was able to determine the nature and identity of God had been taught to men from the very beginning. He said he thought the Bible taught that God had raised up prophets and special witnesses from earliest times and these were each given a scientific experience so that they would know for themselves the nature of God and be able to teach it to the people.
Then he continued, “The second thing I understood the Bible taught is that in the beginning God revealed a pattern for happy living which we call religion. He taught us not to steal, not to lie, not to cheat, to serve our fellow men, to remain morally clean.
“Finally,” he concluded, “I thought the Bible said idolatry and heathen religious practices were set up to compete with revealed religion because a large percentage of the people refused to subscribe to the things God had revealed. I thought it said manmade religion came long after God had revealed His will to man and that idolatry was a substitute and degenerate form of worship sponsored by men who reveled in the violation of God’s commandments.”
The professor looked down at his desk for a moment and then said: “I am afraid you are a little naive. Religion was not revealed, it evolved. Certainly you will have to admit that Jehovah was a typical ‘God of Vengeance’ who made the people offers sacrifices to keep him happy.”
“That is another thing,” the student replied. “The Bible does not say that the sacrifices in the Old Testament were to make God happy. It says that they were for the benefit of the people—a teaching device. Or, as Paul says, they were a ‘school master.’ It says that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and that he was as much a God of Love in the Old Testament as he was in the New Testament.”
“I’m afraid I will have to challenge that,” said the professor. “I think every authority would have to agree that sacrifices in the Old Testament were simply to make Jehovah happy.”
The student asked, “Would you like to hear what Jehovah himself said about sacrifices, and what they represented in the Old Testament?” The professor agreed, so a copy of the Bible was secured from the library. It was opened to the first chapter of Isaiah and the professor and student read the following verses together.
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs, or of he goats…. Bring me no more vain oblations…. (‘If these sacrifices were not successful in making better people then they apparently were in vain,’ commented the student.) When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when you make your many prayers I will not hear: your hands are full of blood!”
Then the student asked the professor if he thought the next two or three verses reflected the personality of a so-called God of Vengeance or a God of Love:
“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doing from before mine eyes! Cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool, If ye are willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.” (Isaiah 1:11-19.)
The professor was silent for a moment, and so the sophomore gained the courage to ask the final, crucial question. “Professor, am I wrong in concluding that these passages reflect the same spirit as the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule? Am I wrong in concluding that God has always been a God of Love?”
The professor took the Bible, placed a card in the first chapter of Isaiah and said, “Have the librarian transfer this book to me.”
The student appreciated his professor’s willingness to re-evaluate what he had been teaching. And he also appreciated something else—a mother and father, Sunday School teachers and others who had encouraged him to get acquainted with the Bible. They did not tell him what he had to believe out of the Bible; they just wanted him to get acquainted with it. He was glad that he had read it sufficiently so that when someone misrepresented what it said he was able to draw his own conclusions.
Now students who come home from a lecture such as the one I have just described are frequently an enigma to their parents. A boy may come home from a philosophy class, sit down to dinner with his family and say, “Dad, are we monoists or dualists?” His father is likely to look quizzically at the boy and say, “Son, eat your soup.”
Frequently parents are unaware that their son or daughter may be coming to grips with important philosophical problems. Of course, some parents are deeply confused themselves about the fundamental values of life and therefore they find it difficult to give much assistance to their children when they first meet the challenge of materialism.
I think my professor was sincere. He was teaching what he had been taught. He was teaching materialism because he had come to believe it was true. I am sure he would have been shocked if someone had told him that in the process of teaching materialism he was also laying the foundation for one of the most important concepts in Communism. If George Washington had been sitting in that class he would have said, “Professor, I think you are wrong.” Jefferson would have said, “You are wrong.” And Lincoln would have said, “You are wrong.”
Those men established this country on the premise that there is a Divine Intelligence guiding human destiny, a God in whom we can trust. They believed the Bible and the testimony of the witnesses who said that if we follow the principles taught by the prophets, we would find happiness in them. The founding fathers had such great confidence in the way of life described in the scriptures that they built the framework of the American Government and the principles for happy living which it guarantees, on the precepts and teachings of the Bible.
The disclosures of Igor Gouzenko in the Canadian spy case taught us that freedom is not insured by atomic bombs alone. As long as we are teaching materialism to our boys and girls we stand in danger of having them grow up to be vulnerable targets in the East-West war of ideologies.
I have already quoted to you a statement by the former Commissioner of Education in the Soviet Union indicating that they despise Christian principles because “Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution.” In fact the Communist leaders have indicated time and again that our greatest strength in resisting their efforts to conquer our minds with dialectical materialism is our belief and understanding of the Judaic-Christian code.
About three years ago I was invited to speak to a convention on the West Coast. During the discussion it was pointed out that one of the things which the followers of Marx despise about the American culture is the Judaic-Christian code. So I asked the members of the convention, “What is this thing we have which frightens Communists; someone tell us what the Judaic-Christian code contains.” There was a long pause. No one wanted to suggest a definition for this part of America’s strength. Finally an elderly gentleman in the back of the auditorium raised his hand, “Well,” he said, “I’m not sure I know what the Judaic-Christian code is, but I do know this—if they’re scared of it, I’m for it!
In this brief discussion there is not sufficient time to treat the entire Judaic-Christian code, but perhaps we can cover part of it. The Judaic code, for example, is built primarily around the Ten Commandments. Let us discuss each one of them briefly and see if we car, discover what there about them that would frighten a Communist.
In the first commandment God simply asks mankind to recognize Him as the Creator and Master Architect of the universe. He wants us to understand that the remarkable planet on which we live is not the result of accumulated accident. The pleasant environment which we enjoy is not the product of fortuitous happenstance. Nor is it the result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. He wants us to know that all of this is a product of design and careful engineering; that it is built on a system of law and order; that He rules in the heavens and that all things are moving toward purposeful goals.
In the second commandment God requires that we shall not create or worship false gods. When He has revealed his identity and purposes to mankind these teachings are not to be perverted, distorted, or changed. As we have already mentioned, the dialectical materialists not only tried to destroy worship of the Almighty, but they replaced the one true God with a false god. As one of them said, “The turning point of history will be when man becomes aware that the only god of man is man himself.”{253} The history of the dialectical materialists will reveal that they follow the ancient pagan practice of worshiping one another.
Now, the Communist says, “If there is a God, show him to me! Have you seen God? Has your brother, your sister?” It is interesting to find that some of the early Communist leaders actually went forth in search of God, but their biographies reveal that they went forth with a blowtorch in one hand and a sledge hammer in the other. They were men who defied the Almighty to keep himself hidden from their all-searching scrutiny; and when they failed in their search, they returned savagely angry, convinced that since they did not find God, it proved that there just was not any God to find.
To all of this the Bible gives an answer. It may be found in the 19th chapter of Exodus. There God points out to Moses that it is not difficult for him to appear before men but it is difficult for men to be able to stand it. He points out that only certain ones have been sufficiently prepared so that He can bring them into His presence. He told Moses that if men were not adequately prepared the impact of the experience would destroy them. Moses attempted to prepare the people of Israel so they could enjoy the great scientific experience which he had already received, but their preparation was insufficient. The Lord said “Go down. Charge the people lest they break through unto the Lord to gaze and many of them perish.”{254}
Later on, however, some were actually allowed to ascend Mount Sinai and gaze. In fact, the Lord authorized Moses to bring up Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the Elders of Israel to behold the glory of his person. These 73 men were not only allowed to enjoy this remarkable experience, but there is a record of what they saw.{255}
From generation to generation similar witnesses have been raised up. In fact the Apostle John predicted that eventually every man who ever lived will see his Creator and stand in his presence to be judged by Him.{256}
Now you can see that the first two commandments are a direct contradiction of the first major premise of Communism. The Communist says that the universe is a product of chaos and accident. In the Judaic code God taught that it is a product of careful design; that He is the designer, and He should be acknowledged as such; that we should not attribute these achievements to false forces or false gods.
The third commandment says, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Many people have thought that this merely means that the name of God should not be used in profanity—but this is not what frightens the materialist. There is a far deeper meaning in this commandment. For example, the sanctity of the judicial oath of the United States of America is circumscribed by this third commandment in the Judaic code.
When a man stands in a court room or appears before a Congressional committee and says: “I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God,” he is under the injunction of the Almighty that the name of God is not to be taken in vain. The American founding fathers believed that we should hold these oaths and covenants sacred and conscientiously fulfill them or the judgment of the Almighty would hold us responsible. Honoring every oath taken in the name of God is a source of great strength to the American pattern of free government and Communists have learned that if they take this oath in vain there is a serious penalty attached to it for “perjury.” However, even among loyal Americans I fear the name of God is taken in vain far too often. I believe—and I feel sure you would agree—that if each man honored every sacred promise made in the name of Deity our courts would provide a hundred times more justice, our business life would be a great deal more honest and the administration of public affairs would be more efficient.
The fourth commandment says we shall perform all necessary labors during six days of the week, but the seventh shall be set aside for attending Church, serving our fellow men in need, and studying the word of God. These are the things which make the Sabbath Day a holy day. We may not appreciate it, but the followers of Marx know that it is the institution of Sabbath-Day-worship which keeps the Hebrew and Christian cultures healthy. Therefore, one of the first things the Marxian materialists did when they came into power was to abolish the observance of the Sabbath Day.
But the effectiveness of the Sabbath can also be lost by just simply changing it from a holy day to a holiday.
By adopting the ancient heathen practice of using the Sabbath exclusively for hunting, fishing, feasting, and entertaining we completely nullify its design and purpose.
The Lord might well say, “I want you to remember this, in the world today I have old people, I have sick people, I have lonely people and poor people. My whole system depends upon your ministering to one another and inasmuch as you do it unto the least of these you do it unto me. This is my method, this is my pattern, and this is my program. I could send angels, but I do not. I send you!
This should always be a part of the American way of life, but frequently we are too busy. We forget the sick and fail to visit our neighbors. We only go to the hospital when it is the boss’s wife who is sick. To that extent the American way of life is destroyed, because it ignores the pattern for happy living on which the American social order was originally built.
And because of our failure to reserve any part of the Sabbath to study the word of God, we are rapidly becoming a nation of ignorant Christians. We know so little about the evidence which has been recorded from generation to generation that many have no real basis for their beliefs. Somebody picks up a Bible, holds it aloft and says, “Fairy tales!” Then we are surprised when some of our young people who know very little about the Bible say, “Oh, is that so! Three bears stuff, eh?” And the man says, “Sure, something people made up.”
Or a boy who has been raised in a Christian home but is entirely unfamiliar with the proof found in the Bible comes back from school some evening completely confused. At family devotions his father asks him to say grace and he says, “No, Dad, I don’t want to.” Later his father talks to him and says, “Son, what’s the matter? What’s happened?” And the boy may reply, “Well, Dad, I don’t like to pray to something we made up—something like a piece of music or a poem. I just found out that we made God up.”
It is really quite a simple thing to destroy the beliefs of a boy or girl when they are not supported by knowledge of the evidence which proves the validity of such beliefs.
The fifth commandment was designed by God to sustain the integrity of the family. In it the Lord commanded: “Honor thy father and thy mother.”
Life is a strange combination of circumstances. When children are tiny, helpless and dependent, their parents are in a position to give them love or abuse, nourishment or neglect, depending upon their inclinations. In later years those same parents may feel the ravages of time and become as little children themselves. Then it is their offspring who are in, a position to love or neglect, depending upon their inclinations.
So, God was wise. He counseled children to honor their parents and parents to honor their children. Each in their time is dependent upon the other.
Strong family solidarity is part of our religious strength and part of our national strength, but it is despised by the materialist. Marx and Engels wrote in their Manifesto that they stood for “the abolition of the family.” Immediately after the revolution, Lenin attempted to wipe out the family pattern of life, but social disease and social disorder forced the regime to reverse itself.
The sixth commandment says, “Thou shalt not kill.” The Mosaic code made the sanctity of human life extremely important. That is why a person who believes and practices the Judaic-Christian code does not make a good Communist. He will not kill on command. He cannot believe that a cause is just which depends upon blood purges, concentration camps, and cruel exploitation of human life for its existence.
This explains why we have such statements as this from Joseph Stalin:
“Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about. Cases occur when certain members of the party hamper the complete development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a good thing because there is no room for such Communists in the ranks of the party.”{257}
The seventh commandment says, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” Fundamentally the strength of the American home is rooted in an exchange of confidence between a mother and father, between parents and children. God might well say to us. “I give you nothing except that which is for your ultimate happiness. My commandments are not to take away happiness but to preserve it. I want you to be able to be honest with each other in your marriage covenants. If you want a happy family, if you want to share complete confidence with your mate, then thou shalt not commit adultery.”
And moral integrity does not begin with marriage. It finds its strength in careful self-discipline over the years. When two young people come to the marriage altar, I do not personally know of any greater insurance for a life of happiness and trust than for each of them to be able to say in their hearts as they kneel together, “Even before I knew you I honored you and kept myself circumspect for you.” As a law enforcement officer I learned that when young people approach marriage with this spirit of devotion and personal discipline, then purity, peace and happy families are usually the result.
The eighth commandment says, “Thou shalt not steal.” The Communist commandment says, “Thou shalt not get caught stealing.”
The ninth commandment says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Igor Gouzenko stated that the national pastime in his native land is tearing down the man just above you so you can take his place after he is discredited and gone. In our country we have a few people like that but it is not the American Way. One of the favorite Communist tricks is character assassination. American boys and girls should be taught that when they work for a man they should try and be loyal to him. Surely he is just a human being and he will have his faults, but he should be supported in every good thing he is trying to do. This is what builds communities. It builds industry, it builds schools. It builds a nation.
Then last of all we come to the tenth commandment which says we should gain wealth through our own industry. If we see a house, a car, or something else which another man owns, we are not supposed to sit down and try to figure out how we can cheat him out of them. That is what God calls, “Coveting our neighbor’s goods.” Instead, we should go out and work for the things we desire.
To desire good things and work for them is not a sin, but to acquire them by cheating or exhorting them from a neighbor is. While God says to respect the property of others, the materialists have taught for over a century that the object of human existence is the acquisition of loot and power; that the strong man should never be content, never be satisfied; whatever good thing the other man has he should want it and strive to obtain it. The gaining of spoils, the accumulation of others’ wealth and the concentration of power has been their constant goal.
Last of all may I say just a few words about the Christian Code. Here are additional principles which—if understood and practiced—prevent a person from being a good Communist. As I go down the list see if you can determine why the former Soviet Commissioner of Education would say, “We hate Christians and Christianity.”
Here are a number of concepts typical of the teachings of Jesus:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.{258}
Blessed are the peacemakers.{259}
It is better to give than to receive.{260}
Do not hate your enemies but do good unto them.{261}
Be as humble and teachable as a little child.{262}
Be wise, aggressive and alert to promote good and preserve peace.{263}
Perfect yourself by overcoming personal weaknesses.{264}
Follow the commandments of God to increase the value of your life and blot out the scars of past mistakes.{265}
The greatest happiness comes through the greatest service.{266}
Do good secretly and God—who seeth in secret—will reward you openly.{267}
Christianity also teaches that we are responsible to God for our daily conduct, even for our thoughts.{268} It also teaches the reality of human immortality and the resurrection. We are given the scientific declaration of Paul, Peter, Mary Magdalene, the eleven Apostles and five-hundred members of the Church who saw the resurrected Christ. It is good to know that after we pass from this life we too will eventually receive a perfected physical embodiment.
In his teachings Jesus affirmed what the prophets had taught—that beyond this life we will launch forward into another great pattern of existence. He taught that our next estate has been carefully engineered and will allow us a great variety of new experiences as we pass upward along the endless corridors of the future.
Like the Judaic Code these Christian principles give great strength to any free people. It is not difficult to understand why Communists seek to discredit these concepts. On the other hand, if we teach our children that there is no God, that men are only graduate beasts, that the end justifies the means, and that religious convictions are not scientific, then we will hear a resounding “Amen” from across the ocean.
In closing let me say that I have never had a more thrilling experience than that which has come to me during the past year-and-a-half while serving on the faculty of Brigham Young University. I have been permitted to participate in a pattern of education where several thousand students are being taught citizenship along with their scholarship; where science, philosophy, and religion all find their proper places in the personalities of these boys and girls. I get a great satisfaction watching these young people crossing the campus, loaded down with their textbooks—chemistry, physics, fine art, geology, sociology, history, economics, political science—and mixed in among those textbooks you will generally find a copy of the Bible. A great variety of religious subjects is offered to the student and he may choose those in which he has the most interest.
Across the country many universities are building chapels and emphasizing religious participation. They are doing it because there is an increased appreciation that this is a most important part of the American ideal and the source for much of our strength.
Each Tuesday on the BYU campus approximately 5,000 students voluntarily attend the weekly devotional where they have a chance to catch the inspiration of some of the finest religious leaders in the nation.
If the challenge to our youth today is a war of ideologies, then it is time for us to take the offensive. We should not sit back and wait for our boys and girls to be indoctrinated with materialistic dogma and thereby make themselves vulnerable to a Communist conversion when they are approached by the agents of force and fear who come from across the sea. For two generations an important phase of American life has been disintegrating. As parents and teachers we need to recognize that if this pillar of our culture collapses our own children will be the casualties. This disintegration must stop. George Washington knew what makes us strong; Jefferson knew, Lincoln knew: “This nation, under God, cannot fail!”
Of course we must do more than merely teach correct principles—certainly we must practice them. I therefore close with the words of Francis Bacon who said: “It is not what you eat, but what you digest that makes you strong. It is not what you earn, but what you save that makes you rich. It is not what you preach, but what you practice that makes you a Christian!”