ON THE CHURCH ISSUE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Before fatigue compels suspension of the current controversy about the place of religion at Harvard, we, the undersigned, who disagree as radically about the truth of Christian doctrine as we agree about the importance of truth and the reasonableness of conviction, believe we should speak out in favor of the side of the argument which has so far been almost unrepresented. What we think has been neglected is the traditional and true conception of the church and indeed of what tolerance means.

A church is not a cafeteria in which all religions may be served to all comers. Any church is some church. Whether it was proper for the memorial to the Harvard dead of all faiths to have been given the form of a Protestant church is not now the issue. The Memorial Church was in fact dedicated as a Protestant church and as such has its own order of worship and other rules. It has its own sacred symbols; its cross is not something to shift around like a piece of stage scenery.

No one at Harvard is compelled to attend the services of a particular church (or temple, or mosque); but neither should any church be compelled to admit into itself ceremonies of other sects. To insist on such compulsion is certainly not to favor tolerance against intolerance. It is rather to prefer irreligion (or perhaps mere religiosity) to every conviction of religious reality. By welcoming, without query, the services of all faiths, the church would in effect exclude everyone whose religion is more than a gesture; it would be making itself into a shrine to the one unifying faith of Harvard indifference.

Toleration has no merit when it arises from mere unconcern. Toleration is a virtue only when it expresses the mutual respect of persons with diverse and strong convictions concerning the place of man in the universe. When one does not care, peace is as easy as it is meaningless. Perhaps this is the deeper question: does one care whether religious beliefs are true or not?

We are no more urging stringency than latitude on the Board of Preachers. There is room for discretion within the framework of principles. What we are urging is the right and duty of the Board to permit only such changes as are consistent with the ordinances and traditions of Memorial Church. Raphael Demos,   Professor of Philosophy   Donald C. Williams,   Professor of Philosophy