Page:The World's Most Famous Court Trial - 1925.djvu/86

 what it is good for. It shows the policy of the state. It shows what the state is committed to. I do not believe that a statute could be set aside as unconstitutional simply because the legislature did not see fit to pass proper acts to enlighten and educate the yeomen of Tennessee.

The state by constituionconstitution [sic] is committed to the doctrine of education, committed to schools. It is committed to teaching and I assume when it is committed to teaching it is commited to teaching the truth—ought to be anyhow—plenty of people to do the other. It is committed to teaching literaureliterature [sic] and science. My friend has suggested that literature and science might conflict. I cannot quite see how, but that is another question. But that indicates the policy of the state of Tennessee and wherever it is used in construing the unconstitutionality of this act it can only be used as an indication of what the state meant and you could not pronounce a shuttle void on it, but we insist that this statute is absolutely void because it contravenes Section 3, which is headed "the right of worship free." Now, let's see, your Honor, there isn't any court in the world that can uphold the spirit of the law by simply upholding its letters. I read somewhere—I don't know where—that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. I think I read it out of "The Prince of Peace." I don't know where I did, but I read it. If this section of the constitution which guarantees religious liberty in Tennessee cannot be sustained in the spirit it cannot be sustained in the letter. What does it mean? What does it mean? I know two intelligent people can agree only for a little distance, like a company walking along in a road. They may go together a few blocks and then one branches off. The remainder go together a few more blocks and another branches off and still further some one else branches off and the human minds are just that way, provided they are free, of course, the fundamentalists may be put in a trap so they cannot think differently if at all, probably not at all, but leave two free minds and they may go together a certain distance, but not all the way together. There are no two human machines alike and no two human beings have the same experiences and their ideas of life and philosophy grow out of their construction of the experiences that we meet on our journey through life. It is impossible, if you leave freedom in the world, to mold the opinions of one man upon the opinions of another—only tyranny can do it—and your constitutional provision, providing a freedom of religion, was meant to meet that emergency. I will go further—there is nothing else—since man—I don't know whether I dare say evolved—still, this isn't a school—since man was created out of the dust of the earth—out of hand—there is nothing else your Honor that has caused the difference of opinion, of bitterness, of hatred, of war, of cruelty, that religion has caused. With that, of course, it has given consolation to millions.

But it is one of those particular things that should be left solely between the individual and his Maker, or his God, or whatever takes expression with him, and it is no one else's concern.

How many creeds and cults are there this whole world over? No man could enumerate them? At least as I have said, 500 different Christian creeds, all made up of differences, your honor, every one of them, and these subdivided into small differences, until they reach every member of every congregation. Because to think is to differ, and then there are any number of creeds older and any number of creeds younger, than the Christian creed, any number of them, the world has had them forever. They have come and they have gone, they have abided their time and have