Somerville High School - Radiator Yearbook (Somerville, MA)

Page 26 text:

should not be tolerated. Every man has a right to his opinion. Likewise every group has a right to its opinion. Every sect, every party, every faith, every creed, and every religion has a right to its opinion. Now, let us consider intolerance as it relates to religious and racial opinion and the detrimental force effected by its exercise. Dr. S. Parkes Cad- man says, “Hatred and suspicion of the intentions of those of opposite faiths are foreign to the spirit of religion.” Yet his- tory again discloses to us the cold facts of undying intolerance in the cases of races and creeds and religions. The disastrous effects of base intolerance again and again played its contemptible part in plant- ing hate, bigotry and misunderstanding amongst humanity. And the result? Hor- ror, conflict, war, decay, and death. In the Seventh Century the British Isles were inhabited by a race known as the Britons. They lived in comparative comfort and enjoyment of life until from the north thundered down a foreign foe. This foe invaded the country, and, besides satisfying its selfish lust for greater power and more territory, the strange race sub- jected the inhabitants to the brutal sword of intolerance. Slowly, but constantly, the Britons decreased in number. Their joys turned to sorrows; their aspirations crum- bled ; their land was invaded by the invincible and overpowering germ of in- tolerance. So thorough and so complete were the effects of the ravages that the race diminished and faded and died. Could these two races not have lived in peaceful harmony? Was it justifiable that the more powerful race by mere physical and brute strength subjugate the weaker? It was racial intolerance that strangled the Britons. There is an interesting short story writ- ten by Sir Walter Scott called “The Two Drovers,” which portrays most vividly the painful result of prejudice and hate which is due to intolerance. In the story, the eternal hatred between the English and the Scotch terminates in the murder of one man and the punishment by death of the other. At the trial of justice, the magistrate’s charges to the jury concern the remedy for this disreputable condi- tion of prejudice. The judge said, in part, “Here we have two men, highly es- teemed in their rank of life; one, whose life has already been sacrificed to a punc- tilio, and the other about to prove the vengeance of the offended law. And yet both may claim our compassion at least, as men acting in ignorance of each other’s national prejudices.” This ignorance, this misguided viewpoint, which resulted in so sorrowful a case, can be accredited only to intolerance. When the Pilgrims migrated to an un- known land to suffer the hardships of establishing a new home, again it was because of intolerance. The history of their suffering is well known to us: how they differed in opinion, and how they gambled their lives for the God-given right to independent thought, which they were denied. Here we can appreciate the power exerted by religious belief during the Middle Ages. Whether civilization was hindered in its advancement because of such religious controversies is debatable; but, certainly, the life of many a good soul was wracked with sorrow and pain because of the suffering to which it was reduced; a suffering caused by intolerance. We must not overlook, however, that as the little band of Pilgrims grew larger and stronger, they, too, wanted to obtrude and thrust their beliefs upon every heart. Their attempts, however, were ultimately of no avail. What they attempted to do was to establish a standard religious doc- trine in their newly organized cities and towns, a religious standard to be followed by every man and every woman. But they failed, because a narrow, bigoted cause can never succeed. Every man has a right to choose the faith he wishes to follow. The third unit for consideration is political intolerance. “Nothing,” says Everett Dean Martin, a modern philo- sophical critic, “Nothing destroys liberty so surely and so quickly as the spread of TWENTY

Page 25 text:

CLASS ORATION A PLEA FOR TOLERANCE An English writer of the fifteenth cen- tury, Sir Thomas More, who was one of the wisest and best of men, wrote a de- scription of an imaginary commonwealth called “Utopia.” In this commonwealth, one of the first and fundamental principles was that “it should be lawful for every man to favor and follow whatever reli- gion he wished, and that he might do the best he could to bring others to his opinion as long as he did it peaceably, soberly, without haste and contentious rebuking, or inveighing against another. If he could not, by fair and gentle speech, induce them to his opinion, then he must use no method of violence or force.” Incorporated in that simple yet force- ful decree is the basic element, the funda- mental doctrine, and the cornerstone upon which the progress and advancement of civilization is founded. Intolerance is a human failing which is so easy to acquire that it steals stealthily and invisibly into every phase of life, lends itself to every direction and roots itself anywhere and everywhere unless definite, positive measures are assumed to check it. Without preference or discre- tion, the lurking germ of intolerance awaits its opportunity to break forth in every sphere of human activity: in the intellectual or scientific, in the religious or in the political. Let us examine each of these three separately. First is the intel- lectual. Unfortunately, the pages of history have time and again been spotted and marred by the irrational ravages of rank intolerance. Particularly has scientific advancement been seriously hampered by the narrow-minded viewpoints of intoler- ant men. The cases of many individuals are really pathetic or tragic; for the pro- ponents of new theories have, in every age, been suppressed with disdain, and only by the bitterest contention, which often sapped their talents and strength, did many of humanity’s most famous benefactors succeed. Attend to the sorrowful stories of these few outstanding examples: Socrates, con- demned to drink the poison cup; Colum- bus, now hailed as the discoverer of the new world, died heartbroken in chains, and in prison; Sir Thomas More, the creator of Utopia, condemned to the scaffold; Roger Bacon, a fearless seeker of truth and fact of the Thirteenth Century, ac- cused of magic and sent to prison; Roger Williams, founder of the city of Provi- dence, forcefully driven from his home. May I conjecture for you what might have taken place in the case of any one of these geniuses under conditions of tolerance? Let us take, for example, vir- tuous Socrates, the learned thinker of Ancient Greece. Socrates spent his entire life in preaching doctrines which today we take for granted. Yet Socrates’ faith- fulness to truth and virtue, and his con- tinual striving for social reform were re- paid only by rebuke and by mockery. He was even brought to trial and condemned to death. It is amazing to see the sup- pression to which this eminent philoso- pher was subjected. We wonder how men could possibly ignore the just and truth- ful philosophy propounded by him; but they did, and we seek the reason to find that it was intolerance. But this suppression not only stunted the man, it also snuffed out one of the tall- est and brightest luminaries in the can- delabrum of progress. It retarded civiliza- tion as well as the man himself. Had he been allowed to live his life, had be been accorded freedom of thought and liberty of belief, who knows what a man of his vision, of his depth and breadth of knowl- edge might not have bequeathed to human- ity? Perhaps things of which the world is still ignorant. Just because a man can- not be understood or because he is in ad- vance of his day is no reason why he NINETEEN

Page 27 text:

intolerance.” The interference of politi- cal policies in the life of the human race has not hampered its progress in so marked a degree as certain other intoler- ant evils. Nevertheless, in many coun- tries and at many times have individuals and groups been forced to surrender their natural privilege of political liberty. Even today intolerance dares to rear its ugly head in various countries of Europe and the Orient. Surprising it is to see even civilized, cultured countries succumb to the powers of political dogma. The narrow-mindedness of a govern- ment dictating a standard regulation cit- ing the precise political and governmental doctrine to be followed, is apparent, espe- cially when liberty of political opinion is suppressed. History records how a min- ority group, sometimes, develops into the majority, and how their opinions, for which they fought, are established as the iron law of the land. Yet there is no justi- fication for any such action. Up to this point we have dwelt on intol- erance and its results. Now let us turn to tolerance. On the one hand, the out- growths of intolerance are harassing and obstructive; on the other, the derivatives of tolerance are creative and progressive. Witness the triumphs of tolerance. Observe how that little seed, given fav- orable circumstances, will bloom forth to beauty and grandeur; and how, with the season, her sister flowers of independence and prosperity also blossom. It is the age of freedom, it is the era of liberty, it is the day of tolerance when civilization advances. The Periclean Age, the Renais- sance, the Eighteenth Century, the era of progress in science in the Nineteenth Century,—these are memorable periods given strength by tolerance. Certainly tolerance played its role in stimulating the latent powers of learning and culture which emerged in the Fif- teenth and Sixteenth Centuries to immor- talize the Renaissance. And it played a very significant part in laying the foun- dations of American individualism and democracy. It was during the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries that the United States developed. And why ? Because the unbearable, intolerant political plight across the waters drove hordes of suffer- ers scurrying from Germany, Russia, Pol- and, Ireland, and the Scandinavian coun- tries, scurrying to America; to the land of freedom and liberty; to the melting pot of the nations. And when constitutional law expressly stated tolerance of every man's opinion, they came, and they thanked God for tolerant America. The grave dangers of intolerance have been cited in connection with three phases of life: the intellectual, the religious, and the political. We have seen the weakness of progress when intolerance ruled. We have witnessed tolerance and real life. Fellow Graduates:— We here in America hardly feel the sharp pangs of intolerance which in many other countries dangerously shake their pillars of solidity. We may indeed be thankful for having so generously been endowed with the pleasures of tolerance. Freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, freedom of religious worship—America is founded on these liberties. America has thrived for over one hundred and fifty years on these liberties. If American youth keep eyes on moral law, if American youth adhere to constitu- tional doctrine, then America will remain the firm, solid, free, liberal country it was meant to be. The wise doctrines embraced by our constitutional forbears can well ap- ply to us and to our daily lives. The Twen- tieth Century plea is for tolerance; for tolerance of the opinions of our fellows, for the suggestions of our elders, and for the beliefs of our opponents. If we harken to the plea, and if we practice tolerance, then instead of learning to mistrust each other, those of differing opinions will unite in joint constructive campaign to further the interests of our country and of hu- manity; to further those interests intellec- tually, religiously and politically. Let not its voice go unheeded. Fail not its call. But fling aloft the banner of liberalism, and with mighty applause and hearty shout welcome the blessed day of tolerance. Lawrence Levinson. TWKNTY ONE