Will the United States continue to uphold precedents and reassert its traditional policy of intercession in behalf of oppressed racial or religious minorities in foreign countries?
This is a fundamental question which is being debated in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It has arisen in connection with a flood of appeals and a number of resolutions introduced in both branches of Congress protesting the persecution of Catholics in Mexico.
Just a little less than a year ago, the same question came up in the Senate in connection with the persecution of Jews in Germany. Senator Tydings of Maryland introduced a resolution requesting that this government make an official protest to the Hitler regime on behalf of the Jews. This resolution was pigeonholed in committee and never saw the light of day.
Hundreds of letters and petitions were received by Congressmen urging that action be taken on the Tydings resolution. Other hundreds of communications denounced the Hitler tactics and urged that the United States take official cognizance of what was happening to the Jews in Germany. A few speeches were made on the floor of the House and Senate. But nothing happened.
Today the situation is somewhat different. Religious persecution is being witnessed closer to home. In Mexico the Catholics are being denied freedom to worship as the Church requires. Children are prohibited from receiving any sort of religious education or instruction in Catholicism.
Catholics of the United States are aroused. Other religious groups have voiced opposition to this state of affairs in Mexico. Thousands of letters and petitions have been received by Congressmen protesting this religious persecution. Thousands more will be received.
In the meantime the question of religious persecution is being debated in both the Senate and House. The resolutions are in the hands of committees where they await action. Among those who have introduced these resolutions are Senator Borah and Representatives Fish and Celler, both of New York. Representative Celler also has introduced a resolution calling upon the House to protest the persecution of Jews in Germany.
On a number of occasions in the past, the United States, through its representatives abroad, has interceded in behalf of an oppressed minority. Such intercession has been occasioned in the main by persecution of Jews, largely because Jews have in the past as well as at the present been the most universally persecuted people in the world.
One of the early protests made by the United States was in 1840, when Jews in Damascus were being persecuted. In 1850, the United States acted against discrimination of Jews in Switzerland. This finally resulted in a treaty between the two countries, and eventually, in 1874, the adoption of a new constitution by the Swiss which accorded full liberties to all religious groups. And so the list runs. It includes protests to Russia, Rumania, Germany and other countries.
The United States has been alert to intercede in behalf of other sects as well. In 1870, this country interceded in behalf of Christian missionaries in Hawaii. In 1882, action was taken in behalf of the American Bible Society in Russia. In 1919, through the Treaty of St. Germain, the United States insisted upon stipulations guaranteeing the rights of religious minorities. The most recent intercession was in 1933, when President Roosevelt secured pledges from Soviet Russia guaranteeing against discrimination in respect to passport visas and religious liberties of our nationals.
In debate on the floor of the House the other day, Representative Citron of Connecticut, took occasion to point out to Representative Fish, who was speaking, that any action directed against the persecution of Catholics in Mexico should include similar action against the persecution of Jews in Germany.
Thus was opened up the whole question of whether the United States would re-assert its traditional position in favor of persecuted minorities. But it is significant to note that at least, in so far as some Congressmen are concerned, there is a reluctance to act on behalf of the persecuted minority groups in Hitler’s Germany.
In reply to Representative Citron, Representative Fish said that during the last session of Congress he had introduced a resolution protesting the treatment of Jews by the Hitler Government. He also said that he “had no sympathy for the persecution of Jews or anyone else.”
But, speaking specincally about the resolution which he introduced during this session, calling for a protest against the persecution of Catholics, Representative Fish declared: “This, however, is a different matter. I did not know that the Hitler Government interfered so much in Germany with religious worship. I thought it was more of an economic and civic proposition so far as the Jews were concerned.”
Representative Citron then asked Representative Fish if he had ever read anything to the effect that the Hitler Government is trying to do away with Christianity. The reply was “No. I have seen no such statement.”
The Archive of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency includes articles published from 1923 to 2008. Archive stories reflect the journalistic standards and practices of the time they were published.
