trial by terror: a palm sunday sermon by clifford j durr

7/27/2019 Trial by Terror: A Palm Sunday Sermon by Clifford J Durr

1/8

TRIAL BY TERROR

A PALM SUNDAY SERMONBy

CLIFFORD J. DURR

delivered atTHE FIRST UNITARIAN CHURCH OF DENVER

Broadway at 19th AvenueMarch 18, 1951

V/jV-;.7yjiC,


2/8

FOREWORDThe story of the Trial of Christ which follows was written in its original form some two years befoSenator Joseph McCarthy projected himself into notoriety in Wheeling, West Virginia, with his recklecharge that the State Department was honeycombed with spies and Communists. It was prompted President Truman's Executive Order of March 1947, requiring a "loyalty" investigation of of all governmeemployees and applicants for government jobs. It seemed to me that by the Order our Country was beilaunched upon a course as dangerous to democratic government and human freedom as were the Inqutions of old and that the Bible as well as secular history gave full warning of the dangers.The story was never published as I could not find a publisher. In its present form it was delivereda Palm Sunday Sermon at the First Unitarian Church of Denver, Colorado in March 18, 1951.I myself as a Presbyterian, reared in the Protestant tradition and imbued quite early with tidea that the great and unique quality of our American government was that it was not absolutely soveeignthat the First Amendment to our Constitution says to the government in no uncertain terms, "Heis an area into which you shall not enter, the area of the human mind and spirit". As a government officI reached the conclusion that loyalty cannot be commanded, but must be earned and deserved. As a lawyI have always felt that people should be punished only for their illegal acts and not upon speculations to their state of mind."McCarthyism" unhappily did not die with McCarthy. Its relative abatement is, I fear, more oftribute to its accomplishment in silencing effective dissent than to a rededication to the principles of our Bof Rights. Men are at this moment in prison for exercising the very rights guaranteed to them by thFirst Amendment and others are under prosecution. The voice of protest is still disturbingly weak.Believing that the story is still timely I am grateful to Southern Farm and Home for publishing

CLIFFORD J. DURFebruary 24, 1960

PUBLISHER'S NOTEMr. Durr is a lawyer with a background of Government Service. He wentto Washington during the "Banking Crisis", in the early part of 1933, and becamean Assistant General Counsel of Reconstruction Finance Corporation and chief ofthe section responsible for the legal aspects of the program for the recapitalizationof state and national banks. In 1940-41 he was General Counsel of Defense PlantCorporation which financed the construction of aviation and other defense plantsto meet the rising threat of Hitler and Japan. From 1941 to 1948 he served as aCommissioner of the Federal Communications Commission under appointment fromPresident Roosevelt. He is now practicing law in his native city, Montgomery, Ala.

Printed as a Public Service by Southern Farm and Home


3/8

TRIAL BY TERRORiN Palm Sunday we commemorate a triumph thatI would like to discuss a few principles of govern

accustomed to associate them

Some Principles of Government and Religion

"Congress shall make no law respecting anestablishment of religion, or prohibiting the freeexercise thereof; or abridging the freedom ofspeech or of the press; or the right of the peoplepeaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."Isn't this much the same thought as that expressedSolomon:"Keep thy heart with all diligence, for outof it are the issues of life."The second is the principle of justice, the basis of

"... they shall keep the way of the Lord,to do justice and judgment . . ."This principle is expressed in many ways and many

The third is that fear and suspicion cannot be used as

just as traditionally, free people have regarded themwith scorn and contempt. Their effect upon society hasbeen vividly described by an English constitutional historian: "Next in importance to personal freedomis immunity from suspicions and jealous observation. Men may be without restraints upon theirliberty; they may pass to and fro at pleasure;but if their steps are traced by spies and informers, their words noted down for crimination,their associates watched as conspirators, whoshall say they are free? Nothing is more revolting to Englishmen (and may we add Americans) than the espionage which forms part ofthe administrative system of Continental despotism. It haunts men like an evil genius, chills theirgaiety, restrains their wit, casts a shadow overtheir friendships, and blights their domestichearth. The freedom of a country may be measured by its immunity from this baleful agency.Rulers who distrust their own people mustgovern in a spirit of absolutism, and suspectedsubjects will be ever sensible of their bondage."I have quoted from May's Constitutional History ofEngland. The same thought was expressed in very similarwords by Edward Livingston over one hundred and fiftyyears ago in his courageous argument against the odiousAlien and Sedition laws. It was expressed more recentlyby a federal judge in an opinion arising out of the crueland illegal Palmer Raids in the period of uncertainty and

fear following the first World War. I quote from theopinion of Judge Anderson of the United States DistrictCourt in Massachusetts in the case of Colyer v. Skeffing-ton. decided in 1920:"I cannot adopt the contention that government spies are any more trustworthy, or lessdisposed to make trouble in order to profit therefrom, than are spies in private industry. Exceptin time of war when a Nathan Hole may be aspy, spies are always necessarily drawn from theunwholesome and untrustworthy classes. Aright-minded man refuses such a job. The evilwrought by the spy system in industry has, fordecades, been incalculable. Until it is eliminated,decent relations cannot exist between employersand employees or even among emoloyees. it destroys trust and confidence; it kills human kindliness; it propagates hate."

Judge Anderson's warning should be even more disturbing when we recall that it was prompted by the activities of a government agency which we have now beentaught by our press and radio to regard with an almosttribal adoration. The methods and personalities of suchan agency, then and now, are not wholly dissimilar.For a warning from a source more authoritative thana U. S. District Judge, we might turn to an injunctionfrom the Book of Leviticus:"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among the people."


4/8

Fear and the Denial of PrinciplexHE periods when the principles I have mentionedhave been forgotten have provided the dark pages ofhistory. They were forgotten in the period of the PalmerRaids, and we came close to losing our liberties by themethods adopted to save them. They were forgotten inthe 1840's and 50's, and the result was a bitter anddestructive civil war that almost tore our country apart.They were forgotten in the late 1790's in the hystericalfear over the military aggression of Napoleon and overthe Jacobins and their "dangerous" ideas, and Americanfreedom almost died in its infancy. They were forgotten

We are forgetting them again today!Once more men in positions of power are assuming

As a governmental official and a lawyer, I have

universities, and even our churches. I have seen howeasy it is to create suspicion and how difficult to removeit. In government I have seen the retreat of administrafear. In the name of loyalty to our constitutional form of

which are being done are wrong," and I have seen theresulting torture to their own minds and souls. I have seenthe collapse of basic principles as expediency is transformed into virtue and hate becomes accepted as ameasure of patriotism. I have wondered if fear cannotdestroy a country as effectively as atomic bombs in thehands of its enemies.Introduction to a Story

IT IS appropriate this Palm Sunday that we turn ourthoughts back to an incident of history far earlier-thanthe Inquisitions - back to the seeming defeat out of whichcame the great victory to which I have referred earlier.

Perhaps it may help in our effort to understand the confusion and fears of the present and help strengthen ourcourage in meeting them.In attempting to tell the tragic story of nineteencenturies ago, I approach the task with humility. I am alawyer and not a student of Biblical history. If I seemoverly concerned with the reputation of some of thecharacters involved, it is because reputations are important, even the reputations of dead men, if not to themselves or their families, at least to history; for history isa prolongation of experience, and if we are to learn fromit we must read it correctly.

Was Pilate a VillainAS Pontius Pilate a wicked man!Next to Judas Iscariot he is perhaps regarded as theforemost villain of the New Testament, if not of theentire Bible, but is he deserving of such uncharitablecondemnation?Judas had acquired considerable prestige from hismembership in the small band of apostles. His appointment as treasurer of the organization gave him addedstanding. For a while it looked as if he were lined up witha winning cause. His leader was young and able and hada gift for gaining followers and inspiring their devotion.Then the tide turned against Jesus, and the pressure wastoo much for Judas. He was ambitious and there wasneither fame nor money in a losing cause - only unpopularity and abuse, and perhaps, physical danger. So heturned informer.1There being no counterparts of our present-daymagazines to hire him or to carry his "confessions" and"disclosures," he took his reward directly in cash. Theremaining spark of decency which caused him to throwhis bribe back at the feet of his bribers and then hanghimself was not sufficient to save him from infamy.Pilate's sin was one of omission rather than commission, but this has not mitigated the severity of the presentday judgment of his behavior. His betrayal was notpersonal, but of a public trust. Jesus meant nothing tohim personally, and Pilate had no concern with hisideas, one way or the other. Jesus was just another defendant brought into court for trial.As a public official, Pilate was faced with a clear^Typically, even while In the orocess of disassociating himself fromJesus and the other apostles, Judas continued to pay lip-service to thecause which they espoused. In fact, he would have it appear thathe was even more concerned with the lot of the "common man" thanwas his Master. Jesus loved the flesh-pots. Judas inferred, while he.Judas, was ever solicitous of the poor:"Why was not this ointment sold for 300 pence, and givento the poor?" (John 12:5)This was his complaint when Marv used the precious skipenardto anoint Jesus'feet. John says:"This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but becausehe was a thief, and had the bag and bare what was puttherein.

-jiJ* It ft PFib]e. tha* there was quite a bit of self-deception inolved. It 13 not difficult for an ambitious or scared man to convincehimself that he is more righteous than those whom he is repudiatingbecause of fear or expediency.Interestingly, Judas' criticism gave support to a prevalent lineof character assassination which seemed to have been making suchheadway that Jesus felt called upon to take noUce of it:"For John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking,and they say, 'He hath a devil.' The Son of man came eatingand drinking, and they say, 'Behold a man gluttonous, and awne bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.'" (Matt.11:18,19)


5/8

responsibility, and he shirked it. He permitted an injusticeto be done with full awareness that it was an injustice.2In retrospect, we are inclined to judge his particular typeof betrayal almost as harshly as that of Judas. Certainlythe consequences were no less cruel.But if we look back at the record in the light of present-day conditions in our own country, Pilate appearsin a more sympathetic light. He seems to have been ofnormally decent instincts for his day and time. He hadat least an average sense of public responsibility, and thewhole record indicates his respect for the judicial process.He was honest with himself; there was nothing of thehypocrite about him. He did not try to justify his actions,or rather his failure to act, on high moral grounds orconsiderations of national security. He faced frankly thefact that he was moved by no higher principles thanpolitical expediency. His last act in this episode was thatof a man who wanted to do the right thing. Upon therequest of the disciple, Joseph of Arimathaea, he readilydelivered up Jesus' body in order that it might be decentlyinterred. He refused to be a party to besmirching a reputation after death.

Pilate was up against almost irresistable pressures. Hewas operating in a climate of fear and hatefor themost part deliberately created. His particular predicamentforecasts the difficulties and pressures now confrontingthe loyalty boards, Congressional committees, and eventhe courts, who, voluntarily or involuntarily, are attempting to deal with the problems of "disloyalty" and "un-American" activities in this country.The Voice of Protest

1 HE theological emphasis upon the supernatural elements of the Crucifixion and Resurrection have servedto obscure a very significant aspect of the whole affair.Here was a typical civil liberties case with the issue offreedom of speech, opinion, worship, and of "due processof law" directly involved. The story is one that repeatsitself over and over in the struggle of men for freedom ofthe human mind and soul. The victim only was unique.The other characters involved belonged to no particularrace, creed, or period of history.Jesus was undoubtedly a "trouble maker." Many ofhis associates were questionable characters; certainlythey were of doubtful social standing. In defiance of theprevailing prejudice of his day, he had said pointedlythat, on the test of behavior, a Samaritan might be justas good as a priest or a Levite. He had questioned theaccepted belief that wealth and virtue necessarily go handin hand. He had been outspoken and vigorous in hisattacks upon certain established business interests. He hadexposed the corruption of those in positions of power.Such language as the following was certainly regarded as"intemperate" by those at whom it was aimed: "hypocrites,' "serpents," "generation of vipers," "whited sep-ulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but arewithin full of dead men's bones and of all uncleanness,""blind guides which strain at a gnat and swallow acamel."Hypocrisy in high places was a constant target:"All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe,"

he told his followers with reference to the scribes andPharisees,"that observe and do; but," he warned, "do notye after their works: for they say and do not."The words stung because they hit their mark. He strippedthe cloak of respectability and righteousness from thosewho "for pretense make long prayer" and left them exposed in their moral and spiritual nakedness: * # *Jesus' appeal was to the "malcontents," and he waseffective in stirring them up and in gaining followers in

ever increasing numbers. He effectively challenged thestatus quo. In other words, he was "subversive"3 in thetruest sense of the term; as the chief priests put it, hewas "perverting the nation" by his teaching. He was a"dangerous" influence, and he had to be stopped.The Techniques of Suppression

A DESCRIPTION of the tactics used to stop him has afamiliar ring. His speeches and even private conversations were to be used against him:"Then went the Pharisees and took counsel howthey might entangle him in his talk."Secret agents and "confidential informants" were put- to

work:"And they watched him, and sent forth spies,which should feign themselves just men. thatthey might take hold of his words, that so theymight deliver him into the power and authorityof the governor."They questioned him on his loyalty to the government:"Tell us therefore, what thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"They inquired into his religious beliefs, the soundness ofhis view on marriage and the resurrection of the dead.They set a lawyer on him in an effort to entrap him inlegal questions, for he had not spared that profession inhis exposure of hypocrisy.4

But his great intelligence was too much for hisquestioners. He confounded them with his answers. He"put the Sadducees to silence":"And no man was able to answer him a word,neither did any man from that day forth answerhim a word."In the arena of public opinion his ideas were clearlywinning the victory. Converts were rallying to his bannerin ever increasing numbers. The scribes and the Pharisees"feared the people," and hence were unwilling to trustthem with ideas. Though "they hated him without acause," their hatred became an obsession. Unable tosit is interesting to note that Pilate's wife sought to intervenein the interest of justice: "When he was sat down in the judgmentseat, his wife sent unto him, saying. 'Have you nothing to do with thatjust man' " (Matt. 27:19)"Now they (had) no cloak for their sin."3Not of the Jewish religion whose principles he taught and whoseprophets he reversed, but of the position and power of the scribesand Pharisees who had prostituted that religion for their own personaland political ends.4"Woe unto you lawyers I for ye have taken away the key ofknowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were enteringIn ye hindered." (Luke 11:52)


6/8

answer him, they decided to kill him. Argument havingfailed them, they took fear as their weapon:"If we let him thus alone," they said, "all menwill believe on him; and the Romans shall comeand take away both our place and nation."Jesus thus became a threat to national security. They nowhad a propaganda line with which public opinion couldbe effectively aroused.Courage on the battlefield is commonpface, for theremen face death with the approval of their fellows. Thecourage required to face the disapproval ofsociety in defense of a cause is far rarer. "Disloyalty"whether to "place" or "nation" is an odious label, andnone want to wear it. Those who wear it - whether justlyor unjustly - are to be avoided, for the taint of guilt becomes attached by association.Their victim was driven underground for awhile, and"Jesus walked no more openly among the Jews."

Hypocrisy in High PlacesO.IS followers were intimidated, but his ideas were notso easily destroyed. Even among the top officers of government, many still "believed on him":"But because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of thesynagogues. For they loved the praise of menmore than the praise of God."

The symbols of a great religion based on justice andhumanity were prostituted to fan the flames of hatred.This man was guilty of "blasphemy" they said. The attack took on the zeal of a religious crusade. The threatof physical violence was added to the social and religiouspressures.Jesus fully understood what nature of men hisenemies were. They were tolerant of dissent so long asthat dissent was weak and ineffective. They paid reverence to the memory of dead reformers because thosereformers were safely dead. But once their positions ofpower and authority were really threatened, they wereruthless. They would stop at nothing. He had the measureof their viciousness and their hypocrisy and told them so:"Ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnishthe sepulchers of the righteous, and say: If wehad been in the days of our fathers, we would nothave partaken with them in the blood of theprophets."But he reminded them:"Ye are the children of them which killed theprophets""Behold, I send unto you prophets, and wisemen, and scribes; and some of them ye kill andcrucify; and some of them ye scourge in yoursynagogues, and persecute them from City toCity."He frankly warned his followers of their danger:"They shall put you out of the synagogues; yeathe time cometh that whosoever killeth you willthink that he doeth Gods service."And again:

"Now the brother shall betray the brother todeath, and the father, the son; and childrenshall rise up against their parents, and shallcause them to be put to death. And ye shall behated of all men for my name's sake."It was under these circumstances that Jesus madehis decision to face trial. He would offer himself as avictim to the mob lest its mounting thirst for blood demand many victims.He still had followers who were devoted and unafraid; so the arrest by the servants of Annas was madeat night. The kiss of Judas was to no purpose. Jesusreadily admitted his identity and chided the multitudewho came to arrest him for their mob-given courage:"Are ye come out as a thief with swords andstaves for to take me? I sat daily with you teaching in the temple and ye laid no hold on me."The next day he was carried for trial before Caiaphas,3the high priest who also, quite conveniently, happened tobe Annas' son-in-law.

The Bill of Rights in an Old Setting1 HE first question concerned his "beliefs" and his"associations":"The High priest then asked Jesus of his disciplesand his doctrine."Jesus was not one to betray his friends. He silently refused to expose his associates and immediately forced thetrial into the issue of freedom of speech:"I spake openly to the world, I ever taught inthe synagogues, and in the temple, whither theJews always resort; and in secret have I saidnothing.""Why asketh thou me? Ask them which heardme, what I have said unto them: behold theyknow what I have said."He knew the law and stood on his right not to incriminatehimself.

But this was not what the court wanted. The response to his statement was a blow from an officer whostood by, and the implied threat of an additional chargeof contempt of court: "Answereth thou the high pn'cilso?" Jesus' reply was a demand for the evidence againsthim:"If I have spoken evil, bear witness of that evil;but if well, why smiteth thou me?"But the evidence was not forthcoming. If he were in factguilty of a crime, then Judas was his accomplice and thetestimony of an accomplice was not legally admissable inthe Sanhedrin Court:6schandler, in his fascinaUng and excellently documented Trial ofChrist, gives the due to the motive underlying the entire campaignagainst Jesus: "Now it is historically true that Annas and Caiaphasand their friends owned and controlled the stalls, booths, and bazaarsconnected with the Temple and from which flowed a most lucrativetrade. The profits from the sale of lambs and doves, sold for sacrifice, alone were enormous. When Jesus threatened the destruction oftheir trade. He assaulted the interests of Annas anl his associates Inthe Sanhedrin in a vital place. The driving of the cattle* from thestalls was probably more effective in compassing the destruction ofChrist than any miracle that He performed or any discourse thatHe delivered.""See Chandler: Trial of Christ.


7/8

"So the chief priests, and elders, and all thecouncil sought false witnesses against Jesus; toput him to death, yet found they none."

The chief priests were on the spot. Here was a

* # * #So they took Jesus over to the hall of judgment where"They themselves went not into the judgmenthall, lest they should be defiled."

"What accusation bring ye against this man?"Let the accused prove his innocence, they said in ef

"If he were not a malefactor, we would not havedelivered him up unto thee." ,

"Take ye him and judge him according to yourlaw.." Here was complete frustration. The Jewish law was

"It is not lawful for us to put any man to death."

Jesus was a Galilean and, as it happened, Herod, the

Herod, at first, was pleased. He liked this token ofPilates recognition. Moreover, he had heard quite a bitabout the man Jesus and was curious to see what he waslike. He hoped Jesus might even perform some miracle inhis presence. But after fruitless questioning, to the accompaniment of the vehement accusations of the chief priestsand scribes, Herod realized how Pilate was using him. Soback the defendant was sent to Pilate's court.

Again Pilate demanded to know the charges. Thistime a chief priest whispered in his ear and he asked:"Art thou King of the Jews?"

Here was a definite charge of subversion, if not of treason.For Tiberius Caesar was in power, and anyone acting asa king in his realm challenged the sovereignty ofCaesar. Jesus immediately understood the origin of thequestion. The charges clearly did not originate with thecivi l magistrate: ,"Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing ofthy self, or did others tell it thee of me?'"Pilate admitted that he was prompted:"Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chiefpriests have delivered thee to me; what has thoudone?"

Jesus readily gave the answer that his interest was inspiritual and not temporal power:"My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdomwere of this world, then would my servants fight,that I should not be delivered to the Jews; butnow is my kingdom not from hence."

The answer made sense to Pilate, and he asked onefurther question to make the record entirely clear:"Art thou a king then?"To this Jesus answered that his only function and purposewas to "bear witness to truth." From this point on Pilatesought to turn his cross-examination into a philosophicaldiscussion on the interesting question, "What is truth?"He was satisfied that there were no case and announcedhis verdict:

"I find in him no fault at all."Pilate suggested, as it was the custom to release oneprisoner at the passover, that he release the defendant.But the priests and their followers were adamant. Jesushad ideas, and he was articulate about them. He was,therefore, dangerous. So they demanded the release ofBarabbas instead. Now as it happened Barabbas was nomere dabbler in ideas. He was a man of action. He hadbeen arrested for attempting to overthrow the government by force and violence, He "had made insurrection"and "had committed murder in the insurrection."By this time, public feeling had been worked up toan explosive pitch. There was no evidence on which Jesuscould be convicted, but there were definite politicaldangers in releasing him. So Pilate followed the onlycourse left open. He resorted to the third degree. Thedefendant was "scourged", and the soldiers "smote himwith their hands". But even this treatment brought forthnothing in the way of evidence. Again Pilate reported tothe high priests:


8/8

"Behold I bring him forth to you, that ye mayknow I find no fault in him."Expediency vs.Principle

1 HE priests, however, were after blood. And the chant,"Crucify him! Crucify him!" was steadily mounting inintensity. But Pilate persisted in his finding of "Notguilty".At this point, the chief priests again changed theirtactics. As messy as the job was, it was better for themto take over the trial than to have Jesus go scot free. Theynow thought of a charge under which they could assumejurisdiction. They announced to Pilate:"We have a law, and by our law he ought to die,because he made himself the Son of God."With this new development, Pilate's position became evenmore difficult. "He was the more afraid." Again he wentinto the judgment hall and questioned Jesus, warninghim:"I have the power to crucify thee and have powerto release thee."But still Jesus remained steadfast in his refusal to "confess" his guilt of any crime:

"And from thenceforth Pilate sought to releasehim."Now the quarry was about to escape; so the chiefpriests played their last card. In order to set aside Pilate'sJudgment of acquittal, they proposed to try the judgehimself. Pilate was threatened with a charge of "disloyalty".The chief priests thus applied the last ounce of political pressure. Jesus, it is true, had explained that his interest lay in spiritual and not temporal affairs. But after all,he had said that he was a "king", and for one to proclaimhis kingship in Caesar's realm was according to theirtheory, treason to Caesar. Maybe Caesar would, riot, bequite as ready as Pilate to accept Jesus' explanation. Sothe chief priests became the most vociferous exponentsof patriotism and champions of Caesar. They proclaimedthemselves more loyal to Caesar than Pilate, the Romanand Caesar's own appointee. "We have no king butCaesar" became their cry. Pilate, they inferred, by^,releasing Jesus had demonstrated this "disloyalty." Theythreatened to go to Caesar with the story. "If /thou,letthis man go," they said, "thou art not Caesar's friend;whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh againstC a e s a r . " : < . > - a iThis last bit of pressure was too much. Pilate's jobwas at stake, and it was a good job. It carried with-it

power, prestige, and wealth. He might even find himsein the position of defendant in a "loyalty" case; so:"When Pilate saw that he cou.M prevail nothing,but that rather a tumult was made, he tookwater, and washed his hands before the multitudes, saying, 'I am innocent of the blood of thisjust person: see ye to it.' "And he delivered Jesus up to be crucified.

The Salvage of a Legal Principle AndThe Triumph of Good IdeaJT HATE, however, made one 1 st obeisance to the integrity of the judicial process. H

trial by terror: a palm sunday sermon by clifford j durr

Documents