Salvation and Godly Rule

Providence & The End

Professor: Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Subject: Works

Lesson: Providence & The End

Genre: Speech

Track: 27

Dictation Name: RR136P27

Location/Venue:

Year: 1960’s-1970’s

Put on the whole armor of God that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil, for we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore, take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day and having done all to stand. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who in Jesus Christ has enabled us to stand unto victory, we give thee thanks that thou hast clothed us in the armor of thy righteousness, thy strength, and thy providential care, and we pray, our Father, that as we wrestle against the powers in this world, and against the powers and the principalities that are not of flesh and blood, but by thy strength we may be more than conquerors through Him that loved us. We thank thee, our God, for the assurance of thy grace unto victory. In Jesus’ name. Amen.

Our scripture is from the first chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 15:26-32. Our subject: Providence and The End. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”

We saw last week that the doctrine of progress is the secular version of the biblical doctrine of the providence of God. We saw, moreover, that there was no idea of progress in history, but simply a cyclical view of time, of history, until biblical thought entered into any culture. Up to that point, men and nations believed that life was basically pointless. The proverb of Antiquity that St. Paul cites is “Let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die,” and that was the perspective of man. Progress was impossible. It was the same thing over and over again. The universe had evolved, man believed, in the Greco/Roman world and beyond the frontiers of the Greco/Roman world out of nothing. This process would reach a certain point and then de-evolution would set in and all would return to nothingness. Life was basically meaningless. It was the same old cycle over and over again.

However, when biblical faith entered into a culture, then the idea of progress came into being. There was a beginning, a middle and an end. History had a direction. It moved in terms of God’s stated purposes.

Now, men do not normally associate the doctrine of salvation with the rescue of meaning and definition, but the fact remains that without a defined goal of salvation, and with an advance to the restitution of all things as declared by God, history loses its focus and meaning and becomes pointless. Men then find nothing to live for.

All this was brought home very tellingly by a man who died about twenty, twenty-five years ago, perhaps the greatest cynic and skeptic of this century, a man who turned his corrosive doubt on everything and particularly on science, because he felt that science was the dogmatism and the myth of the twentieth century. This man, Charles Fort, wrote, “What is a straight line? A straight line is the shortest distance between two points. Well then, what is a shortest distance between two points? That is a straight line. According to the test of ages, the definition that a straight line is a straight line cannot be improved on. I start with logic as exacting as you could. I should be scientific about it, said Sir Isaac Newton, or virtually said he, if there is no change in the direction of a moving body, the direction of a moving body is not changed. But, continued he, if something be changed, it is changed as much as it is changed. So, red worms fell from the sky in Sweden because from the sky in Sweden, red worms fell. How do geologists determine the age of rocks? By the fossils in them, and how do they determine the age of the fossils? By the rocks therein. Having started with the logic of Euclid, I go on with the wisdom of a Newton. The thing to do was to accept it in its day, but Darwinism, of course, was never proved. The fittest survive. What is meant by the fittest? Not the strongest. Not the cleverest. Weakness and stupidity everywhere survive. There is no way of determining fitness except in that a thing survives. Fitness then, is only another name for survival. Darwinism is that survivors survive.”

And then, Fort went onto say, “The function of God is the focus, an intense mental state is impossible unless there be something or the illusion of something to center upon.” Now, Fort barely opened the door to the fundamental issue, but he did. He opened it a crack. Life and thinking alike need a focus, a focus of meaning. Men can briefly find a focus in humanistic goals, in wealth, in power, in status, in sex, in experiences, but these soon pale and life itself loses meaning. Men need a focus, a focus they’ve written themselves, or things fall apart. Romano Guardini has said, “The end determines all that precedes it,” and that sums it up very neatly. The end determines all that precedes it. If you have faith in God, in the regeneration of all things and the resurrection of the body, then there is a focus. There is an impetus in history. There is progress. Without a valid end, thinking turns on itself and it can define nothing.

A few weeks ago, we saw that knowledge precedes from knowledge. If you’re given a problem in trigonometry, you can do nothing about it unless you know trigonometry, and a problem in Algebra is wasted on a person who doesn’t’ know Algebra. In other words, knowledge builds on knowledge, and a child learns because there is knowledge that he grows up into, that is there, a deposit that he can lay hold of, that is given to him by his parents, by his culture. That knowledge exists because the world is God’s world, undergirded by His purpose and its meaning declared by Him, its goals predestined and sure. Straight line is the shortest distance between two points. You can understand that. Now, it’s circular reasoning because to define the shortest distance, you have to say it’s a straight line, and your reasoning is circular and {?}, but if your straight line and your two points is set in God’s world in a universe of law, you immediately understand what it means, but if it’s a universe of chance, it does not follow that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points. But if it’s a universe of chance, and tomorrow the sun can set in the east, or rise in the west, and instead of getting a year older next year, you are a year younger, or ten years younger. Then you cannot say that a straight line is the shortest line between two points. Of course, this was precisely what Fort was talking about. Once the focus of God is removed, you’re talking nonsense. You’re borrowing ideas from the world of God. You’re saying that God’s providence, that God’s omnipotence, that God’s predestination or law governs all reality, so to order, it’s consistent to itself, and then you can indulge in circular reasoning.

You see, if everything hangs together, then your reasoning can be circular. If it does not, then your reasoning is false.

Thus, a short line is the shortest distance between two points only in God’s world, and if someone comes along and tells us it isn’t true, what do we do? We assume then that he has shown us a more profound truth, in terms of a greater knowledge of order. So that even our doubts in God’s world are methods to a profounder grasp of an order of a truth of a consistency in the universe. In other words, we presuppose a universe of law and meaning in terms of which definition is possible. To define something is to determine precisely what is, to bring out the limits of something, and no definition is possible in a world of chance, where up can be down and tomorrow, black can be white, and good can be evil.

Dr. Cornelius Van Til has commented, as the most brilliant philosopher of religion in our time, on the impossibility of definition without God, and he has pointed out that anyone who tries to define and scientists, as they operate today, may profess to be atheists, but everything they do is on the borrowed presupposition that there is a God, and that all reality is found by laws and consistency. Van Til has said, “Suppose we think of the man, made of water, and an infinitely extended and bottomless ocean of water. Desiring to get out of water, he makes a ladder of water. He sets this ladder upon the water and against the water, and then attempts to climb out of the water. So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man’s methodology, based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate. On his assumption, his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption, even the laws of logic which he employs are products of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound to be products of chance. Christian theism, which was first rejected because of its supposedly authoritarian character, is the only position which gives human reason a feel for successful operation, and a method of true progress in knowledge.”

Fort was right. Speaking as an unbeliever, he said the scientists were indulging in circular reasoning when they had no right to assume that they could indulge in any kind of reasoning. There can be no reasoning in a world of chance, because reason is irrelevant. Reason moves in terms of logic, in terms of consistency, in terms of law, and if the world is nothing but a product of chance, then the worst possible thing you can do is to reason about it. you’re trying to understand something that is not rational, that cannot be understood, that has no meaning, no consistency to it. Now our reasoning is circular. It begins with the presupposition when it truly and honestly, and accurately circular that God made all things, and therefore, all things have a law and a consistency to them, and are understandable. You begin with that fact and you end with that fact, and then you can find logic, law, order in the universe. You have science. You have the possibility of knowledge.

A straight line can never be defined in terms of a logically consistent atheism. He must say, the atheist, that he can have no knowledge unless he has exhaustive knowledge, and this is impossible. Van Till has said that the starting point, the method, and the conclusion are always involved in one another. Guardini said the end determines all that precedes it. Well, their God then is to be in a vicious circle, to start with nothing and end with nothing, and man’s thinking then has no focus, and life without a focus is soon not life at all.

This is what St. Paul is talking about. The custom in the early church was to require those what were baptized to recite the articles of faith and in particular, because the idea of the resurrection of the dead was so alien to anyone in the Greek or Roman world, they were ready to believe in ghosts, but not in the resurrection of the body, they were required to confess that they were baptized into and for the resurrection of the body, the resurrection of the dead. This is why St. Paul speaks here of being baptized for the dead. Now, that doesn’t come out well in the English translation, just as being, the expression “being fit to kill,” wouldn’t translate well into another language. But the whole point of it is this. St. Paul was saying you are all baptized in terms of this faith. The resurrection of the dead, the belief that life does not end here, that there is more to life than just that which we experience here and now. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. Christ, in the process of history, is at work subduing every enemy, all powers and principalities shall be put under his feet, and under ours in Christ. The kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ. This, St. Paul said, is the faith in terms of which I work.

If this is not true, what business do I have then living in terms of the future. I am, said St. Paul in the language of his day, a future-oriented man. I live in terms of Christ, his victory, his judgment, heaven, the new creation and the resurrection of the body. All these things, and I stand in jeopardy every hour together with countless others who, with me, priests, persecution. I have been tossed to the beasts at Ephesus, but survived. I die daily. I {?} death daily. I know that in proclaiming Christ, I am putting my life on the line every day. Now, he said, if these things are not true, what advantageth me if the dead rise not? I should be then like the Greeks and Romans round about me, and say with them, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” St. Paul was right. The end determines all that precedes it, and if a man’s views of the end are like those of the people of the Roman Empire of St. Paul’s day, they will eat and drink, tomorrow we die. Live it up, it isn’t going to last long.

But the providence of God declares that all things are ordered by God in terms of His sovereign purpose. Providence and predestination are interrelated doctrines. You cannot believe the one without believing the other. Predestination declares that the whole universe is under the law of God, and moves in terms of God’s law, and Proverbs declares that he exercises care over all the universe, and orders all things in terms of His glorious purpose. Well, we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called, according to His purpose. Neither doctrine is fatalism, because fatalism believes that all things are mindless and blind. They are purposeless, and when men come to a belief that the life they lived is meaningless, it is purposeless, their end determines everything that precedes it.

One of the most brilliant poets of the last century was a very unhappy man, and a very logical man, James Thompson, a Scotch poet, and he came to believe, “The world rolls round forever like a mill; it grinds out death and life and good and ill; it has no purpose, heart, and mind, or will.” Believing this, Thompson consistently and logically refused to believe that life could add up to any good. He felt that the other atheists of his day were fooling themselves, and sooner or later, the hard light of reality would dawn upon them, and so he faced life with a conviction, and, “The sense that every struggle brings defeat, because fate holds no prize to found success; but all the oracles are dumb or cheap because they have no secret to express; but none can pierce the vast, black veil uncertain because there is no light beyond the curtain, but all is vanity, and nothingness.” Thompson was right. If there is no light beyond the curtain, then indeed all is vanity, and nothingness. The end determines all that precedes it.

If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized, for the dead? And thus it is the idea of progress disappears in a civilization when faith in God and the victory of God’s people, and the resurrection of the dead, when these things disappear. When Paul quoted that Roman proverb, he was quoting the words that epitomized the life of the Roman Empire and its reason for decay. Rome was spending money like water, more {?} than sold out its future, destroyed itself on the basis of this philosophy.

In the 1950’s, a very brilliant economist, Wilhelm Ropke, his pupil Gerhard was responsible for the great revival of Germany after World War 2, and whose principles they are now tossing overboard, said that the same principle was operative in our day, “Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die,” and he felt that it would destroy any culture. This was the philosophy of Louis XIV, after me, the deluge. It was the philosophy of Lord Keynes, the Fabian socialist economist whose thinking now governs all the non-communist countries, and increasingly the communist countries. When he was asked about the future, of the consequence of his economics, his answer was a shrug of the shoulders and the statement, “In the long run, we are all dead.” The end determines all that precedes it. If our economics today as a result of Keynes’ are the economics of suicide, is because for Keynes, the end result is death anyway, and why pass anything along to the next generation? Live it up. Burn out the economy now and enjoy it. “In the long run, said Keynes, “we are all dead.”

Without a belief in the providence of God, without that faith that scripture declares, a belief in the end that governs and determines all that precedes it, man’s greatest works will crumble and disappear and are in the process of doing that now. The logic of St. Paul has never been answered through the centuries. Unless men for gold{?} present advantages in terms of a future faith. Unless men give themselves to a belief in God, unless they believe that there is a focus, they will be drifters and destroyers, but St. Paul said the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death, where he hath put all things under his feet, and in terms of this, we work and we move but all things are in the process of being put under the feet of Christ as conqueror, that we are to be governed not by the appearances of things in Moscow, Washington, or Los Angeles, but in terms of the reality that all things are being put under Christ’s feet, and it is our duty to work towards that end and in terms of that conviction, and that everything that man has achieved will work to Christ’s glory. All the arts and the sciences will be brought under his dominion, and all wonderful things that men have accomplished will be used by him, and the last enemy to be destroyed finally is death itself.

With providence of God alone, underwrites progress and gives us a faith for living. The end determines all that precedes it. Let us pray.

Almighty God, our heavenly Father, we give thanks unto thee that through Jesus Christ, thou hast destined us for glorious and an eternal end, that ours indeed is the privilege of heirs, heirs of all things, heirs of all heaven and of the earth, of time and eternity, and we come to thee mindful of these things, grateful of these things, and strengthened by these things to go forth and to conquer in Christ’s name. Bless us to this purpose in Jesus’ name. Amen. Are there any questions now, first of all, on our lesson? Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] The question is Did the great empires of history have their driving force just out of a lust for power? It’s a very good question and an important one. Now, men can have, on a short-term basis, a drive in terms of purely humanistic goals, such as some of those that I mentioned, a lust for power, for wealth, for glory, for sex, whatever. Men collectively or personally can have a burst of drive, a focus on some of these things but not very long. Now, how have the great powers arisen? They have arises, for the most part, in terms of a basic faith, however false which, for a time, gave them a focus. {?} a few empires in history, the Egyptians believes that the focal point of history was the Egyptian Pharaoh, who was a god-man, and therefore destined to rule the world. But faith proved, with time, to be a false one. It didn’t give the Egyptians anything except a grinding poverty and the dubious privilege of dying for Pharaoh. Now it was a similar faith that motivated subsequent empires; Assyria, its sense of destiny; Babylon, with belief that it was called upon, both Assyria and Babylon, to create a one-world order in which men would be gods, but in which they themselves became the first to be disillusioned. The Greeks also, with their ideals, similar humanistic goals, and the Romans likewise. As I pointed out before, the Roman Empire was not overthrown by the Barbarians. It collapsed. Millions of Romans did nothing to defend themselves against tens of thousands of Barbarians who simply walked in and took over the Empire, and looted it. It collapsed.

Now, the same thing has marked empires in the Christian era. The Soviet Empire is based upon a belief in historic determinism, which is a secular version of predestination and providence, that it is already collapsing from within by cynicism. It’s a false faith, and it is disintegrating. They have major problems today within the Soviet Empire in getting any kind of real conviction among their upcoming leadership. There is cynicism, there is a desire to have all they can for today; “Let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die” is the attitude that is prevailing.

Thus, normally, these empires have had a short-term life, unless there has been no one around to knock them over. Assyria and Rome had a long history because there was no opposition. But there was a disintegration from within, very quickly, in terms of these false ideas, which gave a temporary focus only. Yes?

[Audience] {?}

[Rushdoony] Yes, the attitude in China is very similar. I was interested recently in reading the statement of a reporter who was in Macau watching Chinese from Red China come across the border to do business in Macau, and he asked one of the Chinese standing near him, “How fanatical are these Red Chinese?” and these were ones with some status, and he said, “Just watch them, and see what they do with their Mao badges when they’re about 100’ beyond the border and beyond the inspection of the guards.” They pulled them off an put them in their pockets, and he says, “That’s how great their convictions are.” I think the disintegration in Red China is likely to be faster than that in the Soviet Union, so I think the evidence there is very great already for a marked disintegration. Certainly, today, one of the reasons why the Soviet Union is making no effort to attack Red China is precisely because it doesn’t want to unite them. The country is splitting up into semi-autonomous areas ruled by Red Army commanders, Red Chinese army commanders, as more or less autonomous war lords, very much as in the old days, and in some areas, they’ve almost tossed out communism, if they’re far enough away from Peking, and they’re just ruling like old fashioned war lords. Yes?

[Audience] {?} many of us are not Christian {?} and {?} physical {?}

[Rushdoony] A very good means of defining the difference is given to us by some Ivy League sociologists a few years back when they spoke of the distinction between modern man, who was consumption-oriented and group-directed, and the older Puritan type American who was production-oriented and inner-directed. And they felt that the two types were very readily discernable. The one just concerned with what could they get, what could they use up, and they were concerned with following the crowd, and the other concerned with being obedient to God and being productive rather than consumption-oriented. Our time is nearly up, but there are a few things I’d like to share with you which I think are very revealing in terms of our time.

The first is a bit of humor which came out in the Criminal Law Quarterly of Canada, and it’s so close to the truth that some thought it might be an actual case. In fact, it reads very much like the law does read today. It was picked up in this country by the Harvard Law School Bulletin, April 1972, by one of the professors there, and I’ll read the introduction as it was given in the Harvard Law School Bulletin, as well as the original Canadian Criminal Law Quarterly brief.

19 January 1970, memorandum to Harvard Law faculty and teaching fellows. I’ve recently come across a Canadian case which merits the attention of each of you. It is not officially reported, but appears in 8 Criminal Law Quarterly 137 Toronto 1965, and is reprinted in a volume entitled Legislation in the Courts, at page 512. The case is Regina vs. Ojibway, that’s the Crown versus Mr. Ojibway. If it had a footnote, which it does not, it would be something like this. {?} fortuitously saddled with a feather pillow, a small bird within the meaning of the Ontario Small Birds Act, I here reproduce the opinion in full as above reported. W. Barton leaves story professor of law emeritus Harvard Law School.

In the Supreme Court Regina vs. Ojibway, August 1965. This is an appeal, this is the judge’s decision. By the crown, by way of a stated case from a decision of the magistrate acquitting the accused of a charge under the Small Birds Act RSO 1960, chapter 724 section 2. The facts are not in dispute. Fred Ojibway, an Indian, was riding his pony through Queens Park on January 2, 1965. Being impoverished and having been forced to pledge his saddle, he substitutde downy pillow in lieu of the said saddle. On this particular day, the accused’s misfortune was further heightened by the circumstances of his pony breaking its right foreleg. In accordance with current Indian custom, the accused then shot the pony to relieve it of its awkwardness. The accused was then charged with having breached the Small Birds Act, section 2, which states, “Anyone maiming, injuring, or killing small birds is guilty of an offense and subject of a fine not in excess of $200. The learned magistrate acquitted the accused, holding in fact, that he had killed his horse, not a small bird. With respect I cannot agree.

In light of the definition section, my course is quite clear. Section 1 defines bird as a two legged animal covered with feathers. There can be no doubt that this case is covered by this section. Counsel for the accused made several ingenious arguments to which, in fairness, I must address myself. He submitted that the evidence of the expert clearly concluded that the animal in question was a pony and not a bird, but this is not the issue. We are not interested in whether the animal in question is a bird or not, in fact, but whether it is one in law. Statutory interpretation has forced many a horse to eat birdseed for the rest of its life. Counsel also contends that the neighing noise emitted by the animal could not possibly be produced by a bird. With respect, the sounds emitted by an animal are irrelevant to its nature, for a bird is no less a bird because it is silent.

Counsel for the accused also argued that since there was evidence to show accused had ridden the animal, this pointed to the fact that this could not be a bird, but was actually a pony. Obviously, this avoids the issue. The issue is not whether the animal is ridden or not, but whether it was shot or not, for to ride a pony or a bird is of no offense at all. I believe that counsel now sees his mistake. Counsel contends that the iron shoes found on the animal decisively disqualify it from being a bird. I must inform counsel, however, that how an animal dresses is of no concern to this court. Counsel relied on the decision in re: Chickadee where he contends that in similar circumstances the accused was acquitted. However, this is a horse of a different color. A close reading of that case indicates that the animal in question there was not a small bird but in fact a midget of a much larger species. Therefore, that case is inapplicable to our facts. Counsel finally submits that the word “small” in the title Small Bird Act refers not to birds but to “act,” making it the small act relating to birds.

With respect, counsel did not do his homework very well, for the Large Birds Act, RSO 1960 chapter 725, is just as small. If pressed, I need only refer to the Small Loans Act RSO 1960 chapter 727, which is twice as large as the Large Birds Act. It remains then to state my reason for judgment which simply is as follows. Different things may take on the same meaning for different purposes. One of the purpose of the Small Birds Act, all two-legged feather-covered animals are birds. This, of course, does not imply that only two-legged animals qualify, for the legislative intent is to make two legs merely the minimum requirement. The statute therefore contemplated multi-legged animals with feathers as well. Counsel submits that having regard to the purpose of the statute, only small birds naturally covered with feathers could have been contemplated. However, had this been the intent of the legislature, I am certain of the phrase “naturally covered” would have been expressly inserted just as “long” was inserted in the Long Shoreman’s Act. Therefore, a horse with feathers on its back must be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to be a bird, and a fortiori, a pony with feathers on its back is a small bird. Counsel posed the following rhetorical question: If the pillow had been removed prior to the shooting, would the animal still be a bird? To this, let me answer rhetorically. Is a bird any less of a bird without its feathers?

The law too often reads very much like that, and then a few lines from something else, which I think are very interesting, titled Charities For Suckers, and I think this is interesting because the biggest and easiest way to raise money today is to make a humanistic appeal. If it’s a humanistic appeal that tugs at the heartstrings you can get millions. You contribute to a charity right. You think you’re helping the needy, sick, or disadvantaged, right? Wrong, in too many cases. Worth sounding, philanthropic cases are often run, manipulated would be a better word, almost entirely for the benefit for the operating organization. This is, after all, a $21 billion a year industry, and some of its biggest, best known members seem to have only slightly more social responsibility than Louis XV. When you consider the amount of tax money appropriated for medical research, $2.7 billion in fiscal 1972, plus the fact that 92% of every dollar subsidizing health care is also provided by the taxpayer, you should check carefully whether you should give to any philanthropic organization in the heath care field, and then later he goes on to say without getting a full detailed report of how the money is spent.

And, then he goes on to say, if you do give, some of the best known old line agencies have lost sight of their original goals, and have instead become obsessed with self-perpetuation, image, and growth. Disregard dramatic fundraising appeals which probably don’t help a large proportion of the money you intend to donate. The seeing-eye organization still keeps getting donations. It has an unspent reserve of $20 million, even though it stopped soliciting funds in 1959, and is not asking for them. Ignore the big names on a charities letterhead. Many VIP’s like to appear on boards of philanthropies for egotistical or publicity purposes. Never give to an organization that sends you unordered gifts, such as personalized address stickers, greeting cards, handkerchiefs, pencils, etc. The fundraising costs of these items are likely to be absorbitant, ranging up to more than 90% of every one dollar giving. The purpose in sending you knick-knacks is to make you feel guilt if you don’t contribute.

And he lists some organizations that are not fit to subscribe to. Most blatant example in the U.S. is Father Flannigan’s Boys Home, described by the Omaha Sun Newspapers as a money machine. Flannigan’s shenanigan has more than $200 million stashed away in cash and securities, plus a lot more in real estate, yet continues to receive $25 million a year from investment income and from public donations, which is 400% more than it spends to take care of some 700 boys. Income from contributors alone was about $17.7 million in 1970. Income from its investments came to $6.7 million. In short, as the Omaha papers observed, Boys Town has more money than it knows what to do with. Disabled American Veterans – You can lose a little toe and be eligible for membership in this outfit, whose Women’s Auxiliary numbers 33,000 disabled women veterans? Apart from spending well over a million dollars a year for lobbying activities in Washington, DAV is one of the principle mailers of unordered merchandise, mostly miniature auto tags. Fundraising costs DAV .99 of each dollar it receives. The Veterans Administration alone paid $7.4 billion to veterans and their dependents in 1970.

Epilepsy Foundation of America, an inefficiently managed organization that spends little for research or treatment of the disorder it supposedly fights. Like DAV, it mails unsolicited gifts. Its fundraising costs .47 per donated dollar. The March of Dimes officially known as the National Foundation, poorly and administered, though it financed the epical{?} and anti-polio vaccine, and has aided countless polio victims, NF has, in the past, concealed some of its payroll information and in some areas has reportedly spent .40 per donor dollar on fundraising. Project Hope, sponsored by the People To People Health Foundation, the project was created to promote international health and sanitation on a voluntary basis with supposedly no financial help from the U.S. government. In fact, Uncle Sam has contributed as much as $2.5 million a year. Despite Project Hope commercials that describe a ship of volunteers, most executives, nurses, and all crewmen are all salary. Fundraising cost, .25 per dollar. American Cancer Society, one of the biggest private health agencies in the U.S. ACS claims that it services thousands of cancer patients and their distraught families. In fact, it tells them to consult other community agencies. With more than $80 million available for national use, ACS chapters plead crippling lack of funds, and so on.

The point it goes on to make is that there are deserving agencies, but you should ask for their accounts of how much they use on fundraising and where they spend their money, but the basic point is that it is humanistically–oriented organizations which today get the money. If they can tug at the heartstrings at helping someone in a humanistic way, then they have it made.

Then, one final item, in the news which I think was a good commentary on politics. GOP VIP’s had to post a $200 deposit at Miami for collecting their convention cars. The automobile manufacturers who provide the cars insisted on the deposit after last month’s democratic convention. When the democrats left town, they forgot to return more than fifty cars. Most have been recovered, some as far away as Texas. Many were badly damaged. Others had accumulated thousands of dollars in traffic violations and impoundment fees. Six cars are still missing including three Lincoln Continentals. These are the men who are going to reform our country.

Let’s bow our heads now for the benediction.

And now go in peace. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost bless you and keep you, guide and protect you this day and always. Amen.

End of tape.