The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, October 11, 1903, Page 5

TheWord “Obey” Notin Lutheran Service 1 see no reason for the retention of the word obey,” declared the Rev. Remensnyder, pastor of St. James Lutheran Church, New Yo b historical, by the church which saw fit to omit the word obey: ient forms from the medieval Latin into the continued, “the marriage service of the church is ned d 1543. This was the first Protestant Cologne d or demanded by the liturgical practice of the ey omitted it ices re would seem to be no good reason for its retention.” e men at the conference did not consider that the word of Common Prayer of the Episcopal church it was, how- of the slight differences between the Lutheran and ic data and of the fact that the word obey has come & form which the bride, according to our modern con- »ns, has no idea of literally subjecting herself THE SUNDAY CALL. JHoNoR AND O OBREY. ¢ @ i riage ceremony unless the word obey was stricken out. the rewording of the service have bsen made. SHALL THE, QLD TIME RODMUIA FOD BRIDES IN THR, MARRIAGE SEDVICE BE ABOILSHED BY THE MODEEPN WOMAN, 0 obey or not to obey is the question now agitating the mind of the modern bride-elect. ~Whether to promise obedience at the altar after the good old fashion followed by her grandmother, or whether to declare herself at the outset as an independent factor in the matrimonial alli- ance is a discussion started by the recent action of a young woman in refusing to go through the mar- Both sides of the q‘uufion have been taken by men and women of to-day, and even suggestions as to * Of the serious opinions from people who have given time and thougzht to the argument it would be dif- ficult to say which side has the more supporters for or against the elimination of the word obey. grandmother and great- o - Eliminate the Word. “Chivalry prompts me to declare myself emphatically for the elimination of the word obey from the marriage ser- vice,” said A. H. Hummel, New York’s famous divorce law- yer, adding with a smile: “Perhaps I could speak more fluently on the actual tie itself. However, being a lawyer and a bachelor does not prohibit one from holding views on the subject of marriage contracts, and it seems to me that it is high time for us to get away from this particular relic of barbarism, this making a woman promise to obey the man she marries. “In feudal days, when women were nothing more than serfs, when they plowed the fields and did the hardest part of the work, sometimes yoked to oxen or dogs, they were com- pelled to obey their lord and master, but we have pro- gressed' far beyond such an unequal arrangement, and now- adays women are entitled to the same consideration and lib- erty enjoyed by men—that is, of course, speaking generally. “The Jews have no such word in the service. The first couple, you know, were Jews, and they lived and loved to- gether, each a helpmeet for the other. “If 1 loved a woman enough to make her my wife I should want her to be my associate in everything. She should not say ‘obey’ any more than I. The word implies inferiority, and the angel whom we worship, whether it be the man's wife or his mother, must not be made to descend from the exalted pedestal to which man has raised her and be brought to the level of a slave. “I admire the pluck of the girl who the other day re- fused to promise to obey the man she was about to marry. and insisted on having the word barred from the service. That girl is a pioneer. She thought more of her principle than of marriage itself and she has the stuff in her to make a good wife. It was her womanhood that prompted her to take the action, and womanhood counts considerably toward making marriages happy.” Real Love Does Not Object. “In all my married life—and I have been married happily for several years—I have never before had the ques- tion of whether or not a wife should promise to obey pre- sented to me,” said Mrs. Ralph Trautman. “It seems just a little absurd to me, for I am a follower of the old school, and believe that a woman should look up to and follow the counsels of her husband. “Even in disagreements, separations and divorces which have come under my personal observation not once could the cause of unhappiness be traced to the word ‘obey.’ “A man and woman who have been married should strive to meet each other's views in every way. If this means a little giving in on the part of ‘one, then let that one yield. It will bring greater happiness for both in the end.” “The woman is 50 per cent of the marriage—not 49 or 48 per cent. She is not the tail of the kite. If she loves there will never be any question of obedience—she will do what is right, not because she feels that she must live up to her marriage contract, but because she really and sincerely wants to. 1f there is mutual love, sympathy and deep feel- ing the couple will strive to be happy together, each one considerate of the other, and there will be no question of obey.” York. liturgy church, — HE influence of imperialism upon national char- acter the better admits of investigation, inasmuch as it is an influence only operative upon particular nations, those, namely, which have attained to great power and widely extended dominion, in- volving in most cases a great accession of terri- tory, and very frequently the control of, and con- sequently the responsibility for, numerous peoples of an inferior grade of civilization. The imperialistic sentiment may be defined as that feeling of complacency with which the citizen of such a dominant nation regards the fact that his country counts for much in the affairs of the world. So long as the question is contem- plated from this abstract point of view it seems extraordinary that there should be any difference of opinion upon the subject. The proposition that it is better to be the citizen of a great country than of a small one seems as obvious to common sense as the proposition that it is better to occupy a higher than an inferior position in society. When, however, we descend from the region of idea to that of fact, we find that the assertion of an imperial position is associated with many dangers and inconveniences which may well lead a cautious statesman to question its expediency. With this aspect of the matter our inquiry is not con- cerned, but on account of the confusion continually arising between imperialism and patriotism it is necessary to point out that the propo- sition that imperialism, however majestic in the world of ideas, is in- jurious in the sphere of material interest is one which may conceivably be held by a good patriot. Every imperialist is necessarily a patriot, but every patriot is not necessarily an imperialist. On the other hand it is easy to show that some of the charges brought against imperial- jsm, as an influence detrimental to the national character,’arise from confounding it with the general sentiment of patriotism. Rowdyism Not Imperialism. Such charges are best illustrated by concrete examples. We shall therefore instance two phenomena of recent occurrence, justly consid- ered by reflecting men of all parties as discouraging signs of the times. One is the foolish and undignified character of the popular rejoicings over important successes, which has enriched or disfigured the lan- guage with the term “mafficking.” The other is the systematic break- ing up of public meetings by those to whom the opinions of the con- veners were distasteful, as great an offense against the foundations of British liberty as it is pessible to commit. These incidents were charged upon imperialism, because the majority of those concerned would have called themselves imperialists, but they had no more neces- sary connection with imperialism than with any other phase of public opinion. They were outbreaks of an ill-regulated patriotism, which might just as easily have been manifested on the other side had this been numerically than it was. An imperialist has not, as such, a e inmmm a member of the Peace Society to dis- Jlic meeting,, Either may misconduct himself in this man- ner if he is naturally jonate and intolerant, and it is to be feared that the only abwluhm.ltee for good behavior is that he should feel himself in a or be aware that transgression will ex- pose him to the stern rebuke of public opinion. 3 “ We must, therefore, in any inquiry as to the influence of imperial- ism upon nal character distinguish between patriotism or love of country, entiment liable to abuse; but indispensable to the exist- ence e very smallest state, and imperialism, or that fecling of patriotic pride which comes with expanded dominion, which could therefore h had no existence before this dominion was acquired, and whith, in the event of its disappearance, must itself pass away, even though the patriotic sentiment from which it was developed should remain unimpaired. The question is: Was the national charac- ter exalted by its manifestation while circumstances permitted? And is it impoverished by its withdrawal? 1 The conclusion of reasoners, nevertheless, would be of little value L if they were refuted by the testimony of history. But the voice of his- tory is entirely conclusive as to the ennobling influence which the pos- session and the sentiment of power may exercise upon the national life. The stéry of Rome portrays a long course of education in public morality, due to the development of imperialistic sentiment. The age EFFECT OF IMPERIA | By Dr. Richard L 5 cf Roman conquest under the republic is one of undisguised rapacity. The age of Roman administration under the empire, until the irrup- tions of the barbariaps, is one of order and justice and general content, the public weal munificently promoted, the pax Romana everywhere. It is not meant that the genius of Rome was other than imperialistic even under the republic, but that the imperial training was imperfect. It was only by governing that the Romans could learn to govern. An equally strong instance of the value of imperialistic conceptions to a pation is afforded by memorable eras in our own annals. There never was a period in our history when the imperial spirit was more active than during the reign of Elizabeth, or one in which it was more inert LISM ON NATIONAL X3 Catholic Ritual Omits the Word Father John Talbot Smith of New York says that the word obey is not used in the Catholic marriage service. \ “The marriage sacrament,” states Father Smith, “is an agreement between the two parties. The man says, ‘I take you' and the woman says the same. There is no such word as obey in our ritual. The couple are, however, exhorted to mutual love and acceptance of each other, which is the es- sence of marriage. “The theory of marriage in the Catholic church is that the husband is the head of the family and the wife owes him love, honor and obedience, while he owes her love, re- spect and maintenance. He is bound to maintain her as best he can, but he does not have to obey her. . "To tell the truth, I do not think it is a practical ques- tion at all, this one of eliminating the word obey. It is in the nature of things that the man should command and woman should obey, no matter how many statutory pro- visions you make, simply because a man likes to command and a woman likes to obev. “What is the use of statutes against a natural proclivity or condition? You can see the wisdom of the church in omitting the word from its ritual. “A woman who refuses to obey might please her fancy by the mere declination to follow a custom, yet she might be the quickest to obey her husband. “That is where nature is stronger than ideas. Ideas may become fads, existing for a short while, but nature goes right on, f “I notice that men are glad to get the women they want to marry and the women are equally glad to marry, ubey or not, regardless of all fads and fancies.” , Relic of Another Age. “You might as well strike out ‘with all my worldly goods I thee endow’ from the marriage service as the word ‘obey,”” asserted Miss Jeannette Gilder when asked her views on the much discussed question of whether or not a woman should promise obedience to her husband. ,“It is more of a farce for an impecunious foreigner who marries an American heiress to say ‘with all my worldly goods I thee endow’ than for the woman to say ‘obey.’ “People as a rule pay no more attention to the word than if it were not there. It stands as a relic of another age, when women were indeed the slaves of men, but it must no longer be taken literally. “Nowadays a woman does not actually promise to obey. She may go through the form and utter the simple little word, but neither she nor the man she marries looks upon the promise as one actually binding her to obey him in every particular. “To my mind there seems to be no more reason for the woman to say this word than for the man, and it really makes very little difference about leaving it out altogethér, “The general interpretation of the waqrd, according to modern views, is that the two promise to live together in peace and happiness, which is, after all, the end in view, or it should be. “It is always possible, you know, for a woman to make a mental reservation even if she does repeat the entire words of the marriage service, but after all if she love her husband she is "quite willing to obey him—within the limits of reason. her <!? Garnett, C. B. ‘ =% than in the preceding century. Compare the national feeling disclgsed in the Paston Letters of the middle of the fifteenth century with that displayed in the writings of a Shakespeare or a Raleigh. The letters are mostly the production of agitated times, when the crown of Eng- land was continually at stake, nevertheless there is not a gleam of pub- 1€ lfiirit in them from one end to the other. The nation clearly needed an ideal, and when this came in the shape of conquest and discovery and wealth and self-respect and weight in the annals of Europe, and everything that we now call imperialistic, it raised the national charac- ter to a height which a contemporary of the Pastons would have deemed incredible. % PUNISHMENT OF CHILDREN--Fourth Talk By William J. Shearer, A. M., Ph. D. ] —mmea RIMARILY there must be some punishment for wrongdoing. But for this there could be no gov- ernment either in the state, or in the family, upon which the existence of the state depends. There are many who say that a child should never be punished. Most of these mean that the child should not be whipped. They have in mind the brutal treatment of children. Some may really mean that they think a child should never be punished in any way. This class is generally composed of those who have had little or no experience in the management of their own children or of the children of others. . In the divine economy it has seemed necessary to provide punish- ment for wrongdoing. Does it not appear senseless for mortals to at- tempt to improve upon his methods? While some punishment seems absolutely necessary, too great care cannot be taken by parents in order that their mode of punishment may be such as will reach the desired end without any of the evil consequences which are sure to follow in- judicious or ill-considered punishment. . The one great object which justifies a parent’s punishing a child is the honest desire to reform the child and to lead him to do what is right. In every case of doubt the parent should ask himself the ques- tion, “Is this the best way to influence my child to do better?” ‘Another legitimate object of punishment is found in the fact that if p.rol:)crly administered it condemns the wrong and upholds what is right. If there are several children in the family another very important object of punishment is its effect in deterring all from doing wrong. Punishment may be inflicted upon one child in such a way as to make it unnecessary to punish other children for similar offenses. Happy the child who lives in a family where the parent makes such use of it. Every child should understand clearly the cause of the punishment. Too often children are punished in anger before an explanation is given. Under such circumstances punishments cannot, possibly do good, but will certainly do harm. Punishments must be just. A guilty child may seem to resent a punishment, but in his heart he does not, when it is properly adminis- tered. Punish an innocent child and. in spite of love and respect for parents, he can scarcely ever forget it. Punishment should be certain. Much more depends upon cer- tainty than upen severity. To overlook an offense at one time and punish it severely at another time is an excellent way to encourage children in wrongdoing. Punishment should be mild. Tt should never be more severe than is necessary to reach the desired end. It is a kind of medicine, the vir- tue of which depends upon its being used sparingly. Punishment should be deliberate. If time is taken for reflection it will frequently be seen that the parent and not the child is deserving of the punishment. When possible punishment should be natural. For example: If a boy uses his knife to cut the furniture he should be deprived of the knife. Punishments which are natural follow as the results of actions and are always powerful as correctives. This is the fundamental char- acteristic of divine punishment. Punishments should nét destroy self-respect. Such as do are fiend- ish. The great object of moral training is to develop self-control and self-respect, not destroy them. Punishments should be inflicted in kindness. By word and man- ner the parents should show that it is an unpleasant task. Nothing will cause the lesson to sink more deeply and be remembered longer. There are some methods of punishment frequently used, yet for which no parent worthy of the name would say a word in defense. They are never right under any condition. Among those of more fre- quent use may be mentioved the following: Blows upon the head, boxing of pulling of ears, violent shaking, calling of names, sarcasm, scolding, nagging, threats, solitary confinement. Displeasure of parents is one valuable punishment. Other things being equal, the greater the love between the child and parent, the greater the effect of the expressed displeasures Like the parents, the child cares little for the criticism of enemies and much for the unkind words from those whom he loves. Properly used, the heart of almost evcrbchild will respond to it and inwardly resolve to do better. ne of the most effectual kinds of punishment, with most children, is that of depriving them of some privilege. If, in place of some ex- pected pleasure, the child is required to sit down and think over the cause of the loss, he will come to the conclusion that it does not pay to lose a great pleasure for a small one. The keeping of some record of a child’s shortcomings may also be made use of with good effect with most children. This record may be merely a number of marks made when the child fails to do as he should. When it is found that a nuraber will mean certain punishment and that by especially praiseworthy conduct some marks can be removed it is remarkable how great an influence this device will have upon conduct. Punishment should always he upon the fleshy parts of the body with a switch, strap, piece of small rubber hose or similar instrument, which cannot inflict such injury as the parent may regret for years to come. Parents should take great care lest they inflict corporal punish- ment in such a way as to make it appear that they are vindictive or “urying to get even.” " The blows should not be more frequent than once or twice each minute. If this is done, and the strokes interspersed by such expres- sions and admonitions 2s will prove that the parent desires only the o0od of the child the punishment will be very effective. ~The loving indness may have failed; the harsh application of the rod may not give the desired results, but the combination of the two will surely never be forgotten and is almost certain to produce the desired result. “Women War OverWords.””—Baba Bharati “The question of equality between man and woman is one that comes up | very frequently,” said Baba Bharati, “but when it touches upon the marriage service and the word obey, which is so important a part of it, I must range myself on the side opposing the ¢limination of the word. “If there is love there is homage, for love is homage. is 2 home you will find devotion, service and obedience. there is no love, without love there is no obedience. love is a_master. “In India the man sa¥s the same as the woman; that are not also required of him. Very often the woman is really the mis- tress, and the man through his great and deep affection for his wife becomes €. he girl who objects to promising to obey will mevertheless obey her husband in every moment of her life. words, that they pay too little attention to the real meaning of the tenets and customs of the land.” Wherever there Without homage Love is a slave and she makes no promises It seems to me that women fence with CHARACTER Proof of a converse kind may be derived from the examples of those states which at one time took a leading part in the affairs of the world, but have now fallen to the condition of second-rate powers. Such are Spain and Sweden, and as regards the colonial empire which alone made them great, Portugal and Holland. These countries may be as patriotic as ever, but cannot be imperialistic, for imperialism is patriot- ism inspired and buoyed up by a sense of the power which they no longer possess. Has the national character improved since these losses as, if imperialism be indeed the demoralizing influence it has been represented, it assuredly ought to have done? Do the inhabitants of these countries at this time of day exhibit a finer type of character than did their ancestors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries? Apart from the universal leveling up in enlightenment and civility, which they have shared with all European nations, it is certain that they do not, and that they would be the last to exalt themselves over progenitors, to whose days they look back as to a heroic age. Their advantages over their ancestors are nevertheless many, but not one can be connected in the remotest degree with the dying out among them of imperialistic spirit consequent upon the loss of empire. Let us now produce an instance of an opposite description. Little more than a hundred years ago the United States of America were ad- mitted among the family of nations, but it was long ere they ranked among the great powers. They had not attained this position when, in 1803, Charles Brockden Brown, best known as the first American novelist, but also as a publicist. sought to persuade his countrymen (who did not require much persuasion) to acquire Louisiana from Na- poleon. Writing in the character of a French Councilor of State, he enumerates the causes which are thought to render the American nation weak. Among thesc are “the want of national spirit, patriot- ism, sense of nation honor or love of national glory"—the very things in which America has long superabounded. To what can so vast a change be attributed but growing national strength and the com- eciousness of an imperial mission? And is not the last state better than the first? Force of Moral Suasion. Whatsoever evil may attach to imperialistic ideas is likely to be minimized in the United States and Great Britain, from the necessity under which, unlike the great military monarchies, these countries lie of depending as far as possible upon moral force. America must be averse for many reasons to sending expeditions by sea and the expan- sion to which she is destined in Eastern Asia and South America need not involve the acquisition of territory. She cannot, however, exer- cise a protectorate over these regions without skillful and cautious dip- lomacy and the clearest proof to the inhabitants that it is well for them to be permeated by her influence. It may seem ironical to speak of the moral suasion of a power which has achieved so many conquests as England, but in fact the most important of her possessions are in- habited not by conauered aliens, but by her own children, jealous of their freedom, susceptible in their feelings and keenly alive to their own interests. To keep so widely dispersed a congeries of communities within the imperial fold will be a feat of the highest statesmanship, im- possible without continual concession, conciliation and compromise and Impessible even then if the imperial idea had not in the meantime taken deep root in the minds of the dwellers abroad and at home. Thirty years ago the veteran officials of the Colonial Office, who had no such idea, thought it impossible, and it may at all events be said that no nation has hitherto attempted the like. But even in c countries and crown colonies the progress of moral force as a political agent is very apparent. The condition of the protected princes of India is a remarkable instance. Half a century ago the tendency was to get rid of them as opportunity cffered and to incorporate them in the British raj. This was seen to be wrong. and now nothing,is safer than the throne of an Indian prince, so long as he does not ‘isgovem his subjects or fail in allegiance to the paramount power. Even should he do so the consequences will be strictly personal to himself. As India is and must be governed on imperial principles, this seems a clear proof that imperialism is not mecessarily incompatible with justice or synonymous with the lust of territory. It means, in faet. nothing more than that it is better to be the citizen of a great state than of a small one, and that character is ennobled by taking in the virtues which gain and retain empire.