(The CRIMSON invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Permit me, at this juncture of our inquiry into the godlessness of Harvard, to ask just what we mean by "godless". If Harvard is "godless" now, when, if ever, was it "godly" and what are the ear-marks of "godliness"? Do ablution, application of the Urim and Thummin, the wearing of phylacteries, and rhythmic beating upon the breast constitute "godliness"? Perhaps "godliness" is synonymous with regular attendance upon a house of worship. Or "godliness" may be consequent upon acceptance of a creed, say the Athanasian or its antithesis, the Nicene; perhaps even upon subscription to some system of dogma devised a thousand or five hundred years ago by the light of burning fagots.

Is "godliness" tantamount to a Christian mode of life? If so, then whose interpretation of Christianity? How can that "godliness" include the Buddhist, the Jew, or the Confucianist within our gates. Frankly, are these groups "godless"? And again, if "godliness" demands subscription to a trinitarian theism, all monotheists must be "godless". Pantheists of any sort, by such a criterion, are hopelessly "godless".

If outward and visible signs and deliberate subscription to creed or dogma are the ear-marks of "godliness", then all that inward reflection which hopes to place us in harmony with the god of things as they are, all that secret communion with our better selves, and all that conscious adherence to the spirit of great teachers, such as the Nazarene, must be considered devices of the "godless". Just when does a man, and collectively, a university become "godless"?

I cannot agree with you, Mr. Editor, that Harvard is unmoral or even indifferent. Nor can I agree with my friend Mr. McCubbin that Harvard is put to shame by the prayers of other colleges. Every center of thought has its group of atheists, who, strictly speaking, may be termed "godless". It might be interesting to us, and certainly reassuring to our brethren of the Middle West, if we had a third referendum to determine exactly how many men are atheists. As for the rank and file of Harvard men, so far as my observation of them has gone, I believe them to be fundamentally concerned about God. Our precious heritage of non-interference with personal matters has encouraged in Harvard men a quiet formulation of belief which needs no shouting from the house-top to reinforce it, nor public confession to fix it. HARRV REIFF '26.

January 24, 1924.