that they are inf allible and so any argument against the freeze will do, whether it is false or true The nuclear freeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral - with equal restraints on the United states and the sov iet Union The nuclear freeze does not require that we trust the russians but demands full and effective verification the nuclear freeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overw helming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which god has made There is no moral ity in the mushroom cloud the black rain of nuclear ashes w ill fall alike on the just and the unjust. and then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age --which is to seek a world that is neither red nor I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear freeze on policy grounds or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only def lect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided from becoming a planet destroyed And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine pun ishment than human problem or that in any event, the final days are near. As Pope John sa id two decades ago, at the opening of the second vatican Council: We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense e must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always forecasting disasters, as thoug h the end of the earth was at hand The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish to keep it a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control Fourth and finally we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree We sorely test our a bility to live together if we readily question each other's integr ity It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side. Those who favor E.R. a [Equal Rights Amendment] are not antif amily"or blasphemers. And the ir purpose is not an attack on the bible. Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equaL. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R. A. ould be surprised to hear that she is anti-f amily. For my part, i think of the amendment's opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral characterthat they are infallible, and so any argument against the f reeze will do, whether it is false or true. The nuclear f reeze proposal is not unilateral, but bilateral -- with equal restraints on the United States and the Soviet Union. The nuclear f reeze does not require that we trust the Russians, but demands full and ef fective verification. The nuclear f reeze does not concede a Soviet lead in nuclear weapons, but recognizes that human beings in each great power already have in their fallible hands the overwhelming capacity to remake into a pile of radioactive rubble the earth which God has made. There is no morality in the mushroom cloud. The black rain of nuclear ashes will fall alike on the just and the unjust. And then it will be too late to wish that we had done the real work of this atomic age -- which is to seek a world that is neither red nor dead. I am perfectly prepared to debate the nuclear f reeze on policy grounds, or moral ones. But we should not be forced to discuss phantom issues or false charges. They only deflect us form the urgent task of deciding how best to prevent a planet divided f rom becoming a planet destroyed. And it does not advance the debate to contend that the arms race is more divine punishment than human problem, or that in any event, the final days are near. As Pope John said two decades ago, at the opening of the Second Vatican Council: “We must beware of those who burn with zeal, but are not endowed with much sense... we must disagree with the prophets of doom, who are always f orecasting disasters, as though the end of the earth was at hand.” The message which echoes across the years is very clear: The earth is still here; and if we wish to keep it, a prophecy of doom is no alternative to a policy of arms control. Fourth, and finally, we must respect the motives of those who exercise their right to disagree. We sorely test our ability to live together if we readily question each other’s integrity. It may be harder to restrain our feelings when moral principles are at stake, for they go to the deepest wellsprings of our being. But the more our feelings diverge, the more deeply felt they are, the greater is our obligation to grant the sincerity and essential decency of our fellow citizens on the other side. Those who favor E.R.A [Equal Rights Amendment] are not “antifamily” or “blasphemers.” And their purpose is not “an attack on the Bible.” Rather, we believe this is the best way to fix in our national firmament the ideal that not only all men, but all people are created equal. Indeed, my mother, who strongly favors E.R.A., would be surprised to hear that she is anti-family. For my part, I think of the amendment’s opponents as wrong on the issue, but not as lacking in moral character