Ladies and Gentlemen: I suppose that man, from the most grotesque
savage up to Heckle, has had a philosophy by which he endeavored to
account for all the phenomena of nature he may have observed. From
that mankind may have got their ideas of right and wrong. Now, where
there are no rights there can be no duties. Let us always remember
that only as a man becomes free can he by any possibility become good
or great. As I said, every savage has had his philosophy, and by it
accounted for everything he observed. He had an idea of rain and
rainbow, and he had an idea of a controlling power. One said there is
a being who presides over our world, and who will destroy us unless we
do right. Others had many of these beings, but they were invariably
like themselves. The most fruitful imagination cannot make more than a
man, though it may make infinite powers and attributes out of the
powers and attributes of man. You can't build a God unless you start
with a human being. The savage said, when there was a storm, "Somebody
is angry." When lightning leaped from the lurid cloud, he thought,
"What have I been doing?" and when he couldn't think of any wrong he
had been doing, he tried to think of some wrong his neighbor had been
doing.
I may as well state here that I believe man has come up from the lowest
orders of creation, and may have not come up very far; still, I believe
we are doing very well, considering.
But, speaking of man's early philosophy, his morality was founded first
on self-defense. When gathered together in tribes, he held that this
infinite being would hold the tribe responsible for the actions of any
individual who had angered him. They imagined this being got angry.
Just imagine the serenity of an infinite being being disturbed, and a
God breaking into a passion because some poor wretch had neglected to
bring two turtle doves to a priest!
Then they sought out this poor offending individual, to punish him and
appease the wroth of this being. And here commenced religious
persecution.
Now, I do not say there is no God, but what I do say is that I do not
know. The only difference between me and the theologian is that I am
honest. There may or there may not be an infinite being, but I do not
know it, and until I do I cannot conceive of any obedience I owe to any
unknown being.
As soon as men began to imagine they would be held responsible for the
act of any other person, came the necessity for some one to teach them
how to keep from offending the being. Some called him medicine man,
some called him priest; now, we call him theologian. These men set out
to teach men how to keep from offending this being, and they laid down
certain laws to regulate the conduct of men. First of all it was
necessary to believe in this power. To disbelieve in him was the worst
offense of all. To have some human being, dressed in the skin of a wild
beast, deny the existence of this infinite being, was more than the
infinite being could stand. The first thing, therefore, was to believe
in this power, the next to support this gentleman standing between you
and the supreme wrath. These gentlemen were the lobbyists with the
power, and sometimes succeeded in getting the veto used in favor of
their clients.
For ages, as mankind slowly came through the savage state, the world
was filled with infinite fear. They accounted for everything bad that
happened as the wrath of this supreme being. But they went from
savagery to barbarism--a step in improvement--and then began to build
temples to, and make images of, this being. Then man began to believe
he could influence this being by prayer, by getting on his knees to the
image he had made.
Nothing, I suppose astonishes a missionary more than to see a savage in
Central Africa on his knees before a stone praying for luck in hunting
or in fighting. And yet it strikes me--we have our army chaplains
before a battle praying for the success of our side. They don't pray
for assistance if our cause is just, but they pray, "Lord help us!" I
can't see the difference between the two.
But there is this said in favor of prayer that, whether successful or
not, it is a sort of intellectual exercise. Like a man trying to lift
himself, he may not succeed, but he gets a good deal of exercise.
But as man proceeds, he begins to help himself and to take advantage of
mechanical powers to assist him, and he begins to see he can help
himself a little, and exactly in the proportion he helps himself he
comes to rely less on the power of priest or prayer to help him. Just
to the extent we are helpless, to that extent do we rely upon the
unknown.
As religion developed itself, keeping pace with the belief in theology,
came the belief in demonology. They gave one being all the credit of
doing all the good things, and must give some one credit for the bad
things, and so they created a devil. At one time it was as
disreputable to deny the existence of a devil as to deny the existence
of a God; to deny the existence of a hell, with its fire and brimstone,
as to deny the existence of a heaven with its harp and love.
With the development of religion came the idea that no man should be
allowed to bring the wrath of God on a nation by his transgressions,
and this idea permeates the Christian world today. Now what does this
prove? Simply that our religion is founded on fear, and when you are
afraid you cannot think. Fear drops on its knees and believes. It is
only courage that can think. It was the idea that man's actions could
do something, outside of any effect his mechanical works might have, to
change the order of nature; that he might commit some offense to bring
on an earthquake, but he can't do it. You can't be bad enough to cause
an earthquake; neither can you be good enough to stop one. Out of that
wretched doctrine and infamous mistake that man's belief could have any
effect upon nature grew all these inquisitions, racks and collars of
torture, and all the blood that was ever shed by religious persecution.
In Europe the country was divided between kings and priests. The king
held that he got the power from the unknown; so did the priests. They
could not say that they got it from the people; the people would deny
it; the unknown could not deny it. And thus the altar and throne stand
side by side. And republicanism was a thing unknown.
It has been said that the pilgrim fathers came to this country to
establish religious liberty. They did no such thing. They were not in
favor of it. They came with the Testament in their hands, and with it
they could have no idea of religious liberty. When they had
established thirteen colonies here, and had struggled for and obtained
their independence, they established federal government, but did they
seek after religious liberty? No! When they formed a federal
government each church and each colony was jealous of the other. They
said to the general government, "You can't have any religion in the
constitution," but each state could make its own religion, and they
made them.
Here the speaker read copious extracts from the statutes of the
different states in reference to the qualifications for the exercise of
citizenship--the religious belief necessary; and, on concluding, asked,
"Had they (the members who drew up these state constitutions) any idea
of religious liberty."
Continuing, he said: "Now, my friends, there's a party started in this
country with the object of giving every man, woman and child the rights
they are entitled to. Now every one of us has the same rights. I have
the right to labor and to have the products of my labor. I have the
right to think, and furthermore, to express my thoughts, because
expression is the reward of my intellectual labor. And yet in the
United States there are states where men of my ideas would not be
allowed to testify in a court of justice. Is that right? There are
states in this country where, if the law had been enforced, I would
have been sent to the penitentiary for lecturing. All such laws are
enacted by barbarians, and our country will not be free until they are
wiped from the statute books of every state.
Does an infinite being need to be protected by a State Legislature? If
the bible is inspired, does the author of it need the support of the
law to command respect? We don't need any law to make mankind respect
Shakespeare. We come to the altar of that great man and cover it with
our gratitude without a statute. Think of a law to govern tastes!
Think of a law to govern mind, or any question whatever! Think of the
way in which they have supported the bible! They've terrorized the old
with laws, and captured the dear, little innocent children and poisoned
their minds with their false stories until, when they have reached the
age of manhood, they have been afraid to think for themselves. Let us
see what the laws are now, by which they guard their bible and their
God.
[Here the speaker read extracts from the statutes of several states in
reference to blasphemy and profanation of the Sabbath, commenting on
each as he ran them through:] Pursuing the thread of his discourse, he
said: Every American should see to it that all these laws are done
away with once and forever.
There has been a reaction of late years. This country has begun to be
prosperous. We don't think much of religion; 'tis only when hard times
come we turn our attention toward it. There are people in this country
who say we are getting too irreligious, too scientific. Now, is it not
a fact that we are happier today than at any period in our history?
You live in a great country, though perhaps you do not know it. But
live in any other country for a while, and you'll find it out. See,
then, what we've got by looking a little to the affairs of the world!
The bible can't stand today without the support of the civil power. No
religion ever flourished except by the support of the sword, and no
religion like this could have been established except by brute force.
At one time we thought a great deal of clergymen, but now we have got
to thinking they ain't of as much importance as a man that has invented
something. The church seeing this has made up its mind that it is
necessary to do something, and so got up a plan to be acknowledged by
law. Here's what they wish to do: [Here the speaker read some
extracts from the constitution of the National Reform Association.]
Continuing he said: Our fathers, in 1776, building better than they
knew, retired the gods from politics. I do not believe Jesus Christ is
the ruler of nations. If he is the ruler of one he is the ruler of all.
Why does he not then rule one as well as another? If you give him
credit for the good things of one you must denounce him for the tyranny
and despotism of others. The revealed word of God is not the standing
of civil justice in this country! The bible is not the standard of
right and wrong or of decency in this country.
You can't put God in the constitution, because if you do there would be
no room for the folks. Whatever you put in the constitution you must
enforce by the sword, and you can't go to war with any man for not
believing in your God. God has no business there, and any man that is
in favor of putting him there is an enemy to the interests of American
institutions.
Now for the purpose of preventing the name of God being put in the
constitution, there's another little party has been started and these
are its doctrines: We want an absolute divorce between church and
state. We demand that church property should not be exempt from
taxation. If you are going to exempt anything, exempt the homesteads
of the poor. Don't exempt a rich corporation, and make men pay taxes
to support a religion in which they do not believe. But they say
churches do good. I don't know whether they do or not. Do you see
such a wonderful difference between a member of a church and the man
who does not believe in it? Do church members pay their debts any
better than any others? Do they treat their families any better? Did
you ever hear of any man coming into a town broke and inquire where the
deacon of a Presbyterian church lived? Has not the church opposed
every science from the first ray of light until now? Didn't they damn
into eternal flames the man who discovered the world was round? Didn't
they damn into eternal flames the man who discovered the movement of
the earth in its orbit? Didn't they persecute the astronomers? Didn't
they even try to put down life insurance by saying it was sinful to bet
on the time God has given you to live? Science built the Academy,
superstition the Inquisition. Science constructed the telescope,
religion the rack; science made us happy here, and says if there's
another life we'll all stand an equal chance there; religion made us
miserable here, and says a large majority will be eternally miserable
there. Should we, therefore, exempt it from taxation for any good it
has done?
The next thing we ask is a perfect divorce between church and school.
We say that every school should be secular, because its just to
everybody. If I was an Israelite I wouldn't want to be taxed to have
my children taught that his ancestors had murdered a supreme being.
Let us teach, not the doctrines of the past, but the discoveries of the
present; not the five points of Calvinism, but geology and geography.
Education is the lever to raise mankind, and superstition is the enemy
of intelligence.
We demand, next, that woman shall be put upon an equality with man.
Why not? Why shouldn't men be decent enough in the management of the
politics of the country for women to mingle with them? It is an
outrage that anyone should live in this country for sixty or seventy
years and be forced to obey the laws without having any voice in making
them. Let us give woman the opportunity to care for herself, since men
are not decent enough to seek to care for her. The time will come when
we'll treat a woman that works and takes care of two or three children
as well as a woman dressed in diamonds who does nothing. The time will
come when we'll not tell our domestic we expect to meet her in heaven,
and yet not be willing to have her speak to us in the drawing room.
Ignorance is a poor pedestal to set virtue upon and mock-modesty should
not have the right to prevent people from knowing themselves. Every
child has a right to be well-born, and ignorance has no right to people
the world with scrofula and consumption. When we come to the
conclusion that God is not taking care of us and that we have to take
care of ourselves, then we'll begin to have something in the world
worth living for.
I would wish there was seated upon the throne of the universe one who
would see to it that justice did always prevail. I do not propose to
give up the little world I live in for the unknown.
I would wish that the friends who bid us "good night" in this world
might meet us with "good morning" there. Just as long as we love one
another we'll hope for another world; just as long as love kisses the
lips of death will we believe and hope for a future reunion. I would
not take one hope away from the human heart or one joy from the human
soul, but I hold in contempt the gentlemen who keep heaven on sale; I
look with contempt on him who keeps it on draught; I look with pitying
contempt on him who endeavors to prohibit honest thought by promising a
reward in another world. If there is another world we'll find when we
come there that no one has done enough good to be eternally rewarded,
no one has done enough harm to meet with an unending, eternal pain and
agony. We'll find that there is no being that ever hindered a man from
exercising his reason. Now, while we are here, no matter what happens
to us hereafter, let us cultivate strength of heart and brain to stand
the inevitable. No creed can help you there. When the heart is touched
with agony nothing but time can heal it.
I want, if I can, to do a little to increase the rights of men, to put
every human being on an equality, to sweep away the clouds of
superstition, to make people think more of what happens today than what
somebody said happened 3,000 years ago. This is all I want: To do
what little I can to clutch one-seventh of our time from superstition,
to give our Sundays to rest and recreation. I want a day of enjoyment,
a day to read old books, to meet old friends, and get acquainted with
one's wife and children. I want a day to gather strength to meet the
toils of the next. I want to get that day away from the church, away
from superstition and the contemplation of hell, to be the best and
sweetest and brightest of all the days in the week. The best way to
make a day sacred is to fill it up with useful labor. That day is best
on which most good is done for the human race. I hope to see the time
when we'll have a day for the opera, the play--good plays--for they do
good. You never saw the villain foiled in a play where the audience
did not applaud. You never saw them applaud when the rascal was
successful in his villainy. If you could go to a theater and see put
upon the stage the scenes of the old testament, with its butcheries and
rapes and deeds of violence, you would detest it all the days of your
life. I'd like to have every horror of the old testament set on this
stage, to have somebody represent the being as he is represented there,
giving his brutal orders, and let the orthodox see their God as he
really is.
I want to have us all do what little we can to secularize this
government--take it from the control of savagery and give it to
science, take it from the government of the past and give it to the
enlightened present, and in this government let us uphold every man and
woman in their rights, that everyone, after he or she comes to the age
of discretion, may have a choice in the affairs of the nation.
Do this, and we'll grow in grandeur and splendor every day, and the
time will come when every man and every woman shall have the same
rights as every other man and every other woman has. I believe, we are
growing better. I don't believe the wail of want shall be heard
forever; that the prison and gallows will always curse the ground. The
time will come when liberty and law and love, like the rings of Saturn,
will surround the world; when the world will cease making these
mistakes; when every man will be judged according to his worth and
intelligence. I want to do all I can to hasten that day.