Ladies and Gentlemen: For thousands of years men have been asking the
questions: "How shall we civilize the world? How shall we protect
life, liberty, property and reputations? How shall we do away with
crime and poverty? How clothe, and feed, and educate, and civilize
mankind?" These are the questions that are asked by thoughtful men and
thoughtful women. The question with them is not, "What will we do in
some other world?" Time enough to ask that when we get there. The
business we will attend to now is, how are, we to civilize the world?
What priest shall I ask? What sacred volume shall I search? What
oracle can I consult? At what shrine must I bow to find out what is to
be done? Each church has a different answer; each has a different
recipe for the salvation of the people, but not while they are in this
world. All that is to be done in this world is to get ready for the
next.
In the first place I am met by the theological world. Have I the right
to inquire? They say, "Certainly; it is your duty to inquire." Each
church has a recipe for the salvation of this world, but not while you
are in this world--afterward. They treat time as a kind of pier--a
kind of wharf running out into the great ocean of eternity; and they
treat us all as though we were waiting there, sitting on our trunks,
for the gospel ship.
I want to know what to do here. Have I the right to inquire? Yes. If
I have the right to inquire, then I have the right to investigate. If I
have the right to investigate, I have the right to accept. If I have
the right to accept, I have the right to reject. And what religion
have I the right to reject? That which does not conform with my
reason, with my standard of truth, with my standard of common sense.
Millions of men have been endeavoring to govern this world by means of
the supernatural. Thousands and thousands of churches exist, thousands
of cathedrals and temples have been built, millions of men have been
engaged to preach this gospel; and what has been the result in this
world? Will one church have any sympathy with another? Does the
religion of one country have any respect for that of another? Or does
not each religion claim to be the only one? And does not the priest of
every religion, with infinite impudence, consign the disciples of all
others to eternal fire?
Why is it the churches have failed to civilize this world? Why is it
that the Christian countries are no better than any other countries?
Why is it that Christian men are no better than any other men? Why is
it that ministers as a class are no better than doctors, or lawyers, or
merchants, or mechanics, or locomotive engineers? And a locomotive
engineer is a thousand times more useful. Give me a good engineer and
a bad preacher to go through this world with rather than a bad engineer
and a good preacher; and there is this curious fact about the believers
in the supernatural: The priests of one church have no confidence in
the miracles and wonders told by the priests of the other churches.
Maybe they know each other. A Christian missionary will tell the
Hindoo of the miracles of the bible; the Hindoo smiles. The Hindoo
tells the Christian missionary of the miracles of his sacred books; and
the missionary looks upon him with pity and contempt. No priest takes
the word of another.
I heard once a little story that illustrates this point: A gentleman in
a little party was telling of a most wonderful occurrence, and when he
had finished everybody said: "Is it possible? Why, did you ever hear
anything like that?" All united in a kind of wondering chorus except
one man. He said nothing. He was perfectly still and unmoved; and one
who had been greatly astonished by the story said to him: "Did you hear
that story?" "Yes." "Well, you don't appear to be excited." "Well
no," he said; "I am a liar myself."
There is another trouble with the supernatural. It has no honesty; it
is consumed by egotism; it does not think--it knows; consequently it
has no patience with the honest doubter. And how has the church
treated the honest doubter? He has been answered by force, by
authority, by popes, by cardinals and bishops, and councils, and, above
all, by mobs. In that way the honest doubter has been answered. There
is this difference between the minister, the church, the clergy, and
the men who believe in this world. I might as well state the
question--I may go further than you. The real question is this: Are we
to be governed by a supernatural being, or are we to govern ourselves?
That is the question. Is God the source of power, or does all
authority spring, in governing, from the consent of the governed? That
is the question. In other words, is the universe a monarchy, a
despotism, or a democracy? I take the democratic side, not in a
political sense. The question is, whether this world should be
governed by God or by man; and when I say "God" I mean the being that
these gentlemen have treated and enthroned upon the ignorance of
mankind.
Now let us admit, for the sake of argument, that the bible is true. Let
us admit, for the sake of argument, that God once governed this
world--not that He did, but let us admit it, and I intend to speak of
no god but our God, because we all insist that of all the gods ours is
the best, and if He is not good we need not trouble ourselves about the
others. Let them take care of themselves.
Now, the first question is, whether this world shall be governed by God
or man. Admitting that the being spoken of in the bible is God, He
governed this world once. There was a theocracy at the start. That
was the first government of the world. Now, how do you judge of a man?
The best test of a man is, how does he use power? That is the supreme
test of manhood. How does he treat those within his control? The
greater the man, the grander the man, the more careful he is in the use
of power--the tenderer he is, the nearer just, the greater, the more
merciful, the grander, the more charitable. Tell me how a man treats
his wife or his children, his poor debtors, his servants, and I will
tell you what manner of a man he be. That, I say, is the supreme test,
and we know tonight how a good and great man treats his inferiors. We
know that. And a man endeavoring to raise his fellow-men higher in the
scale of civilization--what will that man appeal to? Will he appeal to
the lowest or to the highest that is in man? Let us be honest. Will
he appeal to prejudice--the fortress, the armor, the sword and shield
of ignorance? Will he appeal to credulity--the ring in the nose by
which priests lead stupidity? Will he appeal to the cowardly man?
Will he play upon his fears--fear, the capital stock of imposture, the
lever and fulcrum of hypocrisy? Will he appeal to the selfishness and
all the slimy serpents that crawl in the den of savagery? Or will he
appeal to reason, the torch of the mind? Will he appeal to justice?
Will he appeal to charity, which is justice in blossom? Will he appeal
to liberty and love? These are the questions. What will he do? What
did our God do? Let us see. The first thing we know of Him is in the
Garden of Eden. How did He endeavor to make His children great, and
strong, and good, and free? Did He say anything to Adam and Eve about
the sacred relation of marriage? Did He say anything to them about
loving children? Did He say anything to them about learning anything
under heaven? Did He say one word about intellectual liberty? Did he
say one word about reason or about justice? Did He make the slightest
effort to improve them? All that He did in the world was to give them
one poor little miserable, barren command, "Thou shalt not eat of a
certain fruit." That's all that amounted to anything; and, when they
sinned, did this great God take them in the arms of His love and
endeavor to reform them? No; He simply put upon them a curse. When
they were expelled He said to the woman: "I will greatly multiply thy
sorrow. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Thy husband shall
rule over thee." God made every mother a criminal, and placed a
perpetual penalty of pain upon human love. Our God made wives
slaves--slaves of their husbands. Our God corrupted the marriage
relation and paralyzed the firesides of this world. That is what our
God did. And what did He say to poor Adam? "Cursed be the ground for
thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat
the herb of the field, and in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread." Did He say one word calculated to make him a better man? Did
He put in the horizon of the future one star of hope? Let us be
honest, and see what this God did, and we will judge of Him simply by
ordinary common sense.
After a while Cain murdered his brother, and he was detected by this
God. And what did this God say to him? Did He say one word of the
crime of shedding human blood? Not a word. Did He say one word
calculated to excite in the breast of Cain the slightest real sorrow
for his deed? Not the slightest. Did He tell him anything about where
Abel was? Nothing. Did He endeavor to make him a better man? Not a
bit. What had He ever taught him before on that subject? Nothing. And
so Cain went out to the other sons and daughters of Adam, according to
the bible, and they multiplied and increased until they covered the
earth. God gave them no code of laws. God never built them a
schoolhouse. God never sent a teacher. God never said a word to them
about a future state. God never held up before their gaze that
dazzling reward of heaven; never spoke about the lurid gulfs of hell;
kept divine punishment a perfect secret, and without having given them
the slightest opportunity, simply drowned the world. Splendid
administration! Cleveland will do better than that. And, after the
waters had gone away, then He gave them some commandments. I suppose
that He saw by that time that they needed guidance.
And here are the commandments: