Atheism, we are told, breaks all social ties. Without belief in God,
what becomes of the sacredness of the oath? How can we bind an atheist
who can not seriously attest the Deity? But does the oath place us under
stronger obligations to the engagements which we make? Whoever dares to
lie, will he not dare to perjure himself? He who is base enough to
violate his word, or unjust enough to break his promises in contempt of
the esteem of men, will not be more faithful for having taken all the
Gods as witnesses to his oaths. Those who rank themselves above the
judgments of men, will soon put themselves above the judgments of God.
Are not princes, of all mortals, the most prompt in taking oaths, and
the most prompt in violating them?
CXCIV.--REFUTATION OF THE ASSERTION THAT RELIGION IS NECESSARY FOR THE
MASSES.
Religion, they tell us, is necessary for the masses; that though
enlightened persons may not need restraint upon their opinions, it is
necessary at least for the common people, in whom education has not
developed reason. Is it true, then, that religion is a restraint for the
people? Do we see that this religion prevents them from intemperance,
drunkenness, brutality, violence, frauds, and all kinds of excesses?
Could a people who had no idea of the Deity, conduct itself in a more
detestable manner than many believing people in whom we see dissolute
habits, and the vices most unworthy of rational beings? Do we not see
the artisan or the man of the people go from his church and plunge
headlong into his usual excesses, persuading himself all the while that
his periodical homage to God gives him the right to follow without
remorse his vicious practices and habitual inclinations? If the people
are gross and ignorant, is not their stupidity due to the negligence of
the princes who do not attend to the public education, or who oppose the
instruction of their subjects? Finally, is not the irrationality of the
people plainly the work of the priests, who, instead of interesting them
in a rational morality, do nothing but entertain them with fables,
phantoms, intrigues, observances, idle fancies, and false virtues, upon
which they claim that everything depends?
Religion is, for the people, but a vain attendance upon ceremonies, to
which they cling from habit, which amuses their eyes, which enlivens
temporarily their sleepy minds, without influencing the conduct, and
without correcting their morals. By the confession even of the ministers
at the altars, nothing is more rare than the interior and spiritual
religion, which is alone capable of regulating the life of man, and of
triumphing over his inclinations. In good faith, among the most numerous
and the most devotional people, are there many capable of understanding
the principles of their religious system, and who find them of
sufficient strength to stifle their perverse inclinations?
Many people will tell us that it is better to have some kind of a
restraint than none at all. They will pretend that if religion does not
control the great mass, it serves at least to restrain some individuals,
who, without it, would abandon themselves to crime without remorse. No
doubt it is necessary for men to have a restraint; but they do not need
an imaginary one; they need true and visible restraints; they need real
fears, which are much better to restrain them than panic terrors and
idle fancies. Religion frightens but a few pusillanimous minds, whose
weakness of character already renders them little to be dreaded by their
fellow-citizens. An equitable government, severe laws, a sound morality,
will apply equally to everybody; every one would be forced to believe in
it, and would feel the danger of not conforming to it.