_Question_. What do you think about the recent election, and what
will be its effect upon political matters and the issues and
candidates of 1880?
_Answer_. I think the Republicans have met with this almost
universal success on account, first, of the position taken by the
Democracy on the currency question; that is to say, that party was
divided, and was willing to go in partnership with anybody, whatever
their doctrines might be, for the sake of success in that particular
locality. The Republican party felt it of paramount importance
not only to pay the debt, but to pay it in that which the world
regards as money. The next reason for the victory is the position
assumed by the Democracy in Congress during the called session.
The threats they then made of what they would do in the event that
the executive did not comply with their demands, showed that the
spirit of the party had not been chastened to any considerable
extent by the late war. The people of this country will not, in
my judgment, allow the South to take charge of this country until
they show their ability to protect the rights of citizens in their
respective States.
_Question_. Then, as you regard the victories, they are largely
due to a firm adherence to principle, and the failure of the
Democratic party is due to their abandonment of principle, and
their desire to unite with anybody and everything, at the sacrifice
of principle, to attain success?
_Answer_. Yes. The Democratic party is a general desire for office
without organization. Most people are Democrats because they hate
something, most people are Republicans because they love something.
_Question_. Do you think the election has brought about any
particular change in the issues that will be involved in the campaign
of 1880?
_Answer_. I think the only issue is who shall rule the country.
_Question_. Do you think, then, the question of State Rights, hard
or soft money and other questions that have been prominent in the
campaign are practically settled, and so regarded by the people?
_Answer_. I think the money question is, absolutely. I think the
question of State Rights is dead, except that it can still be used
to defeat the Democracy. It is what might be called a convenient
political corpse.
_Question_. Now, to leave the political field and go to the
religious at one jump--since your last visit here much has been
said and written and published to the effect that a great change,
or a considerable change at least, had taken place in your religious,
or irreligious views. I would like to know if that is so?
_Answer_. The only change that has occurred in my religious views
is the result of finding more and more arguments in favor of my
position, and, as a consequence, if there is any difference, I am
stronger in my convictions than ever before.
_Question_. I would like to know something of the history of your
religious views?
_Answer_. I may say right here that the Christian idea that any
God can make me his friend by killing mine is about a great mistake
as could be made. They seem to have the idea that just as soon as
God kills all the people that a person loves, he will then begin
to love the Lord. What drew my attention first to these questions
was the doctrine of eternal punishment. This was so abhorrent to
my mind that I began to hate the book in which it was taught.
Then, in reading law, going back to find the origin of laws, I
found one had to go but a little way before the legislator and
priest united. This led me to a study of a good many of the
religions of the world. At first I was greatly astonished to find
most of them better than ours. I then studied our own system to
the best of my ability, and found that people were palming off upon
children and upon one another as the inspired word of God a book
that upheld slavery, polygamy and almost every other crime. Whether
I am right or wrong, I became convinced that the Bible is not an
inspired book; and then the only question for me to settle was as
to whether I should say what I believed or not. This really was
not the question in my mind, because, before even thinking of such
a question, I expressed my belief, and I simply claim that right
and expect to exercise it as long as I live. I may be damned for
it in the next world, but it is a great source of pleasure to me
in this.
_Question_. It is reported that you are the son of a Presbyterian
minister?
_Answer_. Yes, I am the son of a New School Presbyterian minister.
_Question_. About what age were you when you began this investigation
which led to your present convictions?
_Answer_. I cannot remember when I believed the Bible doctrine of
eternal punishment. I have a dim recollection of hating Jehovah
when I was exceedingly small.
_Question_. Then your present convictions began to form themselves
while you were listening to the teachings of religion as taught by
your father?
_Answer_. Yes, they did.
_Question_. Did you discuss the matter with him?
_Answer_. I did for many years, and before he died he utterly gave
up the idea that this life is a period of probation. He utterly
gave up the idea of eternal punishment, and before he died he had
the happiness of believing that God was almost as good and generous
as he was himself.
_Question_. I suppose this gossip about a change in your religious
views arose or was created by the expression used at your brother's
funeral, "In the night of death hope sees a star and listening love
can hear the rustle of a wing"?
_Answer_. I never willingly will destroy a solitary human hope.
I have always said that I did not know whether man was or was not
immortal, but years before my brother died, in a lecture entitled
"The Ghosts," which has since been published, I used the following
words: "The idea of immortality, that like a sea has ebbed and
flowed in the human heart, with its countless waves of hope and
fear, beating against the shores and rocks of time and fate, was
not born of any book, nor of any creed, nor of any religion. It
was born of human affection, and it will continue to ebb and flow
beneath the mists and clouds of doubt and darkness as long as love
kisses the lips of death. It is the rainbow--Hope, shining upon
the tears of grief."
_Question_. The great objection to your teaching urged by your
enemies is that you constantly tear down, and never build up?
_Answer_. I have just published a little book entitled, "Some
Mistakes of Moses," in which I have endeavored to give most of the
arguments I have urged against the Pentateuch in a lecture I
delivered under that title. The motto on the title page is, "A
destroyer of weeds, thistles and thorns is a benefactor, whether
he soweth grain or not." I cannot for my life see why one should
be charged with tearing down and not rebuilding simply because he
exposes a sham, or detects a lie. I do not feel under any obligation
to build something in the place of a detected falsehood. All I
think I am under obligation to put in the place of a detected lie
is the detection. Most religionists talk as if mistakes were
valuable things and they did not wish to part with them without a
consideration. Just how much they regard lies worth a dozen I do
not know. If the price is reasonable I am perfectly willing to
give it, rather than to see them live and give their lives to the
defence of delusions. I am firmly convinced that to be happy here
will not in the least detract from our happiness in another world
should we be so fortunate as to reach another world; and I cannot
see the value of any philosophy that reaches beyond the intelligent
happiness of the present. There may be a God who will make us
happy in another world. If he does, it will be more than he has
accomplished in this. I suppose that he will never have more than
infinite power and never have less than infinite wisdom, and why
people should expect that he should do better in another world than
he has in this is something that I have never been able to explain.
A being who has the power to prevent it and yet who allows thousands
and millions of his children to starve; who devours them with
earthquakes; who allows whole nations to be enslaved, cannot in my
judgment be implicitly be depended upon to do justice in another
world.
_Question_. How do the clergy generally treat you?
_Answer_. Well, of course there are the same distinctions among
clergymen as among other people. Some of them are quite respectable
gentlemen, especially those with whom I am not acquainted. I think
that since the loss of my brother nothing could exceed the
heartlessness of the remarks made by the average clergyman. There
have been some noble exceptions, to whom I feel not only thankful
but grateful; but a very large majority have taken this occasion
to say most unfeeling and brutal things. I do not ask the clergy
to forgive me, but I do request that they will so act that I will
not have to forgive them. I have always insisted that those who
love their enemies should at least tell the truth about their
friends, but I suppose, after all, that religion must be supported
by the same means as those by which it was founded. Of course,
there are thousands of good ministers, men who are endeavoring to
make the world better, and whose failure is no particular fault of
their own. I have always been in doubt as to whether the clergy
were a necessary or an unnecessary evil.
_Question_. I would like to have a positive expression of your
views as to a future state?
_Answer_. Somebody asked Confucius about another world, and his
reply was: "How should I know anything about another world when
I know so little of this?" For my part, I know nothing of any
other state of existence, either before or after this, and I have
never become personally acquainted with anybody that did. There
may be another life, and if there is, the best way to prepare for
it is by making somebody happy in this. God certainly cannot afford
to put a man in hell who has made a little heaven in this world.
I propose simply to take my chances with the rest of the folks,
and prepare to go where the people I am best acquainted with will
probably settle. I cannot afford to leave the great ship and sneak
off to shore in some orthodox canoe. I hope there is another life,
for I would like to see how things come out in the world when I am
dead. There are some people I would like to see again, and hope
there are some who would not object to seeing me; but if there is
no other life I shall never know it. I do not remember a time when
I did not exist; and if, when I die, that is the end, I shall not
know it, because the last thing I shall know is that I am alive,
and if nothing is left, nothing will be left to know that I am
dead; so that so far as I am concerned I am immortal; that is to
say, I cannot recollect when I did not exist, and there never will
be a time when I shall remember that I do not exist. I would like
to have several millions of dollars, and I may say that I have a
lively hope that some day I may be rich, but to tell you the truth
I have very little evidence of it. Our hope of immortality does
not come from any religion, but nearly all religions come from that
hope. The Old Testament, instead of telling us that we are immortal,
tells us how we lost immortality. You will recollect that if Adam
and Eve could have gotten to the Tree of Life, they would have
eaten of its fruit and would have lived forever; but for the purpose
of preventing immortality God turned them out of the Garden of
Eden, and put certain angels with swords or sabres at the gate to
keep them from getting back. The Old Testament proves, if it proves
anything--which I do not think it does--that there is no life after
this; and the New Testament is not very specific on the subject.
There were a great many opportunities for the Saviour and his
apostles to tell us about another world, but they did not improve
them to any great extent; and the only evidence, so far as I know,
about another life is, first, that we have no evidence; and,
secondly, that we are rather sorry that we have not, and wish we
had. That is about my position.
_Question_. According to your observation of men, and your reading
in relation to the men and women of the world and of the church,
if there is another world divided according to orthodox principles
between the orthodox and heterodox, which of the two that are known
as heaven and hell would contain, in your judgment, the most good
society?
_Answer_. Since hanging has got to be a means of grace, I would
prefer hell. I had a thousand times rather associate with the
Pagan philosophers than with the inquisitors of the Middle Ages.
I certainly should prefer the worst man in Greek or Roman history
to John Calvin; and I can imagine no man in the world that I would
not rather sit on the same bench with than the Puritan fathers and
the founders of orthodox churches. I would trade off my harp any
minute for a seat in the other country. All the poets will be in
perdition, and the greatest thinkers, and, I should think, most of
the women whose society would tend to increase the happiness of
man; nearly all the painters, nearly all the sculptors, nearly all
the writers of plays, nearly all the great actors, most of the best
musicians, and nearly all the good fellows--the persons who know
stories, who can sing songs, or who will loan a friend a dollar.
They will mostly all be in that country, and if I did not live
there permanently, I certainly would want it so I could spend my
winter months there. But, after all, what I really want to do is
to destroy the idea of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts
all ideas of justice. That doctrine fills hell with honest men,
and heaven with intellectual and moral paupers. That doctrine
allows people to sin on credit. That doctrine allows the basest
to be eternally happy and the most honorable to suffer eternal
pain. I think of all doctrines it is the most infinitely infamous,
and would disgrace the lowest savage; and any man who believes it,
and has imagination enough to understand it, has the heart of a
serpent and the conscience of a hyena.
_Question_. Your objective point is to destroy the doctrine of
hell, is it?
_Answer_. Yes, because the destruction of that doctrine will do
away with all cant and all pretence. It will do away with all
religious bigotry and persecution. It will allow every man to
think and to express his thought. It will do away with bigotry in
all its slimy and offensive forms.
--_Chicago Tribune_, November 14, 1879.