_Question_. Shall you attend the Albany Freethought Convention?
_Answer_. I have agreed to be present not only, but to address
the convention, on Sunday, the 13th of September. I am greatly
gratified to know that the interest in the question of intellectual
liberty is growing from year to year. Everywhere I go it seems to
be the topic of conversation. No matter upon what subject people
begin to talk, in a little while the discussion takes a religious
turn, and people who a few moments before had not the slightest
thought of saying a word about the churches, or about the Bible,
are giving their opinions in full. I hear discussions of this kind
in all the public conveyances, at the hotels, on the piazzas at
the seaside--and they are not discussions in which I take any part,
because I rarely say anything upon these questions except in public,
unless I am directly addressed.
There is a general feeling that the church has ruled the world long
enough. People are beginning to see that no amount of eloquence,
or faith, or erudition, or authority, can make the records of
barbarism satisfactory to the heart and brain of this century.
They have also found that a falsehood in Hebrew in no more credible
than in plain English. People at last are beginning to be satisfied
that cruel laws were never good laws, no matter whether inspired
or uninspired. The Christian religion, like every other religion
depending upon inspired writings, is wrecked upon the facts of
nature. So long as inspired writers confined themselves to the
supernatural world; so long as they talked about angels and Gods
and heavens and hells; so long as they described only things that
man has never seen, and never will see, they were safe, not from
contradiction, but from demonstration. But these writings had to
have a foundation, even for their falsehoods, and that foundation
was in Nature. The foundation had to be something about which
somebody knew something, or supposed they knew something. They
told something about this world that agreed with the then general
opinion. Had these inspired writers told the truth about Nature--
had they said that the world revolved on its axis, and made a
circuit about the sun--they could have gained no credence for their
statements about other worlds. They were forced to agree with
their contemporaries about this world, and there is where they made
the fundamental mistake. Having grown in knowledge, the world has
discovered that these inspired men knew nothing about this earth;
that the inspired books are filled with mistakes--not only mistakes
that we can contradict, but mistakes that we can demonstrate to be
mistakes. Had they told the truth in their day, about this earth,
they would not have been believed about other worlds, because their
contemporaries would have used their own knowledge about this world
to test the knowledge of these inspired men. We pursue the same
course; and what we know about this world we use as the standard,
and by that standard we have found that the inspired men knew
nothing about Nature as it is. Finding that they were mistaken
about this world, we have no confidence in what they have said
about another. Every religion has had its philosophy about this
world, and every one has been mistaken. As education becomes
general, as scientific modes are adopted, this will become clearer
and clearer, until "ignorant as inspiration" will be a comparison.
_Question_. Have you seen the memorial to the New York Legislature,
to be presented this winter, asking for the repeal of such laws as
practically unite church and state?
_Answer_. I have seen a memorial asking that church property be
taxed like other property; that no more money should be appropriated
from the public treasury for the support of institutions managed
by and in the interest of sectarian denominations; for the repeal
of all laws compelling the observance of Sunday as a religious day.
Such memorials ought to be addressed to the Legislatures of all
the States. The money of the public should only be used for the
benefit of the public. Public money should not be used for what
a few gentlemen think is for the benefit of the public. Personally,
I think it would be for the benefit of the public to have Infidel
or scientific--which is the same thing--lectures delivered in every
town, in every State, on every Sunday; but knowing that a great
many men disagree with me on this point, I do not claim that such
lectures ought to be paid for with public money. The Methodist
Church ought not to be sustained by taxation, nor the Catholic,
nor any other church. To relieve their property from taxation is
to appropriate money, to the extent of that tax, for the support
of that church. Whenever a burden is lifted from one piece of
property, it is distributed over the rest of the property of the
State, and to release one kind of property is to increase the tax
on all other kinds.
There was a time when people really supposed the churches were
saving souls from the eternal wrath of a God of infinite love.
Being engaged in such a philanthropic work, and at the time nobody
having the courage to deny it--the church being all-powerful--all
other property was taxed to support the church; but now the more
civilized part of the community, being satisfied that a God of
infinite love will not be eternally unjust, feel as though the
church should support herself. To exempt the church from taxation
is to pay a part of the priest's salary. The Catholic now objects
to being taxed to support a school in which his religion is not
taught. He is not satisfied with the school that says nothing on
the subject of religion. He insists that it is an outrage to tax
him to support a school where the teacher simply teaches what he
knows. And yet this same Catholic wants his church exempted from
taxation, and the tax of an Atheist or of a Jew increased, when he
teaches in his untaxed church that the Atheist and Jew will both
be eternally damned! Is it possible for impudence to go further?
I insist that no religion should be taught in any school supported
by public money; and by religion I mean superstition. Only that
should be taught in a school that somebody can learn and that
somebody can know. In my judgment, every church should be taxed
precisely the same as other property. The church may claim that
it is one of the instruments of civilization and therefore should
be exempt. If you exempt that which is useful, you exempt every
trade and every profession. In my judgment, theatres have done
more to civilize mankind than churches; that is to say, theatres
have done something to civilize mankind--churches nothing. The
effect of all superstition has been to render men barbarous. I do
not believe in the civilizing effects of falsehood.
There was a time when ministers were supposed to be in the employ
of God, and it was thought that God selected them with great care
--that their profession had something sacred about it. These ideas
are no longer entertained by sensible people. Ministers should be
paid like other professional men, and those who like their preaching
should pay for the preach. They should depend, as actors do, upon
their popularity, upon the amount of sense, or nonsense, that they
have for sale. They should depend upon the market like other
people, and if people do not want to hear sermons badly enough to
build churches and pay for them, and pay the taxes on them, and
hire the preacher, let the money be diverted to some other use.
The pulpit should no longer be a pauper. I do not believe in
carrying on any business with the contribution box. All the
sectarian institutions ought to support themselves. These should
be no Methodist or Catholic or Presbyterian hospitals or orphan
asylums. All these should be supported by the State. There is no
such thing as Catholic charity, or Methodist charity. Charity
belongs to humanity, not to any particular form of faith or religion.
You will find as charitable people who never heard of religion, as
you can find in the church. The State should provide for those
who ought to be provided for. A few Methodists beg of everybody
they meet--send women with subscription papers, asking money from
all classes of people, and nearly everybody gives something from
politeness, or to keep from being annoyed; and when the institution
is finished, it is pointed at as the result of Methodism.
Probably a majority of the people in this country suppose that
there was no charity in the world until the Christian religion was
founded. Great men have repeated this falsehood, until ignorance
and thoughtlessness believe it. There were orphan asylums in China,
in India, and in Egypt thousands of years before Christ was born;
and there certainly never was a time in the history of the whole
world when there was less charity in Europe than during the centuries
when the Church of Christ had absolute power. There were hundreds
of Mohammedan asylums before Christianity had built ten in the
entire world.
All institutions for the care of unfortunate people should be
secular--should be supported by the State. The money for the
purpose should be raised by taxation, to the end that the burden
may be borne by those able to bear it. As it is now, most of the
money is paid, not by the rich, but by the generous, and those most
able to help their needy fellow citizens are the very ones who do
nothing. If the money is raised by taxation, then the burden will
fall where it ought to fall, and these institutions will no longer
be supported by the generous and emotional, and the rich and stingy
will no longer be able to evade the duties of citizenship and of
humanity.
Now, as to the Sunday laws, we know that they are only spasmodically
enforced. Now and then a few people are arrested for selling papers
or cigars. Some unfortunate barber is grabbed by a policeman
because he has been caught shaving a Christian, Sunday morning.
Now and then some poor fellow with a hack, trying to make a dollar
or two to feed his horses, or to take care of his wife and children,
is arrested as though he were a murderer. But in a few days the
public are inconvenienced to that degree that the arrests stop and
business goes on in its accustomed channels, Sunday and all.
Now and then society becomes so pious, so virtuous, that people
are compelled to enter saloons by the back door; others are compelled
to drink beer with the front shutters up; but otherwise the stream
that goes down the thirsty throats is unbroken. The ministers have
done their best to prevent all recreation on the Sabbath. They
would like to stop all the boats on the Hudson, and on the sea--
stop all the excursion trains. They would like to compel every
human being that lives in the city of New York to remain within
its limits twenty-four hours every Sunday. They hate the parks;
they hate music; they hate anything that keeps a man away from
church. Most of the churches are empty during the summer, and now
most of the ministers leave themselves, and give over the entire
city to the Devil and his emissaries. And yet if the ministers had
their way, there would be no form of human enjoyment except prayer,
signing subscription papers, putting money in contribution boxes,
listening to sermons, reading the cheerful histories of the Old
Testament, imagining the joys of heaven and the torments of hell.
The church is opposed to the theatre, is the enemy of the opera,
looks upon dancing as a crime, hates billiards, despises cards,
opposes roller-skating, and even entertains a certain kind of
prejudice against croquet.
_Question_. Do you think that the orthodox church gets its ideas
of the Sabbath from the teachings of Christ?
_Answer_. I do not hold Christ responsible for these idiotic ideas
concerning the Sabbath. He regarded the Sabbath as something made
for man--which was a very sensible view. The holiest day is the
happiest day. The most sacred day is the one in which have been
done the most good deeds. There are two reasons given in the Bible
for keeping the Sabbath. One is that God made the world in six
days, and rested on the seventh. Now that all the ministers admit
that he did not make the world in six days, but that he made it in
six "periods," this reason is no longer applicable. The other
reason is that he brought the Jews out of Egypt with a "mighty
hand." This may be a very good reason still for the observance of
the Sabbath by the Jews, but the real Sabbath, that is to say, the
day to be commemorated, is our Saturday, and why should we commemorate
the wrong day? That disposes of the second reason.
Nothing can be more inconsistent than the theories and practice of
the churches about the Sabbath. The cars run Sundays, and out of
the profits hundreds of ministers are supported. The great iron
and steel works fill with smoke and fire the Sabbath air, and the
proprietors divide the profits with the churches. The printers of
the city are busy Sunday afternoons and evenings, and the presses
during the nights, so that the sermons of Sunday can reach the
heathen on Monday. The servants of the rich are denied the privileges
of the sanctuary. The coachman sits on the box out-doors, while
his employer kneels in church preparing himself for the heavenly
chariot. The iceman goes about on the holy day, keeping believers
cool, they knowing at the same time that he is making it hot for
himself in the world to come. Christians cross the Atlantic,
knowing that the ship will pursue its way on the Sabbath. They
write letters to their friends knowing that they will be carried
in violation of Jehovah's law, by wicked men. Yet they hate to
see a pale-faced sewing girl enjoying a few hours by the sea; a
poor mechanic walking in the fields; or a tired mother watching
her children playing on the grass. Nothing ever was, nothing ever
will be, more utterly absurd and disgusting than a Puritan Sunday.
Nothing ever did make a home more hateful than the strict observance
of the Sabbath. It fills the house with hypocrisy and the meanest
kind of petty tyranny. The parents look sour and stern, the children
sad and sulky. They are compelled to talk upon subjects about
which they feel no interest, or to read books that are thought good
only because they are so stupid.
_Question_. What have you to say about the growth of Catholicism,
the activity of the Salvation Army, and the success of revivalists
like the Rev. Samuel Jones? Is Christianity really gaining a strong
hold on the masses?
_Answer_. Catholicism is growing in this country, and it is the
only country on earth in which it is growing. Its growth here
depends entirely upon immigration, not upon intellectual conquest.
Catholic emigrants who leave their homes in the Old World because
they have never had any liberty, and who are Catholics for the same
reason, add to the number of Catholics here, but their children's
children will not be Catholics. Their children will not be very
good Catholics, and even these immigrants themselves, in a few
years, will not grovel quite so low in the presence of a priest.
The Catholic Church is gaining no ground in Catholic countries.
The Salvation Army is the result of two things--the general belief
in what are known as the fundamentals of Christianity, and the
heartlessness of the church. The church in England--that is to
say, the Church of England--having succeeded--that is to say, being
supported by general taxation--that is to say, being a successful,
well-fed parasite--naturally neglected those who did not in any
way contribute to its support. It became aristocratic. Splendid
churches were built; younger sons with good voices were put in the
pulpits; the pulpit became the asylum for aristocratic mediocrity,
and in this way the Church of England lost interest in the masses
and the masses lost interest in the Church of England. The neglected
poor, who really had some belief in religion, and who had not been
absolutely petrified by form and patronage, were ready for the
Salvation Army. They were not at home in the church. They could
not pay. They preferred the freedom of the street. They preferred
to attend a church where rags were no objection. Had the church
loved and labored with the poor the Salvation Army never would have
existed. These people are simply giving their idea of Christianity,
and in their way endeavoring to do what they consider good. I
don't suppose the Salvation Army will accomplish much. To improve
mankind you must change conditions. It is not enough to work simply
upon the emotional nature. The surroundings must be such as
naturally produce virtuous actions. If we are to believe recent
reports from London, the Church of England, even with the assistance
of the Salvation Army, has accomplished but little. It would be
hard to find any country with less morality. You would search long
in the jungles of Africa to find greater depravity.
I account for revivalists like the Rev. Samuel Jones in the same
way. There is in every community an ignorant class--what you might
call a literal class--who believe in the real blood atonement; who
believe in heaven and hell, and harps and gridirons; who have never
had their faith weakened by reading commentators or books harmonizing
science and religion. They love to hear the good old doctrine;
they want hell described; they want it described so that they can
hear the moans and shrieks; they want heaven described; they want
to see God on a throne, and they want to feel that they are finally
to have the pleasure of looking over the battlements of heaven and
seeing all their enemies among the damned. The Rev. Mr. Munger
has suddenly become a revivalist. According to the papers he is
sought for in every direction. His popularity seems to rest upon
the fact that he brutally beat a girl twelve years old because she
did not say her prayers to suit him. Muscular Christianity is what
the ignorant people want. I regard all these efforts--including
those made by Mr. Moody and Mr. Hammond--as evidence that Christianity,
as an intellectual factor, has almost spent its force. It no longer
governs the intellectual world.
_Question_. Are not the Catholics the least progressive? And are
they not, in spite of their professions to the contrary, enemies
to republican liberty?
_Answer_. Every church that has a standard higher than human
welfare is dangerous. A church that puts a book above the laws
and constitution of its country, that puts a book above the welfare
of mankind, is dangerous to human liberty. Every church that puts
itself above the legally expressed will of the people is dangerous.
Every church that holds itself under greater obligation to a pope
than to a people is dangerous to human liberty. Every church that
puts religion above humanity--above the well-being of man in this
world--is dangerous. The Catholic Church may be more dangerous,
not because its doctrines are more dangerous, but because, on the
average, its members more sincerely believe its doctrines, and
because that church can be hurled as a solid body in any given
direction. For these reasons it is more dangerous than other
churches; but the doctrines are no more dangerous than those of
the Protestant churches. The man who would sacrifice the well-
being of man to please an imaginary phantom that he calls God, is
also dangerous. The only safe standard is the well-being of man
in this world. Whenever this world is sacrificed for the sake of
another, a mistake has been made. The only God that man can know
is the aggregate of all beings capable of suffering and of joy
within the reach of his influence. To increase the happiness of
such beings is to worship the only God that man can know.
_Question_. What have you to say to the assertion of Dr. Deems
that there were never so many Christians as now?
_Answer_. I suppose that the population of the earth is greater
now than at any other time within the historic period. This being
so, there may be more Christians, so-called, in this world than
there were a hundred years ago. Of course, the reverend doctor,
in making up his aggregate of Christians, counts all kinds and
sects--Unitarians, Universalists, and all the other "ans" and "ists"
and "ics" and "ites" and "ers." But Dr. Deems must admit that only
a few years ago most of the persons he now calls Christians would
have been burnt as heretics and Infidels. Let us compare the
average New York Christian with the Christian of two hundred years
ago. It is probably safe to say that there is not now in the city
of New York a genuine Presbyterian outside of an insane asylum.
Probably no one could be found who will to-day admit that he believes
absolutely in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. There is
probably not an Episcopalian who believes in the Thirty-nine
Articles. Probably there is not an intelligent minister in the
city of New York, outside of the Catholic Church, who believes that
everything in the Bible is true. Probably no clergyman, of any
standing, would be willing to take the ground that everything in
the Old Testament--leaving out the question of inspiration--is
actually true. Very few ministers now preach the doctrine of
eternal punishment. Most of them would be ashamed to utter that
brutal falsehood. A large majority of gentlemen who attend church
take the liberty of disagreeing with the preacher. They would have
been very poor Christians two hundred years ago. A majority of
the ministers take the liberty of disagreeing, in many things, with
their Presbyteries and Synods. They would have been very poor
preachers two hundred years ago. Dr. Deems forgets that most
Christians are only nominally so. Very few believe their creeds.
Very few even try to live in accordance with what they call Christian
doctrines. Nobody loves his enemies. No Christian when smitten
on one cheek turns the other. Most Christians do take a little
thought for the morrow. They do not depend entirely upon the
providence of God. Most Christians now have greater confidence in
the average life-insurance company than in God--feel easier when
dying to know that they have a policy, through which they expect
the widow will receive ten thousand dollars, than when thinking of
all the Scripture promises. Even church-members do not trust in
God to protect their own property. They insult heaven by putting
lightning rods on their temples. They insure the churches against
the act of God. The experience of man has shown the wisdom of
relying on something that we know something about, instead of upon
the shadowy supernatural. The poor wretches to-day in Spain,
depending upon their priests, die like poisoned flies; die with
prayers between their pallid lips; die in their filth and faith.
_Question_. What have you to say on the Mormon question?
_Answer_. The institution of polygamy is infamous and disgusting
beyond expression. It destroys what we call, and all civilized
people call, "the family." It pollutes the fireside, and, above
all, as Burns would say, "petrifies the feeling." It is, however,
one of the institutions of Jehovah. It is protected by the Bible.
It has inspiration on its side. Sinai, with its barren, granite
peaks, is a perpetual witness in its favor. The beloved of God
practiced it, and, according to the sacred word, the wisest man
had, I believe, about seven hundred wives. This man received his
wisdom directly from God. It is hard for the average Bible worshiper
to attack this institution without casting a certain stain upon
his own book.
Only a few years ago slavery was upheld by the same Bible. Slavery
having been abolished, the passages in the inspired volume upholding
it have been mostly forgotten, but polygamy lives, and the polygamists,
with great volubility, repeat the passages in their favor. We send
our missionaries to Utah, with their Bibles, to convert the Mormons.
The Mormons show, by these very Bibles, that God is on their side.
Nothing remain now for the missionaries except to get back their
Bibles and come home. The preachers do not appeal to the Bible
for the purpose of putting down Mormonism. They say: "Send the
army." If the people of this country could only be honest; if they
would only admit that the Old Testament is but the record of a
barbarous people; if the Samson of the nineteenth century would
not allow its limbs to be bound by the Delilah of superstition, it
could with one blow destroy this monster. What shall we say of
the moral force of Christianity, when it utterly fails in the
presence of Mormonism? What shall we say of a Bible that we dare
not read to a Mormon as an argument against legalized lust, or as
an argument against illegal lust?
I am opposed to polygamy. I want it exterminated by law; but I
hate to see the exterminators insist that God, only a few thousand
years ago, was as bad as the Mormons are to-day. In my judgment,
such a God ought to be exterminated.
_Question_. What do you think of men like the Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher and the Rev. R. Heber Newton? Do they deserve any credit
for the course they have taken?
_Answer_. Mr. Beecher is evidently endeavoring to shore up the
walls of the falling temple. He sees the cracks; he knows that
the building is out of plumb; he feels that the foundation is
insecure. Lies can take the place of stones only so long as they
are thoroughly believed. Mr. Beecher is trying to do something to
harmonize superstition and science. He is reading between the
lines. He has discovered that Darwin is only a later Saint Paul,
or that Saint Paul was the original Darwin. He is endeavoring to
make the New Testament a scientific text-book. Of course he will
fail. But his intentions are good. Thousands of people will read
the New Testament with more freedom than heretofore. They will
look for new meanings; and he who looks for new meanings will not
be satisfied with the old ones. Mr. Beecher, instead of strengthening
the walls, will make them weaker.
There is no harmony between religion and science. When science
was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now
that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its
dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: "Let us
be friends." It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make
with the horse: "Let us agree not to step on each other's feet."
Mr. Beecher, having done away with hell, substitutes annihilation.
His doctrine at present is that only a fortunate few are immortal,
and that the great mass return to dreamless dust. This, of course,
is far better than hell, and is a great improvement on the orthodox
view. Mr. Beecher cannot believe that God would make such a mistake
as to make men doomed to suffer eternal pain. Why, I ask, should
God give life to men whom he knows are unworthy of life? Why should
he annihilate his mistakes? Why should he make mistakes that need
annihilation?
It can hardly be said that Mr. Beecher's idea is a new one. It
was taught, with an addition, thousands of years ago, in India,
and the addition almost answers my objection. The old doctrine
was that only the soul that bears fruit, only the soul that bursts
into blossom, will at the death of the body rejoin the Infinite,
and that all other souls--souls not having blossomed--will go back
into low forms and make the journey up to man once more, and should
they then blossom and bear fruit, will be held worthy to join the
Infinite, but should they again fail, they again go back; and this
process is repeated until they do blossom, and in this way all
souls at last become perfect. I suggest that Mr. Beecher make at
least this addition to his doctrine.
But allow me to say that, in my judgment, Mr. Beecher is doing
great good. He may not convince many people that he is right, but
he will certainly convince a great many people that Christianity
is wrong.
_Question_. In what estimation do you hold Charles Watts and Samuel
Putnam, and what do you think of their labors in the cause of
Freethought?
_Answer_. Mr. Watts is an extremely logical man, with a direct
and straightforward manner and mind. He has paid great attention
to what is called "Secularism." He thoroughly understands
organization, and he is undoubtedly one of the strongest debaters
in the field. He has had great experience. He has demolished more
divines than any man of my acquaintance. I have read several of
his debates. In discussion he is quick, pertinent, logical, and,
above all, good natured.
There is not in all he says a touch of malice. He can afford to
be generous to his antagonists, because he is always the victor,
and is always sure of the victory. Last winter wherever I went,
I heard the most favorable accounts of Mr. Watts. All who heard
him were delighted.
Mr. Putnam is one of the most thorough believers in intellectual
liberty in the world. He believes with all his heart, is full of
enthusiasm, ready to make any sacrifice, and to endure any hardship.
Had he lived a few years ago, he would have been a martyr. He has
written some of the most stirring appeals to the Liberals of this
country that I have ever read. He believes that Freethought has
a future; that the time is coming when the superstitions of the
world will either be forgotten, or remembered--some of them with
smiles--most of them with tears. Mr. Putnam, although endowed with
a poetic nature, with poetic insight, clings to the known, builds
upon the experience of man, and believes in fancies only when they
are used as the wings of a fact. I have never met a man who appeared
to be more thoroughly devoted to the great cause of mental freedom.
I have read his books with great interest, and find in them many
pages filled with philosophy and pathos. I have met him often and
I never heard him utter a harsh word about any human being. His
good nature is as unfailing as the air. His abilities are of the
highest order. It is a positive pleasure to meet him. He is so
enthusiastic, so unselfish, so natural, so appreciative of others,
so thoughtful for the cause, and so careless of himself, that he
compels the admiration of every one who really loves the just and
true.
--_The Truth Seeker_, New York, September 5, 1885.