_Question_. What do you think of the Methodist minister at Nashville,
Tenn., who, from his pulpit, denounced the theatrical profession,
without exception, as vicious, and of the congregation which passed
resolutions condemning Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and
contradicting him, and of the Methodist bishop who likened her to
a "painted courtesan," and invoked the aid of the law "for the
protection of public worship" against "strolling players"?
_Answer_. The Methodist minister of whom you speak, without doubt
uttered his real sentiments. The church has always regarded the
stage as a rival, and all its utterances have been as malicious as
untrue. It has always felt that the money given to the stage was
in some way taken from the pulpit. It is on this principle that
the pulpit wishes everything, except the church, shut up on Sunday.
It knows that it cannot stand free and open competition.
All well-educated ministers know that the Bible suffers by a
comparison with Shakespeare. They know that there is nothing within
the lids of what they call "the sacred book" that can for one moment
stand side by side with "Lear" or "Hamlet" or "Julius Caesar" or
"Antony and Cleopatra" or with any other play written by the immortal
man. They know what a poor figure the Davids and the Abrahams and
the Jeremiahs and the Lots, the Jonahs, the Jobs and the Noahs cut
when on the stage with the great characters of Shakespeare. For
these reasons, among others, the pulpit is malicious and hateful
when it thinks of the glories of the stage. What minister is there
now living who could command the prices commanded by Edwin Booth
or Joseph Jefferson; and what two clergymen, by making a combination,
could contend successfully with Robson and Crane? How many clergymen
would it take to command, at regular prices, the audiences that
attend the presentation of Wagner's operas?
It is very easy to see why the pulpit attacks the stage. Nothing
could have been in more wretched taste than for the minister to
condemn Miss Emma Abbott for rising in church and defending not
only herself, but other good women who are doing honest work for
an honest living. Of course, no minister wishes to be answered;
no minister wishes to have anyone in the congregation call for the
proof. A few questions would break up all the theology in the
world. Ministers can succeed only when congregations keep silent.
When superstition succeeds, doubt must be dumb.
The Methodist bishop who attacked Miss Abbott simply repeated the
language of several centuries ago. In the laws of England actors
were described as "sturdy vagrants," and this bishop calls them
"strolling players." If we only had some strolling preachers like
Garrick, like Edwin Forrest, or Booth or Barrett, or some crusade
sisters like Mrs. Siddons, Madam Ristori, Charlotte Cushman, or
Madam Modjeska, how fortunate the church would be!
_Question_. What is your opinion of the relative merits of the
pulpit and the stage, preachers and actors?
_Answer_. We must remember that the stage presents an ideal life.
It is a world controlled by the imagination--a world in which the
justice delayed in real life may be done, and in which that may
happen which, according to the highest ideal, should happen. It
is a world, for the most part, in which evil does not succeed, in
which the vicious are foiled, in which the right, the honest, the
sincere, and the good prevail. It cultivates the imagination, and
in this respect is far better than the pulpit. The mission of the
pulpit is to narrow and shrivel the human mind. The pulpit denounces
the freedom of thought and of expression; but on the stage the mind
is free, and for thousands of years the poor, the oppressed, the
enslaved, have been permitted to witness plays wherein the slave
was freed, wherein the oppressed became the victor, and where the
downtrodden rose supreme.
And there is another thing. The stage has always laughed at the
spirit of caste. The low-born lass has loved the prince. All
human distinctions in this ideal world have for the moment vanished,
while honesty and love have triumphed. The stage lightens the
cares of life. The pulpit increases the tears and groans of man.
There is this difference: The pretence of honesty and the honesty
of pretence.
_Question_. How do you view the Episcopalian scheme of building
a six-million-dollar untaxed cathedral in this city for the purpose
of "uniting the sects," and, when that is accomplished, "unifying
the world in the love of Christ," and thereby abolishing misery?
_Answer_. I regard the building of an Episcopal cathedral simply
as a piece of religious folly. The world will never be converted
by Christian palaces and temples. Every dollar used in its
construction will be wasted. It will have no tendency to unite
the various sects; on the contrary, it will excite the envy and
jealousy of every other sect. It will widen the gulf between the
Episcopalian and the Methodist, between the Episcopalian and the
Presbyterian, and this hatred will continue until the other sects
build a cathedral just a little larger, and then the envy and the
hatred will be on the other side.
Religion will never unify the world, and never will give peace to
mankind. There has been more war in the last eighteen hundred
years than during any similar period within historic times. War
will be abolished, if it ever is abolished, not by religion, but
by intelligence. It will be abolished when the poor people of
Germany, of France, of Spain, of England, and other countries find
that they have no interest in war. When those who pay, and those
who do the fighting, find that they are simply destroying their
own interests, wars will cease.
There ought to be a national court to decide national difficulties.
We consider a community civilized when the individuals of that
community submit their differences to a legal tribunal; but there
being no national court, nations now sustain, as to each other,
the relation of savages--that is to say, each one must defend its
rights by brute force. The establishment of a national court
civilizes nations, and tends to do away with war.
Christianity caused so much war, so much bloodshed, that Christians
were forced to interpolate a passage to account for their history,
and the interpolated passage is, "I came not to bring peace, but
a sword." Suppose that all the money wasted in cathedrals in the
Middle Ages had been used for the construction of schoolhouses,
academies, and universities, how much better the world would have
been! Suppose that instead of supporting hundreds of thousands of
idle priests, the money had been given to men of science, for the
purpose of finding out something of benefit to the human race here
in this world.
_Question_. What is your opinion of "Christian charity" and the
"fatherhood of God" as an economic polity for abolishing poverty
and misery?
_Answer_. Of course, the world is not to be civilized and clothed
and fed through charity. Ordinary charity creates more want than
it alleviates. The greatest possible charity is the greatest
possible justice. When proper wages are paid, when every one is
as willing to give what a thing is worth as he is now willing to
get it for less, the world will be fed and clothed.
I believe in helping people to help themselves. I believe that
corporations, and successful men, and superior men intellectually,
should do all within their power to keep from robbing their fellow-
men. The superior man should protect the inferior. The powerful
should be the shield of the weak. To-day it is, for the most part,
exactly the other way. The failures among men become the food of
success.
The world is to grow better and better through intelligence, through
a development of the brain, through taking advantage of the forces
of nature, through science, through chemistry, and through the
arts. Religion can do nothing except to sow the seeds of discord
between men and nations. Commerce, manufactures, and the arts tend
to peace and the well-being of the world. What is known as religion
--that is to say, a system by which this world is wasted in
preparation for another--a system in which the duties of men are
greater to God than to his fellow-men--a system that denies the
liberty of thought and expression--tends only to discord and
retrogression. Of course, I know that religious people cling to
the Bible on account of the good that is in it, and in spite of
the bad, and I know that Freethinkers throw away the Bible on
account of the bad that is in it, in spite of the good. I hope
the time will come when that book will be treated like other books,
and will be judged upon its merits, apart from the fiction of
inspiration. The church has no right to speak of charity, because
it is an object of charity itself. It gives nothing; all it can
do is to receive. At best, it is only a respectable beggar. I
never care to hear one who receives alms pay a tribute to charity.
The one who gives alms should pay this tribute. The amount of
money expended upon churches and priests and all the paraphernalia
of superstition, is more than enough to drive the wolves from the
doors of the world.
_Question_. Have you noticed the progress Catholics are making in
the Northwest, discontinuing public schools, and forcing people to
send their children to the parochial schools; also, at Pittsburg,
Pa., a Roman Catholic priest has been elected principal of a public
school, and he has appointed nuns as assistant teachers?
_Answer_. Sectarian schools ought not to be supported by public
taxation. It is the very essence of religious tyranny to compel
a Methodist to support a Catholic school, or to compel a Catholic
to support a Baptist academy. Nothing should be taught in the
public schools that the teachers do not know. Nothing should be
taught about any religion, and nothing should be taught that can,
in any way, be called sectarian. The sciences are not religion.
There is no such thing as Methodist mathematics, or Baptist botany.
In other words, no religion has anything to do with facts. The
facts are all secular; the sciences are all of this world. If
Catholics wish to establish their own schools for the purpose of
preserving their ignorance, they have the right to do so; so has
any other denomination. But in this country the State has no right
to teach any form of religion whatever. Persons of all religions
have the right to advocate and defend any religion in which they
believe, or they have the right to denounce all religions. If the
Catholics establish parochial schools, let them support such schools;
and if they do, they will simply lessen or shorten the longevity
of that particular superstition. It has often been said that
nothing will repeal a bad law as quickly as its enforcement. So,
in my judgment, nothing will destroy any church as certainly, and
as rapidly, as for the members of that church to live squarely up
to the creed. The church is indebted to its hypocrisy to-day for
its life. No orthodox church in the United States dare meet for
the purpose of revising the creed. They know that the whole thing
would fall to pieces.
Nothing could be more absurd than for a Roman Catholic priest to
teach a public school, assisted by nuns. The Catholic Church is
the enemy of human progress; it teaches every man to throw away
his reason, to deny his observation and experience.
_Question_. Your opinions have frequently been quoted with regard
to the Anarchists--with regard to their trial and execution. Have
you any objection to stating your real opinion in regard to the
matter?
_Answer_. Not in the least. I am perfectly willing that all
civilized people should know my opinions on any question in which
others than myself can have any interest.
I was anxious, in the first place, that the defendants should have
a fair and impartial trial. The worst form of anarchy is when a
judge violates his conscience and bows to a popular demand. A
court should care nothing for public opinion. An honest judge
decides the law, not as it ought to be, but as it is, and the state
of the public mind throws no light upon the question of what the
law then is.
I thought that some of the rulings on the trial of the Anarchists
were contrary to law. I think so still. I have read the opinion
of the Supreme Court of Illinois, and while the conclusion reached
by that tribunal is the law of that case, I was not satisfied with
the reasons given, and do not regard the opinion as good law.
There is no place for an Anarchist in the United States. There is
no excuse for any resort to force; and it is impossible to use
language too harsh or too bitter in denouncing the spirit of anarchy
in this country. But, no matter how bad a man is, he has the
right to be fairly tried; and if he cannot be fairly tried, then
there is anarchy on the bench. So I was opposed to the execution
of these men. I thought it would have been far better to commute
the punishment to imprisonment, and I said so; and I not only said
so, but I wrote a letter to Governor Oglesby, in which I urged the
commutation of the death sentence. In my judgment, a great mistake
was made. I am on the side of mercy, and if I ever make mistakes,
I hope they will all be made on that side. I have not the slightest
sympathy with the feeling of revenge. Neither have I ever admitted,
and I never shall, that every citizen has not the right to give
his opinion on all that may be done by any servant of the people,
by any judge, or by any court, by any officer--however small or
however great. Each man in the United States is a sovereign, and
a king can freely speak his mind.
Words were put in my mouth that I never uttered with regard to the
Anarchists. I never said that they were saints, or that they would
be martyrs. What I said was that they would be regarded as saints
and martyrs by many people if they were executed, and that has
happened which I said would happen. I am, so far as I know, on
the side of the right. I wish, above all things, for the preservation
of human liberty. This Government is the best, and we should not
lose confidence in liberty. Property is of very little value in
comparison with freedom. A civilization that rests on slavery is
utterly worthless. I do not believe in sacrificing all there is
of value in the human heart, or in the human brain, for the
preservation of what is called property, or rather, on account of
the fear that what is called "property" may perish. Property is
in no danger while man is free. It is the freedom of man that
gives value to property. It is the happiness of the human race
that creates what we call value. If we preserve liberty, the spirit
of progress, the conditions of development, property will take care
of itself.
_Question_. The Christian press during the past few months has
been very solicitous as to your health, and has reported you weak
and feeble physically, and not only so, but asserts that there is
a growing disposition on your part to lay down your arms, and even
to join the church.
_Answer_. I do not think the Christian press has been very solicitous
about my _health_. Neither do I think that my health will ever
add to theirs. The fact is, I am exceedingly well, and my throat
is better than it has been for many years. Any one who imagines
that I am disposed to lay down my arms can read by Reply to Dr.
Field in the November number of the _North American Review_. I
see no particular difference in myself, except this; that my hatred
of superstition becomes a little more and more intense; on the
other hand, I see more clearly, that all the superstitions were
naturally produced, and I am now satisfied that every man does as
he must, including priests and editors of religious papers.
This gives me hope for the future. We find that certain soil, with
a certain amount of moisture and heat, produces good corn, and we
find when the soil is poor, or when the ground is too wet, or too
dry, that no amount of care can, by any possibility, produce good
corn. In other words, we find that the fruit, that is to say, the
result, whatever it may be, depends absolutely upon the conditions.
This being so, we will in time find out the conditions that produce
good, intelligent, honest men. This is the hope for the future.
We shall know better than to rely on what is called reformation,
or regeneration, or a resolution born of ignorant excitement. We
shall rely, then, on the eternal foundation--the fact in nature--
that like causes produce like results, and that good conditions
will produce good people.
_Question_. Every now and then some one challenges you to a
discussion, and nearly every one who delivers lectures, or speeches,
attacking you, or your views, says that you are afraid publicly to
debate these questions. Why do you not meet these men, and why do
you not answer these attacks?
_Answer_. In the first place, it would be a physical impossibility
to reply to all the attacks that have been made--to all the "answers."
I receive these attacks, and these answers, and these lectures
almost every day. Hundreds of them are delivered every year. A
great many are put in pamphlet form, and, of course, copies are
received by me. Some of them I read, at least I look them over,
and I have never yet received one worthy of the slightest notice,
never one in which the writer showed the slightest appreciation of
the questions under discussion. All these pamphlets are about the
same, and they could, for the matter, have all been produced by
one person. They are impudent, shallow, abusive, illogical, and
in most respects, ignorant. So far as the lecturers are concerned,
I know of no one who has yet said anything that challenges a reply.
I do not think a single paragraph has been produced by any of the
gentlemen who have replied to me in public, that is now remembered
by reason of its logic or beauty. I do not feel called upon to
answer any argument that does not at least appear to be of value.
Whenever any article appears worthy of an answer, written in a kind
and candid spirit, it gives me pleasure to reply.
I should like to meet some one who speaks by authority, some one
who really understands his creed, but I cannot afford to waste time
on little priests or obscure parsons or ignorant laymen.
--_The Truth Seeker_, New York, January 14, 1888.