THE Rev. James M. King--who seems to have taken this occasion to become
known--finds fault because "blasphemous utterances concerning Christmas"
were published in the _Telegram_, and were allowed "to greet the eyes of
innocent children and pure women."
How is it possible to blaspheme a day? One day is not, in and of itself,
holier than another--that is to say, two equal spaces of time are
substantially alike. We call a day "good" or "bad" according to what
happens in the day. A day filled with happiness, with kind words, with
noble deeds, is a good day. A day filled with misfortunes and anger and
misery we call a bad day. But how is it possible to blaspheme a day?
A man may or may not believe that Christ was born on the 2 5th of
December, and yet he may fill that day, so far as he is concerned,
with good thoughts and words and deeds. Another may really believe
that Christ was born on that day, and yet do his worst to make all
his friends unhappy. But how can the rights of what are called "clean
families" be violated by reading the honest opinions of others as to
whether Christmas is kept in honor of the birth of Christ, or in honor
of the triumph of the sun over the hosts of darkness? Are Christian
families so weak intellectually that they cannot bear to hear the other
side? Or is their case so weak that the slightest evidence overthrows
it? Why do all these ministers insist that it is ill-bred to even raise
a question as to the truth of the improbable, or as to the improbability
of the impossible?
A minister says to me that I am going to hell--that I am bound to be
punished forever and ever--and thereupon I say to him: "There is no
hell you are mistaken; your Bible is not inspired; no human being is to
suffer agony forever;" and thereupon, with an injured look, he asks me
this question: "Why do you hurt my feelings?" It does not occur to him
that I have the slightest right to object to his sentence of eternal
grief.
Does the gentleman imagine that true men and pure women cannot differ
with him? There are many thousands of people who love and honor the
memory of Jesus Christ, who yet have not the slightest belief in his
divine origin, and who do not for one moment imagine that he was other
than a good and heroic man. And there are thousands of people who
admire the character of Jesus Christ who do not believe that he ever
existed--who admire the character of Christ as they admire Imogen, or
Per-dita, not believing that any of the characters mentioned actually
lived.
And it may be well enough here to state that no human being hates any
really good man or good woman--that is, no human being hates a man known
to be good--a woman known to be pure and good. No human being hates a
lovable character.
It is perfectly easy for any one with the slightest imagination to
understand how other people differ from him. I do not attribute a bad
motive to a man simply because he disagrees with me. I do not say that a
man is a Christian or a Mohammedan "for revenue only." I do not say that
a man joins the Democratic party simply for office, or that he marches
with the Republicans simply for position. I am willing to hear his
reasons--with his motives I have nothing to do.
Mr. King imagines that I have denounced Christianity "for revenue
only." Is he willing to admit that we have drifted so far from orthodox
religion that the way to make money is to denounce Christianity? I can
hardly believe, for joy, that liberty of thought has advanced so far.
I regret exceedingly that there is not an absolute foundation for his
remark. I am indeed sorry that it is possible in this world of ours for
any human being to make a living out of the ignorance and fear of his
fellow-men. Still, it gives me great hope for the future to read, even
in this ignorant present, that there is one man, and that man myself,
who advocates human liberty--the absolute enfranchisement of the
soul--and does it "for revenue"--because this charge is such a splendid
compliment to my fellow-men.
Possibly the remark of the Rev. Mr. King will be gratifying to the
_Telegram_ and will satisfy that brave and progressive sheet that it is
in harmony with the intelligence of the age.
My opinion is that the _Telegram_ will receive the praise of enlightened
and generous people.
Personally I judge a man not so much by his theories as by his practice,
and I would much rather meet on the desert--were I about to perish for
want of water--a Mohammedan who would give me a drink than a Christian
who would not; because, after all is said and done, we are compelled to
judge people by their actions.
I do not know what takes place in the invisible world called the brain,
inhabited by the invisible something we call the mind. All that takes
place there is invisible and soundless. This mind, hidden in this brain,
masked by flesh, remains forever unseen, and the only evidence we
can possibly have as to what occurs in that world, we obtain from the
actions of the man, of the woman. By these actions we judge of the
character, of the soul. So I make up my mind as to whether a man is good
or bad, not by his theories, but by his actions.
Under no circumstances can the expression of an honest opinion, couched
in becoming language, amount to blasphemy. And right here it may be well
enough to inquire: What is blasphemy?
A man who knowingly assaults the true, who knowingly endeavors to stain
the pure, who knowingly maligns the good and noble, is a blasphemer. A
man who deserts the truth because it is unpopular is a blasphemer. He
who runs with the hounds knowing that the hare is in the right is a
blasphemer.
In the soul of every man, or in the temple inhabited by the soul, there
is one niche in which can be found the statue of the ideal. In
the presence of this statue the good man worships--the bad man
blasphemes--that is to say, he is not true to the ideal.
A man who slanders a pure woman or an honest man is a blasphemer. So,
too, a man who does not give the honest transcript of his mind is
a blasphemer. If a man really thinks the character of Jehovah, as
portrayed in the Old Testament, is good, and he denounces Jehovah as
bad, he is a blasphemer. If he really believes that the character of
Jehovah, as portrayed in the Old Testament, is bad, and he pronounces it
good, he is a blasphemer and a coward.
All laws against "blasphemy" have been passed by the numerically strong
and intellectually weak. These laws have been passed by those who,
finding no help in logic, appealed to the legislature.
Back of all these superstitions you will find some self-interest. I do
not say that this is true in every case, but I do say that if priests
had not been fond of mutton, lambs never would have been sacrificed to
God. Nothing was ever carried to the temple that the priest could not
use, and it always so happened that God wanted what his agents liked.
Now, I will not say that all priests have been priests "for revenue
only," but I must say that the history of the world tends to show that
the sacerdotal class prefer revenue without religion to religion without
revenue.
I am much obliged to the Rev. Mr. King for admitting that an infidel
has a right to publish his views at his own expense, and with the utmost
cheerfulness I accord that right to a Christian. The only thing I have
ever objected to is the publication of his views at the expense of
others.
I cannot admit, however, that the ideas contained in what is known as
the Christmas Sermon are "revolting to a vast majority of the people who
give character to the community in which we live." I suppose that a
very large majority of men and women who disagree with me are perfectly
satisfied that I have the right to disagree with them, and that I do not
disagree with them to any greater degree than they disagree with me.
And I also imagine that a very large majority of intelligent people are
perfectly willing to hear the other side.
I do not regard religious opinions or political opinions as exotics that
have to be kept under glass, protected from the frosts of common sense
or the tyrannous north wind of logic. Such plants are hardly worth
preserving. They certainly ought to be hardy enough to stand the climate
of free discussion, and if they cannot, the sooner they die the better.
I do not think there was anything blasphemous or impure in the words
published by, the _Telegram_. The most that can possibly be said against
them, calculated to excite the prejudice of Christians, is that they
were true--that they cannot be answered except by abuse.
It is not possible, in this day and generation, to stay the rising flood
of intellectual freedom by keeping the names of thinkers out of print.
The church has had the field for eighteen hundred years. For most
of this time it has held the sword and purse of the world. For many
centuries it controlled colleges and universities and schools. It had
within its gift wealth and honor. It held the keys, so far as this world
is concerned, of heaven and hell--that is to say, of prosperity and
misfortune. It pursued its enemies even to the grave. It reddened the
scaffold with the best blood, and kept the sword of persecution wet
for many centuries. Thousands and thousands have died in its dungeons.
Millions of reputations have been blasted by its slanders. It has made
millions of widows and orphans, and it has not only ruled this world,
but it has pretended to hold the keys of eternity, and under this
pretence it has sentenced countless millions to eternal flames.
At last the spirit of independence rose against its monstrous
assumptions. It has been growing some-what weaker. It has been for many
years gradually losing its power. The sword of the state belongs now
to the people. The partnership between altar and throne has in many
countries been dissolved. The adulterous marriage of church and state
has ceased to exist. Men are beginning to express their honest thoughts.
In the arena where speech is free, superstition is driven to the wall.
Man relies more and more on the facts in nature, and the real priest is
the interpreter of nature. The pulpit is losing its power. In a little
while religion will take its place with astrology, with the black art,
and its ministers will take rank with magicians and sleight-of-hand
performers.
With regard to the letter of the Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., I have but
little to say.
I am glad that he believes in a free platform and a free press--that he,
like Lucretia Mott, believes in "truth for authority, and not authority
for truth." At the same time I do not see how the fact that I am not a
scientist has the slightest bearing upon the question; but if there is
any fact that I have avoided or misstated, then I wish that fact to be
pointed out. I admit also, that I am a "sentimentalist"--that is, that I
am governed, to a certain extent, by sentiment--that my mind is so that
cruelty is revolting and that mercy excites my love and admiration. I
admit that I am so much of "a sentimentalist" that I have no love for
the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and that it is impossible for me
to believe a creed that fills the prison house of hell with countless
billions of men, women and children.
I am also glad that the reverend gentleman admits that I have "stabbed
to the heart hundreds of superstitions and lies," and I hope to stab
many, many more, and if I succeed in stabbing all lies to the
heart there will be no foundation left for what I called "orthodox"
Christianity--but goodness will survive, justice will live, and the
flower of mercy will shed its perfume forever.
When we take into consideration the fact that the Rev. Mr. Dixon is a
minister and believes that he is called upon to deliver to the people a
divine message, I do not wonder that he makes the following assertion:
"If God could choose Balaam's ass to speak a divine message, I do not
see why he could not utilize the Colonel." It is natural for a man to
justify himself and to defend his own occupation. Mr. Dixon, however,
will remember that the ass was much superior to the prophet of God, and
that the argument was all on the side of the ass. And, furthermore, that
the spiritual discernment of the ass far exceeded that of the prophet.
It was the ass who saw the angel when the prophet's eye was dim. I
suggest to the Rev. Mr. Dixon that he read the account once more, and he
will find:--
_First_, that the ass _first_ saw the angel of the Lord; _second_, that
the prophet Balaam was cruel, unreasonable, and brutal; _third_, that
the prophet so lost his temper that he wanted to kill the innocent
ass, and the ass, not losing her temper, reasoned with the prophet and
demonstrated not only her intellectual but her moral superiority. In
addition to all this the angel of the Lord had to open the eyes of the
prophet--in other words, had to work a miracle--in order to make the
prophet equal to the ass, and not only so, but rebuked him for his
cruelty. And this same angel admitted that without any miracle whatever
the ass saw him--the angel--showing that the spiritual discernment of
the ass in those days was far superior to that of the prophet.
I regret that the Rev. Mr. King loses his temper and that the Rev. Mr.
Dixon is not quite polite.
All of us should remember that passion clouds the judgment, and that he
who seeks for victory loses sight of the cause.
And there is another thing: He who has absolute confidence in the
justice of his position can afford to be good-natured. Strength is the
foundation of kindness; weakness is often malignant, and when argument
fails passion comes to the rescue.
Let us be good-natured. Let us have respect for the rights of each
other.
The course pursued by the _Telegram_ is worthy of all praise. It has not
only been just to both sides, but it has been--as is its custom--true to
the public.
Robert G. Ingersoll.