{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_35539/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_35539","id":"gutenberg_35539","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35539","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought"],"text":"\n\n\n\n\n Is The Bible Worth Reading\n\n And Other Essays\n\n By\n\n Lemuel K. Washburn\n\n New York\n\n The Truth Seeker Company\n\n 1911\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nDedication\nIs The Bible Worth Reading\nSacrifice\nThe Drama Of Life\nNature In June\nThe Infinite Purpose\nFreethought Commands\nA Rainbow Religion\nA Cruel God\nWhat Is Jesus\nDeeds Better Than Professions\nGive Us The Truth\nThe American Sunday\nLord And Master\nAre Christians Intelligent Or Honest\nThe Danger Of The Ballot\nWho Carried The Cross\nModern Disciples Of Jesus\nA Poor Excuse\nProfession And Practice\nWhere Is Truth\nWhat Does It Prove\nHuman Responsibility\nAbolish Dirt\nReligion And Morality\nJesus As A Model\nSinging Lies\nA Walk Through A Cemetery\nPeace With God\nSaving The Soul\nThe Search For Something To Worship\nWhere Are They\nSome Questions For Christians To Answer\nThe Image Of God\nReligion And Science\nThe Bible And The Child\nWhen To Help The World\nThe Judgment Of God\nChristianity And Freethought\nThe Brotherhood And Freedom Of Man\nWhatever Is Is Right\nThe Object Of Life\nMan\nThe Dogma Of The Divine Man\nThe Rich Man\u2019s Gospel\nSpeak Well Of One Another\nDisgraceful Partnerships\nScience And Theology\nUnequal Remuneration\nThe Old And The New\nGuard The Ear\nThe Character Of God\nNot Important\nOaths\nDead Words\nConfession Of Sin\nDeath\u2019s Philanthropy\nOur Attitude Towards Nature\nReverence For Motherhood\nThe God Of The Bible\nThe Measure Of Suffering\nNature\nCreeds\nDon\u2019t Try To Stop The Sun Shining\nFollow Me\nCan We Never Get Along Without Servants?\nA Heavenly Father\nWorship Not Needed\nWas Jesus A Good Man\nHow To Help Mankind\nOn The Cross\nEqual Moral Standards\nAuthority\nA Clean Sabbath\nHuman Integrity\nIs It True\nKeep The Children At Home\nTeacher And Preacher\nFear Of Doubts\nBible-Backing\nBeggars\nHabits\nCan Poverty Be Abolished\nThe Roman Catholic God\nHuman Cruelty\nInfidelity\nAtheism\nChristian Happiness\nWhat God Knows\nThe Meaning Of The Word God\nWhat Has Jesus Done For The World\nThe Agnostic\u2019s Position\nOrthodoxy\nIdeas Of Jesus\nThe Silence Of Jesus\nDoes The Church Save\nSave The Republic\nA Woman\u2019s Religion\nThe Sacrifice Of Jesus\nFashionable Hypocrisy\nThe Saturday Half-Holiday\nThe Motive For Preaching\nThe Christian\u2019s God\nIndifference To Religion\nSunday Schools\nGoing To Church\nWho Is The Greatest Living Man\n\n\n\n\n\n\n [Illustration.]\n\n Lemuel K. Washburn\n\n\n\n\n\nDEDICATION\n\n\nThe writer of this book dedicates it to all men and women of common\nhonesty and common sense.\n\n\n\n\n\nIS THE BIBLE WORTH READING\n\n\nThat depends. If a man is going to get his living by standing in a\nChristian pulpit, I should be obliged to answer, Yes! But if he is going\nto follow any other calling, or work at any trade, I should have to\nanswer, No! There is absolutely no information in the Bible that man can\nmake any use of as he goes through life. The Bible is not a book of\nknowledge. It does not give instruction in any of the sciences. It\nfurnishes no help to labor. It is useless as a political guide. There is\nnothing in it that gives the mechanic any hint, or affords the farmer any\nenlightenment in his occupation.\n\nIf man wishes to learn about the earth or the heavens; about life or the\nanimal kingdom, he has no need to study the Bible. If he is desirous of\nreading the best poetry or the most entertaining literature he will not\nfind it in the Bible. If he wants to read to store his mind with facts,\nthe Bible is the last book for him to open, for never yet was a volume\nwritten that contained fewer facts than this book. If he is anxious to get\nsome information that will help him earn an honest living he does not want\nto spend his time reading Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Kings, Psalms, or the\nGospels. If he wants to read just for the fun of reading to kill time, or\nto see how much nonsensical writing there is in one book, let him read the\nBible.\n\nI have not said that there are not wise sayings in the Bible, or a few\ndramatic incidents, but there are just as wise sayings, and wiser ones,\ntoo, out of the book, and there are dramas of human life that surpass in\ninterest anything contained in the Old or New Testament.\n\nNo person can make a decent excuse for reading the Bible more than once.\nTo do such a thing would be a foolish waste of time. But our stoutest\nobjection to reading this book is, not that it contains nothing\nparticularly good, but _that it contains so much that is positively bad_.\nTo read this book is to get false ideas, absurd ideas, bad ideas. The\ninjury to the human mind that reads the Bible as a reliable book is beyond\nrepair. I do not think that this book should be read by children, by any\nhuman being less than twenty years of age, and it would be better for\nmankind if not a man or woman read a line of it until he or she was fifty\nyears old.\n\nWhat I want to say is this, that there is nothing in the Bible that is of\nthe least consequence to the people of the twentieth century. English\nliterature is richer a thousand fold than this so-called sacred volume. We\nhave books of more information and of more inspiration than the Bible. As\nthe relic of a barbarous and superstitious people, it should have a place\nin our libraries, but it is not a work of any value to this age. I pity\nmen who stand in pulpits and call this book the word of God. I wish they\nhad brains enough to earn their living without having to repeat this\nfoolish falsehood. The day will come when this book will be estimated for\nwhat it a worth, and when that day comes, the Bible will no longer be\ncalled the word of God, but the work of ignorant, superstitious men.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe cross everywhere is a dagger in the heart of liberty.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA miracle is not an explanation of what we cannot comprehend.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe statue of liberty that will endure on this continent is not the one\nmade of granite or bronze, but the one made of love of freedom.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTake away every achievement of the world and leave man freedom, and the\nearth would again bloom with every glory of attainment; but take away\nliberty and everything useful and beautiful would vanish.\n\n\n\n\n\nSACRIFICE\n\n\nThe sacrifice of Jesus, so much boasted by the Christian church, is\nnothing compared to the sacrifice of a mother for her family. It is not to\nbe spoken of in the same light. A mother\u2019s sacrifice is constant:\nmomentary, hourly, daily, life-long. It never ceases. It is a veritable\nprovidence; a watchful care; a real giving of one life for another, or for\nseveral others; a gift of love so pure and holy, so single and complete,\nthat it is an offering in spirit and in substance.\n\nThis is to me the highest, purest, holiest act of humanity. All others,\nwhen weighed with this unselfish consecration to duty, seem small and\ninsignificant. There is, in a mother\u2019s life, no counting of cost, no\ncalculation of reward. It is enough that a duty is to be done; that a\nservice is to be rendered; that a sacrifice is called for. The true mother\ngives herself to the offices of love without hope, expectation, or wish of\nrecompense. A mother\u2019s love for her children cannot be determined by any\nearthly measure, by any material standard. It outshines all glory, and is\nthe last gleam of light in the human heart. A mother\u2019s love walks in a\nthousand Gethsemanes, endures a thousand Calvaries, and has a thousand\nagonies that the dying of Jesus upon a cross cannot symbolize. This\nmaternal sacrifice is the greater that it is made cheerfully, without a\nmurmur, and even with joy. If it is not sought; it is never pushed aside.\n\nA mother\u2019s sacrifice for her family makes a chapter of suffering, of\npatient toil and strife, of heroic endurance and forbearance, that\nreligion is not yet high enough to appreciate; and this sublime devotion\nis not in one home, but in _hundreds of thousands in every land_\neverywhere on earth, and it is real, true, heart-born, and the utmost of\nrenunciation that human life has revealed.\n\nThe brief martyrdom of Jesus was not voluntary, was not lasting in its\npain or in its service to mankind. His death was cruel, his suffering and\nagony terrible to think of, but it was all soon over. A few hours of\ntorture make up the tragedy of the cross. But the story of this\ncrucifixion may be fictitious, imaginary; most likely is such. Perhaps no\nsuch man died such a death in any such way. Then how vain and foolish to\nwaste our sympathy on a fanciful sufferer, an imaginary martyr, who never\nexisted outside of the brain of the writer of the story, while there are\nactual, real beings living who are making a greater sacrifice, doing a\nholier duty, within our reach!\n\nWe need not go to a Bible to find those who deserve our tears, or who have\nearned our admiration. The bravest heart that ever author wrote into\nbeing, fails to come up to the lofty height of endurance, of a life\ninspired by love, of heroic sacrifice, that can be found in hundreds of\nhomes in our land.\n\nFar be it from my intention to paint less any deed of mortal that has\nbrightened the lot of man, or to throw discredit upon aught that is worthy\nof human gratitude and praise. I yield most ready sympathy and most\nwilling admiration to every noble soul that has lived or died to make\nearth better and happier, but I do not believe that greatness, goodness\nand love are all dead, and that our whole duty is to stand and weep around\na tomb. I believe in living men and women, in living hearts and souls, in\nliving greatness and goodness and love, and I tell you all that the earth\nnever bore more loving, more humane, tenderer, braver, or truer hearts\nthan beat today in the living breasts of mankind.\n\nAnd I place above all that is brave and true, great and good, in the past\nor present, the mothers of our age.\u2014What man cannot see that silent,\npatient mother in her home, the victim of a multitude of trials, crosses,\nannoyances, day after day and week after week, meeting all, bearing all,\nwith a saint\u2019s look and manner; and what man, seeing her there, at the\nside of the sick, worn out with watching and waiting, and then at the bed\nof death, faithful and true to the last, though wounded in heart and\nspirit never faltering in the way of duty, that would not say if there be\none sacrifice that is above, and greater than, all others, it is that of a\nmother\u2019s love?\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DRAMA OF LIFE\n\n\nWith the passing of the season we are reminded of the rapid flight of\nlife. It seems but yesterday that the first bluebird of spring lit on the\nbare bough of the apple-tree in the orchard near by, and the early robin\nsang his welcome notes in our glad ears, and yet the bluebird and robin\nare seen and heard no more, and the green promise of spring has changed to\nthe brown harvest of autumn, which will soon be stored for winter\u2019s use.\nThis is the way every season comes and goes; a little long in coming\nsometimes; but never long in going; and every year grows shorter as we\ngrow older, and every year goes more quickly as we near the border of old\nage. Life soon changes from a glad look ahead to a sad glance behind. From\nbaby to boy, from boy to man, from man to tottering age;\u2014how swiftly the\nscenes change, and life comes and life goes, and the door of death opens\nalmost before the door of birth closes. The cradle and the grave touch,\nand the blithe youth that lends his strength to feeble age finds himself\nere long leaning upon the arm of youth and strength. The circle of years\nsoon rolls round, and life is but a day of toil and a night of dreams. As\nwe look back upon vanished time and see the happy scenes of childhood\nmingled with the surroundings of later life, days and months shrink to\nhours, and years seem to be spanned by a sunrise and a sunset with a\nlittle laughter and perhaps some tears between.\n\nWe who have travelled more than half way on the road cannot look backward\nwithout a sigh, cannot think backward without a pang. Many of us have left\nthe graves of father and mother behind, perhaps the smaller graves of\nchildren, where some of our heart lies buried too. The storms that beat on\nus make life seem shorter; make the days go faster, and the night draw\nnearer; and all of us have already, or must sometime, bow our heads to the\nblast.\n\nOne human being in the great world of man, and in the greater world of\nNature, plays but a small part. Of but little account is a human life in\nthe vast, limitless universe. A man fills but a little space while alive,\nand touches but a few hearts when he dies. We are fortunate if we make\nduring life, one true, loyal friend who stands by us while that life\nlasts. We reckon this, after all, the grandest triumph of the human soul.\nIt is not difficult to gather dollars\u2014quite a number, at least,\u2014nor to win\na measure of fame, but to live, to be, to act, in such way as to bind one\ntrue heart to ours, is a victory which we may be proud of. Some lives have\nlarger circumferences than others, radiate farther, influence more, but\nnone can win the rare tribute of perfect friendship from more than one or\ntwo. Yes! man plays but a small part in the great drama of life. He is on\nthe stage but a few short hours, and most men are but poor or indifferent\nactors at best.\n\nWho cares when a man dies? Not the sun, for it shines just as gaily when\nhe closes his eyes to its golden light; not the birds, for they chatter\nand sing over his coffin, and hop and sing on his grave; not the brook,\nfor it runs laughing on and never stops its gambols and song; not any of\nthe things of earth, but man.\n\nWhen man dies, a few say, Is he gone? and then forget that he ever lived;\na few go to help carry his dead body to the grave, and then turn away to\njoin the business and pleasure of life, and forget that they have buried a\nman; a few, some days after, call at the house where he lived and drop a\ntear of sympathy for the weeping widow and tearful children, and then\nforget that the husband and father is no more. But does no one care?\nPerhaps a wife, who will carry his dead image in her heart as long as it\nbeats; perhaps a daughter, who will remember him a year or two, or a\nlittle longer, who will miss his happy greeting, his loving kiss, his\nproud, kind look as he lifts the heart\u2019s dearest idol to his knee; and\nthis is all. And this is enough. We care for only a few; and why should\nmany care for us?\n\nThough life is short and not always heroic; and though, when it ends, the\nworld goes on just the same, we love life and it is sweet while it lasts.\nThough we travel quickly over the road, we enjoy for the most part, the\njourney of life. We have pain, it is true; we learn of sorrow and grief;\nwe feel the pang of parting and weep on the white face of some loved one,\nand yet, we find happiness, we enjoy living, and we regret when the\ncurtain is rung down and our part is played and the lights turned out.\nWhen we strike the balance between pleasure and pain, joy and sorrow,\nhappiness and misery, most find that life is worth living.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA dogma will thrive in soil where the truth could not get root.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe measure of liberty which man enjoys determines the civilization of the\nage in which he lives.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe person who can make a loaf of bread is more to the world than the\nperson who could perform a miracle.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe indifference to Christianity may well alarm the men who live on the\ncredulity that gives it the show of life, but to those who delight in\nactions of sincerity, it affords the greatest encouragement, for it\npromises to the world a day when intelligence and integrity will be\nrespected more than ignorance and hypocrisy.\n\n\n\n\n\nNATURE IN JUNE\n\n\nWe can hardly look anywhere in Nature without having the conviction grow\nin the mind that there are more or less superfluous things on this spot of\nthe universe where our lot is cast, however it may be in Mars, Venus,\nSaturn, or any other of the Greek-named planets or any heavenly\nconstellations with or without names. Just at this particular season of\nthe year, the presence of weeds in the garden or on the farm raises a\ncolossal doubt as to the fact of any wisdom guiding the divine voice when,\nin a majestic sweep of its omnipotent power on the third day of the drama\nof creation, it called into being the grass, the herb, the tree and\nwhatsoever bears leaf or blade or flower. To those who have to pull the\nweeds out of the ground they are a curse of the first magnitude, and how a\ncreator, who had common sense, could take pride in making such vegetable\nabortions as weeds we cannot comprehend. The most worthless things in\nNature are the most prolific. Chickweed will cover an acre while clover is\nconsidering where it is best to go into business, and every pesky, nasty\nlittle weed will live and laugh when the queenly corn droops its head in\nthe sun, and the beet and turnip cannot get nourishment enough to keep\nthem alive.\n\nIt is just the same in the animal world. An immense quantity of useless\nbeings go about on two and four legs or on none at all. The only excuse\nfor the snake is that he was made to eat the toad; for the toad, that he\nwas made to eat insects; for the insects\u2014well, nobody has yet made a\nwholesome excuse for their existence, anyway. It looks as though one being\nin Nature was made simply to kill another being, and the last-made being,\nman, is the supreme killer of the whole lot. Take the whole range of wild\nbeasts, and find, if you can, aught but malice in their creation, if they\nwere created. No plague ever destroyed hyenas and jackals. No one ever\nfound a sick rattlesnake or an invalid hornet. The fittest survive? The\nfittest for what? To worry man, to make life miserable. Mosquitoes, wasps,\nfleas, reptiles and wild beasts, poisonous vines and shrubs, noxious\nblossoms whose perfume is the kiss of death, weeds that push and crowd\ndecent plants until they die in utter despair\u2014these are the sturdiest\ntriumphs of the creative art. We cannot help wishing that the Lord-God had\nnot rested on the seventh day, but instead, had gone around and destroyed\nabout seven-eighths of what he had created. We might then have had quite a\ndecent world to live in.\n\nMan builds a home for her he loves, he plants beside it all that will make\nit beautiful to the eyes of his wife. He works and brings what is fair to\nadorn it, and makes every room a casket to hold the jewel of love. He\nlooks at his home with pride, and feels that it is \u201cthe dearest spot on\nearth,\u201d a refuge safe and secure. The cyclone comes and in a moment all is\nswept away. Man cannot trust the God of the winds.\n\nThere is no more terrible calamity that afflicts our globe at the present\ntime than an earthquake. It comes without warning, by day or night, when\nman is at his place of business or when he is at rest. There is no way of\npreventing it, no way of preparing for it. It may wait a hundred, a\nthousand, years before it works its deadly ruin. But when it comes, havoc\nis left. An earthquake may be good for the earth, but it is almighty\ndiscouraging to the people that live on it. It may seek a beneficent end,\nbut it goes to work in a cruel manner to accomplish it. Human life counts\nno more than the life of rats when an earthquake gets started. This\ninfernal visitor does not seek a spot where its malevolence can be wrecked\nupon the rocks and hills. Oftener it goes to the thickly populated city or\ntown and topples over houses and swallows up dwellings, with men, women\nand children. Does God send the earthquake? If he does, where is the\nevidence of his love for man? If He does not, who does?\n\nIt is pretty tough business to try to reconcile Nature with the idea of\nGod\u2019s watchful care over man. If the winds did not turn to hurricanes; if\nthe sunshine did not make drought; if the rain never became a flood; if\nthe sea never grew angry and sunk the ship; if the clouds always dissolved\nin gentle rain or in dew; if there were no wild beasts; no venomous\nsnakes; no poisonous vines or flowers; if there were only what is bright\nand fair and good on earth and nothing that was dark and cold and\nrepulsive, we might believe that a heavenly father had made the earth for\na dwelling-place for man. But as it is, we have to think as well of Nature\nas possible and dodge her lightning, run from her water-spouts, keep out\nof the way of cyclones and shift for ourselves while here. What follows\nnobody knows. It may be better for us beyond this life; we hope it is no\nworse. And it may be only sleep, sleep with no dreams and no awakening. We\nshould dislike to die on this side of the grave with the fear that we\nshould come out on the other only to meet a hurricane in the teeth, or\nfind an earthquake had been put under us to give us a shaking up the first\nthing on that \u201cshining shore,\u201d or to be caught in a furious torrent that\npoured down the sides of some heavenly mountain. Earth is a pretty good\nplace when the conditions are all favorable, but if we are to have another\nlife it ought to be a better one or else we should be saved the trouble of\ndying.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe feet of progress have always been shod by doubt.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA true man will not join anything that in any way abridges his freedom or\nrobs him of his rights.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE INFINITE PURPOSE\n\n\nA Christian writer recently said:\u2014\u201cThe supreme duty of humanity is to get\ninto touch with the infinite purpose.\u201d This may be so, but we want first\nto understand just what the infinite purpose is before we subscribe to it.\nWhen the infinite purpose is bent on getting up an earthquake we do not\ncare to \u201cget into touch\u201d with it, not much. When this purpose is forging\nan electric bolt to shoot out of the clouds, we have no desire to \u201cget\ninto touch\u201d with any such thing. It makes a vast difference what this\npurpose is bent upon, whether or not we want to go into partnership with\nit. Now, when the infinite purpose is at work on the earth, turning dirt\ninto flowers, or vegetables, or trees, we should feel a joy in sharing its\nlabor, but when it is determined to burn and scorch everything on the face\nof the ground with a heat that knows no abatement, we should want to sell\nout our interest in the concern at once.\n\nThere is just as much nonsense connected with the use of this phrase \u201cthe\ninfinite purpose\u201d as there is with \u201cspecial Providence\u201d or \u201cDivine love,\u201d\nor any other religious expression which expresses nothing unless you are\nreligious. Where this \u201cpurpose\u201d \u201cmakes for righteousness,\u201d as Matthew\nArnold delighted to believe, we are willing to catch on to it, but where\nit is going in the other direction we prefer to go our own way.\n\nThis notion of uniting the finite with the infinite purpose is all right,\nproviding the latter does not conflict with the former, but we have\nserious objection to doing anything that will interfere with the highest\ndevelopment of our humanity. The purpose which is at work in the world\ndoes not make for health any more than for disease. It seems to carry a\ntubercle with as much satisfaction as a ray of sunshine, and lends all its\nforces to assist the highwayman with no more charge than it makes to the\nlaw-abiding citizen.\n\nIt seems to us that it is necessary to divorce the \u201cinfinite purpose\u201d from\na lot of intentions that do not work for human interests, before it will\nbe desirable to assume intimate relations with this purpose. We do not\nwant to \u201cget into touch\u201d with what is not going our way; that is, the way\nof health, of prosperity, of happiness. We do not deny that we need to\ngive a higher direction to human thought. We affirm this fact as\npositively as our most Christian contemporary. But before we advise\nmankind to harness its wagon to the infinite purpose we want to be sure\nwhere it is going. Man has to go to mill and market as well as to meeting,\nand there is just as good a purpose manifested in getting the most\nwholesome food for our stomachs as there is in getting the safest creed\nfor our souls. We are loth to trust any religious purpose as opposed to a\nhuman one. We believe in man first, last, and all the time.\n\nNow, let us admit that humanity needs a wiser purpose to guide it, but let\nus also admit that it can be found in a wiser human head and human heart.\nIf what is called the infinite purpose is working for the highest end of\nhuman life, there is no evidence of the fact. If there is anything better\nthan human energy back of a good human thought that will help this world,\nwe do not know what it is.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe man who accepts the faith of Calvin is miserable in proportion to the\nextent he carries it out.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhatever tends to prolong the existence of ignorance or to prevent the\nrecognition of knowledge is dangerous to the well-being of the human race.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA higher respect for man has been one of the chief promoters of\ncivilization. Advancement has always been toward right and truth when the\nranks were imbued with a proper regard for human hearts and human\nhappiness.\n\n\n\n\n\nFREETHOUGHT COMMANDS\n\n\nSay nothing about others that you would not have others say about you.\n\nBe severe toward yourself; be kind to your fellow-man.\n\nDo not give advice that you cannot follow.\n\nDo not thank God for what man does.\n\nServe neither God nor Mammon, but humanity alone.\n\nDo not try to be perfect as a \"Father in heaven,\" but try to be better\nthan you yourself are.\n\nSeek first to improve the earth, and heaven will be of less consequence.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nLet us not forget that men speak according to the measure of their\nknowledge and light, and that a superior enlightenment is a higher\nauthority.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nHistory shows that there is nothing so easy to enslave and nothing so hard\nto emancipate as ignorance, hence it becomes the double enemy of\ncivilization. By its servility it is the prey of tyranny, and by its\ncredulity it is the foe of enlightenment.\n\n\n\n\n\nA RAINBOW RELIGION\n\n\nThere is little doubt that the faith of the early Christians was what\nmight be classed under the head of rainbow religion. We learn from the New\nTestament that it was taught that those who accepted the faith held by\nJohn and Jesus and Paul were in some peculiar manner to be protected from\nthe common ills of life, and were to be especial favorites of their\n\u201cFather in heaven.\u201d How sincerely this faith was held we cannot now\ndetermine, nor to what extent it was put into practice, but that it\npossessed the mind in a considerable degree there is no room whatever to\ndoubt. But this is not the question that we want settled, but rather the\nvalue of this faith.\n\nIt is pleasant and comforting to believe that one is watched over by a\nsuperior power which at any moment of peril or temptation is ready to\nstretch forth its hand and rescue from danger and death, and it is on\naccount of the wonderful seductiveness of this faith that it has lasted so\nlong and has been so hard to overcome. But what we are interested in is,\nwhether or not such a belief has any foundation in fact or in human\nexperience. When Jesus bid his followers to cease giving thought to what\nthey should eat and drink and wear, telling them that their \u201cheavenly\nFather\u201d fed the fowls of the air, and that they were better than such\nfowls, thus implying that their heavenly Father would take proportionately\nbetter care of them, was there any ground for any such teaching, and is\nthere any ground for this faith today? We claim that the \u201cheavenly Father\u201d\nreferred to by Jesus never fed anything, neither fowl nor man; and that no\nhuman being was ever taken care of by any superior power or snatched by it\nfrom danger or death. Such a faith is the veriest delusion, and it could\nlodge and take root only in the childish mind. Jesus also taught that the\n\u201cFather which is in heaven\u201d would \u201cgive good things to them that ask him.\u201d\nIs there any ground for this rainbow religion? Is there any evidence that\nthere is a \u201cFather in heaven\u201d who has good things to give to those who ask\nfor them?\n\nWe presume that this faith led men to give up work and to trust to begging\nfor a living. But the question is, which got the most good things,\u2014those\nwho studied the laws of Nature and of life and worked in harmony with\nthem, or those who prayed for good things? How is it to-day? What good\nthings can be had by praying? Who has any good thing that he received by\nasking his \u201cFather in heaven\u201d for it? The asking business has been carried\non for hundreds of years, and all that has been asked of God has had to be\ngiven by man or has not been given at all.\n\nHas it ever been true that Christians had any immunity from danger that\nothers did not have, or that they could live in defiance of the laws of\nNature? Jesus told his followers that in his name they shall cast out\ndevils, they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it\nshall not hurt them and they shall have the power to cure the sick by\nlaying their hands upon them. Have men, who professed to follow Jesus,\never done the things which he said they shall do? Is there any man to-day\nwho can do these things? Is there any evidence that Christians are treated\nby any power of the universe differently from what others are treated? And\nis there any evidence that they possess any gift that is not shared by\nothers? As far as we can see Christians are subject to the same laws of\nNature that all others must obey, and they cannot either defy those laws\nor act independently of them. If they fool with deadly serpents they will\nget bitten and probably die\u2014just the same as would an infidel; if they\ndrink a cup of poison, they will suffer and perhaps die just the same as\nan unbeliever; if they have any sickness, they do not trust to the\nlaying-on of hands by a fellow-Christian, but send for a doctor the same\nas a freethinker. The fact is, the world has learned better than to put\nfaith in these teachings of Jesus.\n\nThe Christian faith belonged to the childhood of the race, and ought no\nlonger to be preached to man. No one attempts to put this faith into\npractice, to carry into life the teachings of Jesus. And why not? Simply\nbecause _it is known to be false_. Christianity is a rainbow religion, a\nrepresentation of things for which there is no warrant in Nature; a\npicture painted in false colors; a view of life copied from a diseased\nimagination; a falsehood fed by priests upon which they live.\n\nThere is not an intelligent man or woman living to-day who has any faith\nin the rainbow religion taught by Jesus; not an intelligent man or woman\nwho believes that a heavenly Father or a God will provide food or drink or\nclothes for a human being; nor an intelligent man or woman who has faith\nthat he or she can get good things by asking a \"Father in heaven\" for them\nand not an intelligent man or woman who cares or dares to put the\ndeclaration of Jesus to the test; that those who have faith in him can\nplay with serpents without danger, and drink deadly poison with no more\nharm than attends quaffing a glass of water.\n\nWe are then to conclude that Christianity is held only by the ignorant.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is greater argument in one fact than in all the creeds.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt is easier to believe that a man is honest who says the Bible is the\nword of God than to believe that he is bright.\n\n\n\n\n\nA CRUEL GOD\n\n\nThere may be some other religion in the world that sings of a God more\ncruel than the God of Christianity, but we do not know of any. At any\nrate, we believe it is safe to say that no religion of a civilized people\nhas a God who is more vindictive. We have always wondered how men and\nwomen could set such infernal ideas to music as we find in Christian\nhymns. It is really too bad that human beings are compelled to sing such\nlies as we find in the pious song-books of the church. The sentiments\ncontained in them are not fit for savages. It can only brutalize the heart\nto sing of blood, and nothing but blood, no matter whose blood it is. The\n\u201cprecious blood of Jesus\u201d is just as suggestive of cruelty as the blood on\nthe executioner\u2019s knife. Men become what they read, what they think, what\nthey sing, what they believe. Religions have made men wicked, cruel, hard,\nunkind. It is impossible to have faith in a God of wrath and\nvindictiveness without in time developing these qualities. Men grow into\nthe likeness of their belief. As a man believes, so is he, to a certain\nextent.\n\nThe influence of cruel sentiments on the mind is greater with the young\nthan with adults. Some hymns sung in Christian churches are positively\nbrutal in tone. Think of _human_ beings singing the following verse:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cBut vengeance and damnation lie\n On rebels who refuse His grace;\n Who God\u2019s eternal Son despise,\n The _hottest hell shall be their place_.\u201d\n\n\nChristians seem to delight in pictures of hell. God would hardly be God to\nthem if he did not damn somebody. In painting the divine idea vengeance\nand damnation are laid on thick.\n\nHere is the Christian notion of father and son:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cHow justice frowned and vengeance stood\n To drive me down to endless pain!\n But the great Son propos\u2019d his blood,\n And _heavenly wrath grew mild again_.\u201d\n\n\nThink of the religion based on such an idea of God! And think on the\nterrible effect on men and women which such religion must have!\n\nThe following description of the Christian God was probably written by one\nof his adorers:\u2014\n\n\n \u201cAdore and tremble for our God\n Is a consuming fire!\n His jealous eyes with wrath inflame,\n And raise His vengeance higher.\n\n \u201cAlmighty vengeance, how it burns,\n How bright His fury glows!\n Vast magazines of plagues and storms\n Lie treasured for His foes.\n\n \u201cThose heaps of wrath, by slow degrees,\n Are force into a flame:\n But kindled, Oh! how fierce they blaze!\n And rend all nature\u2019s frame.\n\n \u201cAt His approach the mountains flee,\n And seek a watery grave;\n The frighted sea makes haste away,\n And shrinks up every wave.\n\n \u201cThrough the wide air the weighty rocks\n Are swift as hailstones hurled;\n Who dares engage His fiery rage,\n That shakes the solid world?\n\n \u201cThy hand shall on rebellious kings\n A fiery tempest pour,\n While we, beneath Thy sheltering wings,\n Thy _just_ revenge adore.\u201d\n\n\nAnd we are asked to love this God! We should just as soon think of loving\na tiger, a cyclone, a deluge, a fiend. Love goes out to what is lovely. We\ncan love what is good, what is beautiful, what is noble; a great-hearted\nman, a pitying woman we cannot help loving, but if we should say that we\nlove such a God as is pictured in the words of that hymn we should lie.\nMan cannot love hate, vengeance, wrath\u2014even in a God.\n\nThe Christian church, down through the ages, has been like the God it\nworshipped\u2014full of hate, malice and cruelty. The world has grown kind and\nhumane just in proportion as it has given up worship of this divine\nmonster. We judge gods as we judge men, and we can respect and love only\nwhat is worthy of respect and love from a human point of view. If there is\nsuch a God as is painted in Christian literature he deserves, not to be\nworshipped, but to be shot.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe Bible upon which Christianity is founded does not say what\nChristianity is, what a Christian is, nor what we must do in order to be a\nChristian.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS JESUS\n\n\nTime was when Jesus was looked upon as God, or the Son of God. No one had\nany doubt of his divinity or divine character; or if he had, he wisely\ndeferred to the superstitious majority and kept his mouth shut and so kept\nhis head on his shoulders. This idea that Jesus was God has been steadily\ndeclining for several hundred years. Intelligence has pretty much given it\nup, except where it is paid a big salary for preaching it. There is no\nrational defence that can be made of the dogma of the divinity of Jesus.\nIt is one of many theological absurdities that was born when gods were\npopular.\n\nA large number believe that Jesus was a man and nothing more; a good man,\nbut still human. They look upon him as a product of human nature. He is\nallowed a human father and mother, although the gospels, in which is found\nthe story of his life, hardly warrant so much earthly parentage. He is\nregarded as a part of humanity, and his extraordinary deeds merely as\nexaggerated performances of heart and hand of man. The people that look\nupon Jesus as a man have a superstitious reverence for his humanity. He is\ncalled \u201cthe one perfect man,\u201d the \u201cpattern of the race,\u201d etc. Though a\nman, they will have him every inch a man.\n\nYet others see nothing remarkable in the career of Jesus; nothing which\nmarks him for universal emulation; nothing which compels praise and\nadmiration. They think he was a sort of mild lunatic, possessed of the\nidea that he was the Messiah of his people, and that in endeavoring to\nfurther his scheme he antagonized the existing authority and met the just\npunishment of his ambition.\n\nBut it is neither as God nor as a man that Jesus must be regarded, but as\na myth. No such person ever lived either as a human or divine existence.\nHe is simply a creature of fancy, the fruit of the imagination. He is a\ncharacter of the brain, the creation of religious genius.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is no justifiable Christianity in this age.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA dogma is the hand of the dead on the throat of the living.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe progress of the world depends upon freedom of thought and freedom of\nutterance.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf you can forgive the man who wronged you, the neighbor who slandered you\nand help the poor about you, you need not be particular about making any\nprofessions of righteousness.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEEDS BETTER THAN PROFESSIONS\n\n\nWe have tears of regret to shed over the wreck of beauty and talent; but\nif we take no steps to preserve beauty and talent from wreck, our\ncompassion is not to our honor but to our disgrace. The feeling of pity\nwhich to-day expends itself in solemn warning or solemn weeping for the\npoor unfortunates of earth, must devise means to rescue them from misery,\nor it is but a mockery and a shame. One arm inspired with love of man will\ndo more than a thousand tender sentiments. Sympathy must take the form of\nassistance, or it is not sincere.\n\nWhen we do not love man as we ought, we hate ourselves. The way to get\nheaven for ourselves is to give it to others. The way to be happy is to\nmake others happy. Selfishness kills every noble feeling and defeats every\ngood desire. We cannot have peace when we give pain to others. Our deeds\nreward us. What wrongs man is wrong for man to do. We should live so as\nnot to regret the past nor fear the future. We set too great a value upon\nearthly possessions, and spend our lives in gaining what we cannot hold.\nWe best enjoy the things of earth when we give up wanting them wholly for\nourselves. The best part of our happiness is having someone to share it.\n\n\n\n\n\nGIVE US THE TRUTH\n\n\nIf there is one tree that man needs to eat of, it is the forbidden tree of\nthe knowledge of good and evil; and if any knowledge will keep him alive\nand make him happy and perfect, it is just this knowledge which God forbid\nhim to acquire. We are dying to-day from ignorance, not from\nknowledge,\u2014dying because we do not know the good from the evil; and we are\ndooming ourselves and future generations to premature death because we do\nnot eat more of the tree of knowledge.\n\nTo _know_ more is what we need. Let us look into things and find out what\nthe world means. If this universe is only an illuminated deception, the\nman who discovers the fact will be a public benefactor. If things which\nexist around us are lying to us,\u2014if the stars that shine out through the\ndeep space above us are only fire-flies of the night, let us know it.\nKnowledge will not hurt us so much as ignorance and deception. If the\nflowers that uncover their beauty for our delight have but a phantom\nloveliness, and nought is real in the enchanting world about us, then let\nus be told the truth. The soul can bear it better than to be deceived. We\nmay be trusted with the knowledge of good and evil and of right and wrong,\nye God of Genesis! and praise be to the first-created man for breaking the\ncommand to remain in ignorance and taking the first step toward solving\nthe riddle of life!\n\nWe learn everything by living. The truth is not revealed to us: we must\ndiscover it. It is seen when we climb high enough to see it, or live wise\nenough to feel it, or act true enough to utter it. When we hear the truth,\nwe hear only the echo of the universe. The last thing that we have to fear\nis the truth and the consequences of knowing it. Let us not fear to speak\nit or to hear it. And let us go with it whenever found. They who are\nkeeping the world from the knowledge of good and evil, who are trying to\ndiscourage the preaching of truth, are the enemies of mankind.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf man had no knowledge except what he has got out of the Bible he would\nnot know enough to make a shoe.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe great work of man has ever been to rescue the present from the past;\nto turn the mind from what it has left behind to the opportunities and\nduties which are around it. For this has genius toiled down the ages, sung\nits song of love, carved its dream of beauty and whispered to the world\u2019s\ndull ear its bright message of hope.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE AMERICAN SUNDAY\n\n\nEverybody has heard of what is called the \u201cChristian sabbath,\u201d and nearly\neverybody has a tolerably clear idea of what is meant by a \u201ccontinental\nsabbath.\u201d A \u201ccontinental sabbath\u201d may be described as a sort of week-day\nSunday, that is, as a religious holiday with more secular, than pious,\nfeatures. A Christian sabbath is so near dead in this country as a\nreligious fact that a definition of it cannot be had from real life. We\nfind the ideal sabbath of the Christians in the history of early New\nEngland. For two centuries the people have been gradually outgrowing the\naustere religion which made Sunday a day to be dreaded all the week. The\nattempt has been frequently made by a small puritan contingent, which has\nsurvived all these years, to resuscitate this dead sabbath and inflict it\nupon the world again. But so far the effort has only met with deserved\nfailure.\n\nResurrections have never been successful. When the inhabitants of graves\nhave come out of their abodes it has been only to walk the streets for a\nbrief period, and then to return again to silence and rest. The stories of\nghosts, when true, are always short. These visitants never stop long or do\nanything that is of any worth to the world. When the grave is once made\nover the dead it is best to let it alone. There is nothing in cemeteries\nto aid progress or civilization.\n\nWe do not need the revival of old customs or of old faiths. To endeavor to\nrehabilitate the sabbath of our forefathers is as foolish as to try to\nmake people go back into log houses and cook over a fire-place. Some\npersons can never realize that the world grows; that what was a help to\none age becomes a hindrance to another; that time corrects the mistakes of\nmen and that respect and reverence for our ancestors do not necessarily\nrequire us to adopt their clothes or their habits.\n\nMen and women are made fossils by their religion. The people who are\ntrying to-day to resurrect the puritan sabbath are people who have got\nreligion, but not much of anything else. A man who allows religion to\ndominate all his thoughts, all his efforts, all his acts, usually is a\nnuisance, if nothing worse.\n\nA day of rest once a week is a good thing in itself, but it is a bad thing\nwhen controlled by religion. We are in favor of Sunday as a day when man\ncan lay aside his business, his care, his tools, and enjoy himself, but we\nwant everybody to take their hands off of it. Sunday is not a day for\nreligion alone. If certain people wish to go to church on Sunday, let them\ngo; but when these people, who go to church on Sunday, wish to compel\neveryone else to do the same, they need to be informed that _liberty on\nSunday is just as much a human right as liberty on Monday_. There are\nbetter things that man has found than religion. Liberty is better, truth\nis better, happiness is better. We would like to see an American Sunday on\nthis continent, a Sunday in harmony with the principles upon which our\ngovernment was founded, a Sunday which was not run by religion, a Sunday\nfor man and not for the church. Such a day would not be a sabbath, but it\nwould be a free day, a happy day. The notion of Sunday as a holy day is\ntoo absurd, too ridiculous to deserve respectful attention. No man can\nhave fifty-two holy days in a year.\n\nThe minister must take his pious grasp off of the throat of Sunday.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA true man is not troubled by anything but his own acts.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe true man walks the earth as the stars walk the heavens, grandly\nobedient to those laws which are implanted in his nature.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many people are afraid of knowledge, but we have seen hundreds of\npeople that we thought would be improved if they knew more, but we have\nnever seen one that we thought would be better if he knew less.\n\n\n\n\n\nLORD AND MASTER\n\n\nThe Christian is fond of referring to Jesus as his lord and master. We\nwonder why, for it is evident that not a Christian of this century takes\nJesus for his lord and master. The fact is, that there is nothing that a\n_man_ objects to more strongly than a master. Man wants to be independent.\nHe does not want anybody to be lord over him. The struggle of the race for\nages has been to get rid of lords and masters, to be free from tyrants.\nReligion is after all only dead politics. The church makes sacred what the\nstate casts off. What sense is there in fighting for long centuries to\nliberate the body, and voluntarily accepting slavery for the mind? Jesus\nis the ghost of a dead king. But why should the world prostrate itself\nbefore his invisible throne when it refuses to acknowledge by its\nobedience that he is fit to rule the kingdom of conduct?\n\nWhat hypocrites Christians are! What a farce it is for men and women to\ncall Jesus lord and master! They do not obey his slightest command, and\nthey ignore his teachings as undeserving their regard. There is not a\nprecept, that the Christian church teaches came from the lips of Jesus,\nthat Christians honor by practice, not one. Never did a lord receive so\nlittle honest respect from his vassals; never a master so little true\nobedience from his servants.\n\nMen and women are not sincere when they profess to accept Jesus as their\nlord and master. They doubtless feel grateful to him for saving them from\nthe fires of hell hereafter, but they look upon him as a mighty poor\nexample for them to follow here. As everybody knows, the church does not\nrequire that its members shall practice the precepts given by Jesus. If\nshe did demand this of men and women her membership would speedily be\nreduced to zero. We do not regard a man as honest, or worthy of respect,\nwho calls Jesus his lord and master and turns his back in contempt upon\nthe precepts he gave his disciples to practice.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nYou cannot stuff your minds with the lives of saints and grow good on the\nstuffing.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nSome persons are remembered solely for their virtues and others solely for\ntheir faults. This is why we have a Jesus and a Judas.\n\n\n\n\n\nARE CHRISTIANS INTELLIGENT OR HONEST\n\n\nFuture generations will regard the men who accept the Christian\nsuperstitions either as simple or dishonest.\n\nWe are forced to doubt the sanity or sincerity of people who profess to\nbelieve in the doctrine of the trinity, in a \u201cbegotten Son of God,\u201d in\nmiraculous conception, in the resurrection of the body, in the Bible as\nthe word of God, in miracles, and in heaven and hell. We ask\nourselves:\u2014Are men intelligent who believe these things, or do they merely\nprofess to believe them, and are dishonest? We cannot reconcile faith in\nthe Christian superstitions with mental soundness and good sense.\n\nWhat is there in Nature to suggest any of the Christian doctrines? Does\nnot everything we know, everything we have seen, everything we have\nexperienced, deny and disprove the Christian superstitions? Why, then, do\npeople accept them? We find no one that acts as though Christianity were\ntrue, no one who lives as though hell were under his feet and liable at\nany moment to pull him down to eternal damnation. We find men spending all\ntheir energies in trying to get the good things of earth, just as though\nthey were told to do so by God, instead of commanded not to lay up\ntreasures upon earth, etc.\n\nIt is one of the serious problems of the age to know how to deal with\nChristians. They are, as a rule, respectable and decent; they have good\nmanners generally, and they eat and drink, dress and talk, live and die\nvery much as other people, and yet they profess a faith that is absurd and\nfoolish and that has no foundation in fact or philosophy.\n\nWe like to think well of our fellow-beings, and we would like to think\nwell of Christians, but we cannot do so as long as they pretend to believe\nwhat a person of intelligence, of good sense, cannot believe. Are\nChristians honest? Perhaps they think so, but have they ever really\nexamined their belief in the light of the knowledge of the twentieth\ncentury? If they will do this, we do not see how they can longer profess\nto be Christians, if they are honest.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen men are hungry roast mutton is better than the lamb that taketh away\nwrath.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf a man can look in the mirror of his own soul without shame, he can look\nthe whole world in the face without a blush.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DANGER OF THE BALLOT\n\n\nMen speak usually as though voters ranged themselves on one side of a\npolitical question, or another, according to their convictions or\nprinciples. We wish this were so, then we should be nearer having a pure\nballot. But we cannot share this lofty view. It does not seem to us that\nthe average voter is a man of either political convictions or principles.\nParty service does not require intelligent, independent action, and\npolitics to-day stands for party fealty more than for governmental ethics.\n\nThe main question that is decided by an election in our country is, which\npolitical party shall have the privilege of dispensing the offices of\nGovernment? There is a desire on the part of certain persons to obtain\noffice, for either personal or party advantage, and this desire is\noftentimes so fierce that it will betray the honor of citizenship. Where\nthis is done, or attempted, lies the danger of the ballot.\n\nIf men voted only as their political convictions dictated, we should have\na higher party morality and purer officers, but we must face the facts\neven though the duty is not an agreeable one. Politics has degenerated to\na dirty business and political trickery and bribery secure victory where\nhonor, integrity and principle suffer defeat. The plain truth is, we have\na large class of voters who make merchandise of their right of suffrage,\nand a set of demagogues whose business it is to bribe or coerce voters for\nthe advancement of selfish ends.\n\nThe honest, virtuous, intelligent, independent vote is the noblest power\nof a freeman, but the purchasable vote, the ignorant vote, the vicious and\nservile vote, is the opportunity of the knave and the scoundrel. The\npurity of the ballot is the only safety of a Republic, and no greater\ndanger threatens this nation to-day than that which arises from the\ncorruption of the suffrage. A ballot should be the honest declaration of\nour principles, the expression of our own opinions, the badge of our\nmanhood; but when it is held in the hand that has sold it for a price, or\nwill deposit it at the dictation of another, it is the prostitute of greed\nand the hired assassin of the despot.\n\nEvery man should select his own ballot and vote to please himself, and any\nperson that would interfere with his right and duty to do this, should be\ndisfranchised forever. _The individual who does not know enough to select\nhis own ballot has no right to vote in this country._\n\nThere have been too many voters led to the polls, and used as party\ntroops. There are still slaves on election day who are afraid of the crack\nof the whip. There ought to be permitted in this nation no political or\nreligious disability on account of the honest exercise of the right of\nsuffrage. A man should be protected from the politician and the priest.\nWhen a man votes as he thinks, he has discharged the highest duty of\ncitizenship, but when he votes through bribe or fear, he forfeits the\nprivilege of the ballot. The polls are more sacred to man than the altar.\nReligion might die and man could still have every blessing of earth, but\nwhen liberty is killed, the noblest blessing of earth has departed.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe petty salvation offered by Christianity is not much sought after\nto-day, while the world is bending its mighty energies in the direction of\nknowledge as never before, and the glory of the electric light, the song\nof the steam-whistle, the music of the telegraph, the chorus of machinery\nand the grand anthem of countless enterprises tell of a bright and golden\nfuture time when man will master the elements of Nature and guide his life\nthrough its course of years in perfect safety and security and step down\nat the end of it,\u2014\u201cLike one who wraps the drapery of his couch about him\nand lies down to pleasant dreams.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nWHO CARRIED THE CROSS\n\n\nWho carried the cross upon which Jesus was crucified? Such a question\nought to be easy to answer, if the event ever occurred. There ought to be\nno disagreement upon so simple a matter as this. But there is\ndisagreement, and quite a serious one at that. Three of the gospels\ndeclare that Simon carried the cross, while the fourth gospel says that\n_Jesus_ himself carried the cross upon which he was crucified. Now, which\nis right? Is John right? If so, then Matthew, Mark and Luke are wrong. If\nSimon carried it, Jesus could not have done so; and if Jesus carried it,\nthen Simon did not.\n\nThat there is such a discrepancy in the accounts of this alleged event\ndoes not so much indicate that one is right and the others wrong in regard\nto the carrying of the cross as that none is right. To our mind this\ndisagreement of the gospels is an indication that no such event as the\ncarrying of a cross upon which to crucify Jesus ever occurred.\n\nChristians put forth the Bible as a work which in some way came from God;\nas a book which is reliable in its statements, and correct in its\nnarrative of events. Now, it is patent to everyone that in the gospels\nthere are two distinct accounts of the carrying of the cross. How can\nChristians reconcile this fact with their theory that God is the author of\nthe Bible?\n\nIt must be admitted by all that one mind could not have written or\ninspired both of these stories, and it must also be admitted that if one\nis true the other is false. What is the natural conclusion that an\nunprejudiced mind would arrive at after reading the account of the\ncarrying of the cross for the crucifixion of Jesus in the four gospels? Is\nit not that no such cross was ever carried for any such purpose?\n\nThere are too many gospels, too many stories of Jesus. It would have been\nbetter for Christianity had all but one of these narratives been\ndestroyed. They contradict each other in so many essential points as to\nmake them totally unreliable as records of facts. It is plain that _not\none of the writers of the four gospels knew of what he was writing_.\n\nWe must in honesty say that no one knows who carried the cross on which\nJesus was crucified, and no one knows whether Jesus was crucified or not,\nand no one knows whether any such person as Jesus ever lived, to be\ncrucified.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nCivilization has come about by going to school more than to church.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNature is the volume from which all of our knowledge has been translated.\n\n\n\n\n\nMODERN DISCIPLES OF JESUS\n\n\nThe modern disciples do not resemble very closely the ancient disciples of\nJesus. In fact it is very hard to find a reason why Christian preachers\ncall themselves disciples of Jesus at all. According to the narrative of\nthe New Testament Jesus was not in love with money and what money will\nbuy; he did not have a high appreciation of the good things of the world;\nhe did not express any anxiety about his food or dress, nor manifest any\ndesire to have aesthetic surroundings.\n\nAnd if we can credit the story of the gospels, Jesus charged his disciples\nto be and do pretty much as he himself was and did. He said to them: \u201cHeal\nthe sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils; ... Provide\nneither gold nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your\njourney, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves, for the workman\nis worthy of his meat.... It is enough for the disciple that he be as his\nmaster.\u201d\n\nWhether or not the ancient disciples heeded these words of their master,\nand carried out his instructions, we do not know, but there is abundant\nevidence that his modern disciples do not pay his commands the compliment\nof obedience. If there is one item that the clergyman of to-day looks\nafter it is his salary. He deliberately disobeys all of the injunctions of\nJesus to his disciples, and thinks he is doing his duty to do so.\n\nThis is the funny part of his discipleship to us. He does not consider the\ncharge of Jesus worthy of being heeded. When we point to the commands of\nJesus, and ask some Christian minister why he does not obey them, he\ncoolly informs us that it would be the height of folly in this age to\nattempt to do as Jesus commanded his first disciples. In other words the\nChristian clergyman acts upon the ground that the orders of Jesus to his\napostles are incompatible with personal dignity and decent living, and\nthat only a person utterly devoid of all sense of fitness and social\nresponsibility would undertake to follow his directions.\n\nWe agree with the action of the modern disciple of Jesus in regarding his\ncommands as foolish and unfit to be obeyed, but we want him to take an\nhonest stand before the world and say so like a man. Now he is a\nhypocrite, when he assumes a place in the Christian ranks but refuses to\nobey the orders of his master. The modern disciple of Jesus is more\nconcerned about putting money in a bank or investing it in real estate\nthan he is about \u201claying up treasures in heaven.\u201d\n\nIf there is one person who believes thoroughly in looking after himself\nand his in the world, and getting all the good things out of it, it is the\nChristian minister. He is well housed, well fed, well dressed, and, as a\nrule, has a comfortable income. How he must laugh when he reads the New\nTestament! He probably regards Jesus as a chump to tell men and women to\ntake no thought for what they shall eat and drink and wear, and not to lay\nup a few dollars for a rainy day. He has to make believe honor the poor,\nunsophisticated peasant of Galilee, in order to get his fat living. He has\nto fool the fools that support him in luxury, but all the reverence he has\nfor Jesus you could put in your eye.\n\nIf it paid better to tell the truth and to take an honest position in the\nworld, we presume that most ministers would quit playing the hypocrite,\nbut as long as Christianity pays its preachers more than they can get from\nany other source, we may expect them to profess to follow Jesus and then\ndo as they please.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nEvery fact is backed up by the whole universe.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nChristianity is a black spot on the page of civilization.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe church is a bank that is continually receiving deposits but never pays\na dividend.\n\n\n\n\n\nA POOR EXCUSE\n\n\nThe excuse of the poor for not going to church is a poor excuse. The woman\nwho does not go to church because she cannot dress well enough, cannot\nhave much respect for her master. Jesus did not rail against the poor, but\nthe rich. He did not condemn Lazarus, but Dives. Christian churches should\nbe filled with rags, not silks; with paupers, not bankers. No one can be\ntoo poor to feel at home in the church of him who was too poor to have a\nplace to lay his head. A Christian church is the church of poverty, and\nits minister should welcome the tramp, the beggar, the rag-muffin, and\nshould give the cold shoulder to the rich merchant, the well-dressed\npolitician, the prosperous citizen.\n\nIt is a singular thing that while silks despise rags, rags respect silks.\nThe poor Christians ought to glory in their poverty, ought to be proud of\ntheir patches. They should have utter contempt for good clothes, and go to\nthe church of Jesus with a feeling of pride that they honor him by being\npoor, as he was. Velvet, satin and broad-cloth are insults to him whose\nragged royalty they profess to reverence.\n\nIf the poor were not as big hypocrites as the rich, they would drive the\nrichly-dressed worshipers out of the church dedicated to the\npoverty-stricken Nazarene, who has been elected to the office of savior. A\nperson has not very much Christianity when his religion is ashamed of his\nold clothes.\n\n\n\n\n\nPROFESSION AND PRACTICE\n\n\nThere are a great many persons who are anxious to pass for more than they\nare worth, to stand for more than they represent. They always get on the\nside of the majority, because that is considered the safe side, the side\nthat is most likely to have the largest number of loaves and fishes. These\npeople are willing to pay the price of popularity; willing to do anything\nthat is regarded as respectable, even to denying their own souls. The\neasiest way to win favor is by professing the popular faith, no matter\nwhat it is. A true man will be true to his convictions, true to his\nprinciples; but such a man may not receive applause, may not make money,\nmay not be allowed to enter the door of society. In order to win the favor\nand secure the good-will of the majority, it is necessary to go with it,\nno matter where it is going. The thoughtless, the weak and simple, follow\nthe crowd.\n\nProfession is demanded of him who would join the ranks of the pious.\nProfession is required of the man or woman who belongs to the church. The\nperformance of every duty, the practice of every virtue, is not a\nsufficient recommendation to popular favor. It is a fact that profession\nwithout practice is accepted in preference to practice without profession.\n\nThe man who gives his life to man without thought or care about God is\nconsidered a bad man, while he who gives his life to God without thought\nor care about man is regarded as holy and saintly. Nobody can do God any\ngood or any harm, and all the worship that is offered him is a waste of\ntime.\n\nThe man who stands up in public and asks God in prayer to help the poor,\nto bless the suffering, is looked upon as a good man, while he who does\nnot pray nor ask God to do anything, but helps his needy brothers and\nsisters, is pronounced wicked and sinful. Values have become strangely\nmixed in the eyes of mankind. Religion is considered as worth more than\nmorality; worship more than work; prayer more than performance and\nprofession more than practice. This is wrong, false and foolish.\n\nProfession is a mighty poor jewel, a cheap and flashy substitute for the\ndiamond of practice. It is a confession of fraud; a mask for a face; a\ncoward\u2019s excuse; a hypocrite\u2019s wile. Honesty need not profess to be\nhonest.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen a minister says that God will help you, ask him to put up the\ncollateral.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe church spends thousands of dollars to save a dogma, where it spends a\ncent to find a truth.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHERE IS TRUTH\n\n\nMen have enthroned truth in some far-off kingdom, away from the world, as\nthough it were too pure to live on earth. It has been made supernatural,\nand only to be known by being revealed. But truth is everywhere; its voice\nis heard in everything. The very pebble at our feet holds its image, and\nits light twinkles in the white splendor of the distant star.\n\nMan has searched for truth in books, but has not found it there. He has\ninvented words to conceal his disappointment, such as God, heaven,\nprovidence, etc. Nature contains all the truth, and so far as men have\nread Nature aright they have learned what is true, but we cannot catch and\nhold Nature in our philosophies. She breaks through all the finely-woven\ntheories we put about her, and man, in his attempt to bind Nature with his\nthoughts, binds only himself.\n\nMen in all ages have tried to read the secret of the universe. We have\nbeen told that God directs it, that a divine mind planned it and keeps it\nin motion. Why not let the universe explain itself? Why not read it by its\nown light? Why not confess our ignorance? God is a figure of speech, but\nNature is a reality. Let us trust what we know. Nature is never\ncapricious. Fire will always burn, water will always drown, frost will\nalways freeze. Though we have confidence in Nature, let us acknowledge\nthat we do not yet comprehend the meaning of things. The old habit of\ninventing words to hide our ignorance has been adopted by science as well\nas by religion. Evolution does not reduce the mystery of existence to a\nsimple problem. What we call truth is more than we have yet found. The\nunknown is still provocative of investigation, and the only prayer of the\nmind is, more light. We must beware of accepting dogmas, whether of\nscience or religion. No statement is the last word of truth. Doubt is the\nfirst step of progress, and inquiry is the way to knowledge.\n\nThere is nothing that stands more in the way of human advancement than the\nauthority of opinions. Some dragon of assertion ever disputes our right to\nthe golden fleece of truth. If we ask for proof of God\u2019s existence or\nman\u2019s immortality, we are answered with a text, but a text is only the\ndead opinion of a dead man. This age demands truth, not the belief of a\nperson who lived centuries ago.\n\nBecause superstition holds the contents of a book sacred we are not to\nenslave reason to its statements. We will not be bound by the opinions of\nothers, neither must we bind others to our opinions. We must make freedom\nsacred, and cease condemning men for disbelief or unbelief. The bondage of\nfaith is the slavery of the soul. It makes man unjust, unwise and unkind.\nAllegiance to a creed makes us ill use a man simply because he does not\nbelieve as we do.\n\nNo church has all the truth, and no school either. So-called religion\nmerely shows where the search after truth ended. But truth is the infinite\nreality, and it will always be for man to find.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nChristianity is like a slow clock\u2014always being moved ahead.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe day of the Bible is passed. Books have taken its place.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nBetter be late to church Sunday morning than late at home Saturday night.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMan to-day has more and better ways of getting a living than at any time\nin the history of the race.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT DOES IT PROVE\n\n\nChristians say that the resurrection of Jesus proves his claim to be the\nMessiah. But what proves the resurrection? Certainly not the contradictory\nstories of the gospels. The story of the resurrection of Jesus from the\ntomb merely proves that somebody lied, that is all. A pretty Messiah Jesus\nwas! The Messiah of the Jews was to be a king who should restore the lost\nsplendor of the house of David; who should overthrow the power of the\nRomans and build up the Israelitish kingdom. This king never came. Jesus\nwas just about as much a Jewish Messiah as Crispus Attucks was a President\nof the United States.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo creed can be stretched to the size of truth; no church can be made as\nlarge as man.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTo correct in ourselves what we condemn in others would remove most of the\nevils of life.\n\n\n\n\n\nHUMAN RESPONSIBILITY\n\n\nThere is nothing that tends to perpetuate the weakness of humanity more\nthan religion. Men have been taught for ages that they were dependent upon\nGod for all they have. This kind of teaching must be corrected; it is\nfalse. Man is dependent upon man. No God will help or hurt him. Be he ever\nso good no God will praise him; be he ever so bad no God will blame him.\nWhat he wants to escape is his own condemnation.\n\nIn order to develop an independent spirit in man it is necessary to\nincrease his responsibility. Man must be taught to rely upon his own\nstrength, upon his own body and mind. He must learn his relations to\nNature and abide by the laws of his being. He must know this: if he would\nhave anything he must deserve it. Human destiny follows human conduct.\n\nThe old notion that man is responsible to God cannot be proved. There are\nno facts that corroborate that notion. Man is responsible to himself. It\nis this truth that is calculated to elevate and ennoble human life. Let\nhuman beings understand that there is that within themselves that is to be\nrespected, and that they are responsible to themselves for all they do,\nand they will be more worthy of respect and live more worthy lives.\n\n\n\n\n\nABOLISH DIRT\n\n\nWe should like to see one generation brought up to hate dirt. Every child\nought to be taught that clean hands and face and clean clothes help to a\nclean life. There are too many homes on this earth that human beings live\nin that are dirty, in which those three household gods\u2014the broom, the mop,\nand the dust-rag\u2014have no place.\n\nChildren should be taught to drive dirt out of the house as they would a\nmad dog. Dirt is the food of disease. It is the enemy of health and\nhappiness. Abolish dirt.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf God exists, what objection can he have to saying so?\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen we have nothing to give a beggar, we can at least tell him so kindly.\n\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND MORALITY\n\n\nA religious man is not trusted to-day because he is religious. Faith in\nvicarious atonement is not accepted as a moral substitute for meeting\none\u2019s obligations. Worship of God is not equivalent to helping your\nneighbor. The fact that a man is religious may not be proof that he is a\nbad man, but it is no evidence that he is a good man. The most\ncontemptible wretch that ever robbed the widow or orphan could shine in a\nprayer-meeting, where words are passed for virtues. The veriest scoundrel\ncan pay a pew tax and march up the aisle of the church with sanctimonious\ncountenance. Religion is such a superficial affair that it carries no\nmoral recommendation. Without morality religion could not borrow a dollar\non its name, while morality without religion can get all the accommodation\nit asks for. The real virtues of a man do not depend upon religion. Men\nhave lived good lives while believing in dozens of gods and without faith\nin a single god. Morality is not the offspring of theology. You cannot\npick out a moral man by hearing him pray. A great deal of religion is worn\nto conceal moral defects.\n\nWe should watch the man who stands up in public and says: I am moral. We\nshould say to him: It is not necessary for you to proclaim your morality;\nyour daily life will show how moral you are. The world is becoming\nsuspicious of him who stands up in public and says: I am religious.\n\nA great many people seem to think if they profess to love God it is not\nnecessary for them to love man.\n\nWe are not denying that a great many good men and women are religious;\nthat a great many good men and women go to church and prayer-meeting. We\ndo not deny that a great many moral men and women profess faith in total\ndepravity, in vicarious atonement, but we do not see how their faith has\nanything to do with their morality. There is no particular necessity for\nChristians to be good. Their faith saves them, not their conduct. Religion\nis not doing, it is believing, or pretending to.\n\nThere is a big opportunity to lie in religion. You cannot tell when a\nperson says he believes in God whether he is telling the truth or not. It\nis mighty easy to be religious. But the moral man has no such chance. He\nis not judged by his professions, but by his actions.\n\nReligion makes hypocrisy easy, but morality offers the hypocrite no show\nwhatever.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNever forget the good deeds that others do to you, nor remember those that\nyou do to others.\n\n\n\n\n\nJESUS AS A MODEL\n\n\nIt is common to speak of Jesus as though he touched the borders of every\nhuman experience, and sounded the depths of every joy and every woe, but\nthere is no warrant for such statements.\n\nHe lived a very narrow life, and his brief career cannot be stretched to\ncover the limits of our earthly existence. He is held up for us to\nimitate, as though he had left a pattern for every hour of our lives, and\na model for every day from the cradle to the grave. This is simply\nnonsense. This \u201cmodel\u201d business has been overworked. Jesus had a great\nmany crude, foolish ideas, and did a great many deeds that are not worth\nrepeating. As a model of what is best in this age he is a wretched\nfailure. It is a mistake to look upon Jesus as a fit person to lead our\ncentury to a higher life.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is nothing to live for in the past.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe must condemn christianity, not christians; strike the church, but spare\nthe heart.\n\n\n\n\n\nSINGING LIES\n\n\nGo into any Christian church and you will hear the choir and the\ncongregation singing lies. Is it not time to stop it? Is music married\nirrevocably to falsehood? Take up an ordinary hymn-book and you will\nhardly find a sensible line in it. The entire contents of the book is\nabout God, heaven, salvation, and other equally unknown quantities, states\nand conditions. Why not sing sense? Why not sing facts? Why not sing\ntruth? Why not sing the glories of Nature, of life, of man?\n\nMusic is a wonderful power, a wonderful educator of the feelings and\nemotions. It is essential, therefore, that music be inspired by what is\ntrue, by what is good, by what is right. Truth should be set to music and\nthe lips taught to sing what science has discovered, what art has done,\nwhat the universe reveals, what the world is living for.\n\nThe common Christian music is a wail of despair, a cry of sorrow, a shriek\nof fear. It is composed of false conceptions of Nature, of humanity, of\nlife. It is a \u201cdoleful sound.\u201d The triumph of faith which it celebrates is\nnot a full, round, complete joy.\n\nThe Church does not know the music of laughter, the music of the heart.\nIts song seems always to hover on the brink of fear. It is not the glad\nnote of natural freedom, but the uncertain joy of the escaped convict.\n\nThe free song must come from the free heart, must denote the free thought.\nLet life that is healthy, happy and human be set to music. Let us sing as\nwe live, as we think, as we feel. The music of the hand, the mind, the\nheart, should be on the lips. If we could only sing what sings through us,\nthe world would listen with rapture. We do not want \u201charmonious madness\u201d\nnor harmonious idiocy. Pious music is stupid, false. It is inspired by the\nsickness of the world. We need a stronger note, a sturdier song.\n\nLies enough have been sung. Let truth now fill the air. Out of the great\nhope of the race let new songs come. We are beginning to live for life on\nearth, for happiness here, for love here, for victory here. Let the hands\nand feet, the brains and hearts of men and women move to the music of\ntruth.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is not a village where poverty does not pinch the stomach or starve\nthe mind, where misery does not need charity and where wealth could not\nbless.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPiety could do nothing better than imitate morality.\n\n\n\n\n\nA WALK THROUGH A CEMETERY\n\n\nIn walking through a country graveyard one sees a prominent granite or\nmarble monument here and there, but more of the stones that mark the\nresting-places of the dead are modest in appearance, plain and humble. But\nthere are some graves that are unmarked by any outward token of\nremembrance. Such graves may hold the dust of as great and good men and\nwomen as those spots above which has been raised the lofty shaft and\ncostly design.\n\nGraveyards are just as deceptive as are the homes of the living. A fine\nhouse is not proof of the moral, the manly or womanly worth of its\noccupant. Saints do not sleep beneath the gilded roof any more than under\na leaky thatch. So also the wise, the good, the true, are not the ones\nover whose ashes rises the chiseled stone. The dead may deserve monuments\nthat the living are not able to buy.\n\nA graveyard might be called a library of lies. Epitaphs are to be read,\nand believed, if you can believe them. We have found as big falsehoods in\ncemeteries as in newspapers. \u201cSay nothing bad of the dead\u201d is kindly\ncounsel, but, say nothing of the dead on a tombstone, is wiser.\n\nWe have seen a towering stone covered with words of praise over the ashes\nof a man, who, while living, was simply a lover of money. We have seen the\nsunken grave of a woman, with no marble to adorn it, who lived a heroic\nlife of love and duty beyond words to tell. If virtues bore monuments one\nwould rise over the neglected grave of that saintly woman that would reach\nthe clouds, and that other grave would be stripped of its marble and left\nto oblivion.\n\nThough a cemetery is more or less a museum of vanity and pride, there is\nat the bottom of the costly display of granite and marble a tender\nfeeling, a commendable virtue. There may be as much love and respect for\nthose in unmarked graves as for those who sleep in costly masonry or\nbeneath sculptured stone. In walking through a graveyard, if our steps\nshould go to the places where no monument invited the eye, they would be\nmore likely to walk over the dust of those who did life\u2019s duty well, than\nif they paused only before the imposing shaft or read the marble tale of\nvirtue that never was told in deeds.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nGod never helps those who need the help of men and women.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man ever knew Providence to interpose when his neighbor\u2019s hens are\nscratching up his garden.\n\n\n\n\n\nPEACE WITH GOD\n\n\nA good, pious lady said to us not long ago: \u201cDon\u2019t you think that you\nought to make your peace with God?\u201d We have never had a bit of trouble\nwith God. We have got along with him tip top. He has never shown that it\nwas at all necessary for us to make peace with him. We have never\nquarrelled. If we are not at peace with God, we did not know it. We have\nno wish to have a row with anyone, and if God has the idea that we are mad\nwith him or want to injure him in any way, we wish to disabuse his mind of\nsuch a notion.\n\nWe wish to say that we have never had any dealings with God, to our\nknowledge. If we have seen him, we did not know it. If he has spoken to\nus, we were not aware of the fact. If he has been in our presence at any\ntime, we were not conscious of it.\n\nWe do not know that we have ever wronged God or that God has ever wronged\nus. We do not say that some word or act of ours may not have injured God.\n\nAll we can say is that we have no way of finding out whether such is the\nfact or not. Of course, we could not take the word of a priest or minister\non this point. We want God\u2019s own assurance in the matter.\n\nUp to this time God has made no complaint to us that we have wronged him,\nor that we need to make our peace with him, and until we hear from his own\nlips that we owe him an apology, we do not intend to make one.\n\nGod is just as good to us as though he was dead. He does not cross our\npath, stand in our light, dog our steps, or interfere with what we are\ndoing. He does not get in our way any more than if he lived in the planet\nJupiter. So we do not see that we need to make our peace with him. We do\nnot comprehend how there can be any collision between us.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPriests will pardon thieves but not philosophers.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPriest and God have formed some of the worst combinations in history.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nToo long has this world been at the feet of the priest. Man is never in\nthat position for his own benefit, but for the benefit of the priest.\n\n\n\n\n\nSAVING THE SOUL\n\n\nThe man who can deliberately, and in cold blood, as it were, try to save\nhis soul, must be grossly selfish. To do that which shall redound to one\u2019s\nown advantage or profit, without care or consideration of another, shows\nlittle humanity. The finer feeling is that which looks after others rather\nthan one\u2019s self. It can only increase selfishness to seek salvation.\n\nWhen a man gets the idea that his soul must be saved, and goes to work to\nsave it, the things that he will do in order to insure its salvation tend\nto lessen its value; and by the time he thinks his soul is saved it is\ngenerally not worth saving. The more willing we are to be lost, the more\nchance there is that we will not be.\n\nThe cheapest method of saving one\u2019s soul is by believing something. This\nrequires but little effort and no brains. Christianity is organized\ngullibility. It tells people to believe what it teaches and it will save\ntheir souls. It remains to be seen whether Christianity fulfils its part\nof the contract.\n\nIt occurs to us that before we try to save our soul we ought to know that\nwe have a soul and that it needs saving. We fail to see any necessity for\nanxiety on account of our soul. We do not care to go into the salvation\nbusiness and let the priest get all the dividends. Any person who can\nseriously talk about \u201csaving his soul\u201d ought to have a guardian.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SEARCH FOR SOMETHING TO WORSHIP\n\n\nWhat is there in the universe that deserves worship? Is there anything?\nWhat is there that men and women should kneel to, pray to and adore? If\nthere is anything that deserves such worship from human beings, where is\nit? Let us see if we can find any such thing.\n\nWe look at the earth and its inhabitants, and while we see much which\ncalls for admiration, we find nothing to worship. The mountain impresses\nus with its towering grandeur, the ocean with its vast extent and terrible\npower, but we cannot get on our knees to rocks, no matter how high they\nare piled; nor pray to water, no matter how much there is of it. The\nflower elicits our wondering delight, but we cannot adore a rose, a\nsunflower or a daisy. We own the marvelous beauty of the animal form, but\nwe cannot worship a horse, a tiger or a dog. We hear the gladness and\nmadness of melody which comes from the throat of the bird, but sweet and\nentrancing as it is, we cannot adore a skylark, a nightingale or a thrush.\nWe see man, the fairest form that walks the earth, the most marvelous\npiece of work that Nature reveals to our senses, but we cannot worship our\nown image.\n\nBeyond earth the eye looks, and cloud, black or bright, is seen and the\nendless blue beyond the cloud, but man cannot get on his knees to vapor or\npray to the sky. In the daytime the sun is seen, and at night the moon and\ncountless stars, but man cannot worship a ball of fire nor a dying planet,\nor adore a point of light.\n\nWe can find nothing on the earth or in the heavens that we can worship. Is\nthere something not on the earth or in the heavens? If so, what is it and\nwhere is it? What do men and women kneel to? Nothing. What do men and\nwomen pray to? Nothing. What do men and women worship? Nothing.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nCoals out of the ashes of love will never light the fires of friendship.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe names of most men live on account of the falsehoods told about them.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe should scorn the person who would be mean enough to allow his\nfellow-being to be punished for his deeds. Yet we have a religion in our\nmidst that is founded on this kind of meanness.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHERE ARE THEY\n\n\nWhere are the sons of gods that loved the daughters of men?\n\nWhere are the nymphs, the goddesses of the winds and waters?\n\nWhere are the gnomes that lived inside the earth?\n\nWhere are the goblins that used to play tricks on mortals?\n\nWhere are the fairies that could blight or bless the human heart?\n\nWhere are the ghosts that haunted this globe?\n\nWhere are the witches that flew in and out of the homes of men?\n\nWhere is the devil that once roamed over the earth?\n\nWhere are they? Gone with the ignorance that believed in them.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man was ever yet canonized for minding his own business.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man was ever yet sorry to find that he had married a good cook.\n\n\n\n\n\nSOME QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTIANS TO ANSWER\n\n\nHow do ministers know what pleases God?\n\nWhat is \u201cinspiration of God?\u201d\n\nWhen God \u201cinspired men of old,\u201d what did he do to them?\n\nWhat has God revealed to man that has ever helped him get a living?\n\nIf we do not need to worship God six days in the week why do we need to\nworship him on the seventh?\n\nIf there were no ministers and no priests, how long would there be any\nchurches?\n\nIf God will answer prayer, what is the necessity of working?\n\nIf God weeps when the poor suffer, what does he make it so cold for?\n\nIf rich men cannot enter the kingdom of God, what business have rich men\nto be in Christian churches?\n\nIf God is our \u201cfather,\u201d does he take very good care of his children?\n\nIf God sends what blesses us, who sends what curses us?\n\nIf Christianity makes the world better, why is there so much vice and\ncrime?\n\nIf \u201csalvation is free,\u201d why is anybody lost?\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE IMAGE OF GOD\n\n\nWe wonder if anyone knows what is meant by the expression, \u201cthe image of\nGod.\u201d It is said in the Bible that God \u201ccreated man in his own image.\u201d\n\nIf man makes anything in his image we know how this thing looks, but when\nGod creates something in _his_ image we are at a loss to comprehend what\nis meant unless God has the likeness of man. In ancient times there is no\ndoubt but what the assertion that God \u201ccreated man in his own image\u201d was\naccepted literally, that the people looked upon God as a big man. Later\nthey came to look upon man as a little god.\n\nBut we are dealing with the brain of the twentieth century, with the\ncommon sense of a scientific age, when it is no longer believed that God\n\u201ccreated\u201d man at all. To-day the \u201cimage of God\u201d is a puzzle. If God\n\u201ccreated man in his own image,\u201d in whose image did he create the elephant,\nthe lion, the bear, the ox, the goat, the snake, the beetle, the bee, the\nfly, the gnat? These could not all have been created in the divine image,\nunless the divine image is a multitudinous likeness.\n\nIs it not about time that a few literary murders were committed, that some\none went through our literature and killed off a lot of nonsensical\nexpressions that, if they ever meant anything, are meaningless today? If\nthere was more honesty in the pulpit a great many Bible expressions would\ngo out of fashion. One of the first that needs to die or be killed is this\nfoolish expression, \u201cthe image of God.\u201d It may be religious, but it lacks\nsense. It means nothing in this age. God is a term that eludes definition.\nIt is a survival of an age of ignorance.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA man may be a fool and not know it, but he cannot be a fool without\nothers knowing it.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is a pious regard for certain men and women who have in past ages\nbeen, as it were, the world\u2019s salvation. We would honor these men wherever\npiety offers her praise, but we would not, like piety, forbid man the\nright to excel them. We all know how much easier it is to be saved by\nanother than to save ourselves, but it cannot be denied that there is a\ncertain respect, a feeling of admiration, a thrill of reverence for the\nman who says: I am a free moral being and scorn to allow another to suffer\nfor my sins.\n\n\n\n\n\nRELIGION AND SCIENCE\n\n\nWhen religion attacks science it is like trying to cut down the tree of\ntruth with the hatchet of falsehood. It is unfortunate for Christianity\nthat it was founded on the book of Genesis. A scientific fact is higher\nauthority today than a religious fable. Science has found so many facts\nthat contradict the stories of Genesis that to accept these stories as\ndivine truth is to make falsehood the word of God.\n\nThe one particular enemy of every religion is science. With merciless\nlabor her votaries have dethroned one after another idol of man. Science\nhas no creed, no dogmas. Her search is for facts, and on these she stands.\nIf what is discovered by lovers of truth is contrary to the tenets of\nreligion, such tenets must be abandoned, for what is scientifically false\ncannot be religiously true.\n\nThe Christian church is built upon a lot of divine say-soes. Science has\nfound that these say-soes are not so. The only honest thing for Christians\nto do is to give up the book of Genesis as a reliable record. What men\nhave said that God has said is not necessarily sacred. Men may have lied,\nand lies are not holy. Christianity has been afraid of the divine name.\nWhat it has found in the name of God it has blindly worshiped as the word\nof God. This stupid action has been a prolific source of mischief. Faith\nhas carried on its innocent back a thousand impositions through fear to\ndoubt.\n\nScience has not found the name of God in the earth or in the heavens. It\nhas ignored the guide-board which the priest of religion nailed to the\nBible, \u201cthis book shows the way to truth,\u201d and has studied the volume of\nNature instead. Whatever it has found has been told. What may be honestly\ninferred from the facts of science is that all religions are humbugs, and\nthat Christianity is a fraud.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe only way to a better life is by living better.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe person who tells a lie does not know what he will have to do next.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many persons have the idea that the universe would run off the\ntrack but for them.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nHave a good time, make life cheerful and bright, dance if you want to,\nsing if you can, play as long as you live and leave the world with a\nsmile.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BIBLE AND THE CHILD\n\n\nThe longer we live the more are we convinced that no adult person would\naccept the Bible as a divine work if he had not been taught the dogma of\nthe Bible\u2019s divinity when a child. Let the matured mind come to the\nperusal of the Bible without the religious prejudice in favor of its\ndivine character, and it would reject the book as unworthy the\nconsideration of the intelligent, educated man. Let the refined sense,\nwhich all education in art, manners and social morals seeks to cultivate,\nbegin to read the Bible, without the religious prejudice in favor of its\nsacred character, and before a dozen pages had been read, it would close\nthe volume with disgust and hide it out of sight, or burn it as soon as\npossible.\n\nThe Bible\u2019s divinity rests upon the mental and moral corruption of the\nyoung. Were children not taught that this book was sacred, men and women\nwould look upon it as unholy. Do people realize what harm they are doing\nto the mind of the child when they teach it to accept the Bible as God\u2019s\nword? They are telling the child that falsehood is sacred; that ignorance\nis holy; that foul stories are pure; that vile words are clean, in the\nmouth of God. Fathers and mothers would not tell their children what they,\nand what priests and ministers, tell them God wrote or inspired man to\nwrite.\n\nWhat is needed to-day is to tell the truth about the Bible. Tell men and\nwomen that ignorant, uncultured, unrefined men wrote it hundreds of years\nago, and that it is unfit in its present shape to put into the hands of a\nchild that a mother wishes to grow up honest, true and pure.\n\nLiberals should not allow their children to touch the Bible. They should\nkeep it from them until they are old enough to know that no book was ever\nwritten by a God, and then, if they read the Bible, they would see its\ntrue character. We must guard the minds of our children from Christian\ninfluences. We pity the child that is taught that the Bible is the word of\nGod, but we despise the man that teaches this falsehood.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMost men would kill the truth if truth would kill their religion.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe truths which God revealed have been overthrown by the truths which man\nhas discovered.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPeople used to think that to mix religion with business spoiled the\nreligion, now they think it spoils the business.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHEN TO HELP THE WORLD\n\n\nRecently an old man, over eighty years of age, lay on his death-bed. He\ncould no longer keep possession of the wealth he had accumulated. In a few\nhours he must leave it to the world from which he had taken it and kept it\nso many years. He had not been a generous man. He had loved money. He\nloved to get it and loved to keep it, and if he could have carried his\nwealth with him, whither he was going with that unknown guide, Death,\nthere is no doubt but that he would have done so. He had given nothing to\nthe world while he lived and he would not have given anything when he\ndied, only that he was obliged to do so. This is the only charity of a\ngreat many people.\n\nWhen death comes, then the hand of avarice must open. Nothing can be\ncarried through the grave. So the old man must at last release his hold\nupon his gains. He must leave his loved dollars to somebody. He had\ngathered them for himself, not for others. He had thought only of himself\nwhen he gathered them, and now, when he was to part with them, he did not\nknow what disposition to make of them. The lawyer was present at his\nbedside; the minister was also with him.\n\nThe will had been drawn. He had bequeathed certain sums to public\ncharities and remembered the church. Life was almost gone. He hesitated\nyet to give up the control of his money to others. The pen was placed in\nhis dying fingers for him to affix his name to the will. But he had waited\ntoo long. He died with the name unwritten, the pen unused in his dead\nhand.\n\nNot voluntarily did he part with a cent of his fortune. His millions will\nnow be divided by the law.\n\nIs there in the bare possession of money the happiness that men desire,\nthat men dream of, that men _want_? Is a dollar the highest goal of human\neffort, the crown of human endeavor? Is this dollar, the insignia of\nfortune, the true sign of good fortune? We believe not. The man who works\nfor this and nothing else, is the slave of avarice; as hard, as cruel, as\nmerciless a tyrant as ever cursed the earth.\n\nLet every man strive for independence. Let man be rewarded well for his\nlabor. Let every hand keep busy, but let there be a desire higher than\nmoney, a dream nobler than of gain, a want above the possession of riches.\n\nThere is a better charity than that unwilling gift which death compels us\nto make; it is to help the world while we live. There are two ways of\ndoing this: by giving back a part of what we take,\u2014that is one way and a\ngood way\u2014and by taking less from others, that is another way and a better\nway. The help that men need to-day is justice. Thousands are poor that one\nmay be rich. Thousands toil that one may live in idleness. Thousands are\nin want that one may live in luxury. Thousands have not a dollar that one\nmay have millions. This is not right, not fair, not just. Men must take\nless while they go through life.\n\nIt is not enough that a man on his deathbed give a college a million, a\npublic library a million, a public park a million. _He should have no\nmillions to give._ He should live a more just life and help others by\ntrying to get less for himself. The public bequest is the popular\natonement for large fortunes, but such atonement does not efface the\nsufferings of poverty and want they entail.\n\nWe say to the rich, do not wait until you die before you try to help your\nfellow-men. Help them while you are living. When a man has made money he\nshould make a noble use of it, or he wrongs himself and the world.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhere the cross has been planted only superstitions have grown.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nReligion is no more the parent of morality than an incubator is the mother\nof a chicken.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nUnless some people change their habits before they die, there will be a\nlot of dirty angels in the next world, if there is any next world.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE JUDGMENT OF GOD\n\n\nWe hear less of what is called the \u201cjudgment of God\u201d than formerly, but\nquite enough to show that this foolish superstition still lingers in the\nhuman mind. It used to be believed that God was on the lookout for the bad\nboy who went fishing or skating on his holy sabbath and that when he\ncaught him he immediately made use of him to prove his loving-kindness and\ntender mercy by making him get into the water where he could drown him. It\nwas never related that God took this boy by the shoulder or even by the\near and led him back home to his parents with the request that they take\nbetter care of him in the future. This was not God\u2019s way. There would be\nno judgment in this. God must murder the poor boy who could see no\ndifference in the conduct of the birds and fishes on Sunday from their\nconduct on Saturday, and have him carried back to his father\u2019s arms and\nhis mother\u2019s heart a corpse, a cold, dead thing, no longer needing love,\nkindness, and a parent\u2019s great, forgiving charity. This was God\u2019s way. He\ndelighted in seeing a dead boy taken out of the frozen stream and laid\ndown in the presence of his poor, grief-crazed mother. He thought this\nwould make the mother love him more and other boys keep his holy sabbath.\nSo when any misfortune befell on Sunday a human being who was not on his\nway to God\u2019s house, or engaged in other pious occupation, it was believed\nto be a judgment of God and people took care to avoid a similar\npunishment. This kind of religious teaching does not enjoy the reputation\nthat it once did for the reason that it has become discredited by human\nexperience. All things considered it is just as safe to go sailing or\nswimming, fishing, or driving, on Sunday as on Monday and men have learned\nthat no penalty attaches to violation of the fourth commandment. As people\nbecome sensible they cease to be religious.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPrayer is begging from a pauper.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe egg of prayer never yet became a chicken.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPrayer is like a pump in an empty well, it makes lots of noise, but brings\nno water.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many people who worship Jesus would not let him come in at the\nback door.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND FREETHOUGHT\n\n\nChristianity is opposed to freedom, and consequently freedom is opposed to\nChristianity. A Christian cannot be a freethinker, and a freethinker\ncannot be a Christian. When a man is required to believe certain\ndoctrines, he is not free to think. A creed is to keep the mind from\ninquiry. Questions lead to doubt, and doubt is the death of faith.\n\nThe church condemns freethought, because freethought cannot be bound by\nits chain of dogma. There is no place in the Christian church for the\nexercise of liberty. If the mind finds a new truth that contradicts the\nold dogma, the truth must be strangled that the dogma may hold its power\nover the thoughts and deeds of men.\n\nTo be a Christian is to surrender to the priest or minister in the name of\nChrist. It is to be a monkey on the end of an ecclesiastical string to get\npennies for his master. It is to crawl at the feet of superstition.\n\nTo be a freethinker is to search for truth without fear. Where there is\nlove of freedom there is no reverence for authority. There is no faith in\nGod as sacred as love of man.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere may be lots of Providence in the world, but no man seems to know\njust where it can be found.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE BROTHERHOOD AND FREEDOM OF MAN\n\n\nFrom the fall of Rome a new era marks the history of man; a new soul was\nborn out of human experience. The idea which had been prophesied by the\nphilosophers of India, Egypt and Greece now appeared in life, and what had\nbeen hoped for seemed about to be realized. Born in an age of slaughter\nand inhumanity the thought of the brotherhood of man fell upon the world\nlike a star out of the night\u2019s sky. Though the power of this idea was not\nfully comprehended by the people upon whom it blazed forth, still the\npromise it contained was able to kindle enthusiasm in the hearts of the\nfew, who bequeathed it to the world as the destiny of mankind. Human life\nwas inspired with a new purpose under the power of this grand and noble\nsentiment. Although it was not understood and the subject of much\nmisapprehension, the thought of uniting man in one great endeavor grew and\nendowed nations with a feeling that never before had moved their hearts.\nIts advent gave the world a new ambition and the mind was enlisted in the\ngreat cause of love and fellowship of man.\n\nThere was another sentiment not less true or beautiful but more\nrevolutionary, which about the same time began to assume likeness in human\naffairs, which must be considered of larger importance in the new social\nmovement, which, during the first century of the so-called Christian era,\ncommenced to be felt. The declaration of the sovereignty of man was more\nprophetic of change in government and society than the doctrine of the\nbrotherhood of man. No government taught that man ought to judge for\nhimself what is right, and no church preached that man should love his\nneighbor as himself.\n\nPolitical and religious organizations then as now were arrayed against\nindividual rights. The state and the church controlled the person. Man was\ncrucified between these two thieves. One robbed him of his body, the other\nof his soul. Our history assigns the origin of these two great\nprinciples\u2014man\u2019s right to judge for himself and his duty to help his\nfellow-being\u2014to Christianity. But one was born before the beginning of the\nChristian era and the other long after the Christian church was\nestablished. One represents man as opposed to authority; the other the\nsoul resisting tradition.\n\nThere is more or less talk about the freedom and brotherhood of man, but\nthey exist as ideas yet more than as facts. It is true that man enjoys a\ncertain measure of liberty in many directions, but the victory of freedom\nhas not yet been won. So too is there a kind of human sympathy in society,\nbut the broad and magnificent destiny which dwells in the bosom of human\nbrotherhood is more a dream than a reality.\n\nThere has been too much time wasted in disputing who was the human author\nof these great and sublime conceptions, and too little expended in trying\nto plant them in human hearts and cultivate them in human lives. It is\nunimportant who first stood against the world of tyranny and demanded his\nright of independence, or who first felt indignation for the wrongs\ninflicted upon his race and pity for the victims of cruelty, and pleaded\nfor more humanity towards man. The secret can never be wrested from the\nsilent past, and we can gain nothing by fighting over graves.\n\nThe world seems nearer the full realization of human freedom and\nbrotherhood than ever before. What is needed now to hasten the fruition of\nthe glad promise of a better destiny for the world is to take authority\nfrom the priest and selfishness from man.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPrayer is a hook that never caught any fish. It is a gun that never\nbrought down any game.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man ever got an answer to prayer that he could show to another person.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHATEVER IS IS RIGHT\n\n\nThere are a great many familiar sayings, that are in the mouths of nearly\neverybody, which are perfect nonsense, and one of these many sayings is\nthe one we have chosen for the subject of this article. One would imagine\nthat falsehood became sacred by repetition, judging from the way that\ncertain untruths live in the literature and language of mankind. Many a\nholy text is only holy by being with what is true, as we pay respect to\nmany a man whom we know to be unworthy because he is related to\nrespectable people.\n\nThe saying that \u201cwhatever is is right,\u201d is a dogma of the philosophy of\nindifference. To anyone who works for the right and suffers wrong, such a\ndogma is impertinent. Is the deed that sinks a man to the realm of brutes,\nand the deed that lifts him to heights where virtue in her high estate\ndwells alone, both right? The worst light for a human soul is that light\nin which a bad act looks like a good one. We cannot afford to trifle with\nthings pure and true. To succeed grandly in life we must side with what is\nright.\n\nThere is a class of people that hold a don\u2019t-care philosophy. These people\ndon\u2019t care what they say or do; they don\u2019t care what takes place in the\nworld or what the world suffers or endures. The tent in which they dwell\nis pitched above the plane of human wants and sufferings. They look from\ntheir serene abode upon the troubled elements below, and, in contemplation\nof what is beneath them, pronounce with pious gravity the highest text of\ntheir system of philosophy: \u201cWhatever is is right.\u201d\n\nTo those who have never seen the bitter tear start under the infliction of\ninjury; to those who have never heard the sigh that disappointment and\ndeception have wrung from a breaking heart; to those who have never\nwitnessed the sufferings which tyranny imposes upon its victims; to those\nwho have never felt the miseries which selfishness heaps upon human\nbeings, this doctrine may seem true; but to those who have beheld the\nconsequences of evil doing, and felt the hard hand of injustice upon their\nlives; to those who have been the victims of deception, and realized the\nterrible fate of disappointment; to those who have been trodden upon and\ndenied the rights of men; to those who have been the slaves of the world\u2019s\ncruel masters, how false it is!\n\nWe cannot disguise the fact that there is wrong in the world. It haunts\nevery dwelling-place of man. It follows man to his business, to his work.\nIt goes with him when he seeks his pleasure. It does not leave him when he\nenters his home.\n\nEvery harsh word is wrong, every unjust judgment is wrong, every cruel act\nis wrong, every deception is wrong, every wicked or impure thought is\nwrong. Go where we will we shall meet the ugly face of wrong. On the\nstreet its presence will bring shame into the face; in our dealings with\nthe world it will come before our eyes in all its hideous reality. Even\nwhen alone we cannot keep this phantom away.\n\nIs it right that a human being should cause another pain and anguish that\nwill leave their marks on the heart and brow for life? Is it right to make\na man suffer unjustly, to add to misfortune the weight of cruelty? Is it\nright to deprive one of honor, of fortune, of life? Is it right to bear\nfalse witness against a brother-man, to abuse a neighbor, to slander and\nmalign a human soul? Is wrong right?\n\nGo to the garret of the poor wretch where want stares him in the face,\nwhere extortion robs his family of every joy and every comfort, where the\nday is made dark from no ray of human love coming into the heart, and the\nnight darker from the absence of warmth and light. Go to the home rent\nasunder by vice and see the broken promises once so fair and bright, now\nblushing with shame; hear curses from lips that once spoke in love; see\nthe skeletons of vows beautiful when breathed by the lips of the holiest\npassion on earth, but now hideous in their ruin. Go to the den of\nwickedness, to the house of crime supported by lust and greed; look upon\nthe pictures of wretchedness and sorrow, of sin and guilt painted by the\nhand of wrong; behold the wrecked human lives that are floating on the sea\nof existence, only drifting until some sudden wave shall overwhelm them\nand sink them out of sight, leaving behind a memory that man should\ncontemplate with pity and which kindness would blot out forever. See the\nworld in its vice, in its suffering, in its misery, in its tears and its\nshame and let your lips say, if they can, that \u201cWhatever is is right.\u201d\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt is necessary to distinguish between the virtue and the vice of\nobedience.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nI believe that if God dwelt above the earth in the twelfth century of the\nChristian era, and witnessed the cruelty of priests and heard the cries of\ntheir poor victims when their bones were broken upon the rack or their\nflesh was burning in the wicked flames, and these priests should have\nlifted up their voices to this God and given him the glory of the awful\nsacrifice, he would have said to them: You lie; I never commanded one of\nmy children to murder another. You are no ministers of mine, and your\nvictims, with their heresies, are a thousand times holier in my sight than\nare you with your pious dogmas and holy sacraments.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE OBJECT OF LIFE\n\n\nMen live for less than their advancement. The object of life is not human\nimprovement. Ambition has not self-denial for a mark but\nself-gratification. A thousand pander to one. Passion, instead of\nprinciple, is the power that guides. We do not save to help save the\nworld, to aid progress and truth, but to have means to satisfy selfish\ndesires. The highest consideration of mankind is self. Everything is done\nfor one. Humanity is a word of little meaning. It is not often regarded as\na great, living, suffering being, which demands of every person his or her\nbest life. Man is not loved as the supreme fact of Nature. When not a\nbeast of burden, he is too often a beast of pleasure.\n\nAs long as self is to be preferred to all, it matters little what is\nemployed to promote it. Self is alone sacred to selfishness. General\ninterest is sacrificed to individual possession. Every man thinks the\nworld _his_ first. It is regarded as magnanimous to leave what you cannot\ntake.\n\nThe world no longer permits the stronger to kill the weaker, but it allows\nthe wealthy to oppress the poor. Money is holier than man. Human life is\nless sacred than property. To save a dollar is regarded as a more\nnecessary virtue than to save a human heart. Society cares more for\nfortune than for truth. It is easier to win your way with hypocrisy than\nwith honesty. The world does not ask: What are you worth morally? but,\nwhat are you worth financially? Self-interest has made it the object of\nlife to injure our fellows. To get an advantage over another is the\nvictory man seeks. One must fall that another may rise.\n\nThose who are at the bottom support those who are on top. The toilers are\nthe foundation of society. We need to be more careful of what is beneath\nus than of what is above us. \u201cI write not these things to shame you, but\nto warn you.\u201d\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen you are falling, you cannot stop where you wish to.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe power that conquers men to-day must be the power of enlightened\nopinion.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTwo dollars given to the son do not atone for one stolen from the father.\n\n\n\n\n\nMAN\n\n\nThe Hebrew psalmist sings of man:\u2014\u201cThou madest him a little lower than the\nangels.\u201d A modern psalmist writing on this subject says:\u2014\u201cMan was made a\nlittle higher than the brutes.\u201d Man is a rare animal; he is the only\nanimal that can make a fire, but he is more than a brute. We do not know\nhow much less than an angel he is, for we do not know the dimensions of an\nangel.\n\nWhat we do know is, that this strange, rare being, called man, is capable\nof doing a good deed, but is prone to do a bad one; that he has developed\nvirtues above the brute and vices below the brute; that he is better in\npublic than in private, and yet take him all in all he might be worse. We\nhave had the weakness of human nature preached until we have almost come\nto expect man to be immoral and vicious, and are surprised if anyone\nasserts that man is strong enough to resist temptation, and disappointed\nif he does not come up, or down, to our expectations of vileness and\nwickedness.\n\nWhile we have faith in man in the minority rather than in the majority,\nstill we are inclined to think that most men are bad from circumstance\nmore than from choice. We trust to better conditions for better men, and\ndepend upon our best men to establish such conditions.\n\nThere is some criticism of virtue that vice offers which is as pertinent\nas the censure of vice which virtue indulges in. We admit that there are a\ngreat many sinners that are preferable to some kinds of saints, who are no\nmore to blame for their sins than their more fortunate fellow-beings are\nfor their saintliness. But we do not mean to say that every good man is a\nvillain in disguise, nor every rogue a righteous man who has not been\nfound out.\n\nThere are men and women whose goodness is looked upon as \u201cflat, stale, and\nunprofitable\u201d because it is that kind that is good from favorable\ncircumstances, and not from the exercise of any strength of their own, but\nsuch virtue is better than vice. We cannot afford to lose any power that\nprotects the world from evil, and we rejoice in all the favorable\ncircumstances that guard human beings.\n\nMen are educated into bad habits through the constant assertion of human\nweakness, and the publicity which is given to bad deeds. We can never\nbuild man very high on the foundation of \u201ctotal depravity.\u201d It is to be\nregretted that we think so meanly of mankind. We must start with a better\nassumption of human nature than that held by Christianity.\n\nWe ought to emphasize man\u2019s strength and give prominence to the good deeds\nof men. It is not necessary to lie about human nature one way more than\nanother. Man has been painted worse than he is. We do not ask to have him\npainted better than he is. We want a true likeness. Man will make the best\npicture without any fictitious coloring.\n\nWe are aware that we have not yet outgrown our animal inheritance, that we\nare still fettered to earthly things. Man can more easily deny his soul\nthan he can his stomach, but for all this there is greatness in him. While\nman can fall to the lowest depths from which he sprung, he can rise to the\nheight which is visible in his purest hours. What we ought to do is to\nencourage, all we can, the conditions most favorable to the development of\nthe noblest part of man. Every temptation to vice should be driven from\nthe public gaze. If man must fall, let him fall out of sight.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nPeople who rely most on God rely least on themselves.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe original sin was not in eating of the forbidden fruit, but in planting\nthe tree that bore the fruit.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe people who boast the loudest of carrying their cross are never around\nwhen man cries for help.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAn audience composed of the best-dressed people in a town stands for \"pure\nreligion and undefiled\" to-day.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE DOGMA OF THE DIVINE MAN\n\n\nThere are growing indications all along the Christian line that the dogma\nof the divinity of Jesus is being abandoned. It is seen that such a dogma\ninvolves confusion and misapprehension. When the question, \u201cHow can a God\nwho is infinite exist in a form that is finite?\u201d is pressed to an answer,\nno satisfactory reply is forthcoming. There is apparent absurdity in this\ndoctrine. The general definition of God, as put forth to-day by the\nChristian Church, is irreconcilable with the dogma of the divinity of\nJesus. If Jesus was God he was not a man; if he was a man, he was not God.\nTo talk about his divinity is to talk nonsense, if Joseph was his father\nand Mary his mother. Man is not divine; God is not human. The mixing up of\nthese two terms is done simply to impose upon the credulous and\nsuperstitious. We cannot think that any man of real good sense believes\nthis Orthodox dogma. It seems impossible for intelligence to so contradict\nitself. The brain stoops that accepts this dogma. For a man to confess his\nfaith in Jesus as divine is to admit that his hat is not full. The\nevidence adduced to prove the divinity of Jesus proves the divinity of\nApollo, of Hercules, of Prometheus, of hundreds of mythological heroes.\nAre Christians prepared to admit this? If not, then they are called upon\nto tell the world why not. What is meant by divine? What kind of a man is\na divine man? Let us see. Divine means superhuman, supernatural, God-like;\nhence a divine man is a superhuman man, a supernatural man, a God-like\nman. Does anyone know what these definitive terms mean? Does a person know\nwhat he is talking about when he says a man is superhuman? Can a man be\nmore than man, more than human, more than natural?\n\nThe dogma of a divine man is a dogma of deception. It is a theological\ncobweb. It is spread to catch flies.\n\nThe idea prevailed in the past that what could not be understood must\nnecessarily be profound, as though muddy water was deep water.\n\nDoes anyone comprehend the dogma of the Trinity? It is believed because it\ncannot be comprehended. The tribute of faith has been paid to occult\nnonsense long enough.\n\nHow does anyone know what is superhuman? What is human? The fact is, Jesus\nhas had his day. His reign is drawing to a close. He is being seen for\nwhat he is,\u2014a myth. Faith in him as a God is dying. The belief that Jesus\nwas divine is a blot on the intelligence of this century. But the blot is\ngrowing smaller.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nLots of men who would not associate with infidels for fear of\ncontaminating their characters are not yet out of jail.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE RICH MAN\u2019S GOSPEL\n\n\nThe presence of numberless rich men in Christian pews leads one to wonder\nif the gospel of Jesus has been kicked out of the church. Such men do not,\nand cannot, respect the person to whom every church is dedicated. The\ngospel of Jesus is not the gospel of the rich, but of the poor; not of the\nbanker, but of the beggar. It is impossible for the wealthy man to be a\nChristian. If he had any faith in the doctrines of Jesus he would \u201csell\nwhat he has and give to the poor.\u201d And not only this, but he would be poor\nhimself.\n\nJesus never said a kind word of the rich. He never uttered a word that\ncontains any consolation for the millionaire. He never gave any command\nthat encourages the \u201claying up treasures upon earth.\u201d What is a rich man\nin the Christian church for? He has no business there, if he is an honest\nman. He is living exactly opposite to the life Jesus commanded. He is\ndoing what Jesus told men not to do. He refuses to do what Jesus said a\nman must do in order to be his disciple.\n\nEither the rich man who joins the church is a hypocrite, or the minister,\nthat receives such a man into the church, is. There is a hypocrite\nsomewhere. You do not find that Jesus went into the temple to flatter the\nmoney-changers; he went in there to drive them out with a whip.\n\nThe rich man\u2019s gospel is not found in the New Testament. That is sure. It\nmay be preached from a Christian pulpit by a so-called Christian minister,\nbut the man who preaches this gospel denies his professed Lord and Master.\nJesus did not say, \u201cLay up treasures upon earth.\u201d Take all you can from\nthe poor. Form trusts and combinations to enrich yourselves. Worship\nMammon. There is a misunderstanding evidently on the part of the rich man\nwho joins the Christian church. If he would read the New Testament he\nwould learn his mistake, and see that he was in the wrong place. He does\nnot seem to be aware what Jesus preached. There is one thing certain, the\nChristian church that receives into fellowship a millionaire, has more\nreverence for the millionaire than for Jesus.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe beating of humanity\u2019s heart cannot be felt by placing the finger on\nthe church\u2019s pulse.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhat a queer thing is Christian salvation! Believing in firemen will not\nsave a burning house; believing in doctors will not make one well, but\nbelieving in a savior saves men. Fudge!\n\n\n\n\n\nSPEAK WELL OF ONE ANOTHER\n\n\nThere is nothing that will make this world brighter and happier than to\nspeak well of one another. We sometimes wonder how a mean story about a\nfellow-mortal gets started, and how it is kept going. Surely no base\nreport ever had birth in a kind intention, and no mouth ever repeated it\nwith the wish to make the world better.\n\nEnvy, malice and ill-will can make no decent defence of themselves. Now,\nit costs no more to say a good word of a brother or sister than to say a\nbad one, and there is no obligation on the part of a person to blacken\nhuman reputation. It is a mean heart that cannot do justice to another. If\nwe must speak of our neighbors, let us speak kindly. Let us refer to those\nthings that are pleasant, and discuss that in their characters that is\nworthy of praise. It hurts us to say bad things of other people, and it\nmay hurt them. There is certainly some part of everyone\u2019s life that can be\ncommended. What we know of others that is not good, let us not refer to.\nSilence is never more charitable than when it spares a human heart.\n\nThere are many of our friends who are striving to make a success in life.\nNothing will aid them more than to speak well of them. Everybody can be\ngenerous with kind words, and yet they are worth more than gold. They are\nthe diamonds of speech, which the poorest can wear.\n\nDon\u2019t be afraid to speak well of men, to praise good deeds. No one will\nthink worse of you for speaking kindly of others. It is not necessary that\nwe speak well only of those deeds that men sing in words of song. There\nare scores of little every-day acts, that give the perfume of self-denial,\nof sacrifice, and that deserve praise. If we were to give any advice to a\nman or woman, who wished to help the world as they passed through it, it\nwould be this, Speak well of men and women.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA receipt for bringing up a child will not apply to a whole family.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTo build one house for man is better than to build a dozen houses to God.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe often hear a man say that the world owes him a living. So it does, if\nhe earns it. But man owes the world something. The debt is on both sides,\nand it is only by giving what is due to others that we get what is due to\nourselves. We receive assistance when we render it, and it is by a law of\nour nature that the world turns from a man who turns from the world.\n\n\n\n\n\nDISGRACEFUL PARTNERSHIPS\n\n\nSix marriages out of ten are disgraceful partnerships. The ones to\nquestion our assertion will be the married men, and the very ones, too,\nresponsible for the disgrace. Marriage is a union where the two partners\nshould share alike the profits and the losses. There should be no head of\nthe firm in the sense of making one subservient in any way to the other.\nThe wife has just the same right to handle the money of the firm as the\nhusband. The family purse should not be carried in the husband\u2019s pocket\nunless he is willing to pass it out whenever his partner requests it, and\nno questions asked.\n\nMost men treat their wives worse than servants. If a wife asks for some\nmoney, the husband, in most instances, wants to know what she is going to\ndo with it and how much she wants, instead of giving her what is her\nright. Married men do not recognize their wives as equal partners in the\nfamily concern. They think they should have what they want and their wives\nwhat they are pleased to give them. How many homes have been broken up by\ncarrying out such a principle as this? More than men will confess.\n\nThis state of things is not confined to the homes of poverty. Not at all.\nIt exists where there is plenty. Many a proud woman is almost daily\nhumiliated by a man to whom she is obliged to go for what money she needs.\nThe pain that niggardly husbands inflict upon sensitive wives is only\nknown by themselves. Many a woman has said: \u201cI would rather go without the\nmoney than have so much trouble to get it from my husband.\u201d What must a\nwoman have suffered to be forced to make such a confession as that!\n\nA marriage in which a woman is daily made to feel her dependence upon a\nman, is attended with the gravest moral perils. The only just rule is for\nthe husband to allow his wife a fair share of his income, for her to do\nwith as she pleases. Not only marital harmony would be promoted by such an\narrangement as this, but love would burn longer and purer on the family\naltar, private morality would be conserved, and all the relations of life\nelevated and dignified thereby.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe most beautiful thing is the beauty we see in those we love.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe money that men waste would make them rich, and the time they waste\nwould make them wise.\n\n\n\n\n\nSCIENCE AND THEOLOGY\n\n\nEvery day we are told of some wonderful discovery of science. But what has\ntheology discovered? The scientist is searching for the truth; the\ntheologian is trying to save his idols. Of all the great inventions and\ndiscoveries that go to make human life easier, happier, more rich and\nglorious, not one can be laid to the work of theology. These triumphs all\nbelong to science. Some day the world will become wise enough to confess\nthat the priest is of no benefit to mankind. The investigator, the\nstudent, the inventor, is the true philanthropist, the real benefactor. He\nfinds what is useful to his race, what adds comfort and joy to existence.\nScience is the hope of the world, the only savior that humanity has had\nadown the ages or will have as man lives on through the centuries.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMany a man who was too good to play cards has broken a bank.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA dog can get rid of another dog that cannot get rid of the flea on his\nback.\n\n\n\n\n\nUNEQUAL REMUNERATION\n\n\nA great many small men draw large salaries, and a great many large men\ndraw small salaries. Of course we measure men by their ability to do\nsomething of value to their race. It is a sorry fact that one person is\npaid ten thousand dollars a year for playing base ball or riding a\nrace-horse, and that another person in unable to earn seven hundred and\nfifty dollars for the same length of time by performing some useful labor.\nA mechanic, who actually adds to the wealth of the nation, who produces\nsomething of value, is paid less than a jockey or a base ball pitcher\nwhose business (?) is chiefly maintained for purposes of gambling.\n\nBut there are other phases of this question that present equally\ndisproportionate features. An actor, who merely repeats the words of\nanother, receives one thousand dollars a night for his performance, while\na lecturer who imparts original knowledge to his hearers, is paid twenty\ndollars and his expenses for his thought and labor. A singer is given five\nthousand dollars for appearing three nights of a week upon the stage, and\na reformer is allowed what her audience will drop into the contribution\nbox. One explanation of this is: \u201cThere is only one Caruso.\u201d\n\nThere is another explanation, and that is: People will pay more to be\nentertained, to be pleased, than to be instructed, to be enlightened or to\nbe told what is right and best.\n\nIt is a sad fact that many are paid too little for what they do. As a rule\nthe actual laborers, the real workers of the world, both male and female,\ndo not receive fair compensation for their work, while thousands of people\nwho merely hold an office are paid far more than they are worth. Teachers,\nwriters and professors are all underpaid. The highest work that man or\nwoman is doing is the work of education, training the human mind to think\ntruly, to act nobly, and yet a lawyer receives more in a day than a\nteacher in a year.\n\nThe world that will pay one thousand dollars an hour to hear the voice of\nMelba, will grumble at paying ten cents an hour to a washerwoman. The\nworld that will give a person ten thousand dollars a year for pitching\nbase ball will object to raising the wages of our mill operatives five per\ncent. The world that will pay ten thousand dollars a year for riding a\nhorse, wants a woman to teach school for fifty dollars a month.\n\nWe say, pay talent well and genius generously, but pay well also the arm\nthat toils; pay the needle, the saw, the spade, the hoe, the mop.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nEvery man who claims the right to \u201clife, liberty and the pursuit of\nhappiness,\u201d is bound to show that he deserves this right.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE OLD AND THE NEW\n\n\nThis is essentially an age of change. Things which have been established\nfor centuries are no longer regarded as fixed. That which has been looked\nupon as absolute is now respectfully held to be uncertain. The foundations\nof old ideas are being disturbed and man finds that he has built upon\nsandy bottom. Much which in times past answered the human soul, now\naffords no satisfaction. It is plain that a revolution has commenced that\nwill be far reaching and important in its actions and reactions. There is\nto be a general overhauling of matters secular and religious, political\nand social and a wholesale clearing out of old words and forms, of\noutgrown habits and customs, may be expected. The world of man is about to\ntake account of stock and to have a universal comparison of estimates of\nvalues. Too long have we been subsisting upon the say-soes of our\nancestors and taking their eyes and ears as infallible.\n\nFor many years men have regarded all questions of religion as settled, and\nthat the whole duty of this and future generations was to accept the\nconclusions of the past upon all religious matters. We do not understand\nhow men ever came to regard such conclusions as final or how they came to\nexpect the whole human race to receive them as the utmost of human\nknowledge. We do not look upon the questions of religion as settled, and\nthe growing doubts of the infallibility of the common religious ideas\ndemand that we reconsider these questions. To do this we have not to go\ninto any theological discussion. No learned authorities are to be\nconsulted to establish or refute any line of argument. No dictionary of\nterms is to be examined to settle the meanings of words. We have only to\ndecide whether mankind had better facilities for observing and studying\nthe phenomena of the universe in past times than we have to-day; whether\ntheir eyes and ears were better than ours, and their methods and\nopportunities for ascertaining the truth of things higher than those of\nthis age.\n\nIf men in the past had facilities inferior to ours for observing the\nphenomena of the universe, it would follow that their ideas of the\nuniverse would be inferior. Now, if we have superior ideas of the\nuniverse, ideas nearer the truth of things, why should we be expected to\nsurrender these and hold ideas which are false?\n\nIt seems to us that the questions of religion may be settled by deciding\nwhether or not we are to believe our own eyes and ears and trust our own\nknowledge and experience. It is certain that if we can trust our senses\nand our knowledge, the old ideas of the universe, of the origin of earth,\nof life, of man, and of good and evil and the whole catalogue of religious\nthings are incorrect; and if we accept them we do so contrary to our\nreason and understanding.\n\nWith faith in the present, and in all that makes it peculiar,\u2014its\nscientific tendencies,\u2014and with the belief that out of the doubt and\nuncertainty that are now around us will come higher convictions which will\ndeepen and widen life\u2019s purpose and make humanity a fairer word and a\nfairer reality, we say:\n\n\n \u201cRing out the old, ring in the new;\n Ring out the false, ring in the true.\u201d\n\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nHell is where cowards have sent heroes.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA man never fell down stairs that he did not blame the stairs.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe cross people carry to-day is made of gold or set with diamonds.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is nothing in this world of ours that will work harder, fight\nharder, wait more patiently and suffer longer than love, unless it be\nhate.\n\n\n\n\n\nGUARD THE EAR\n\n\nMuch of our character depends upon what we hear. A person may be saved or\nlost by what reaches him through the ear. The ear has no defense. It is\nopen to every sound. It cannot be deaf. It _must_ hear. We cannot open it\nto one person or shut it to another. It is filled with songs of deepest\nthoughts or words of ugliest shape without choosing either. It is at the\nmercy, and the soul as well, of whatever is uttered. The ear is\nfalsehood\u2019s, as well as truth\u2019s, servant. It carries what it hears, and is\nas faithful to the vilest as to the purest speech. It is temptation\u2019s\npeculiar channel. The eyes may be shut, the lips may be closed, but the\near is always open. We may decide what we will say, what we will see, but\nnot what we shall hear.\n\nWe perceive how important it is that none but pure, true, brave and\nsincere words be spoken. If a person never heard a bad word he would never\nutter one. The character of everyone born into the world is determined\nlargely by the world. Men do pretty much what they are taught to do. The\nheart at birth is pure, and were it not taught impurity, would remain so.\nWe regard the ear as the chief door of the assault against the human\nheart. Guard the ear and you save the boy and girl.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHARACTER OF GOD\n\n\nThe character of God would stand vastly higher in human estimation if he\nhad visited the garden in which he had placed the first human pair and\npicked up the serpent and cast him over the garden wall before he had a\nchance to tempt Eve, instead of waiting until the mischief was done, and\nthen cursing the whole lot for what he might so easily have prevented.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man can be himself with fear always at his heels.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nDeath can get into a house when everything else can be kept out.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt is plain enough that men and women care for God. This is too apparent\nto be disputed, unless men and women are hypocrites. What is not so plain\nis that God cares for men and women.\n\n\n\n\n\nNOT IMPORTANT\n\n\nA Christian contemporary says: \u201cNo question is so important to mankind as\nreligion.\u201d We wonder how a person could write that sentence without\nwriting after it, a la Artemus Ward, \u201cThis is a goak.\u201d Of course, a\npreacher is the author of it, or a person who gets his living out of\nreligion. Had the writer said, \u201cNo question is so important to ministers\nand priests as religion,\u201d he would have told the truth; but as it stands,\nit is a falsehood. We can mention several questions of more importance to\nmankind than religion. The question of something to eat and the question\nof something to wear are of vastly greater importance than that of\nreligion. So, too, is the question of education, or the question of\ngovernment, of more importance than religion. It is first necessary for\nman to live, then to find a place to live, then to find the things to\nsustain life, then to live happily and well. All this is prior to any\nreligious consideration. We believe the church as an organization would go\nto pieces but for clergymen and those who are interested in keeping it\nalive in order to get a living out of it. It would be nearer the truth to\nsay: No question is less important to mankind than religion.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA man\u2019s reputation oftentimes depends upon the success he has had in\nhiding his character.\n\n\n\n\n\nOATHS\n\n\nThe superstition prevails that unless man swears to tell the truth he will\ntell a lie. This superstition makes the sanctity of the oath. But is it a\nfact that a person will, under oath, always tell \u201cthe truth, the whole\ntruth, and nothing but the truth?\u201d It is the general opinion that judicial\nswearing is simply a judicial farce. We concur in the general opinion.\n\nAn oath is the liar\u2019s retreat. Behind it falsehood puts on the robes of\ntruth. The perjurer delights in swearing, for the act invests him with the\nappearance of honesty. An oath makes the tongue of vice as pure as the\nlips of virtue. It gives a rogue the weapon of the gentleman. It permits\nguilt to wear the dress of innocence.\n\nThe man who is willing to tell the truth feels that his honesty is\nimpeached when asked to take an oath, while the knave, who is bound to\nlie, feels that his knavery is protected by the God in whose name he\nswears. No more senseless custom survives in our age than the\nadministration of the oath. We do not believe that a judge or lawyer has\none whit more confidence in human testimony because it is given in the\ndivine name.\n\nIs it not time to recognize this fact, that men can tell the truth without\nthe help of God, and that those, who cannot do so, do not succeed any\nbetter with his help? In other words, an oath is calculated to pass a\nscoundrel for an honest man. While it does not insure truth-telling, it\ndoes serve to dignify a falsehood. It is time that a lie was obliged to\nstand on its own bottom, and not be passed for what it is not, because it\nis told in the name of God.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nGod\u2019s name is not considered good at the banks.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTo depend upon God is like holding on to the tail-end of nothing.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA man cannot be happy who believes in hell, any more than he can sweeten\nhis coffee with a pickle.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe church wants us to believe that God will go out of his way to strike a\nblasphemer and work a week to save the soul of a murderer.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEAD WORDS\n\n\nThere is not one real, true, live word in the Christian vocabulary of\nsalvation. Eden, the stage on which was performed the tragedy of original\nsin, is a dead word; devil, the name of the scaly gentleman who took the\nleading part in this tragedy is a dead word; hell, the abode of all those\nwho descended from the original sinners, is a dead word; Christ, the title\nof the man who offered to ransom the human race and save men and women\nfrom hell, is a dead word; atonement, the word that stands for the\nexpiation to be made by Christ, is a dead word. These words that the\nChristian church uses in its exhortations to mankind have no heart of\ntruth in them. They stand for no facts; they represent no realities. Take\naway these dead words from the Christian preacher, and you take away his\npowder, shot and wads. Let the Christian be held to facts and obliged to\ntell the truth, and his lips would be dumb. There never was such a place\nas the Garden of Eden; never such an individual as the devil. There is no\nsuch place as hell. There never was a Christ, and no atonement made, for\nthere was no necessity of any being made. If there was no such thing as\nfaith, Christianity could not make a convert on the earth. If ministers\nwere obliged to furnish the proof of their statements, there would be no\npreaching.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONFESSION OF SIN\n\n\nWhen the church teaches that \u201cconfession is good for the soul,\u201d it teaches\nfalse doctrine; it is only good for the church. Men once confessed their\nsins, believing that it was the evidence of the loftiest courage to\nacknowledge that they had made fools of themselves or that they were the\nveriest knaves. But never was a greater mistake made. Confession is itself\na sin, a base betrayal of one\u2019s own heart. It shows utter lack of shame.\nOur sins should be sacred. We should let no eyes see them but our own. To\nexhort one to confess one\u2019s sins is to ask the sinner to become the slave\nof his confessor.\n\nMan has learned to keep still in respect to those things that concern no\none but himself. He has found that where he has done wrong it is wiser to\nhold his tongue than to speak. We are not likely to confess what will harm\nus. This prudence is utility in morals. A wanton confession of wrongdoing\nshows a loss of self-respect, and a virtuous confession is proof of mental\nweakness. No human necessity requires self-degradation. To tell what we\nhave done is to pay a compliment to prurient curiosity which it does not\ndeserve. When we are commanded to do such a thing, resistance is a greater\nvirtue than compliance.\n\nThe human conscience to-day says: \u201cHands off.\u201d It is impertinent to touch\nthe soul against its will. Secrecy is our right. No one can demand that we\nexpose our indiscretions. If the church asks if we have sinned, we feel\njustified in answering: \u201cIt is none of your business.\u201d A man\u2019s sins are\nhis own. Our actions are private and subject only to voluntary betrayal.\nWe are at liberty to own our weakness or our meanness and to tell whatever\nwe have done; but when another attempts to coerce a confession from us, we\nrefuse to submit to such unwarrantable authority, and assert our right to\nbe custodians of our own deeds. The court which does not require a man to\ncriminate himself is higher than the church which bids a man lay bare his\nsoul.\n\nThere is no ear pure enough to listen to the story of the secret struggles\nof the human heart. The doctrine of \u201cconfession of sin,\u201d which has been\ntaught by the Christian church, is detrimental to manhood and womanhood.\nIt is a police arrangement where the private conscience is under the eye\nof the priest. There can be no independence where the soul has surrendered\nto another.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTo make crime easy is to make criminals. One cannot rob the clothes-line\nif the clothes are in the house.\n\n\n\n\n\nDEATH\u2019S PHILANTHROPY\n\n\nEvery now and then a man dies and the world praises his name, and men die\nevery day whose names we never hear.\n\nWhy is the one lifted up above the other?\n\nIn the case we have in mind it was because the man, when he died, left\nseveral millions of dollars to churches, to charities, and to public\nbenefactions.\n\nThis age honors the accumulation of wealth. It puts its stamp of honor\nupon the man who gathers a large fortune into his hands. If this man at\nhis death bequeathes all of his fortune, or a large portion of it, for\nwhat the world is pleased to call charitable purposes, he is called a good\nman, and his name is spoken with pride and praise.\n\nNow, we believe in all the virtues that would make a man wealthy, but not\nin the vices: and we believe that a man may have all of these virtues and\nnot have much money when he becomes old, or when he reaches the banks of\nthe river of death. We want to praise the man that the world does not\npraise, the man who does not live or die for praise, and who does not care\nfor it. We do not think that death\u2019s philanthropy is as grand and\nbeautiful as life\u2019s philanthropy.\n\nThe man who lives to get money and to keep money, that at the last, when\nhe can no longer keep it, he may bestow it where it will be a monument to\nhis name, is not half so noble as the man who lives in such a way that he\nmakes life easier for his fellow-beings, giving his little every week,\nhere and there, and letting his gift fall quietly and out of sight of men.\nIt is the truest philanthropy not to rob man, not to take money from the\nworld and hold it until the stronger hand of death opens the strong hand\nof greed. This is man\u2019s noblest way to live; to take only what can be used\nfor profit or pleasure. To take more than this is to rob mankind.\n\nWhat generosity is there in parting with money only when death makes the\nfingers let go? Men who carry their millions to the grave would carry them\nbeyond it, if they could. When only death can conquer selfishness, its\nnoblest bequest merits but little praise.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is no vicarious suffering for the one who has eaten too much.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe nation that proclaims the right of free speech, but will not protect\nthat right, has abandoned its principles.\n\n\n\n\n\nOUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS NATURE\n\n\nThe idea that Nature is to be worshipped, either as God, the unknown, or\nthe incomprehensible, is being seriously questioned. We wish first to know\nwhat good such worship does. It cannot be of any benefit to Nature. Is it\nof any benefit to man? This is the only question to be answered.\n\nAlmost everybody is ready to say that man should not worship the sun, the\nmoon, the stars, or any earthly thing; but a great many still think that\nman should worship the mysterious something of which everything is a\nmanifestation. We have outgrown the worship of objects. We look upon the\nperson who sees a God in any natural object as an idolater; as one whose\nmental vision is unillumined by any true idea of the universe. But there\nis a demand that man shall worship God, or the unknown force or power in\nNature that is the source of all things.\n\nWe admit the unknown quantity of the universe; but we do not see the\nnecessity of worshiping it. We do not see any good in praying to it, or in\nsinging to it. Nature is all a mystery and all the mystery there is, but\nwhy do we need to keep saying so in prayer and praise when the silent fact\nis ever before our eyes? We do not need to go down on our knees to every\nmysterious thing, and stay there. Let us freely and frankly confess that\nNature is incomprehensible, and then go about our business like men, and\ntry to learn what will help ourselves and our fellow-beings.\n\n\n\n\n\nREVERENCE FOR MOTHERHOOD\n\n\nAn author of some note, in an article published in a Protestant journal,\nwhile admitting that the \u201choly Catholic church\u201d had been about as unholy\nan institution as could well exist, claimed that Romanism had its good\npoints. Among them he instanced \u201cits reverence for motherhood.\u201d For proof\nof his assertion he pointed to the homage paid to the image of Mary and\nher child by the average Roman Catholic.\n\nWe admit the homage, but deny the reverence. To begin with, where is the\nreverence for motherhood among the Roman Catholic priests? Why, these men\nhave not respect enough for woman to elevate her to the dignity and honor\nof motherhood. These men are married to the church, to Christ and not to\nwomen. Their sacred office would be lowered by taking a wife.\n\nThe holy vows of these priests are not half as holy as the marriage vow. A\npriest never had half as pure a thought as is born in the heart of a\nfather. He never performed a rite half as consecrating as dancing a\nlaughing child on his knee. These holy old bachelors have done all their\nreligion would allow them to dishonor motherhood.\n\nThe pretence that woman as woman, as mother, as wife, as sister, or\ndaughter, is particularly respected by Roman Catholics is simply absurd.\nTo prove this we point to the homes of the Roman Catholics. We confess\nthat the Romish church encourages motherhood, that Roman Catholics are\nurged to help increase the church membership, but we claim that nowhere is\nthere less reverence of woman as woman, as mother, as wife, as sister, as\ndaughter, than among the Roman Catholics.\n\nBecause a Catholic crosses himself before a wooden Madonna, or a\nplaster-paris image of the mother of Jesus, it is no proof of his\nreverence for motherhood. Not a bit. The Catholic reverences Mary as the\nmother of God; he pays her homage as a divine person; worships her, not as\na mother, but as a superior being.\n\nThe man that has reverence for motherhood is the man who loves and\ntenderly cares for his own mother and the mother of his children, but the\nman who prostrates his mind before a carved figure of the \u201cVirgin Mary\u201d\nand pounds his wife and kicks his daughter into the street has reverence\nfor nothing.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAdam might have obeyed God, but he could not resist Eve.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt looks easy to break off a bad habit that somebody else has got.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE GOD OF THE BIBLE\n\n\nThe blind, foolish faith in the Bible is the cause of intellectual\ndishonesty, moral hypocrisy, and religious tergiversations without number.\nThis faith makes the twentieth century kneel to a God that it would be\nashamed to introduce among civilized beings.\n\nWe would no sooner go to Moses to learn about deity than we would go to\nNoah to learn how to build a steamship. We do not believe in getting\ndivinity through a straw three thousand years long. If we must have a God,\nlet us have one that has had the advantages of civilization. We might\npossibly give this Lord God of the Bible a quarter of mutton, as did Abel,\nor a peck of potatoes, as did Cain, if we were convinced that he was\nliving anywhere in the universe, just to keep on the right side of him,\nbut we would not care to be on an out-of-the-way road with him after dark\nunless we had a revolver with us. We know of no more villainous character\nin all literature; and for men and women, who pretend to love what is pure\nand good, who pretend to honor what is upright and just and who pretend to\nrevere what is noble and true, to worship this God of Christianity, this\nGod of Moses, this God of the Bible, is a sad commentary on human\nintelligence and human integrity.\n\nWe know that all theological discussions have been wretchedly barren of\nresults; we know that theology has made no contribution to actual\nknowledge; we know that no one knows anything about any such being as God,\nand we also know that every God worshipped to-day by men and women is only\nan imaginary person or thing. No one knows what God is or where he is, and\nyet ministers speak about him just as though they had been to his house\nand taken tea with him.\n\nTheology has received attention out of proportion to its achievements. It\nhas done the cackling while science has laid the egg.\n\nWe do not like to hear men say: \u201cGod did this\u201d and \u201cGod said this,\u201d when\nhe has never opened his lips to speak to man and never lifted his hand to\nhelp him. We call such language dishonest, and the time will come when the\nmen who have made such use of the divine name will be condemned as\nimpostors.\n\nWhat this generation should do is to take the Lord God of the Israelites,\nthat lies dead on the banks of time and bury him from human sight forever.\nNot another human being born on this earth should be allowed to read of\nhis cruel deeds, and if Christian ministers were honest, and had the\ncourage of their honesty, they would tell the world that the being called\nGod in the Bible was no God, only an idol of a rude and barbarous age.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA theologian is a person who uses the word \u201cGod\u201d to hide his ignorance.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEASURE OF SUFFERING\n\n\nThe little boy who asked his mother \u201cif hell was worse than the\ntoothache?\u201d imagined that the limits of suffering were reached in his\nagony. Many of us have doubtless experienced pain that we thought marked\nthe utmost of endurance. In the Christian dream of future punishment man\nis represented as burning eternally. Fire probably inflicts the intensest\npain that the human body has ever suffered. Hell is fitly represented by\nfire.\n\nSuffering takes various shapes. Pain comes in a thousand forms. But there\nis a limit to the endurance of pain. Unconsciousness comes to the relief\nof the mind when agony can no longer be borne. Hell, such as has been\ntaught by Christianity, is not a logical conclusion. All suffering that we\nknow anything about ends itself. The victim is released by exhaustion.\nHell is impossible.\n\nThe finer suffering which is called remorse, which follows wrong-doing,\ngradually wears out. Its lash loses its sting. The sinner becomes callous\nto his act or finds a balm for his regret in the lapse of years. The\nfinger of time erases the memory of every wrong, and soothes with its\ntouch every pang. We can escape the fate of wrong-doing by doing better.\nReform opens the door of every hell invented for man\u2019s punishment. The man\nwho does right, wherever he is, will have the reward of right-doing, the\nfate of right-doing.\n\nIt is this fact which makes the idea of endless pain for man\u2019s deeds done\non earth illogical. Man can turn around on the road of evil as well as on\nthe road of good, and hence he can change his fate whenever he changes his\nlife. The measure of human suffering makes it impossible for man to endure\npain forever. He must either perish utterly as a sentient being or be\ndriven by his punishment to better behavior.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man ever yet tore down his altar and found a God behind it.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTrying to find God is a good deal like looking for money one has lost in a\ndream.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe could believe in God if he shortened the road for the lame, led the\nblind or fed the starving.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe are told that \u201call things are possible with God,\u201d and yet God cannot\nboil an egg in cold water.\n\n\n\n\n\nNATURE\n\n\nSome people are afraid of the word Nature. They cross themselves when they\nhear it pronounced. It has a sound like \u201cOld Nick\u201d in their ears. To these\npious souls the word Nature banishes God from the universe. This is looked\nupon by many as the highest offence of language. It has been the custom\nfor several centuries to abuse Nature, to call it bad names, and associate\nit with depravity and everything evil. Theology has condemned the word,\nand the pulpit has touched it only with the tips of its fingers. To speak\nof Nature as anything good is regarded as throwing dirt in the eyes of\nGod.\n\nNothing clings to the world like a superstition. Start a fear in the human\nbreast, and it will make every heart quake before it can be driven out.\nLet a bad habit become fixed, and it will be as hard to dislodge it as it\nis to plant a good habit.\n\nBut men are getting over their fright somewhat. The natural is found to be\nthe true, not the false; the right, not the wrong; the good, not the bad.\nNature has been slandered, lied about. It was once thought necessary to\nassassinate this word in order to preserve the Orthodox religion. The\nnecessity still remains, but orthodoxy is dying.\n\nNature is a large word. It means about all there is. If there is a God, he\nis natural.\n\n\n\n\n\nCREEDS\n\n\nThis is the age of revision. Churches are all hurrying to catch up with\nthe world. There is a desire to square ideas with facts, and shape beliefs\nwith knowledge. Religion must suffer in this process. Something will be\nlost, but only what is bad, false and wrong. Creeds are out of date. They\nare behind the times. They are the dead leaves from the tree of knowledge,\nthe dead branches on the tree of life. The world\u2019s faith is in the living;\nin the bud, the blossom, the promise of things\u2014not in the husk, the shell,\nin dead and useless things.\n\nNew creeds are to take the place of old ones. What people believe now, not\nwhat people believed hundreds or thousands of years ago, must be put into\na profession of faith. For a man to profess what his father and mother\nbelieved is to make birth useless and existence valueless. We are to live\nto add to life, not to repeat it. Is theology the only thing that people\nput their trust in? A theological creed has to be accepted with the eyes\nshut. We want a creed of the heart, of the head, of the senses, of the\nwhole man. There is no theology worth believing in. The creed of the\nchurch is a gravestone.\n\nIf we were to make a creed for the world of men to accept we would make it\nout of human hearts. We would go where a man had helped another; where a\nwoman had sat beside the sick and suffering; where man had been crucified\nfor being true; where he had been burned for being honest; where he had\nstood against the world protesting against its wrongs and proclaiming the\nright, and where he had fallen with a martyr\u2019s crown upon his forehead;\nand we would write these into a creed, and have men say: I believe in men\nand women who have lived good lives, who have taken the unfortunate by the\nhand and lifted up the fallen, who have pardoned a woman\u2019s fault, who have\nshown their love of truth by being true, and who have done right even when\nthey were wronged for so doing.\n\nThe grandest life is the grandest creed; and, if man\u2019s faith was faith in\nwhat has made the world better and brighter and happier, he would be\nbetter off than by believing in a God that is cruel, unjust and unkind,\nand in a heaven where the highest joy is found in laughing at those who\nare in hell.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt has been discovered that the man who was lost in thought was not a\nchurch member.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe do not say that another world is not worth a single thought, but rather\nthat this world is worth all our thoughts, and needs them.\n\n\n\n\n\nDON\u2019T TRY TO STOP THE SUN SHINING\n\n\nIf there is one person on earth who is to be envied it is the happy,\ncheerful man or woman who always sees the bright side of life, the good\nside of a fellow-being, and the warm, sunny side of what belongs to earth.\nIf there is a person to be pitied, it is the sour, gloomy man or woman,\nwho sees only the dark side of life, the bad side of a fellow-being, and\nthe cold, cloudy side of what belongs to earth. Everything bright,\nbeautiful, fair, sweet, and good grows in the sunshine. We would not have\na flower without the sun. Cheerfulness is to the human heart what the\nsunbeam is to the earth\u2014the source of gladness.\n\nWe ought to cultivate happiness. We ought to have the home filled with\nwhat is beautiful. We ought to let the sun shine into our lives. People\nwho are sour and moody look upon the smiling, happy person as foolish, and\nwonder what there is in life that one can find to enjoy. They want to tear\nthe flower to pieces, stop the bird singing, trample upon the joy of the\nchild, and hush the laugh of mirth. If you cannot enjoy life, don\u2019t try to\nprevent others from doing so. Don\u2019t throw a shadow on the human heart.\nDon\u2019t try to stop the sun shining.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nLaying up treasures in heaven never kept a man out of the poor-house.\n\n\n\n\n\nFOLLOW ME\n\n\nJesus said: \u201cFollow me.\u201d But we decline; we had rather not. We do not wish\nto follow a person until we know where he is going.\n\nIf by following Jesus is meant living as he lived, doing as he did,\nbelieving as he believed, teaching as he taught and dying as he died, we\nare not in it. We shall have to say: Thank you, we guess not. We prefer to\ngo some other way.\n\nWe do not see any necessity of following anybody very far, if at all. This\nfollowing business is played out. Those who profess to follow Jesus don\u2019t\ndo it in the daytime.\n\nBut we can go a little farther and say that we do not think Jesus was a\nman that a self-respecting person would like to follow. He does not\ninspire us with any particular admiration. The man who could let his lips\nforget to speak kindly of his mother cannot have our admiration. The man\nwho came not to bring peace, but a sword, to the world cannot have our\nadmiration. The man who said: \u201cbelieve and be saved, believe not and be\ndamned,\u201d cannot have our admiration.\n\nIf we follow anybody, it is going to be a person that commands our\nrespect, whose greatness and goodness compel our admiration, and who did\nnot try to win men by tricks. We regard Jesus, as he is painted in the\nfour gospels, as a character below the ideal of this age, a character\nthat, to imitate, would dwarf the noblest man. If Jesus were alive it\nwould be his duty to-day to follow others, rather than to command others\nto follow him.\n\n\n\n\n\nCAN WE NEVER GET ALONG WITHOUT SERVANTS?\n\n\nWe recently overheard a remark which made us query if we cannot get along\nwithout servants? A lady was commenting on the character of the \u201chelp,\u201d\nwhich one was obliged to employ to-day, and expressed the opinion that, if\nour public schools continued to fill the heads of children with the notion\nthat one person was as good as another, it would not be long before it\nwould be impossible to get help at all.\n\nThere seems to be an idea abroad in this land as well as in others, that a\ncertain class of people are for the purpose of producing servants for\nanother class of people, and that this servant-producing class has no\nright to give their children an education that is calculated to elevate\nthem above the position of their parents. We are not in sympathy with this\nidea. If there is one person on this earth that is of less account than\nanother it is the person who is helpless, who is dependent upon others for\neverything that makes life possible or endurable. We must confess that\nthere are too many people in this country who are of this kind, who must\nhave someone to do for them what they ought to do for themselves.\n\nWhy should one person be expected to wait upon another? Why should a man\nor woman look upon a fellow-being as fit only to be a servant? Is one born\nto serve and the other to be waited upon?\n\nSuch notions have no right on our democratic soil. In this country there\nmust be no caste, no division of society into classes.\n\nWe rejoice that such a criticism of the character of the \u201chelp\u201d employed\nin the houses of the rich as we overheard, is true, for it reveals a\ncondition of things that may lead to what is much needed to-day, viz.: a\nsimpler mode of living on the part of a great many of our American people.\nIs it necessary to live in such a way that a dozen or more servants are\nrequired in a home to keep it in order?\n\nWe believe the community in which all are independent and none are\nservants is the ideal one. Why should not this be the ambition of the\nrace, to live in a manner that will leave others their independence and\nencourage in them the desire for a home? Our children all ought to be\ntaught to work, and be made to work, and not be brought up with the notion\nthat they have the right to expect others to wait upon them.\n\nWe do not wish to imply that one individual should not consider it his or\nher duty to help another or to work for another. What we desire to convey\nis this, that if people did more of their own work, and waited upon their\nown wants more, they would not only be doing what is best for themselves,\nbut also what is best for the community in general. For men or women to be\ndependent upon servants and almost helpless without them, is not a\ncondition to be proud of, but to be ashamed of. The man who cannot harness\nor drive his horse; the woman who cannot buy and cook a dinner for her\nfamily, has not been properly educated.\n\nThe home in which there are the fewest servants is the happiest home. The\nfather that brings up his sons to work, to know how to earn a living; the\nmother who teaches her daughters to cook, to sew, to do housework, is\ndoing them good, not harm. There are too many know-nothings and\ndo-nothings in the world. It is honorable to be useful in this world, and\nit ought to be dishonorable to be useless. Let us work for the day when we\ncan get along without servants; when life shall be so simple that each\nfamily can do its own work. The servant system is but little different\nfrom the slave system, and it ought to be abolished.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe money man gives to get him into heaven is what he ought to use to\nimprove the earth.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe Unitarian walks with a cane, the Congregationalist, Methodist,\nPresbyterian and Baptist go with crutches, the Episcopalian has to be\npushed about in an invalid\u2019s chair, while the Roman Catholic crawls on his\nhands and knees and is led around with a ring in his nose by a priest.\n\n\n\n\n\nA HEAVENLY FATHER\n\n\nIt may pay some persons to talk about a heavenly father who cares for his\nearthly children, but we prefer to get money in a more honorable business.\nHonor bright, now, gentlemen of the pulpit, did you ever see anything that\nconvinced you that there is a power in the universe outside of the human\nbody, that cared a snap for men, that showed any more love for a child\nthan for a crocodile? Tell the truth, and let us see how far apart we are\non this question.\n\nWe have no objection to being taken care of by a heavenly father, or by\nany person or power that is wiser and kinder than man. But we do not want\nto put our trust in such a being or power and then, just when we needed\nmost the help and counted on it, find that we had been deceived. We admit\nthe good that is in Nature, the beautiful, the attractive, but we cannot\nput faith in the God of earthquakes. When we listen to a bird\u2019s\nfull-throated song, and surrender ourselves in delicious rapture to the\nspell of its wondrous melody, we are ready to acknowledge that a benignant\npower gave life to this sweet little charmer, that can start such a flood\nof joy in the human heart, but when in strolling among the meadow\u2019s\nblossoms we are confronted with the repulsive head and ominous attitude of\nthe rattlesnake, we ask: Who made you? We admire Nature in some forms, but\ndetest it in others. We pick the rose with a blessing on its perfect\nbeauty and perfumed breath, but we shun the white flower of the\ndogwood\u2014the poisonous hypocrite. When the sky is fair and blue, and a\nsmile is on the face of heaven, we feel that only kindness and love sit\nenthroned above us, but when the blue changes to black and the smile to a\nfrown, which grows deeper and darker until the whole heavens threaten\ndestruction to earth; when the heedless lightning, with brutal stroke,\nfells at our feet a form we love, we wonder where the kindness and love\nhave gone that we saw only a few hours before. Nature does not keep one\nmood long. She has made things fair and things foul; she blesses, but she\ncurses also; she wins us with some temptation of beauty, and then punishes\nus for yielding; she puts in our heart an angel of love, but she puts\nthere, too, a devil of hate; she caresses us one minute and kicks us the\nnext; she licks our hand, and then without warning she bites us.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is more power to-day in a drop of ink than in a ton of powder.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA man may have respect for old age and not like to find gray hairs in his\nbutter.\n\n\n\n\n\nWORSHIP NOT NEEDED\n\n\nThe world will never throb with new life until the spell of worship is\nbroken. Nothing holds mankind down so much as veneration for its idols.\nShake off the lethargy that worship has brought upon the soul. Live like\nmen, and you need not worship gods. When we live true to the soul we cease\nto ask for anything. Worship is denial of self. Let us have no disputes\nabout divinity. Let God take care of himself. The light of the stars\nproves their existence. The universe needs no counsel of defence. That\nwhich is evident need not be explained.\n\nThe great question for us to answer is not what God wants, but what men\nneed. Let us live to ourselves. Worship is interruption. Let our life\nsatisfy. Worship is apology. If we are doing our best, what need to excuse\nour work? What good does it do to praise God? That is the true love which\nobeys, not that which adores. We want willing hands, not lifted ones.\nWorship is superfluous. It adds nothing to the soul. It increases our\ncares, not our virtues. The test of everything is, does it help man?\n\nWe challenge the church to prove its claim to man\u2019s support. It throws a\nshadow upon the earth instead of letting more light upon it. The priest is\nin man\u2019s way. Worship is a compliment to the deity that he does not need,\nand a burden upon man which he is not able to bear. Nature does not\nworship. She grows. Worship is opposition to reform. It palsies the\nworld\u2019s thought. It means stagnation. It is difficult to get advocated\nwhat will correct society, because mankind spends so much time in the\nchurch that it has no time to spend in the theatre of improvement. Worship\nis hypocrisy\u2019s disguise. What a train of splendid deceit marches up the\naisles of the church! What a mask is worship, but the world can see\nthrough it. When falsehood kneels in praise of truth; when extortion and\ncruelty call God father; when meanness and vice are the disciples of\nJesus, and when crime and sin say, \u201cThy will be done,\u201d the name of\nreligion is a blush on the forehead of the world.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe would not dethrone the world\u2019s heroes. The more human beings we can get\nthe world to honor and respect the better humanity will be, but when a man\nor woman has been for ages almost worshipped by the world; when time, with\nits forgiving hand, has erased deed after deed until naught else is left\nof the man or woman but a holy memory, an unreal soul, whose virtues are\nas ghostly as shadows cast by the moon, it behooves us to look with\nunprejudiced mind at this phantom of existence and to see with naked eye\nthis object of adoration, for one may be certain that beneath the idol\u2019s\nrobes will be found a human form and with it all the peculiarities of\nhuman nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nWAS JESUS A GOOD MAN\n\n\nWe denied in the presence of a Christian, who wished to have a religious\ntalk with us, that Jesus was divine. This denial was somewhat anticipated,\nwe imagine, as the gentleman who challenged our views was knowing to the\nfact that we did not pay pew rent anywhere. But he thought to secure\nassent from us by saying, \u201cYou will have to admit that Jesus was a good\nman.\u201d What constitutes a good man? A good man is a man who is kind,\nloving, merciful, reasonable, and just. Would a just man pay the laborer\nwho had worked but one hour as much as he paid him who had toiled all day?\nWould a reasonable man curse a fig tree because it did not have fruit on\nit out of season? Would a loving man say: He that hateth not father and\nmother is not worthy of me? Would a merciful man send those who did not\nagree with him into everlasting fire? Would a kind-hearted man bring a\nsword rather than peace on earth?\n\nThe truth is, we do not know _what_ kind of a man Jesus was. Good men have\nbeen killed by bad ones, and bad men killed by good ones. If Jesus was\nkilled because he was a blasphemer the chances are that he was better than\nthose who put him to death, but if he was killed because he sought to\noverturn the government and secure the throne for himself, he may have\nbeen a very bad man. But by the gospel-record we hold that Jesus was not a\nman for this age to honor or imitate.\n\n\n\n\n\nHOW TO HELP MANKIND\n\n\nThere are various ways of helping the world, and all are to be commended.\nPerhaps the way that costs the least, and consequently helps the least, is\nthe giving of good advice. This, we believe, is about the poorest thing\nthat can be given to man. It is a gratuity on the giver\u2019s part which is\nnever received quite as it is bestowed. But it is usually born of good\nintentions, and so we have to be thankful for it, even if we do not use\nit. To those who are inclined, however, to render assistance to their\nfellow-beings, we would say: Give good advice last, or, at any rate, give\nsomething with it. There is no use telling a poor man where there is a\ngood restaurant when he has no money in his purse.\n\nAnother way of helping the world is the material way\u2014giving something that\nwill relieve its wants, pay its debts, or add to its independence. The\nsympathy that takes the shape of dollars and cents always reaches the\nheart. The rarest virtue in this world of ours is generosity, and the\nrarest man is he who gives to the world asking for no dividends but in the\nhappiness of his fellow-creatures. Money, when wisely bestowed, comes\nabout as near the shape of an angel as any earthly thing can assume.\n\nBut there are other ways of assisting the world, and while we admit all\nthe good that can be done with money, men and women need to-day to be\nhelped with truth, helped with justice. Mankind are suffering from\nfalsehoods, from wrongs as well as from ignorance, from want and poverty.\nThose who are unjust to their fellows should help them by dealing justly\nby them. Those who are keeping the world in darkness should help it by\ntelling the truth. Truth and justice are every man\u2019s right, and every\nman\u2019s due. You can help the world by being just to it, by using your\nfellow-beings honestly, squarely, justly. You can help it by telling the\ntruth and by concealing nothing that is true.\n\nMan needs an education in unselfishness. He must learn to work for himself\nwithout working against others. The advantage which a man gains to-day is\ntoo often at the disadvantage of his brother or sister. It is a poor\nvictory which inflicts suffering. The true measure of man\u2019s success is the\njoy his life confers upon the world.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe man who wants to be an angel is never in a hurry to begin.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe man who gets on his knees has not learned the right use of his legs.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIgnorance is all that saves some people: if they knew more they would do\nworse.\n\n\n\n\n\nON THE CROSS\n\n\nChristianity teaches that Jesus was divine. To admit that he was not\ndivine is to give up Christianity. In the light of this teaching let us\nlook at Jesus on the cross. After a brief, but rather peaceful career,\nJesus is arrested, tried and convicted as a blasphemer, and sentenced to\nbe put to death. It is said that he died on a cross. How did he die? It is\nsaid by Christians \u201clike a God.\u201d\n\nThere have been brave deaths on the gallows and at the stake. Men have\ndied sublimely whom society has condemned as criminals. In our day there\nhas been as lofty heroism evinced in the face of the most terrible of\ndeaths as ever martyr of old manifested when dying for his faith. We know\nthat men have walked into the arms of an ignominious death without a\ntremor, and with magnificent courage shining in their faces.\n\nBrave dying proves less than brave living. The sacrifice of a lifetime\nshows the courage that commands our deepest admiration. Some mother, some\nsister, or daughter who has offered herself for years upon the hidden\naltar of duty has performed a deed beside which a moment\u2019s suffering is as\nnaught. But the average mind fails to discern heroism, except where the\nsuffering is apparent.\n\nWe will admit for the moment that Jesus died upon the cross. We will allow\nall the pain and agony of such a cruel and terrible death. We will let\nevery picture of his suffering that has drawn tears from the eyes of women\nbe accepted as true. We would not rob the manner of his death of a single\npang. It was merciless, pitiless, devilish. Crucifixion is the essence of\ncruelty, the refinement of torture, the invention of brutality. We\nacknowledge all the horrors of the cross. We do not wonder that a man\nshould shrink from being nailed to its arms, but we do wonder that a God\nshould. We are not surprised that human weakness should cry out of its\nbreaking heart for sympathy and help, but we cannot understand why divine\nstrength should ask for pity or aid. If Jesus was God he should have died\nin divine silence. The record of the last hours of Jesus shows that he\ndied disappointed. The cross proves that Jesus was human. When he cried\nout: \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me,\" a keener anguish pierced\nhis heart than when the cruel iron was driven through his flesh.\n\nThe dogma of the divinity of Jesus should have died on the cross, when the\nman of Nazareth gave up the ghost.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe man who does no thinking before he acts does twice as much afterwards.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAdam may not have been so perfect after the \u201cfall,\u201d but he was not so big\na fool.\n\n\n\n\n\nEQUAL MORAL STANDARDS\n\n\nWhy are girls brought up with more care as to their personal habits than\nboys? And why do women have fewer vices than men? It is an undeniable fact\nthat what is looked upon with indifference in a man would be regarded with\ndisgust, if not horror, in a woman. Boys do things that would not be\ntolerated in girls. Why are there two standards of behavior? Why is one\nsex held to stricter moral account than the other? Why is a man allowed to\ndo what is condemned in a woman?\n\nThe average daughter is better behaved, has better personal habits, than\nthe average son. The average mother has fewer vices than the average\nfather. The average woman is less vicious than the average man. Whose\nfault is it that this is so? It is somebody\u2019s. Whose is it? It is time to\nfind out. Have men fixed the standard for women, and women for men? It is\napproximately true that either sex is what the other demands of it. Women\nare too indulgent towards the other sex. We believe it lies with them more\nthan with men to elevate the moral standard of the world.\n\nA father would not take his daughter to places where he takes his son,\nwould not condone in her habits which he overlooks, if not encourages, in\nhis boy. Picture a father going to a saloon with his daughter, and there\ntreating her to a \u201cTom and Jerry,\u201d or a \u201cbeer,\u201d and then calling for\ncigars for two, and sitting there smoking together for half an hour or so!\nA man will do this with his boy but not with his girl. Why not? If it is\nright and harmless for one, why not for the other? Is it true or not that\nwhat is right for men is wrong for women?\n\nWe ought to have only one moral standard. The sexes should be held to like\nbehavior. Men can have just as good habits as women. We do not believe in\nforgiving in one what we condemn in another, in allowing a young man to do\nwith impunity what we will not tolerate in a young woman.\n\nIf we are to have one standard of morals, which shall it be? Shall it be\nthe highest or lowest? Shall it be the standard for man or for woman?\nShall we permit women to do as men do, or shall we insist that men shall\nbe equally pure in personal habits with women? The divided standard of\nconduct which now exists should be done away with. Let us demand equal\nbehavior of the sexes, and let that behavior be fashioned after the\nhighest moral demand of society. We do not wish to educate boys to be\ngirls, but we can educate boys to have as good habits as girls have, which\nwould be a great gain to the world.\n\nWe must hold women largely responsible for the vices of men. There is not\na vicious habit which a man would not lay at the feet of woman did she\ndemand it. Not a man would tolerate in a woman what a woman tolerates in a\nman. Let us have one moral standard for men and women, for both sexes, and\nmete out to each the same punishment for violation of its restrictions.\n\n\n\n\n\nAUTHORITY\n\n\nThe man that does what his reason says is right is the man that should be\nhonored by men. There can be no higher authority for doing a thing than\nthat it is right. It is not whether a thing has ever been done before,\nbut, _Is it right_? If there is no precedent, then it is a duty to\nestablish one.\n\nHow many accept the opinions of others because they fear to question their\nauthority! This regard for what other people think and say is well enough\nonly when it does not destroy independence of thought and speech in\nourselves. Another\u2019s opinion is not to be respected when it is a fetter to\nour freedom.\n\nWe need not rehearse the evils which the world has borne on account of its\nfear to do right _alone_. Man must have someone to share the danger, to\nshare the blame, but a dozen cowards are not worth so much as one brave\nman, and right is no _more_ right because ten say it instead of one. A\nthousand felt what Luther said; a thousand believed what Parker did. The\nbest man in us is often the one that does not speak. The truest belief of\nthe heart is the one never confessed. Man seldom comes to the surface. He\nrarely has a call to be himself, but to be somebody that will please the\nworld. Man is obliged to make himself into a theological likeness; into a\npolitical representation. It will be centuries before men can assert\nthemselves fearlessly without injury.\n\nIt is no easy matter for a man to set himself against popular opinion and\nmaintain his position. Every power is brought to bear upon him that\nfalsehood can invent and malice employ. A person who refuses to\nacknowledge the authority of the hour asserts a higher. When a man slaps\nthe world in the face he should have truth on his side and courage to meet\nthe stake and the cross. The majority never forgives him who denies its\njudgment. The individual that challenges the majority must prove his right\nof defiance. When a man is greater or better than men he must pay the\npenalty. The world cannot yet forgive anyone for excelling it. Authority\nwhen it debases man should be disputed; when it denies man his rights\nshould be rejected.\n\nIt is plain to be seen, without illustration or example, that man\u2019s\nauthority is not found in his own mind. He has no history that reaches\nbeyond custom. Man begins with man so far as facts prove. Society rests\nupon hearsay and religion upon tradition. A claim has only to be made upon\nignorance to be granted. This good-natured world of ours would believe\nanything, or make-believe believe it, to save its soul. It takes either a\nvery shrewd man or a moderately mean one to dodge every duty of life and\nremain respectable. It is dangerous to go outside the beaten path, not\nonly on account of the persecution of the present but on account of the\nfolly of the future. The world can easily twist an action into a law or a\nman into a God if profit hang on the end of its deed. The authority of\nhalf man\u2019s actions to-day depends upon some accident or fraud of the past.\nMan wants a little of the fabulous yet in his meat and drink. He loves to\nthink that Jesus is present when he drinks his wine and eats his bit of\nbread, although it is a mystery.\n\nPopular opinion is the authority of most words and actions. We speak to\nmen as to children\u2014to please them. We tell them some parable or fairy\nstory instead of telling them their faults honestly and trying to make\nthem better. Most men begin by bowing to public opinion and end by\ncarrying it on their backs.\n\nThe authority of the world may be disputed without any of the stars being\nthrown out of their course or any of the processes of life being\ndisturbed. The notion that all has been discovered that is essential to\nthe welfare of man is a mistaken one. The other notion that the\npreservation of whatever is elevating and refining depends upon the\nreligious opinions of mankind, is equally delusive. The authority of the\nBible, of Jesus, of the church, has been quoted until the world is\nprepared for a better. We might lose the Bible and not lose our place in\nthe ranks of civilization. Jesus might be forgotten and man would still\nstrive for a higher life. The church might perish in a night and not a\nsingle particle of goodness be lost. If we speak honest words, do honest\nwork and live honest lives, we need not ask for God\u2019s help or the help of\nanybody. We do not give to immorality the hours we redeem from\nsuperstition. We give to manhood and womanhood every hour which we make\nnatural and free. It is not necessary for a man to go to church in order\nto be righteous. The world found assistance before Jesus was born. There\nhas always been saints outside of a convent. We need no book holy that\ngood counsel shall be valuable. The highest authority is the highest human\nenlightenment. It needs no priest back of opinion to give it force.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhy does a man enter the Christian ministry?\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe reason that revelation is always made to the simple is that the wise\ncould not be imposed upon.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is no sadder grief than that which lies at the bottom of a life that\nhas been wrecked through deception.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAn organization that requires the suppression of facts and the\ndiscouragement of knowledge in order to maintain its supremacy, is the\nrelic of a tyranny which our free age and our free thought are in duty\nbound to remove from the earth.\n\n\n\n\n\nA CLEAN SABBATH\n\n\nIn a discussion with a lady, recently, upon the Sunday question, after the\nvarious pros and cons had been set up and bowled down, she exclaimed: \u201cFor\nmercy\u2019s sake, don\u2019t say any more against the sabbath. Why, if it were not\nfor Sunday, most people would never wash themselves nor change their\nclothes.\u201d Sunday, then, is to be established for the sake of cleanliness.\nThe command for keeping the sabbath should therefore read: Six days shalt\nthou labor and do all thy work, and on the seventh day wash thyself and\nchange thy clothes. If people will not keep clean without a divine\ncommand, we are in favor of cleanliness. We do not know of any better use\nto put God\u2019s name to. Sunday is certainly the cleanest day of the week. If\npeople will make themselves clean and neat only for God\u2019s sake, we are\nwilling to endure a little superstition for the blessing of cleanliness.\nBut is there any ground for the assertion of the lady? As everyone knows,\nreligion has produced the filthiest specimens of humanity that ever\noffended the senses of man. Dirt, and not cleanliness, was deemed next to\ngodliness by the saints of old. The filthier a human being became, the\nholier he grew. It was regarded in the middle ages, that is, in the ages\nwhen everything was sacrificed to religion, as almost a sin to keep clean.\nIt was waste of time to care for the body. It was taught that it was\nholier to worship than to wash. Nor did these dirty old saints of old go\nnasty entirely on their own authority. They were nasty for Christ\u2019s sake.\nThey went unclean because Jesus had encouraged nastiness. He believed more\nin clean hearts than in clean hands. He taught his disciples that \u201cto eat\nwith unwashed hands defileth not a man.\u201d Dirty Christians are still\nplenty, but civilization prevails over superstition and the reign of dirt\nis doomed. The follower of Jesus quotes his master to defend his filthy\ncondition in vain to-day. The gospel of decency has been preached, and\nwhat is manly and womanly is honored more than what is godly and pious.\nClean infidelity is preferable in good society to nasty piety. There may\nbe honor in rags, but there is none in dirt. Soap and water cost less than\nreligion, but are worth a thousand times as much to the world. If Romanism\nrequired its devotees to take a bath instead of going to mass, it would\nconfer a greater boon upon the world.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo man gets estimated for exactly what he is, and it is lucky he doesn\u2019t.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many men and women are remembered for what somebody has said about\nthem.\n\n\n\n\n\nHUMAN INTEGRITY\n\n\nIt is hard for a man to be a man. It is easier to be almost anything else.\nWe do not find the reason for what we do in ourselves, but seek it in\nsomeone else, or somewhere else. Manhood is not our standard of action.\nHuman integrity is generally looked upon as an eccentricity. We almost\ndespise a person who is more upright than the conventional man. Throughout\nsociety there runs a stream of circumstance upon which lives float like\nchips. The man who turns against this stream, and seeks to stem it, is\nlooked upon as a madman or a fool. Everybody admits that the world is\nhardly going right, but everybody goes with it. The current of human life\ncan be turned into a larger channel by a larger man. Mind follows mind.\n\nWe do not demand the truth; we do not insist upon the right; we are\nsatisfied with less than integrity. It is not in a spirit of carping that\nwe say this, but because it is true. Let us glance at the world as it lies\nbefore us. Theories pass for facts, faith for evidence. We assert without\nknowledge; we are positive without proof. Man is condemned for not\nbelieving, although living a pure and noble life; he is praised for\nbelieving, although living a selfish and cruel life. Men are not judged by\nhuman nature, but by opinions which are uppermost in public esteem. Men\nand women are bad according to the standard of one age; good according to\nthat of another. Theologies, which may be wrong, condemn men who may be\nright. Justice is never man\u2019s precedent. The world quotes Moses, David,\nPaul, Jesus, to defend its conduct or prove its guilt.\n\nAuthority is another\u2019s opinion. Law is what has been done and sanctioned\nby mankind. The decision of one court binds another. One text is quoted to\nprove another. A man\u2019s act is made a rule of life. We say, to defend\nourselves: \u201cHe did it.\u201d The world\u2019s power of attorney is in its own\nhandwriting. Our appeal is to some one else. We get our politics from our\nfathers, our religion from our mothers. The church is preaching what\nothers believed.\n\nThe mind still leans. Only a few could stand without a support. The props\nof the world keep it from falling. Men are not upright of their own\nstrength. No man\u2019s action is the patent of manhood. The world does not\nask, \u201cWhat virtues are yours?\u201d but, \u201cWhat creed do you accept?\u201d A dozen\nagree and call some one else a doubter, a Freethinker, an Infidel, an\nAtheist. To be able to stand alone is to be blamed by those who cannot do\nso.\n\nMan must learn this, that he has no greater strength than his own; that he\nhas no higher duty than to obey the behest of his own nature. When we\nforsake the world\u2019s follies and shams we shall find something better. We\nare never abandoned until we have been abandoned by ourselves.\n\nWhen we refuse to do our duty we must still expect Nature to do hers. The\nsun and moon do not stand still at man\u2019s command. It is greater to keep\none\u2019s integrity than it is to gain the whole world.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt is harder to live when those we love are dead.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe trouble with divine revelation is that we do not know who did the\nbusiness.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA person has not much excuse for living who can make no better use of life\nthan passing it in a nunnery.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMen talk of alleviating the aching hearts and souls of the world, but if\nthey would relieve the aching backs and arms of men and women by being\nkinder to those who toil, there would be fewer suffering hearts for their\nsympathy\u2019s consolation. It sounds vulgar, perhaps, to speak of backaching,\nbut the pains of work are among the saddest facts of human life.\n\n\n\n\n\nIS IT TRUE\n\n\nThere is a lot of sentiment going around the world strangely at variance\nwith human action. No one lives as he professes to believe, as he says he\nthinks. Men declare a thing to be true but act as though they wished it\nfalse. It is frequently stated that:\n\n\n \u201cHonor and shame from no condition rise,\n Act well your part, there all the honor lies.\u201d\n\n\nWho believes it? Did Pope when he wrote it? Does a person that reads it? I\ndoubt it.\n\nIt ought to be true, perhaps, that men should be respected, honored, and\npraised just as much for carrying a hod well as for writing a poem or\nacting Hamlet well, but it is not so regarded.\n\nA man as a man may be just as worthy, just as honorable, just as much\ndeserving the respect of his fellows who uses a pick and shovel on the\nhighway, but it is a fact that the common laborer as such is not respected\nnor honored as much as the man who pays him for his labor. All the honor\nmay lie in doing well whatever he has to do, but it is _what a man does_,\nnot how he does it, that receives the honor of the world, just the same.\nProbably thousands of women are acting well their part as washerwomen in\nBoston at this time, but are they honored as Sarah Bernhardt is for acting\nCleopatra? Would wealthy women pay ten dollars to see a woman scrub a\nfloor, even if she could scrub better than any woman who ever scrubbed\nbefore? We guess not. There is the point.\n\nThere is no such epitaph as this on the marble of the world: He acted well\nhis part as a coal-heaver. It is true that Lincoln is pointed to as having\nbeen a rail-splitter when a young man, but had he never been anything else\nhe would not have had a monument an inch above the ground. It is not\nGarfield the tow-boy, but Garfield the statesman, the President, that is\nhonored.\n\nIt is a fact that merit is not always appreciated, but it is equally a\nfact that no merit is seen in the common occupations of life. A person\nmight wear his fingers to bones in what is regarded as menial employment,\nand all his giant labor would not call forth a single word of praise. A\ndollar or two a day is all the reward the world gives for manual labor. No\none sees heroism in farm work, in kitchen work. No one contributes money\nto erect a statue to the hod-carrier. Work is not honored. The man or\nwoman who is obliged to work in order to live is regarded with pity or\ncontempt by those who live upon the labor of others.\n\nIt is not true that all the honor lies in doing well whatever we have to\ndo. Such a saying is as false as to say \u201cAsk, and you shall receive.\u201d\nHonor is not given gratuitously. It has to be earned. But it is a fact\nthat we do not honor all labor, all virtue, equally.\n\n\n\n\n\nKEEP THE CHILDREN AT HOME\n\n\nFathers and mothers want to see their children grow up into good, moral,\nrespectable men and women. How to insure this desirable result is a\nserious problem. It is seen that the school is not sufficient to insure\ncharacter, nor does the church exert sufficient influence to guide the\nfeet in right paths.\n\nWe have the deepest faith in what the school is doing and trying to do,\nand would help it in every way to promote the instruction in those\nbranches of knowledge which are deemed essential to a sound and useful\neducation, but we cannot fail to see that the school, however much it may\nassist the child in the formation of good habits, is not of itself\ncompetent to build up character. The school cannot take the place of the\nhome, nor can the teacher do the work of the parent. We believe that the\nbest way to have good boys and girls, and therefore good men and women, is\nto have good homes for them to live in. If parents gave more attention to\nmaking their homes attractive to their children, they would not be so apt\nto seek amusement in other places. The more a child is kept at home, the\nmore certain it will be to escape the evils of life. A good home is the\nfirst and most powerful factor in forming the character of children.\n\nThere is too much thought given by parents generally to the church and too\nlittle to the home. They shirk their duty and their responsibility, and\npray God to look after what they neglect. With the father at work and the\nmother at mass, the children will be in the street. Those parents who put\nthe home above the church are throwing around their children the best\ninfluences that earth affords. When children are left to the care of God\nthey too often fall into the hands of the policeman. Let the path between\nthe home and the school be well worn, but never mind if the grass grows in\nthe road that leads to the church.\n\nThe child will usually love home if home is made lovely. If parents wish\nto drive their children into temptation, let them shut the sunshine of joy\nout of the house, forbid the playing of games, burn up the pack of cards\nthat is found in one of the boy\u2019s rooms, call a ball-room the \u201cdevil\u2019s\nheadquarters,\u201d and pronounce a malediction upon all youthful sports. It is\neasy enough to drive a boy or girl out into the dark. Put out the lights\nat home. Those parents who know the evil influences of the world will make\ntheir homes bright and beautiful and then keep their children there as\nlong as they can.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe doctrine of salvation by faith is a libel on justice and has done more\nto undermine the virtue of the world than vice itself.\n\n\n\n\n\nTEACHER AND PREACHER\n\n\nThere is one great change which we hope to see brought about in the near\nfuture, because we think it ought to be brought about as a matter of\njustice. It is this: the elevation of teachers above preachers.\nCivilization, and all that this word stands for today, depends more upon\nthe school than upon the church. It is the teacher and not the preacher\nthat trains the growing minds of our children, that builds the structure\nof character for future men and women, and gives to the young the sacred\ntouch that keeps them in right paths. The world does not half appreciate\nthe work done by the school teacher, while it exaggerates out of all\nproportion to its worth, the work done by the preacher. The church may\nfall, but if the school stands, liberty will remain; the paths of\nknowledge will be free; the brow of civilization will still shine white\nagainst the skies of life, and the glorious cup of learning be pressed to\nthe thirsting mouth of youth; but should the school fall, though the\nchurch might stand, all this would be reversed;\u2014liberty would be driven\nfrom the earth, the highways of knowledge would be closed, civilization\nwould fade into the night of the \"dark ages,\" and the thirsting lips of\nlife be fed with Bible scraps and the logic of dead creeds. The teacher is\nthe mighty power in this republic, the truest friend of our nation\u2019s\ninstitutions, the one person above all others that this country should\nhonor and reward. One teacher is worth a thousand priests; one school, a\nthousand churches.\n\nThe person whose duty it is to direct the education of the young holds the\nsceptre of a nation\u2019s destiny, and the school teacher occupies the most\nimportant station to which one can be elected. We fear that the profession\nof teaching is not rightly prized by the American people, and we are sure\nit is not justly rewarded. No class in the land are paid so poorly,\naccording to the service they perform, as our school teachers, while no\nclass should be paid so well. Far more valuable to our government is the\nteacher than the preacher, and yet the salary of the latter exceeds the\nformer in every city and town in the land. This should be changed.\nPreaching a superstition is no benefit but an injury to a people, while\ntraining the mind to read, to think, to gather knowledge is the highest\nservice which one can perform.\n\nWe have the greatest respect for the men and women who have prepared\nthemselves for the high office of teacher, and we would see them rewarded\nfor their labor as it deserves. The hope of a country is in the right\neducation of its people, and the way to secure such education is to\nencourage the teacher by showing a just appreciation of his or her labors.\nSo we say, put the school above the church, the teacher above the\npreacher.\n\n\n\n\n\nFEAR OF DOUBTS\n\n\nWe cannot help thinking that Goethe showed lack of courage when he said:\n\u201cI will listen to any one\u2019s convictions, but pray keep your doubts to\nyourself, I have plenty of my own!\u201d It seems to us that only a coward is\nafraid of doubts. If our convictions are false is it not better to know it\nand correct them? Doubt is the way to truth. It is the attitude of the\nmind that wants to know things just as they are. They who are unwilling to\nbe deceived are the ones to doubt, to inquire. Let us hear all the doubts\nof the world, for they are knocks at the door of knowledge. To accept\nwithout question is to be the willing dupe of imposition.\n\nThe doubter is the safe man; the man who can be depended upon. He does not\nbuild upon a foundation of guesswork, and the structure he erects will\nstand. Let us not fear doubt, but rather fear to have falsehood passed for\ntruth.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThere is no authority that can be quoted against a man but the authority\nof some other man.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNine times out of ten the man who declares that God is tender to the\nsparrow that falls is not the man to buy a winter\u2019s coal for a poor widow.\n\n\n\n\n\nBIBLE-BACKING\n\n\nThere is less backing one\u2019s thoughts with the Bible than formerly. The\nworld is getting weaned from this book. The idea is gaining ground that,\nif anything is true, it can support itself. When a man leans on God he is\nso much less a man. Mental uprightness disdains the Bible\u2019s support.\nHonest thought can defend itself without appealing to divine authority.\n\nOnce a man hardly dared speak unless he quoted from the Scriptures a line\nor verse that ran parallel with his speech.\n\nTo-day men say what they think, without caring whether Moses, or David, or\nJohn, agree with them or not. We have reached a healthy independence. We\nhave commenced to trust our convictions. Such a stage of intellectual\ndevelopment is not favorable to the divinity of one\u2019s thoughts. The report\nof one mind is no more divine than that of another, and no more to be\ntrusted, only as it is more accurate. There is a higher standard than the\nword of God for this age\u2014that is, the word of truth. Whosoever speaks\ntruth can face the world alone.\n\nWhen a man needs to go to the Bible to sustain his argument he has a weak\nargument. When a dogma does not commend itself to human intelligence it is\nuseless to declare it infallible. It will die, even though it be professed\na thousand years. It can be accepted only by ignorance and avowed only by\nhypocrisy.\n\nAny man who will quote a Bible-text to defend his opinion in the sense\nthat such text proves his opinion true, proves himself a dolt. A\nBible-text is only a human opinion, and as humanity surpasses it in the\nevolution of experience, it loses its authority and force. We have learned\nthat human reason does not need to be backed by the Bible, and we have\nlearned also that the Bible _does_ need to be backed by human reason, or\nit has no value.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe heart that can deride misfortune confesses its own deformity.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen we are satisfied with the present we do not think of the future.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe more mystery is encouraged, the more deceit can impose upon the human\nmind.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf wisdom and diamonds grew on the same tree we could soon tell how much\nmen loved wisdom.\n\n\n\n\n\nBEGGARS\n\n\nWe have come to look upon the poor beggar as a nuisance; upon the man who\ncomes to our doors for food or clothes as one who has no claim upon our\ncharity. The common beggar is, as a rule, a worthless character, but let\nus be fair to him. He asks for but little; seldom for more than a bite, or\nfor a few pennies. The poor beggar has only himself to enforce his appeal,\nand often he is an injury to his own cause. A dirty, ragged, vice-stained\nwreck of humanity is a poor argument to offer for sympathy or help. The\nman who begs in the name of man, and with that name rubbed in the dirt\nbesides, gets little for his asking.\n\nWe do not like any beggars, but we need to understand that it is not the\nman in rags, who asks for a piece of bread or meat, that is the only\nbeggar in the world. There is another and more dangerous beggar that we\nopen our doors to, and treat with politeness and respect, and whose\nappeals we honor; it is the well-dressed beggar who asks for the money\nwhich the arm of labor has coined from its strength, who takes not pennies\nwhere he can get dollars, and who enforces his appeal with the name of\nGod; it is the ecclesiastical beggar, whose hand is stretched out to take\nthe earnings of toil, or the profits of trade; whose hand would as soon\ntake little from poverty as plenty from affluence.\n\nThe rich beggar is a worse enemy to society and to the nation than the\npoor beggar. It is the priest, and not the tramp, whose begging we need to\nscorn. The man who asks for food in the name of hunger, for help in the\nname of want, makes, at least, an honest appeal to our generosity, but the\nman who begs in the name of God is an impostor. The tramp\u2019s appeal is the\ntruth\u2014the priest\u2019s is a lie. God never yet commissioned a human being to\nbeg for him, and the person who uses the divine name to enforce his demand\nis little better than a thief.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIn the paths of our life may be seen the footprints of our ancestors.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf you are poor, be thankful that you have the power of bettering your\ncircumstances by bettering yourself; if you are rich, do not forget that\nyou have the means of doing good, a luxury that is too seldom indulged.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMen need nothing so much to-day as self-reliance; courage to stand up\nmanfully for the right, all alone, without prop or pay, daring everything\nfor an idea, counting not the cost, but seeing only the grand result which\nwould follow its triumph and working for that with single purpose and\ncourageous fidelity.\n\n\n\n\n\nHABITS\n\n\nHabit makes the man, but man makes the habit. It is here where we want to\nget in a word. A habit seems a little thing in itself, but it is the most\nterrible tyrant that rules the world. And it _does_ rule it, say what we\nwill. Now, it is essential in this life of ours to start right if we are\ngoing to come out right. And the best thing to start with is a good habit.\nIt is just as easy when a young man is forming his habits to form good\nones as bad ones. Good habits are not expensive. A virtue does not cost a\nquarter as much to support as does a vice.\n\nWe sometimes wonder how it is that a being with brains, with intelligence,\nwith reason, could ever become a slave to habit. It does not seem possible\nthat a MAN cannot order his conduct. But we must recognize facts. Men are\nvictims of habits. They do not perceive that they are bound until they try\nto be free, and then the strong power of habit asserts itself. How does\nthis terrible despot conquer the mind, the will, the man? What is this\ninvisible force that drives the strongest and the brightest with a whip of\niron? It is only an act repeated again and again, but it has become a\nsecond nature, a part of the man, and it has conquered by the power of\nreinforcement by repetition.\n\nThe only way to be superior to bad habits is never to acquire them. Do not\ndo the _first_ bad act. Stop before you begin to go wrong. The time when a\nman is saved is when he is young. The time to plant or sow is in the\nSpring. The harvest depends upon the seed. We cannot pick figs from\nthistles. A bad habit will end in a bad life. Watch the feet of the boy\nand the man\u2019s will not need watching. We must begin with the young, and\nsee that right habits are acquired in early life.\n\nIt is only a foot from a good habit to a bad one, but it is a mile back\nagain. We may lose in an hour all we have made in a year. We can undo in a\nday what we have done in a lifetime. A habit is a plant of which an act is\nthe seed. It will bear fruit if it be a good act, but ashes if it be a bad\nact. It is the first step that starts the race. To start right is the best\nway to go right and to end right. Never let a bad habit fasten to your\nlife.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt takes the shingles from the widow\u2019s cottage to put paint on the house\nof God.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMany persons who claim that they are \u201cclothed with righteousness\u201d do not\nseem to have got very good fits.\n\n\n\n\n\nCAN POVERTY BE ABOLISHED\n\n\nIs poverty a malady of the individual or of society? To answer this\nquestion is to determine how to treat the disease. If the individual is\nalone responsible for being poor, then he alone is to apply the remedy;\nbut if society is to blame for poverty, then must society take the steps\nto effect a cure. Poverty is an evil. A human being who is starved\nphysically is starved mentally and morally. Civilization begins when man\nhas risen above want. Man is only a brute when all of his energies are\nabsorbed in the effort to get bread.\n\nIn the present state of society we have dependence and independence; a few\nhave escaped from the burdens of toil, but the many are still slaves to\nphysical wants. But the few enjoy their independence at the expense of\nthose beneath them, and oftentimes by inflicting wrong and injustice upon\ntheir fellows. Such a condition ought not to be allowed. Prosperity is the\naccumulated efforts of mankind. No man has created all the benefits he\nenjoys; no one has sowed all that he reaps. The rich man to-day is rich\nbecause he has, by advantageous circumstances, obtained possession of more\nthan his share of the world\u2019s wealth, or because he has inherited what\nothers have obtained in the same way, or because by thrift and economy and\ngood luck he has succeeded in getting money and keeping it.\n\nBut what makes the poor man? Not one thing, or one condition. He is the\nvictim sometimes of his own follies, vices or laziness, although he is\noften not to be blamed for his poverty. There are individual cases where\ndoubtless destitution is the child of misfortune, but the general poverty\nof the world, and of this country in particular, cannot be charged to any\nsuch account.\n\nIn our land there is a balance every year to the credit of wealth, but is\nit not true that this balance finds its way to the pockets already filled,\nrather than to those that are empty? _What diverts the products of labor\nfrom the hands of labor?_ Find out that, and then we will begin to give\nlabor its due. There is enough produced every year to make every person in\nthe land better off at the end of the year. Why are so few richer, and so\nmany poorer, or, at least, no better off? There is one thing sure,\u2014labor,\nthrift, economy, virtue and good habits are to be commended and\nencouraged, while idleness, vice, profligacy and bad habits are to be\ncondemned and discouraged. We do not look to any external change in\nsociety for a remedy for poverty, but rather to an internal change in man.\nIt is not social revolution that will help the world, but humanity\u2014the\nwillingness to do what is right.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\n\u201cIt rains on the just and the unjust,\u201d but rarely just enough on either.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE ROMAN CATHOLIC GOD\n\n\nCicero said that \u201cmen, having exhausted all the mad extravagancies they\nare capable of, have yet never entertained the idea of eating the God whom\nthey adore.\u201d The extravagance which was beyond the contemplation of the\nPagan mind, is an every day affair with a large part of the Christian\nworld. The Roman Catholic eats his God every week, and Catholics have been\nguilty of this religious cannibalism for centuries.\n\nIn the celebration of the eucharist, which is a service commemorative of\nthe death of Jesus, bread and wine are used in Protestant churches as\nemblems of the body and blood of the crucified one. But in Roman Catholic\nchurches the real presence of Jesus is seen in the \u201chost,\u201d which, in\nitself, is a little wafer of baked flour and water, but when consecrated\nby the priest and offered as a sacrifice, during mass, becomes the actual\nbody of God. According to Roman Catholic doctrine, dough is changed to\nDeity by the mumbling of a few Latin words over it by a priest. When the\npriest swallows the consecrated wafer he really swallows this God he\nadores.\n\nThere is an absurdity which the doctrine of transubstantiation is\naccountable for, which cannot be paralleled among all the religions of\nheathenism. Not only does this doctrine make it possible for one God to be\neaten by one priest, but for thousands of gods to be thus devoured. The\nRoman Catholic religion teaches that God is manufactured out of flour and\nwater by a pastry cook. Every time a wafer is turned into a \u201chost,\u201d a God\nis made.\n\nWere there a tribe in Asia or Africa guilty of such ridiculous practices\nas are witnessed in the Roman Catholic church, missionaries would be sent\nout to them. It seems to us, that if people know no better than to believe\nthat when the priest swallows a little lump of bread he is actually\nswallowing the body of a person who lived eighteen hundred years ago, whom\nthey look upon as God, they are not intelligent enough to be ranked in the\narmy of progress and civilization.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNo one is to blame for what no one knows.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt is singular that people want to live another life when it is so hard to\nlive this.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA church that sets up a religious faith as more essential than purity,\nthan kindness, charity or goodness, is a dangerous institution.\n\n\n\n\n\nHUMAN CRUELTY\n\n\nThe mosquito inflicts his sting upon the place whence he draws his life.\nNot unlike this venomed insect is the person who, through malice, wounds\nthe feelings of a human being. There seems to be in certain organizations\nthe poison of hatred, and woe betide those on whom it falls. The heart\nthat can take delight in saying cruel things, in raising unkind doubts or\nstarting unpleasant thoughts, ought never to have had a human face to hide\nbehind. Such an individual ought to crawl in its native shape that it\nmight be crushed under the heel of scorn.\n\nThe only way to treat a human viper is to keep away from it, ignore its\npresence, and to shut the ears to its venomed hiss. We know of no more\ncruel occupation than wounding human hearts and human feelings.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many men believe in providence until they get caught in a railroad\naccident.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nTreasures well used on earth will help the world more than treasures laid\nup in heaven.\n\n\n\n\n\nINFIDELITY\n\n\nWhen the minister wants to frighten his congregation he draws a picture of\ninfidelity. The infidel has been used for years to scare weak-minded\npersons into accepting Christianity. Outwardly the infidel is painted like\na man, but the world is warned not to trust to appearances, for the\ninfidel is not what he looks to be; he is \u201ca fiend in human shape;\u201d he is\n\u201ca moral monster,\u201d and a mirror in which everything bad and vicious can\nsee its face.\n\nWe do not wonder that a minister paints the infidel in black. He has hurt\nthe minister\u2019s business, and so must suffer for what he has done. But we\ndo wonder that so large a part of the world is frightened at the word\n\u201cinfidelity.\u201d\n\nIt is a fact that an infidel would never be known if he himself did not\ndisclose his character. To conceal his infidelity he has only to keep\nstill, to hide behind silence.\n\nInfidelity is nothing more or less than intellectual fidelity, and an\ninfidel is a man too honest to disguise his real thoughts and convictions.\nHad the infidel not been honest he would still be in the church, a\nhypocrite, to be sure, but this could not affect his religious status at\nall. Intellectual and moral uprightness is the distinguishing\ncharacteristic of modern infidelity. The modern infidel trusts his brain\nand his heart; he accepts as true what appeals to his reason, and makes\nknown his convictions as though to conceal them were a vice or a crime.\n\nThe infidel gains nothing by avowing his convictions; on the contrary, he\nis condemned for making them known. The Christian presumes upon the right\nto damn infidels here and to teach that God will damn them hereafter. It\nis in the face of a fate, in many instances cruel, that a man acknowledges\nthat his honest thoughts, his honest convictions place him in antagonism\nto the popular faith, and yet he is denounced, rather than praised, for\nhis brave action.\n\nInfidelity is the proof of an honest man. Hypocrisy cannot hide in its\nshadow. Every man in the Christian church may be a hypocrite, a knave, a\npretender professing its faith, while laughing inwardly at its foolish\nsuperstitions, but every man who espouses infidelity must reveal his true\ncharacter, must show exactly what he is.\n\nA dishonest or hypocritical infidel is an impossibility. There is nothing\nto be gained, but much to be lost, by confessing one\u2019s disbelief of the\nChristian dogmas. It is the man who prizes self-respect above the world\u2019s\napproval who takes the fate of infidelity\u2014be it what it may.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nDon\u2019t put too much faith in the man who wants to know the distance to the\nnearest church before he has written his name in the hotel register.\n\n\n\n\n\nATHEISM\n\n\nWhat is called atheism is not a light, flippant assertion, but a calm,\nthoughtful conclusion. It is a conviction which human experience and human\nreflection have generated. Atheism is not the irresponsible opinion of\nmoral debauchery; it is the outcome of an intelligent consideration of\nNature and life. The atheist has been honest with himself and with the\nworld. He has made a careful survey of the universe, as far as he is able,\nand has canvassed the facts of life which have come within the range of\nhis observation, and he has candidly declared the result of his study and\nfreely related the reasons for his conclusions.\n\nAtheism is the universe as science finds it and as interpreted by human\nunderstanding. It is an attempt to state the simple truth, to give a fair\nlikeness of things, to photograph facts. Atheism is denial of nothing\ntrue, of nothing good, of nothing that can be proved. We see no good\nreason for abusing the atheist. His opinions don\u2019t make him a bad citizen\nor a bad man. He is as moral as his Christian neighbor, and is as ready to\nhelp a fellow-being.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIn countries where atheism is a crime, hypocrisy is more honored than\nintegrity.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA great many who expect to hear the angels sing always get near the stage\nat a comic opera.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN HAPPINESS\n\n\nChristians are constantly telling \u201chow happy their religion makes them,\u201d\nhow happy they feel \u201csince they found Jesus.\u201d We will take them at their\nword and believe that they are just as happy as they say they are. What\nhas their religion done for them, what has Jesus done for them, that they\nshould be so happy? They will answer that they have been saved, that their\nsouls have been rescued from destruction. Without going into the question\nwhether they need to be saved or whether their souls are in any danger of\ndestruction, let us see what kind of happiness the Christian enjoys. The\ngreat song of Christians is: _My_ soul is saved. The Christian is happy on\nhis own account alone; he rejoices in his own good fortune; he is pleased\nto think that he is out of it. The Christian\u2019s happiness is a purely\nselfish feeling. In his exultation is no thought of another\u2019s condition,\nof another\u2019s lot.\n\nIf some are saved, others are lost, for all do not accept the Christian\nfaith, all do not find Jesus. The Christian can be happy while others are\nmiserable; he can rejoice while knowing that others are in peril; he can\nexult over his own salvation while seeing others going to destruction.\nThis is a fiendish happiness, a devilish joy. For one to be happy while\nknowing that a brother or sister is lost shows a hard, selfish, cruel\nheart.\n\nThink of the Christian mother being happy for having been rescued from her\nburning home in whose fatal flames her children all perished! Think of the\nChristian father filled with joy at his escape from the sinking ship in\nwhich his wife and babe sailed to the port of death! Think of a Christian\nman or woman exulting over their good fortune in not having a disease\nwhich took away those who were nearest and dearest! Such joy, such\nhappiness, as this is not human, it is brutish.\n\nThe Christian is welcome to all the happiness his heartless religion\naffords him. I want none of it. Such a religion would drive me mad.\n\nThe loving heart is happiest in the joy of those it loves; it is happy in\nseeing others happy, but there could be no joy for it to be saved while\nthose it loved were lost. Christianity is a heartless religion, a cruel\nfaith, a selfish scheme, and it is for those who care more about being\nsaved than saving others.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe highest freedom is the freedom to say what we believe to be right.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIt was a childless woman who said: The happiest woman is she whose bosom\npillows the sweet head of a child.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT GOD KNOWS\n\n\nWe see in Christian papers a great deal about what God knows. How does any\none know what God knows? It has been the habit, where man lacked any\nparticular knowledge, of saying, \u201cGod knows.\u201d But what is the good of God\nknowing anything if he keeps his knowledge to himself? If he will not tell\nwhat he knows, how is man improved or benefited by all the wisdom in the\ndivine cranium? What is known by the inhabitants of Venus does the\ninhabitants of earth no good. But let us come down to facts. Is there any\nproof that God knows anything? Let men own up, and not try to deceive\nthemselves or others any longer. What God knows nobody else knows.\n\nThere is no evidence that God knows what man does not, and it is bare\nassumption only to ascribe knowledge to deity. It is first necessary for\nman to know that there is a God, before endowing him with mental wealth or\nattributes. The Christian practice of saying that \u201cGod loves man,\u201d and\nthat \u201cGod cares for man\u201d has no basis of facts to stand upon, and it is\nonly pious conceit that indulges in such statements.\n\nThere is nothing in the universe but the universe itself; nothing in the\nuniverse that reveals a God. The earth does not, the sun does not, the\nmoon does not, and not a planet or star reveals the existence of a God.\nAll these reveal their own existence; so of a flower, of a tree, of a man.\nIt is only divinity that can reveal the existence of divinity. Who has\nseen or heard this divinity? No one. Men have said, or men have made other\nmen say, that they have seen God, heard God, and talked with God. But they\nlied. No human eye ever saw the divine form or features; no human ear ever\nheard the divine voice; no human being ever had any knowledge of a divine\nbeing.\n\nIt is a waste of words to talk about God and what he knows and what he\ndoes. No man knows that God does anything, that God knows anything, or\nthat there is a God.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nBlessings on the man who first dared to doubt.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe improvement in ways of travel and methods of labor has altered our\nreverence.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nEvery kiss of love imprinted by a mother\u2019s lips on the face of her babe\ngives the lie to the Christian doctrine of total depravity, and every gift\nwhich the heart of pity lays in the hand of misfortune brands this\ndoctrine as false and a libel on our human nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE WORD GOD\n\n\nI do not deny that the word \u201cGod\u201d has today a moral and religious meaning\nwhich is derived from his supposed beneficence, but this idea is not the\none that I find at the bottom of the Christian faith. I object very\nseriously to the attempt, which is being made by certain interested\nparties, to represent the God of Christianity better than he is. This word\nloses its terror when we realize that it stands for an unknown quantity.\nIt is the attempt to account for what we cannot understand; the effort to\nexplain the universe. The word \u201cGod\u201d is a definition of human ignorance.\nIt represents what we do not know. This word does not stand for a person,\nan object, or a thing. It is an idea that we can have no idea of, a\nthought of what one cannot think. People who use the word \u201cGod\u201d do not\nknow what they are talking about. The word fits nothing that has yet been\ndiscovered. Theology is the science of what no one knows anything about.\nIt does not belong to the family of knowledge. When the hands of theology\nare laid on a man\u2019s head his brains are consecrated to do nothing. Every\ntime a minister is made, a man is lost. Nothing disgraces American\ncivilization more than the theology preached in Christian churches. It is\nworse than childish; it is old-womanish. The dark ages cast their shadows\nacross the bright skies of the twentieth century, and the relics of that\nbenighted time, the priests, are still walking the streets, like ghosts of\nbad deeds.\n\nEvery theology ends in a creed. A creed is the night-cap of religion. It\nis a sign that the intellect is asleep. When faith is in, sense is out. A\nman with a creed has bought the coffin for his mind. The rest of his life\nwill be a funeral service for the dead. A creed is the grave of thought.\nWhen a person subscribes to certain articles of belief, he has no further\nuse for his brains. It does not require any mental exercise to believe.\nBelief does not signify any process of intellectual assimilation or\ndigestion. When a man joins a church, he makes his last will and\ntestament. When reason abdicates in favor of credulity, crime becomes a\nsaint, and folly a martyr. Too much faith makes a Pocasset tragedy. The\nfoolishness of trying to make God intelligible to human understanding is\nshown in the creeds of Christendom. The dogma of the trinity ought not to\npass to any further generation. It is not the \u201clikeness of anything that\nis in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the\nwater under the earth.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nWHAT HAS JESUS DONE FOR THE WORLD\n\n\nA great deal is said about \u201cwhat Jesus has done for the world.\u201d We wish\nsome of those people who repeat this statement would take ten or fifteen\nminutes and tell us just what Jesus _has_ done for the world. It would\npuzzle the most ardent admirer of the Galilean reformer to point out\nanything that Jesus ever did to help man in this life. There is too much\nof this thoughtless, senseless praise of Jesus. Not a Christian on this\nearth but what owes a thousand times more to his father and mother than he\nowes to Jesus, but who ever heard one acknowledge it? We could name\nhundreds of men who have lightened the labor of the world by their\ninventions. Did Jesus do anything of the kind? We can name hundreds of men\nwho have made the homes of mankind brighter and more enjoyable by their\ngenius and toil. Did Jesus do anything of the kind?\n\nThe imaginary service which this imaginary person did is of no consequence\nto the poor, to the workers, to the starvers. What the poor man wants is\nnot a Savior for another world, but a helper for this world, and the\nperson who lessens the poverty and misery of earth is worth a thousand\ntimes more to humanity than Jesus.\n\nWe are told that Jesus died for man. Well! What of it? Socrates died for\nman. Bruno died for man. Emmet died for man. John Brown died for the black\nman. Every day somebody is dying for man. Why emphasize the death of Jesus\nmore than the death of another? The fact that Jesus died does not help you\nor me. He could have helped us far more by living, if he had lived wisely\nand well.\n\nThe great fact in regard to Jesus is this: He does not touch this age; its\naspirations, its interests, its reforms, its work, its spirit. We are\nliving contrary to Jesus, contrary to all he taught and did. He is left\nbehind, outgrown, and, consequently, whatever he did is of no value to\nthis age. His star is set. He has had his day. Instead of trying to bring\nabout a kingdom of poverty, a millennium of idleness, the world is\nstriving for a kingdom of plenty and a good time for everybody.\n\nEverything connected with Jesus has been exaggerated. The man himself has\nbeen exaggerated, his words have been exaggerated, his performances have\nbeen exaggerated, and his importance has been exaggerated. He has been\ngiven a character that he is not entitled to, and his teachings have been\nclothed with a value which they do not possess. Jesus has been passed for\nmore than he is worth. Let his name no longer bear the stamp of divinity.\nLet his deeds no longer be called miracles. The real Jesus of fact would\nbe a very ordinary man.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE AGNOSTIC\u2019S POSITION\n\n\nSome avowed Liberal writers are engaged in abusing the Agnostic. One looks\nupon him as a fool, while another considers him a hypocrite. One pities\nhim for his ignorance, the other abuses him for confessing it. I side with\nthe Agnostic. I sit down with the ignorant. I take my place in the class\nof \u201cI-don\u2019t-know.\u201d The difference between people is this: Some don\u2019t know,\nand some don\u2019t know that they don\u2019t know, and the rest won\u2019t admit that\nthey don\u2019t know.\n\nIt seems to me that the Agnostic\u2019s position is an honest one. He is asked\nthe question; Is there a future life for man? What shall he answer? If he\ndoes not know whether there is not, why should he not say so? To say: I\nbelieve there is, is not an answer to the question. He must say, I know,\nor, I do not know. On this question are we not all Agnostics?\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe foolish and cruel notion that a wife is to obey her husband has sent\nmore women to the grave than to the courts for a divorce.\n\n\n\n\n\nORTHODOXY\n\n\nThere is as much perfumery in petroleum as there is righteousness in\northodoxy. Its dead theology and make-believe piety have no value only to\nthe priest. Orthodoxy survives only by right of possession. Turn it out of\nthe churches and it would never re-enter them. The church to-day is a\nhospital for sick dogmas. Every Christian doctrine is a cripple; not one\ncan walk or stand alone. Orthodoxy has put a false valuation on things. It\ncalls a man good who goes to church, offers a prayer in public and accepts\nthe Bible as the word of God; it calls a man bad who stays at home and\nenjoys himself with his family on Sunday, who eats without asking God to\nbless his food, and who does not expect to go to heaven on the vicarious\nrailroad.\n\nThe thirty-nine articles of orthodoxy are only the ashes of the mind.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nHonesty is never seen sitting astride the fence.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nA handsome bonnet covers a multitude of sins.\n\n\n\n\n\nIDEAS OF JESUS\n\n\nThere is a vast difference between knowledge of the Bible and knowledge. A\nperson may know all there is in the Bible, and not know but little. In\nfact, so much of the Bible is either pure fiction or doubtful history that\none is not sure when he has got hold of what is reliable. Probably no\nperson whose name appears in the Bible is less a historical figure than\nJesus. As we see him in either gospel he is more the product of the artist\nthan the work of the biographer. He is less a human being than the\ncharacter of a drama.\n\nHad Jesus been pictured as a man, who was born as men are born, who worked\nas men worked, who lived and died as men live and die, then there would be\nless divergence in the views entertained respecting him. To-day, the Jesus\nof Galilee is looked upon as either a God or a tramp; a divine Savior or\nan impostor; the perfect man or a lunatic.\n\nThe reason of this is that the gospels are found, as it were, photographs\nof all those characters labelled Jesus. A person with no fixed idea of\nwhat Jesus was, whether human or divine, whether a Christ or a madman,\nwould be unable, after reading the gospels to come to any intelligent\nconclusion as to what he was. He certainly could not accept the statements\nof the authors and regard Jesus as a man.\n\nWe fail to understand how anyone can read the New Testament story of Jesus\nand not regard him as a myth. No being ever lived on earth and performed\nthe miracles recorded in the gospels. That is just as sure as the light of\nthe stars. Miracles are not evidence of divinity, but of falsehood. Where\nwe read that a man was raised from the dead we know that somebody has\nwritten what is not true. How human beings, who are possessed of ordinary\nintelligence, can accept the accounts of miraculous events in the four\ngospels as records of actual facts surpasses our comprehension.\n\nThose persons who see in the words of Jesus evidence of _his_ divine\ncharacter, see in such words, when in the mouth of any other person, proof\nof insanity.\n\nThere are contradictory ideas of Jesus contained in the gospels. He is\nspoken of as a man, as a Christ, as a son of God, and as God himself. Now,\nhe could not have been all these. Which was he? Was he God? Was he the son\nof God? Was he the Christ or King of the Jews? Was he the son of Mary and\nJoseph? Was he a man? Or was he neither?\n\nOur opinion is that Jesus is a myth, that no such being as is painted in\nthe New Testament ever lived. This seems to be the only rational idea of\nJesus.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SILENCE OF JESUS\n\n\nA Christian minister not long ago spoke upon the subject: \u201cWhen the Bible\nis Silent.\u201d He said a great many silly things about his subject, but not\none sensible one. This preacher wishes us to believe that when the Bible\nis silent it is because we cannot hear. He said the silence of Jesus\nbefore Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, shows that Jesus knew they would not\nhave understood his words if he had answered them. He further said that\nJesus \u201ctreated each with whom he came in contact according to the spirit\nthat was in him.\u201d\n\nIs it not more likely that Jesus knew he could not impose upon these men\nas he could upon his ignorant, superstitious followers, and hence dared\nnot speak? Is not his silence a confession of his weakness? Had he been\nable to answer Caiaphas, Pilate and Herod, think you he would not have\ndone so? Of course he would. It is a little singular that the _most\nmomentous questions ever put to Jesus were not answered by him_. The very\nthings the people wished to know he did not reveal. Why not? Why, because\nhe _could_ not.\n\nShould we to-day pronounce a man wise and good who professed to possess\nknowledge that would benefit, if not save, the world, but who refused to\nimpart that knowledge? We reckon not. We should either denounce him as the\nfoe of man or else as a charlatan.\n\nWhen Jesus was taken before the high priest, Caiaphas, and was asked about\nthe charges against him, he \u201cheld his peace.\u201d\n\nWhen he was asked by Pilate. \u201cWhat is truth?\u201d Jesus was silent; and when\nPilate again asked, \u201cWhence art thou?\u201d Jesus \u201cgave him no answer.\u201d\n\nWhen Herod \u201cquestioned with him in many words,\u201d \u201che answered him nothing.\u201d\n\nWhat are we to infer from this silence? What the minister wishes us to\ninfer, or that Jesus saw that he was unable to maintain his claim and so\nsought refuge in silence?\n\nThe silence of Jesus condemns him. He was in duty bound to prove that he\nwas the Christ, the Son of God, as he claimed to be, or else have impostor\nwritten on his forehead.\n\nThe world will some day grow large enough not to be fooled by a minister.\nWhen it does, Jesus will take his place where he belongs,\u2014in the graveyard\nof the gods.\n\n\n\n\n\nDOES THE CHURCH SAVE\n\n\nThe church pretends to save man from a hell hereafter, but does it do so?\nHow are we to know whether it does or not? We cannot take its word for it.\nWe want the proof. We do not want to pay for work unless the work is done.\nWe do not want to believe in order to be saved, unless we are sure that\nthe church can deliver the salvation it takes pay for. The world has taken\nthe promise to save long enough. It has not seen a single soul that has\nbeen saved, nor does it know for a fact that a single soul has been saved.\n\nIs it not time that the church showed that it can do what it claims to do?\nWe want salvation demonstrated. Let the church produce a specimen of its\nwork; let it exhibit a soul that it has saved, or let it publish the\naffidavit, duly subscribed and affirmed, of a soul that has escaped the\nfate of hell through the efficacy of faith in Jesus. Anything less than\nthis is deception, is imposition, is false pretense. Either this should be\ndone by the church or else it should go out of the salvation-business\naltogether.\n\nIt is astonishing how long the priest has carried on his trade. Here is a\nman who claims to deal in the affairs of another world for which he\ndemands pay in this world, but he does not show that he carries out his\npart of the agreement. Men have been paying the priest for thousands of\nyears, for doing what it is impossible to prove has been, or can be, done.\nCan anything more stupid than this be imagined? The business of saving\nman\u2019s soul is a cheat, a fraud. Every priest and minister who preaches\nthat man can be saved from hell hereafter by believing in Jesus, or\nanybody else, is preaching what they know nothing about, and they are\ndoing it for the money in it. The church is cheating man, defrauding him,\npracticing upon his ignorance, his superstition, his fear. Religion, as\nfar as it relates to any other life than this, has no foundation. Its God\nno one knows anything about; its heaven and hell no one has ever seen, nor\ndoes anyone know where they are; its whole business is run on fictitious\ncapital.\n\nThe only thing that the church has saved so far is itself.\n\nFreethought Precepts\n\n\n The strong should be gentle to the weak.\n The rich should not oppress the poor.\n The prosperous should be generous to the unfortunate.\n The self-reliant should give a hand to the helpless.\n The educated should pity the ignorant.\n The virtuous should not be cruel to the vicious.\n The beautiful should be kind to the plain.\n\n\n\n\n\nSAVE THE REPUBLIC\n\n\nWhich shall it be, Christianity or the Republic? It is apparent that the\nChristian church under a purely secular government, where justice is\ngranted to all and where favors are allowed to none, cannot long survive.\nThe Christian church in this country to-day is the worst foe of our free\nrepublic that exists within its borders. If the state survives it is plain\nto us that the church must perish, and the church can only flourish on the\nruins of free institutions. We may have Christianity with a certain form\nof human government in America, but if the principles embodied in the\nDeclaration of Independence and the rights implied in the national\nconstitution are to survive, then we cannot have Christianity in this\nland.\n\nThe next conflict in our nation is to be between secularism and\necclesiasticism, between men who love liberty and priests who uphold\ntyranny, between the lovers of our republic and the foes of secular\ninstitutions. This conflict is nearer than the public imagines; in fact,\nit is already going on, and the growth of sentiment in the next generation\nin favor of human freedom and human rights will determine whether\nsecularism will be upheld in our nation, or whether the reign of\necclesiasticism is to be dethroned.\n\nThe work of the Christian church throughout the land is to prevent the\nspread of secular principles and to hinder the further secularization of\nthe government. This is the only hope of saving Christianity. If the state\nwill not continue to exempt church property from taxation, to uphold the\nChristian sabbath, to prescribe prayers and Bible-reading in the public\nschools, to enforce the oath in courts of justice, and to otherwise lend\nits aid and support to the Christian religion, there is no chance of this\nreligion resisting the spread of science and the arguments of rationalism.\n\nEvery victory won by Christianity is a nail in the coffin of this\nrepublic. Our government at the present time is a travesty of free\ninstitutions. Where does the freethinker have equal rights with the\nChristian, equal freedom, equal justice? He is obliged to take a Christian\noath or have his word discredited in court; he is taxed to help support\nChristian chaplains in the state prisons, in the legislatures, and in the\narmy and navy; he is made by law to pay the taxes on church property which\nis no benefit to him; he has to send his children to schools where\nreligious services are conducted that to him are false and foolish, and in\nmany other ways help maintain a religion that he considers more injurious\nthan beneficial to the world.\n\nThe church in this country is not working for the good of the nation; it\nis working to save itself. What they, who love our free land, should do,\nis to make the government secular in every part, and compel Christianity\nto take its grasp off of the nation\u2019s life. We must destroy Christianity\nif we would save the republic.\n\n\n\n\n\nA WOMAN\u2019S RELIGION\n\n\nThe Christian church of to-day is the church of women. Woman is certainly\nthe better-half of Christianity. She is the minister\u2019s right bower. The\nChristian soldier is an Amazon. The first at the prayer-meeting, at the\ndonation party, at the missionary convention, at the Sunday service, at\nthe altar, at the Sunday school is woman, and the last is woman, too.\nWithout its female members, adherents and workers the Christian church\nwould be an abandoned wreck within a week. It is true that men give money\nto the church, but they do it generally to please the women or at their\nsolicitation.\n\nThe Christian religion is a female religion. It is emotional piety. There\nis nothing robust, independent about it, nothing that appeals to strength,\nintellect, reason. It is a vine, not an oak. Even its chief idol was\nfashioned for female worship. The songs of Christianity were written for\nwomen to sing, rather than men. The God of Christianity is a father, its\nsavior is a young man, and its angels are all of the masculine gender. The\nChristian heaven is a he-kingdom, as far as its administration is\nconcerned\u2014a sort of celestial harem\u2014for certainly ten women go there to\none man, if the membership of the church determines the election of\ncandidates to heavenly bliss. The two favorite hymns at the\nprayer-meeting, the two that are sung with most feeling, are \u201cJesus, lover\nof my soul,\u201d and \u201cNearer, my God, to thee.\u201d\n\nReligion was invented to catch women. The priest is the spider and woman\nthe fly. Upon the altar of every faith woman has been the sacrifice.\nReligion claims its female victims in this age just as surely as when the\nHindoo widow was sent to join her dead husband on wings of flame. Woman\nto-day is not killed to appease a God, but she is still made a fool of by\nthe priest. The spirit of the offering is the same, the form, only, is\ndifferent. The foundation of every Christian church is woman; the\nsalary-raiser of every Christian minister is woman. Woman is the keystone\nin every arch of Christian endeavor that spans the earth. She is \"the\nbright, particular star\" of the church\u2019s hope. Men are not so easily\ncaught by the Christian scheme of salvation as women. They want to see\nsome return for their money on earth. It is the woman who is caught in the\nreligious toils; it is the woman who is the slave of God, the victim of\npriest and minister.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe declaration that will kindle enthusiasm in the human breast most\nquickly is that a new way has been discovered to get rich.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SACRIFICE OF JESUS\n\n\nA great deal has been written, preached and said about the great sacrifice\nwhich Jesus made for the world. We deny that he made any such sacrifice as\nis claimed for him by the Christian church. In fact, we cannot see, find\nor learn from any record of the New Testament that he made any sacrifice\nat all. This whole idea about the sacrifice of Jesus depends upon a\ntheological assumption.\n\nJesus had no earthly honor, position or estate to sacrifice, even had he\nbeen disposed to offer such for the good of mankind. Not only is there no\nevidence of any tangible renunciation possible by Jesus, but there is no\nproof and no sign that Jesus possessed even the spirit of sacrifice. We\nchallenge the Christian admirer of Jesus to point to a single act of this\nhero that can honestly be called a sacrifice. We know of no such act. We\nhave studied the gospels to find such an act, and we have studied them in\nvain.\n\nWhen a mother sees her boy pinned to the timbers of a wrecked car where\nthe scalding steam must escape into his face and destroy his life, and to\nsave her boy, voluntarily stands where this steam, with its hot breath,\nwill take her life instead of her boy\u2019s, this mother makes a sacrifice\nthat is apparent, real. Such an act is sublime, grand, beyond heroism.\nSuch an act wipes the Christian slander of total depravity from human\nnature. Such an act makes us almost worship the heart great enough to\nperform it.\n\nJesus did no such things as this. He braved no danger for another. He did\nnot walk in the path of peril to save the life of friend or fellow. On the\ncontrary, he seemed bent on a selfish mission, inspired by a purely\npersonal ambition. He did not say: This world is suffering from\noppression; I will lay down my life to make it free. He did not seek to\ndestroy the throne and the sceptre that bear so heavily on the poor and\nweak; but he sought a throne and a sceptre for himself that _he_ might\nrule the world.\n\nJesus sacrifice himself for the world! No! He demanded that the world\nsacrifice itself to exalt him! A poorer specimen of self-sacrifice could\nhardly be found in all the historical out-of-the-way places that we know\nanything about. Jesus had nothing to give up, nothing to renounce, nothing\nbut his life to offer to the world, _and this, even when it was taken, did\nthe world no good_.\n\nThe only incident in the whole career of Jesus which has been construed as\na sacrifice was his crucifixion, but this was not voluntary on the part of\nthe victim. _Jesus, in dying, made no sacrifice._ He surrendered his life\nat the command of a political power; he did not offer it for the world\u2019s\nadvancement. Jesus was the sport of circumstances, the victim of a cruel\nfate. He played for high stakes and lost. He was an adventurer, and\nsuffered the penalty of failure. Taking the account of his career in the\ngospels as true, it is totally barren of any lofty, sublime action for the\ngood of the human race. He did not throw his efforts into the public\nstrife to elevate the condition of the majority, but he loaded himself on\nthe shoulders of his followers to ride into divine greatness. Like\nhundreds of others, he threw the dice of political chance and was beaten.\n\nIn following the gospel steps of the deluded Nazarene we are not sure\nwhich are his and which are not, but take all the stories as true which\nhis devoted disciples have told about him, they do not reveal a mind\nconsecrated to any lofty purpose. He was working to establish the \u201ckingdom\nof heaven,\u201d but nobody knows what that is. He talked about his \u201cfather in\nheaven,\u201d but nobody knows who he is. He had no practical ideas, he did no\npractical work. History would have written this man\u2019s name among the\nunfortunate victims of political revolutions, if it had preserved it at\nall, which is doubtful, but Jesus was made by priestcraft to play a\nleading part in a theological drama, and religion has immortalized his\nname.\n\nBut it is a false part that Jesus has played. No such character has any\nreason for existing. The necessity for any human offering to God does not\nexist. The idea of an atoning sacrifice is a relic of at barbarous faith.\nIt is time to take Christianity off the stage. It is an insult to the\ntwentieth century.\n\nThe silly, sickly superstition of the sacrifice of Jesus should be left to\ndie. It sprang from falsehood and has no basis in fact, in reason or in\ntruth.\n\n\n\n\n\nFASHIONABLE HYPOCRISY\n\n\nThere is nothing more inconsistent than for the rich to praise Jesus.\nThere is dishonesty in every word that the wealthy speak in approbation of\nthe poverty-preacher of Galilee. Jesus was poor, almost a beggar. He had\nno house, no home. But more than this, he did not see the good of such\nthings. He did not tell his disciples to work and try to improve their\nearthly condition. There is no sound, sensible advice for a man to follow,\nwho has to live and support his family, to be found in the so-called\nteachings of Jesus.\n\nIt is simply hypocrisy for a man who is rich or well-to-do, and who is\nliving to add to his wealth or to increase his comforts, to pretend to\nhonor Jesus. The truth is, Jesus did not do anything that deserves the\nhonor of those who are trying to fill the earth with flowers of happiness,\nwho are laboring to make brighter the homes they live in, and who are\nsowing the seeds of plenty and joy. Jesus did not do what this age regards\nas best for man, and he did not teach the philosophy which the wisest men\nto-day apply to human life.\n\nNow, was Jesus right or wrong? That is the question. It is pure nonsense\nfor the people of this country to claim to respect Jesus. We cannot\nrespect a person who does what we think is foolish, or we cannot do so and\nhave any self-respect. We are right or think we are, and Jesus was wrong;\nor else Jesus was right. Which is it?\n\nThe whole world, Christian and unbeliever alike, is living contrary to the\nprecept and example of the New Testament preacher. Is every person on\nearth doing what he believes to be wrong; doing what he believes to be\ninjurious to himself; doing what he considers will end in disaster and\nmisery; doing what he feels will bring suffering and sorrow upon humanity?\nNot a bit of it. Every man is doing what he believes to be right when he\nis working to get out of poverty and degradation; when he is trying to\nbetter his condition in society; when he is improving his home and giving\nhis family more blessings, more enjoyments.\n\nWe unhesitatingly declare that Jesus was wrong. It is impossible to make\npoverty popular. There is not an argument in its favor. Poverty has not a\nsingle blessing. It is a curse, pure and simple, everywhere and for\neverybody. It is not to be praised; it is to be condemned and got rid of.\nIt is the father of vice and the mother of suffering. It sheds more tears\nthan grief. It cuts more throats than crime. It breaks more hearts than\ncruelty. It is the one great giant evil of earth. It is the foe that every\nKnight of Labor is sworn to battle. Every heart that loves another is\npledged to drive poverty off the earth. This monster devours more children\nthan disease, and tortures the aged more than pain. Want is a flood, a\ndrought, a famine, a pestilence. It is a prison, a work-house, a convict\u2019s\ncell. It is the hell of the twentieth century.\n\nCan we praise Jesus and be honest? No! Jesus and his gospel of poverty are\nnot in harmony with the work, the love, the desire of this age, and for\nany one who is living above want, on the walls of whose home is the\nsunshine of peace and comfort, to pretend to honor Jesus or to follow his\nteaching is to be guilty of hypocrisy!\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen religion comes in at the door common sense goes out at the window.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe churches erected in the name of God will ere long be tombstones to his\nmemory.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nChurches do not stand for moral influence. Not a Christian minister\npreaches salvation by good behavior. What a poor business Roman\nCatholicism would do among men if it advertised to save only those who\nwere temperate, upright, intelligent and moral.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE SATURDAY HALF-HOLIDAY\n\n\nIt is pretty certain that the laborer is hereafter to have more time for\nhimself. That fact is already settled, and the demand will be conceded\nsooner or later. Eat, work and sleep is the ancient trinity of slavery.\nThe modern life demands leisure; the opportunity for enjoyment and\nself-improvement. How it is best to be secured is a question about which\nthere is a variety of opinions. One of the plans to give the workingman\nmore time for himself is that of the Saturday half-holiday. We see no\nparticular advantage in this over the eight-hour-for-a-day\u2019s-work plan.\n\nIt seems to us that if laborers worked eight hours a day and had Sunday\nfor a holiday instead of a holy day, all their requirements would be\nbetter answered than in any other way. We do not need a day nor an hour\nwhen either work or play would be a crime, and before any other portion of\nthe week is set apart for a holiday, let Sunday be made free to enjoyment\nand recreation.\n\nThere is the eternal bugbear of religion to oppose this scheme, but that\nis all. The minister, who under free trade on Sunday would be obliged to\nclose up his business, is in favor of a Sabbath law of protection for\nsermons and prayers, but why should a few clergymen who have six holidays\nin the week and only one work-day, be favored against millions of toilers,\nwho work six days in the week and are liable to be arrested if they do not\ngo to church on the seventh day? Not a Saturday half-holiday but a Sunday\nwhole-holiday is the first rational step towards justice to the\nworking-man. There is very little in the average Sunday service that is\ninstructive and nothing that is entertaining, and it is based upon the\nerroneous notion that man owes something that he knows nothing about, a\ndebt of worship one day in seven. Man\u2019s brain should be emancipated from\nthe superstition that there is a God in the universe that requires him to\nsacrifice his own good to divine vanity. Work is holier than worship, and\nto play is better for man than to pray.\n\nMan wants leisure to enjoy himself, not to worship God. He can have it\nwhen he becomes sensible enough to demand it.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MOTIVE FOR PREACHING\n\n\nWhy does a man enter the Christian ministry? Why do men preach the\nChristian faith? There is some reason for doing so. What is it? We have\nbeen told that the men who adopt the profession of preaching for a living\nmake a sacrifice of personal advantage by doing so; that these men, had\nthey entered any other profession, could not only more readily achieve\ngreatness, but could also make more money. We do not believe it. As a\nrule, we believe that the men who are getting a living to-day as\nministers, earn more money and enjoy more fame, than they could get in any\nother business or calling. Ministers are not martyrs. That idea needs to\nbe given up.\n\nThere is another idea that people have entertained too long, and that is,\nthat all the young men who graduate from a divinity school are\nintellectual giants. Brains are not the capital of the pulpit. We gladly\nacknowledge the exception to what we have stated as a rule, and are not\nonly willing, but anxious, to testify to the occasional brilliant\npreacher. We are speaking of the overwhelming majority and not of the\nconspicuous few.\n\nMost men go into the ministry because they think they can get a living\nmore easily by preaching than by doing anything else. The pulpit is\nfounded not on spiritual sands, but on an earthly rock. It is the salary\nthat makes it attractive.\n\nNow, let us look at the facts in the case. The work of the minister is\nless than the work of the average laborer, and the pay of the preacher is\nmore than the pay of the average mechanic or working-man. Here is the key\nto the pulpit for a lot of young men. A young man who has a taste for\nreading and loafing, and no genius for work, sees a chance to employ what\ntalent he possesses by studying theology, and we venture to say that nine\nout of ten of the candidates for the ministry enter the profession from\npurely business, or, if you will, mercenary motives. The Lord does not\npick out preachers. They pick themselves out.\n\nThere is just as much striving for the loaves and fishes among ministers\nas among other men; and the religious society that pays the largest salary\nis the vineyard that has the most applications for the job. We do not say\nthat preachers are worse than other professional characters, but that they\nare human. They preach for money, and where the highest salary is there\nwill the ministers be most anxious to go.\n\nWe do not wish to cut anybody\u2019s wings, but when we read that certain\nnew-fledged preachers are about to \u201cwork for the Lord,\u201d and that they have\n\u201centered upon God\u2019s chosen profession through their love of saving souls,\u201d\nwe want to correct the statements. They are going to work for themselves\nthe best they know how, having entered upon their duties, not so much\nbecause they love their fellow-men, as because they love the good things\nof this world.\n\nThe truth is this, the motive for preaching to-day is the pay, and the\nreligion of the pulpit is to say nothing that will cause a panic in the\npews.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMan\u2019s history is below his life, his destiny above it.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nAll that secularists ask is that their thoughts be met fairly and\nhonestly, and that the world accept what will lead it in the highest and\nsurest way.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf a person can join the salvation army corps and still be respected by\nhis fellow-beings, he ought to be at liberty to enlist in the ranks of\nreason and common sense and not forfeit respect.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nGod has done nothing for men and women except to scare them out of their\nwits.\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE CHRISTIAN\u2019S GOD\n\n\nMan is like the God he worships, and history shows that the Christian\nchurch has been as cruel as its God. A Christian minister damns just as\nhis God does. He sends every free soul to hell just as his God does. He\ndemands obedience just as his God does. The tyranny of heaven is repeated\non earth and every tyrant quotes God for his authority.\n\nThink of the Christian superstition demanding recognition and acceptance!\nIt seems almost incredible that a man can be found in this age to preach\nsuch glaring inconsistencies and absurdities, such a ridiculous faith,\nsuch injustice and cruelty, as the Christian religion stands for. We can\nhardly believe our own ears when we go inside of a Christian church. We\ncannot understand how this terrible superstition has obtained possession\nof the mind, nor how human beings can be so blinded and apparently\nstultified! Were there on this earth a judge who should pronounce sentence\nupon a person on account of his religious belief, mankind would brand the\nname of that judge with the deepest obloquy. He would be stripped of his\nrobe of office and disgraced forever in the eyes of every true man and\nwoman on the globe. His deed would be a black spot on the page of history\nand his memory a burden to the world.\n\nPut this judge on the throne of the universe and you have the Christian\u2019s\nGod.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDIFFERENCE TO RELIGION\n\n\nThe pulpit complains that people are indifferent to religion. Why\nshouldn\u2019t they be? It is about time they were indifferent to it. Our\nwonder is, that the people tolerate a single priest or church on earth. Of\nwhat benefit is religion to mankind? Come now, ye that uphold religion,\ntell us what it does to make the world better, nobler, truer? Why should\nman worship God? Why should he build thousands of costly churches all over\nthe earth, and pay priests and ministers large salaries to preach and pray\nin these churches?\n\nIf the churches were the humblest buildings in the land; if the ministers\nand priests were paid no more than carpenters or spinners, if there were\nany agreement between what religion _professes to be_ and what it _is as\nmatter of fact_, then less could be said in the way of condemnation of\nreligion. But think you that men who live in hovels can respect men who\npreach in palaces as followers of the man of Nazareth? The thing is too\nridiculous. The world is beginning to see how it has been humbugged, and\nit is becoming indifferent. It may in time become indignant. There will\nthen be occasion for ministers to be alarmed.\n\nBut just now the people have reached a condition of utter indifference\nrespecting religion. They don\u2019t care for it. They don\u2019t care to build it\nup or tear it down. They don\u2019t care whether it is good or bad. They don\u2019t\ncare anything about it.\n\nSome regret this state of things; we rejoice in it. It shows that the\npeople are thinking, and when the people think long enough they will find\nwhat is true and right.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf\n\nIf the government can carry a letter across the continent for two cents,\nwhy cannot it send a telegraphic message correspondingly cheap?\n\nIf the government can build and manage a navy, why cannot it build and\noperate a railroad?\n\nIf the government can run the treasury department, why cannot it run the\nbanks?\n\nIf the government can maintain an army of soldiers in idleness, why cannot\nit support an army of laborers at some useful occupation?\n\nIf the government can serve at less cost than private corporations, why\ndoes it not do so?\n\n\n\n\n\nSUNDAY SCHOOLS\n\n\nOf all the stupid things we meet with, Sunday school lessons are the\nstupidest. There seems to be only one way to account for this, and that is\nthat stupid persons are connected with Sunday schools and can comprehend\nonly stupid things. It seems to us as though a bright boy or girl at the\nage of twelve years ought to be able to overthrow every argument employed\nin a Sunday school to bolster up the Christian superstition. The lessons\ntaught in them are adapted to undeveloped brains, and the literature one\ngets from their libraries is of that variety that is calculated to\ndiscourage any robust independence of mind. We believe that any religious\nor theological instruction is a positive injury to the young; that it is\nutterly wrong to instill into the immature mind ideas of God, of a future\nlife, of heaven and hell, of angels and devils. All that we know about God\nis what we don\u2019t know. The same may be said of other branches of religion.\nHow much better it would be to teach something useful, something of\nimportance, something real, true! Parents owe it to their children to save\nthem from being taught the false and foolish dogmas of Christianity. False\neducation is the bane of humanity, and the falsehood that is learned in\nSunday schools poisons and deforms the life of man as long as he lives.\nFear of God\u2014the most terrible spectre that ever haunted the human soul\u2014is\na product of the Sunday school. The victims of this fear can be counted\nto-day by millions. This one fact ought to be sufficient to condemn this\nnursery of superstition and evil. There is no earthly reason to fear God,\nand other reasons should have no weight. The black shadow of fear which\ndarkens the whole earth is the result of faith in God. The catechisms used\nin the Sunday schools are mostly filled with pious trash. The questions\nand answers they contain are written out of ignorance, written, too, in\nmost cases, for the purpose of making the intellect the slave of the\npriest and minister. There is no mystery so shallow as a theological\nmystery, because it is founded on deception. The only mysteries that the\nhuman mind can contemplate with real wonder are the sublime mysteries of\nNature, the mysteries of life and death, of sand and star, of flower and\nfeeling. Before these great, overwhelming mysteries, that everywhere\nsurround us, the petty ideas of Gods and devils, of saviors and mediators,\nof heaven and hell, are trivial and cheap. We condemn Sunday schools,\nbecause they do not teach what is real, what is true, what is necessary to\na noble human life on earth; because they inculcate superstitions, and\nelevate the belief of religious dogmas above scientific and useful\nknowledge; because they put God above man, heaven hereafter above the home\nhere, and the performance of religious duties above the life of honesty,\npurity and love. Sunday schools are the poorest schools on the face of the\nearth, and there is only one excuse for their existence, and that is to\nperpetuate the church, to keep alive the superstitions upon which it was\nbuilt and upon which the clergy depend for a living.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nOur duty to the god of christianity is to bury him.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nNothing from nothing and nothing remains, Nothing from nothing and nothing\nis the same.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nIf the factory pays taxes and the church does not, it follows that the\nchurch will some day own the factory.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWhen christian ministers stand up in their pulpits and say \u201cLet us pray,\u201d\nif they would sometimes vary the invitation and say: Let us laugh, they\nwould do their congregations more good.\n\n\n\n\n\nGOING TO CHURCH\n\n\nEvery little while some minister wakes up to the fact that a large\nproportion of the people of our cities do not go to church, and he blames\nthe people for this state of affairs. Nobody blames men and women if they\nkeep away from the theatre, from the library, from the art gallery, from\nthe public park; in fact, it is generally admitted that people can\nexercise their own judgment in visiting these places and not be liable to\ncensure on the part of anybody. Not so, however, when they keep away from\nthe church.\n\nWhy does a man go to the theatre? Obviously because he is pleased by the\nperformance he witnesses there. Why does a man not go to a church?\nObviously because he is _not_ pleased with the performance he witnesses\n_there_. The notion that men and women are to go to a place where they do\nnot like to go, where they derive no pleasure but as a matter of duty is\nabout all the argument for church-going that can be advanced to-day. We\nadmit that man should do his duty, no matter how disagreeable it may be.\nWe cannot shirk our responsibilities on the ground that they are irksome\nor unpleasant. But _is_ it man\u2019s duty to go to church? That is the\nquestion. If it is, then he should go. Who is to decide the matter? Of\ncourse priests and ministers will say that everybody ought to go to\nchurch. But what for? Is it a man\u2019s duty to go to _every_ church, or only\nto some particular church? We are told that we shall be better for going\nto church. To which church? The Roman Catholic would not admit that a man\nwould be better for going to a Methodist church, and the Methodist would\nnot advise a person to go to a Roman Catholic church to improve his mental\nor moral condition. Who shall decide the matter _where_ we shall go to\nchurch?\n\nIn going to the theatre, we do not always go to the same place, nor to\nhear the same play, nor to witness the same actors; nor do we always visit\nthe same gallery or park when we desire to see paintings or statuary, or\nto enjoy the flowers and general beauties of Nature. Why should men _join_\none church and go to it all their lives? Why should men hear only _one_\nkind of religion preached? Why should men listen all their lives to the\npreaching of one set of dogmas?\n\nSupposing a man were to go once or twice a week for fifty years to see one\ntragedy or comedy played, would he be a better judge of the drama than if\nhe had seen during that time a hundred tragedies and comedies? The man who\ngoes all his life to one church is made a denominational or sectarian\nbigot. Is the object of churches to make bigots? That is about all they\nhave made up to date.\n\nWe hold that it is not man\u2019s duty to _go_ to any church, to _belong_ to\nany church, or to _support_ any church. _There are no religious duties._\nMan is under no obligation whatever to worship God. Churches must be\nplaced upon the same ground as other places of instruction and amusement,\nand if they cannot be supported by legitimate patronage then must they be\ngiven up. If a man goes to church to hear a minister, let him pay for it\nlike a man, but if he is not pleased with what he hears he need not go\nagain.\n\nThe notion that there is anything of greater value to be had in the church\nthan elsewhere cannot be defended. This idea does not fool people of any\nsense. The pulpit has no divine message for the world, but generally talks\nabout what no one knows anything about. Intelligent people who do not go\nto church have come to the conclusion that they can derive more pleasure\nfrom other sources. That is about the reason why they do not go to church.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe cannot go ahead without leaving something behind.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nThe convent is opposed to all that is sacred in human nature.\n\n\n\n\n\nWHO IS THE GREATEST LIVING MAN\n\n\nWritten November 19, 1893.\n\nMy answer is _Robert G. Ingersoll_.\n\nOne gets the conviction of this man\u2019s superiority by simply being in his\npresence. The outer man makes the impression of greatness upon the mind.\n\nIt is not the silent assertion of a splendid form however, that persuades\nus. A large body serves to accent and emphasize a large mind, but heroic\nphysical proportions are not essential to greatness. The king of men\nto-day is not he who, like Saul, \u201cfrom his shoulders and upward is higher\nthan any of his people.\u201d Dr. Watts truly said: \u201cThe mind\u2019s the standard of\nthe man.\u201d\n\nBut we cannot think of Robert G. Ingersoll with a diminutive physical\nequipment. His ample form radiates the man. But it is the royalty of his\nintellect that makes him great. It is in the kingdom of mind that he is\nmaster. Every mental tool fits his hand. He has wit, learning,\nimagination, eloquence, philosophy, and that rare quality, sense. He is a\ngreat lawyer, a great orator, a great poet, and a great man. He is too\nlarge for conventionalities, too large to respect what smaller minds have\ndeclared right, what weaker minds have made holy.\n\nThe intellectual grandeur of the man is no less apparent than his moral\nfearlessness. He is greatest where most men are little\u2014in the face of a\npowerful and domineering superstition. He knows that the highest manhood\nmakes the trappings of religion but the playthings of feeble minds.\n\nHis love of liberty is only equalled by his passion for truth, and he\nlistens to the timid whisper of doubt with the chivalrous attention that\nothers give to confident faith. He strips things of their clothes, of\nfashions, of falsehood, of pretension, and demands that they stand for\nwhat they are and no more. He has the sincerity of greatness and his mind\nwears the white robe of spotless integrity.\n\nAbove all living men he possesses the power of utterance. He has the\nhighest literary instinct, and never marries a mean word to a noble\nthought. He uses language as Phidias used marble. He is the literary\nartist of the age, and knows all the colors in the brain. He can make\nwords laugh and weep.\n\nThis man has a large heart. He is filled with human sympathy. He does not\ncare for gods, but he pities men. The springs of feeling feed the mighty\nrivers of thought that cross the continent of his mind. There is about him\nthe warmth, the kindness of summer\u2014Nature\u2019s season of forgiveness.\n\nHe has the highest philosophy\u2014that of cheerfulness. The clouds never cover\nall his sky. He is the apostle of good humor, and preaches the gospel of\nsunshine to dry the tears of the world.\n\nHe is true to himself, loyal to his head and his heart, and upon his brow\nshines the jewel of self-respect.\n\nRobert G. Ingersoll has the greatness of genius. It is useless to try to\naccount for an intellectual giant. Dowered by Nature, parents are of small\naccount. We cannot find the secret of his marvelous power by digging in a\ngraveyard.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nMan is what he is, because his origin was what it was.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nGod cannot be put into the national Constitution without putting liberty\nout of it.\n\n \u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\u2010\n\nWe do not want holy books, but true ones; not sacred writings, but\nsensible writings.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
","title":"Is The Bible Worth Reading, and Other Essays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":49132}