The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume XI Part 8

I find in that const.i.tution, in its Eighteenth Section, this: "No person shall ever in this State be deprived of the inestimable privilege of wors.h.i.+ping G.o.d, in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretence whatever be compelled to attend any place of wors.h.i.+p contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall he be obliged to pay t.i.thes, taxes, or any other rates for the purpose of building or repairing any church or churches, contrary to what he believes to be true." That was a very great and splendid step. It was the divorce of church and state. It no longer allowed the State to levy taxes for the support of a particular religion, and it said to every citizen of New Jersey: All that you give for that purpose must be voluntarily given, and the State will not compel you to pay for the maintenance of a church in which you do not believe. So far so good.

The next paragraph was not so good. "There shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this State in preference to another, and no Protestant inhabitants of this State shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles; but all persons professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect, who shall demean themselves peaceably, shall be capable of being elected to any office of profit or trust, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity enjoyed by other citizens."

What became of the Catholics under that clause, I do not know--whether they had any right to be elected to office or not under this Act. But in 1844, the State having grown civilized in the meantime, another const.i.tution was adopted. The word Protestant was then left out.

There was to be no establishment of one religion over another. But Protestantism did not render a man capable of being elected to office any more than Catholicism, and nothing is said about any religious belief whatever. So far, so good.

"No religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right on account of his religious principles."

That is a very broad and splendid provision. "No person shall be denied any civil right on account of his religious principles." That was copied from the Virginia const.i.tution, and that clause in the Virginia const.i.tution was written by Thomas Jefferson, and under that clause men were ent.i.tled to give their testimony in the courts of Virginia whether they believed in any religion or not, in any bible or not, or in any G.o.d or not.

That same clause was afterward adopted by the State of Illinois, also by many other States, and wherever that clause is, no citizen can be denied any civil right on account of his religious principles. It is a broad and generous clause. This statute, under which this indictment is drawn, is not in accordance with the spirit of that splendid sentiment. Under that clause, no man can be deprived of any civil right on account of his religious principles, or on account of his belief. And yet, on account of this miserable, this antiquated, this barbarous and savage statute, the same man who cannot be denied any political or civil right, can be sent to the penitentiary as a common felon for simply expressing his honest thought. And before I get through I hope to convince you that this statute is unconst.i.tutional.

But we will go another step: "Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right."

That is in the const.i.tution of nearly every State in the Union, and the intention of that is to cover slanderous words--to cover a case where a man under pretence of enjoying the freedom of speech falsely a.s.sails or accuses his neighbor. Of course he should be held responsible for that abuse.

Then follows the great clause in the const.i.tution of 1844--more important than any other clause in that instrument--a clause that s.h.i.+nes in that const.i.tution like a star at night.--

"No law shall be pa.s.sed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

Can anything be plainer--anything be more forcibly stated?

"No law shall be pa.s.sed to abridge the liberty of speech."

Now, while you are considering this statute, I want you to keep in mind this other statement:

"No law shall be pa.s.sed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press."

And right here there is another thing I want to call your attention to.

There is a const.i.tution higher than any statute. There is a law higher than any const.i.tution. It is the law of the human conscience, and no man who is a man will defile and pollute his conscience at the bidding of any legislature. Above all things, one should maintain his selfrespect, and there is but one way to do that, and that is to live in accordance with your highest ideal.

There is a law higher than men can make. The facts as they exist in this poor world--the absolute consequences of certain acts--they are above all. And this higher law is the breath of progress, the very outstretched wings of civilization, under which we enjoy the freedom we have. Keep that in your minds. There never was a legislature great enough--there never was a const.i.tution sacred enough, to compel a civilized man to stand between a black man and his liberty. There never was a const.i.tution great enough to make me stand between any human being and his right to express his honest thoughts. Such a const.i.tution is an insult to the human soul, and I would care no more for it than I would for the growl of a wild beast. But we are not driven to that necessity here. This const.i.tution is in accord with the highest and n.o.blest aspirations of the heart--"No law shall be pa.s.sed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech."

Now let us come to this old law--this law that was asleep for a hundred years before this const.i.tution was adopted--this law coiled like a snake beneath the foundations of the Government--this law, cowardly, dastardly--this law pa.s.sed by wretches who were afraid: to discuss--this law pa.s.sed by men who could not, and who knew they could not, defend their creed--and so they said: "Give us the sword of the State and we will cleave the heretic down." And this law was made to control the minority. When the Catholics were in power they visited that law upon their opponents. When the Episcopalians were in power, they tortured and burned the poor Catholic who had scoffed and who had denied the truth of their religion. Whoever was in power used that, and whoever was out of power cursed that--and yet, the moment he got in power he used it: The people became civilized--but that law was on the statute book. It simply remained. There it was, sound asleep--its lips drawn over its long and cruel teeth. n.o.body savage enough to waken it. And it slept on, and New Jersey has flourished. Men have done well. You have had average health in this country. n.o.body roused the statute until the defendant in this case went to Boonton, and there made a speech in which he gave his honest thought, and the people not having an argument handy, threw stones. Thereupon Mr. Reynolds, the defendant, published a pamphlet on Blasphemy and in it gave a photograph of the Boonton Christians. That is his offence. Now let us read this infamous statute:

"_If any person shall willfully blaspheme the holy name of G.o.d by denying, cursing, or contumeliously reproaching his being_"--

I want to say right here--many a man has cursed the G.o.d of another man.

The Catholics have cursed the G.o.d of the Protestant. The Presbyterians have cursed the G.o.d of the Catholics--charged them with idolatry--cursed their images, laughed at their ceremonies. And these compliments have been interchanged between all the religions of the world. But I say here to-day that no man, unless a raving maniac, ever cursed the G.o.d in whom he believed. No man, no human being, has ever lived who cursed his own idea of G.o.d. He always curses the idea that somebody else entertains. No human being ever yet cursed what he believed to be infinite wisdom and infinite goodness--and you know it. Every man on this jury knows that.

He feels that that must be an absolute certainty. Then what have they cursed? Some G.o.d they did not believe in--that is all. And has a man that right? I say, yes. He has a right to give his opinion of Jupiter, and there is n.o.body in Morristown who will deny him that right. But several thousands years ago it would have been very dangerous for him to have cursed Jupiter, and yet Jupiter is just as powerful now as he was then, but the Roman people are not powerful, and that is all there was to Jupiter--the Roman people.

So there was a time when you could have cursed Zeus, the G.o.d of the Greeks, and like Socrates, they would have compelled you to drink hemlock. Yet now everybody can curse this G.o.d. Why? Is the G.o.d dead? No.

He is just as alive as he ever was. Then what has happened? The Greeks have pa.s.sed away. That is all. So in all of our churches here. Whenever a church is in the minority it clamors for free speech. When it gets in the majority, no. I do not believe the history of the world will show that any orthodox church when in the majority ever had the courage to face the free lips of the world. It sends for a constable. And is it not wonderful that they should do this when they preach the gospel of universal forgiveness--when they say, "if a man strike you on one cheek turn to him the other also--but if he laughs at your religion, put him in the penitentiary"? Is that the doctrine? Is that the law?

Now, read this law. Do you know as I read it I can almost hear John Calvin laugh in his grave. That would have been a delight to him. It is written exactly as he would have written it. There never was an inquisitor who would not have read that law with a malicious smile. The Christians who brought the f.a.gots and ran with all their might to be at the burning, would have enjoyed that law. You know that when they used to burn people for having said something against religion, they used to cut their tongues out before they burned them. Why? For fear that if they did not, the poor, burning victims might say something that would scandalize the Christian gentlemen who were building the fire. All these persons would have been delighted with this law.

Let us read a little further:

"--_Or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ_."

Why, whoever did, since the poor man, or the poor G.o.d, was crucified?

How did they come to crucify him? Because they did not believe in free speech in Jerusalem. How else? Because there was a law against blasphemy in Jerusalem--a law exactly like this. Just think of it. Oh, I tell you we have pa.s.sed too many mile-stones on the s.h.i.+ning road of human progress to turn back and wallow in that blood, in that mire.

No: Some men have said that he was simply a man. Some believed that he was actually a G.o.d. Others believed that he was not only a man, but that he stood as the representative of infinite love and wisdom. No man ever said one word against that Being for saying "Do unto others as ye would that others should do unto you." No man ever raised his voice against him because he said, "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And are they the "merciful" who when some man endeavors to answer their argument, put him in the penitentiary? No. The trouble is, the priests--the trouble is, the ministers--the trouble is, the people whose business it was to tell the meaning of these things, quarreled'

with each other, and they put meanings upon human expressions by malice, meanings that the words will not bear. And let me be just to them.

I believe that nearly all that has been done in this world has been honestly done. I believe that the poor savage who kneels down and prays to a stuffed snake--prays that his little children may recover from the fever--is honest, and it seems to me that a good G.o.d would answer his prayer if he could, if it was in accordance with wisdom, because the poor savage was doing the best he could, and no one can do any better than that.

So I believe that the Presbyterians who used to think that nearly everybody was going to h.e.l.l, said exactly what they believed. They were honest about it, and I would not send one of them to jail--would never think of such a thing--even if he called the unbelievers of the world "wretches," "dogs," and "devils." What would I do? I would simply answer him--that is all; answer him kindly. I might laugh at him a little, but I would answer him in kindness.

So these divisions of the human mind are natural. They are a necessity.

Do you know that all the mechanics that ever lived--take the best ones--cannot make two clocks that will run exactly alike one hour, one minute? They cannot make two pendulums that will beat in exactly the same time, one beat. If you cannot do that, how are you going to make hundreds, thousands, billions of people, each with a different quality and quant.i.ty of brain, each clad in a robe of living, quivering flesh, and each driven by pa.s.sion's storm over the wild sea of life--how are you going to make them all think alike? This is the impossible thing that Christian ignorance and bigotry and malice have been trying to do.

This was the object of the Inquisition and of the foolish Legislature that pa.s.sed this statute.

Let me read you another line from this ignorant statute:--

"_Or the Christian religion_."

Well, what is the Christian religion? "If you scoff at the Christian religion--if you curse the Christian religion." Well what is it?

Gentlemen, you hear Presbyterians every day attack the Catholic Church. Is that the Christian religion? The Catholic believes it is the Christian religion, and you have to admit that it is the oldest one, and then the Catholics turn round and scoff at the Protestants. Is that the Christian religion? If so, every Christian religion has been cursed by every other Christian religion. Is not that an absurd and foolish statute?

I say that the Catholic has the right to attack the Presbyterian and tell him, "Your doctrine is all wrong." I think he has the right to say to him, "You are leading thousands to h.e.l.l." If he believes it, he not only has the right to say it, but it is his duty to say it; and if the Presbyterian really believes the Catholics are all going to the devil, it is his duty to say so. Why not? I will never have any religion that I cannot defend--that is, that I do not believe I can defend. I may be mistaken, because no man is absolutely certain that he knows. We all understand that. Every one is liable to be mistaken. The horizon of each individual is very narrow, and in his poor sky the stars are few and very small.

"_Or the Word of G.o.d_--"

What is that?

"_The canonical Scriptures contained in the books of the Old and New Testaments_."

Now, what has a man the right to say about that? Has he the right to show that the book of Revelation got into the canon by one vote, and one only? Has he the right to show that they pa.s.sed in convention upon what books they would put in and what they would not? Has he the right to show that there were twenty-eight books called "The Books of the Hebrew's"? Has he the right to show that? Has he the right to show that Martin Luther said he did not believe there was one solitary word of gospel in the Epistle to the Romans? Has he the right to show that some of these books were not written till nearly two hundred years afterward?

Has he the right to say it, if he believes it? I do not say whether this is true or not, but has a man the right to say it if he believes it?

Suppose I should read the Bible all through right here in Morristown, and after I got through I should make up my mind that it is not a true book--what ought I to say? Ought I to clap my hand over my mouth and start for another State, and the minute I got over the line say, "It is not true, It is not true"? Or, ought I to have the right and privilege of saying right here in New Jersey, "My fellow-citizens, I have read the book--I do not believe that it is the word of G.o.d"? Suppose I read it and think it is true, then I am bound to say so. If I should go to Turkey and read the Koran and make up my mind that it is false, you would all say that I was a miserable poltroon if I did not say so.

By force you can make hypocrites--men who will agree with you from the teeth out, and in their hearts hate you. We want no more hypocrites.

We have enough in every community. And how are you going to keep from having more? By having the air free,--by wiping from your statute books such miserable and infamous laws as this.

"_The Holy Scriptures_."

Are they holy? Must a man be honest? Has he the right to be sincere?

There are thousands of things in the Scriptures that everybody believes.

Everybody believes the Scriptures are right when they say, "Thou shalt not steal"--everybody. And when they say "Give good measure, heaped up and running over," everybody says, "Good!" So when they say "Love your neighbor," everybody applauds that. Suppose a man believes that, and practices it, does it make any difference whether he believes in the flood or not? Is that of any importance? Whether a man built an ark or not--does that make the slightest difference? A man might deny it and yet be a very good man. Another might believe it and be a very mean man. Could it now, by any possibility, make a man a good father, a good husband, a good citizen? Does it make any difference whether you believe it or not? Does it make any difference whether or not you believe that a man was going through town, and his hair was a little short, like mine, and some little children laughed at him, and thereupon two bears from the woods came down and tore to pieces about forty of these children? Is it necessary to believe that? Suppose a man should say, "I guess that is a mistake; they did not copy that right; I guess the man that reported that was a little dull of hearing and did not get the story exactly right." Any harm in saying that? Is a man to be sent to the penitentiary for that? Can you imagine an infinitely good G.o.d sending a man to h.e.l.l because he did not believe the bear story?

So I say if you believe the Bible, say so; if you do not believe it, say so. And here is the vital mistake, I might almost say, in Protestantism itself. The Protestants when they fought the Catholics said: "Read the Bible for yourselves--stop taking it from your priests--read the sacred volume with your own eyes; it is a revelation from G.o.d to his children, and you are the children." And then they said: "If after you read it you do not believe it, and you say anything against it, we will put you in jail, and G.o.d will put you in h.e.l.l." That is a fine position to get a man in. It is like a man who invited his neighbor to come and look at his pictures, saying: "They are the finest in the place, and I want your candid opinion. A man who looked at them the other day said they were daubs, and I kicked him downstairs--now I want your candid judgment." So the Protestant Church says to a man, "This Bible is a message from your Father,--your Father in heaven. Read it. Judge for yourself. But if after you have read it you say it is not true, I will put you in the penitentiary for one year."

The Catholic Church has a little more sense about that--at least more logic. It says: "This Bible is not given to everybody. It is given to the world, to be sure, but it must be interpreted by the church. G.o.d would not give a Bible to the world unless he also appointed some one, some organization, to tell the world what it means." They said: "We do not want the world filled with interpretations, and all the interpreters fighting each other." And the Protestant has gone to the infinite absurdity of saying: "Judge for yourself, but if you judge wrong you will go to the penitentiary here and to h.e.l.l hereafter.".

Now, let us see further:

"_Or by profane scoffing expose them to ridicule_"