The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume XI Part 9

Think of such a law as that, pa.s.sed under a const.i.tution that says, "No law shall abridge the liberty of speech." But you must not ridicule the Scriptures. Did anybody ever dream of pa.s.sing a law to protect Shakespeare from being laughed at? Did anybody ever think of such a thing? Did anybody ever want any legislative enactment to keep people from holding Robert Burns in contempt? The songs of Burns will be sung as long as there is love in the human heart. Do we need to protect him from ridicule by a statute? Does he need a.s.sistance from New Jersey?

Is any statute needed to keep Euclid from being laughed at in this neighborhood? And is it possible that a work written by an infinite Being has to be protected by a legislature? Is it possible that a book cannot be written by a G.o.d so that it will not excite the laughter of the human race?

Why, gentlemen, humor is one of the most valuable things in the human brain. It is the torch of the mind--it sheds light. Humor is the readiest test of truth--of the natural, of the sensible--and when you take from a man all sense of humor, there will only be enough left to make a bigot. Teach this man who has no humor--no sense of the absurd--the Presbyterian creed, fill his darkened brain with superst.i.tion and his heart with hatred--then frighten him with the threat of h.e.l.l, and he will be ready to vote for that statute. Such men made that law.

Let us read another clause:--

"_And every person so offending shall, on conviction, be fined nor exceeding two hundred dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor not exceeding twelve months, or both_."

I want you to remember that this statute was pa.s.sed in England hundreds of years ago--just in that language. The punishment, however, has been somewhat changed. In the good old days when the king sat on the throne--in the good old days when the altar was the right-bower of the throne--then, instead of saying: "Fined two hundred dollars and imprisoned one year," it was: "All his goods shall be confiscated; his tongue shall be bored with a hot iron, and upon his forehead he shall be branded with the letter B; and for the second offence he shall suffer death by burning." Those were the good old days when people maintained the orthodox religion in all its purity and in all its ferocity.

The first question for you, gentlemen, to decide in this case is: Is this statute const.i.tutional? Is this statute in harmony with, the part of the const.i.tution of 1844 which says: "The liberty of speech shall not be abridged"? That is for you to say. Is this law const.i.tutional, or is it simply an old statute that fell asleep, that was forgotten, that people simply failed to repeal? I believe I can convince you, if you will think a moment, that our fathers never intended to establish a government like that. When they fought for what they believed to be religious liberty--when they fought for what they believed to be liberty of speech, they believed that all such statutes would be wiped from the statute books of all the States.

Let me tell you another reason why I believe this. We have in this country naturalization laws. People may come here irrespective of their religion. They must simply swear allegiance to this country--they must forswear allegiance to every other potentate, prince and power--but they do not have to change their religion. A Hindoo may become a citizen of the United States, and the Const.i.tution of the United States, like the const.i.tution of New Jersey, guarantees religious liberty. That Hindoo believes in a G.o.d--in a G.o.d that no Christian does believe in.

He believes in a sacred book that every Christian looks upon as a collection of falsehoods. He believes, too, in a Savior--in Buddha. Now, I ask you,--when that man comes here and becomes a citizen--when the Const.i.tution is about him, above him--has he the right to give his ideas about his religion? Has he the right to say in New Jersey: "There is no G.o.d except the Supreme Brahm--there is no Savior except Buddha, the Illuminated, Buddha the Blest"? I say that he has that right--and you have no right, because in addition to that he says, "You are mistaken; your G.o.d is not G.o.d; your Bible is not true, and your religion is a mistake," to abridge his liberty of speech. He has the right to say it, and if he has the right to say it, I insist before this Court and before this jury, that he has the right to give his reasons for saying it; and in giving those reasons, in maintaining his side, he has the right, not simply to appeal to history, not simply to the masonry of logic, but he has the right to shoot the arrows of wit, and to use the smile of ridicule. Anything that can be laughed out of this world ought not to stay in it.

So the Persian--the believer in Zoroaster, in the spirits of Good and Evil, and that the spirit of Evil will finally triumph forever--if that is his religion--has the right to state it, and the right to give his reasons for his belief. How infinitely preposterous for you, one of the States of this Union, to invite a Persian or a Hindoo to come to your sh.o.r.es. You do not ask him to renounce his G.o.d. You ask him to renounce the Shah. Then when he becomes a citizen, having the rights of every other citizen, he has the right to defend his religion and to denounce yours.

There is another thing. What was the spirit of our Government at that time? You must look at the leading men. Who were they? What were their opinions? Were most of them as guilty of blasphemy as is the defendant in this case? Thomas Jefferson--and there is, in my judgment, only one name on the page of American history greater than his--only one name for which I have a greater and tenderer reverence--and that is Abraham Lincoln, because of all men who ever lived and had power, he was the most merciful. And that is the way to test a man. How does he use power?

Does he want to crush his fellow citizens? Does he like to lock somebody up in the penitentiary because he has the power of the moment? Does he wish to use it as a despot, or as a philanthropist--like a devil, or like a man? Thomas Jefferson entertained about the same views entertained by the defendant in this case, and he was made President of the United States. He was the author of the Declaration of Independence, founder of the University of Virginia, writer of that clause in the const.i.tution of that State, that made all the citizens equal before the law. And when I come to the very sentences here charged as blasphemy, I will show you that these were the common sentiments of thousands of very great, of very intellectual and admirable men.

I have no time, and it may be this is not the place and the occasion, to call your attention to the infinite harm that has been done in almost every religious nation by statutes such as this. Where that statute is, liberty can not be; and if this statute is enforced by this jury and by this Court, and if it is afterwards carried out, and if it could be carried out in the States of this Union, there would be an end of all intellectual progress. We would go back to the Dark Ages. Every man's mind, upon these subjects at least, would become a stagnant pool, covered with the sc.u.m of prejudice and meanness.

And wherever such laws have been enforced, have the people been friends?

Here we are to-day in this blessed air--here amid these happy fields.

Can we imagine, with these surroundings, that a man for having been found with a crucifix in his poor little home, had been taken from his wife and children and burned--burned by Protestants? You cannot conceive of such a thing now. Neither can you conceive that there was a time when Catholics found some poor Protestant contradicting one of the dogmas of the church, and took that poor honest wretch--while his wife wept--while his children clung to his hands--to the public square, drove a stake in the ground, put a chain or two about him, lighted the f.a.gots, and let the wife whom he loved and his little children see the flames climb around his limbs--you cannot imagine that any such infamy was ever practiced. And yet I tell you that the same spirit made this detestable, infamous, devilish statute.

You can hardly imagine that there was a time when the same kind of men that made this law said to another man: "You say this world is round?"

"Yes, sir; I think it is, because I have seen its shadow on the moon."

"You have?"--Now, can you imagine a society, outside of hyenas and boa-constrictors, that would take that man, put him in the penitentiary, in a dungeon, turn the key upon him, and let his name be blotted from the book of human life? Years afterward some explorer amid ruins finds a few bones. The same spirit that did that, made this statute--the same spirit that did that, went before the grand jury in this case--exactly.

Give the men that had this man indicted, the power, and I would not want to live in that particular part of the country. I would not willingly live with such men. I would go somewhere else, where the air is free, where I could speak my sentiments to my wife, to my children, and to my neighbors.

Now, this persecution differs only in degree from the infamies of the olden times. What does it mean? It means that the State of New Jersey has all the light it wants. And what does that mean? It means that the State of New Jersey is absolutely infallible--that it has got its growth and does not propose to grow any more. New Jersey knows enough, and it will send teachers to the penitentiary.

It is hardly possible that this State has accomplished all that it is ever going to accomplish. Religions are for a day. They are the clouds.

Humanity is the eternal blue. Religions are the waves of the sea. These waves depend upon the force and direction of the wind--that is to say, of pa.s.sion; but Humanity is the great sea. And so our religions change from day to day, and it is a blessed thing that they do. Why? Because we grow, and we are getting a little more civilized every day,--and any man that is not willing to let another man express his opinion, is not a civilized man, and you know it. Any man that does not give to everybody else the rights he claims for himself, is not in honest man.

Here is a man who says, "I am going to join the Methodist Church." What right has he? Just the same right to join it that I have not to join it--no more, no less. But if you are a Methodist and I am not, it simply proves that you do not agree with me, and that I do not agree with you--that is all. Another man is a Catholic. He was born a Catholic, or is convinced that Catholicism is right. That is his business, and any man that would persecute him on that account, is a poor barbarian--a savage; any man that would abuse him on that account, is a barbarian--a savage.

Then I take the next step. A man does not wish to belong to any church.

How are you going to judge him? Judge him by the way he treats his wife, his children, his neighbors. Does he pay his debts? Does he tell the truth? Does he help the poor? Has he got a heart that melts when he hears grief's story? That is the way to judge him. I do not care what he thinks about the bears, or the flood, about bibles or G.o.ds. When some poor mother is found wandering in the street with a babe at her breast, does he quote Scripture, or hunt for his pocket-book? That is the way to judge. And suppose he does not believe in any bible whatever? If Christianity is true, that is his misfortune, and everybody should pity the poor wretch that is going down the hill. Why kick him? You will get your revenge on him through all eternity--is not that enough?

So I say, let us judge each other by our actions, not by theories, not by what we happen to believe--because that depends very much on where we were born.

If you had been born in Turkey, you probably would have been a Mohammedan. If I had been born among the Hindoos, I might have been a Buddhist--I can't tell. If I had been raised in Scotland, on oatmeal, I might have been a Covenanter--n.o.body knows. If I had lived in Ireland, and seen my poor wife and children driven into the street, I think I might have been a Home-ruler--no doubt of it. You see it depends on where you were born--much depends on our surroundings.

Of course, there are men born in Turkey who are not Mohammedans, and there are men born in this country who are not Christians--Methodists, Unitarians, or Catholics, plenty of them, who are unbelievers--plenty of them who deny the truth of the Scriptures--plenty of them who say:

"I know not whether there be a G.o.d or not." Well, it is a thousand times better to say that honestly than to say dishonestly that you believe in G.o.d.

If you want to know the opinion of your neighbor, you want his honest opinion. You do not want to be deceived. You do not want to talk with a hypocrite. You want to get straight at his honest mind--and then you are going to judge him, not by what he says but by what he does. It is very easy to sail along with the majority--easy to sail the way the boats are going--easy to float with the stream; but when you come to swim against the tide, with the men on the sh.o.r.e throwing rocks at you, you will get a good deal of exercise in this world.

And do you know that we ought to feel under the greatest obligation to men who have fought the prevailing notions of their day? There is not a Presbyterian in Morristown that does not hold up for admiration the man that carried the flag of the Presbyterians when they were in the minority--not one. There is not a Methodist in this State who does not admire John and Charles Wesley and Whitefield, who carried the banner of that new and despised sect when it was in the minority. They glory in them because they braved public opinion, because they dared to oppose idiotic, barbarous and savage statutes like this. And there is not a Universalist that does not wors.h.i.+p dear old Hosea Ballou--I love him myself--because he said to the Presbyterian minister: "You are going around trying to keep people out of h.e.l.l, and I am going around trying to keep h.e.l.l out of the people." Every Universalist admires him and loves him because when despised and railed at and spit upon, he stood firm, a patient witness for the eternal mercy of G.o.d. And there is not a solitary Protestant who does not honor Martin Luther--who does not honor the Covenanters in poor Scotland, and that poor girl who was tied out on the sand of the sea by Episcopalians, and kept there till the rising tide drowned her, and all she had to do to save her life was to say, "G.o.d save the king," but she would not say it without the addition of the words, "If it be G.o.d's will." No one, who is not a miserable, contemptible wretch, can fail to stand in admiration before such courage, such self-denial--such heroism. No matter what the att.i.tude of your body may be, your soul falls on its knees before such men and such women.

Let us take another step. Where would we have been if authority had always triumphed? Where would we have been if such statutes had always been carried out? We have now a science called astronomy. That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things else. We now live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a million times larger than our earth, and we know that there are other great luminaries millions of times larger than our sun. We know that there are planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the earth--and we now know that all the fields of s.p.a.ce are sown thick with constellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science would not now be the property of the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible, and for a.s.serting the truth you become a criminal. For what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the science of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the story of the stars in spite of that statute.

The first men who said the world was round were scourged for scoffing at the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one of the greatest men that ever lived, said: "Does he think with his little lever to overturn the Universe of G.o.d?" Martin Luther insisted that such men ought to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been carried into effect, Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of the three laws, would have died with the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind would have been left ignorant, superst.i.tious, and besotted. And what else? If that statute had been carried out, the world would have been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the philosophy, of the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life--the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and helped to civilize a world.

If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that enrich the libraries of the world could not have been written. If that statute had been enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now known as "The Cosmos." If that statute had been enforced, Charles Darwin would not have been allowed to give to the world his discoveries that have been of more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever uttered. In England they have placed his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would have lived one year at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went so far as not simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely to deny the existence of your G.o.d. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the n.o.blest and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever lived, was of the same opinion.

And so I might go on with the great men of to-day. Who are the men who are leading the race upward and shedding light in the intellectual world? They are the men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr.

Spencer could not publish his books in the State of New Jersey. He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet that man has added to the intellectual wealth of the world.

So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz--so with the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern times.

You may not agree with these men--and what does that prove? It simply proves that they do not agree with you--that is all. Who is to blame?

I do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be right; but if they had the power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you differed with them, they would be savages; and if you have the power and imprison men because they differ from you, why then, of course, you are savages.

No; I believe in intellectual hospitality. I love men that have a little horizon to their minds--a little sky, a little scope. I hate anything that is narrow and pinched and withered and mean and crawling, and that is willing to live on dust. I believe in creating such an atmosphere that things will burst into blossom. I believe in good will, good health, good fellows.h.i.+p, good feeling--and if there is any G.o.d on the earth, or in heaven, let us hope that he will be generous and grand. Do you not see what the effect will be? I am not cursing you because you are a Methodist, and not d.a.m.ning you because you are a Catholic, or because you are an Infidel--a good man is more than all of these. The grandest of all things is to be in the highest and n.o.blest sense a man.

Now let us see the frightful things that this man, the defendant in this case, has done. Let me read the charges against him as set out in this indictment.

I shall insist that this statute does not cover any publication--that it covers simply speech--not in writing, not in book or pamphlet. Let us see:

"_This Bible describes G.o.d as so loving that he drowned the whole world in his mad fury_."

Well, the great question about that is, is it true? Does the Bible describe G.o.d as having drowned the whole world with the exception of eight people? Does it, or does it not? I do not know whether there is anybody in this county who has really read the Bible, but I believe the story of the flood is there. It does say that G.o.d destroyed all flesh, and that he did so because he was angry. He says so, himself, if the Bible be true.

The defendant has simply repeated what is in the Bible. The Bible says that G.o.d is loving, and says that he drowned the world, and that he was angry. Is it blasphemy to quote from the "Sacred Scriptures"?

"_Because it was so much worse than he, knowing all things, ever supposed it could be._"

Well, the Bible does say that he repented having made man. Now, is there any blasphemy in saying that the Bible is true? That is the only question. It is a fact that G.o.d, according to the Bible, did drown nearly everybody. If G.o.d knows all things, he must have known at the time he made them that he was going to drown them. Is it likely that a being of infinite wisdom would deliberately do what he knew he must undo? Is it blasphemy to ask that question? Have you a right to think about it at all? If you have, you have the right to tell somebody what you think--if not, you have no right to discuss it, no right to think about it. All you have to do is to read it and believe it--to open your mouth like a young robin, and swallow--worms or s.h.i.+ngle nails--no matter which.

The defendant further blasphemed and said that:--

"_An all-wise, unchangeable G.o.d, who got out of patience with a world which was just what his own stupid blundering had made it, knew no better way out of the muddle than to destroy it by drowning!_"

Is that true? Was not the world exactly as G.o.d made it? Certainly. Did he not, if the Bible is true, drown the people? He did. Did he know he would drown them when he made them? He did. Did he know they ought to be drowned when they were made? He did. Where then, is the blasphemy in saying so? There is not a minister in this world who could explain it--who would be permitted to explain it--under this statute. And yet you would arrest this man and put him in the penitentiary. But after you lock him in the cell, there remains the question still. Is it possible that a good and wise G.o.d, knowing that he was going to drown them, made millions of people? What did he make them for? I do not know. I do not pretend to be wise enough to answer that question. Of course, you cannot answer the question. Is there anything blasphemous in that? Would it be blasphemy in me to say I do not believe that any G.o.d ever made men, women and children--mothers, with babes clasped to their b.r.e.a.s.t.s, and then sent a flood to fill the world with death?

A rain lasting for forty days--the water rising hour by hour, and the poor wretched children of G.o.d climbing to the tops of their houses--then to the tops of the hills. The water still rising--no mercy. The people climbing higher and higher, looking to the mountains for salvation--the merciless rain still falling, the inexorable flood still rising.

Children falling from the arms of mothers--no pity. The highest hills covered--infancy and old age mingling in death--the cries of women, the sobs and sighs lost in the roar of waves--the heavens still relentless.

The mountains are covered--a sh.o.r.eless sea rolls round the world, and on its billows are billions of corpses.

This is the greatest crime that man has imagined, and this crime is called a deed of infinite mercy.

Do you believe that? I do not believe one word of it, and I have the right to say to all the world that this is false.

If there be a good G.o.d, the story is not true. If there be a wise G.o.d, the story is not true. Ought an honest man to be sent to the penitentiary for simply telling the truth?