{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-7:a-reply-to-the-cincinnati-gazette",
  "slug": "a-reply-to-the-cincinnati-gazette",
  "title": "A Reply to the Cincinnati Gazette and Catholic Telegraph",
  "subtitle": "An interview in the Cincinnati Gazette, 1878.",
  "excerpt": "An answer to both the secular and the Catholic press of Cincinnati, taken up together in one interview.",
  "year": 1878,
  "volume": 7,
  "category": "Reply",
  "author": {
    "name": "Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "wikidata": "Q360326",
    "viaf": "44331023"
  },
  "isPartOf": {
    "title": "The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll",
    "edition": "Dresden Edition",
    "publisher": "C. P. Farrell",
    "year": 1900
  },
  "license": "https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/",
  "url": "https://thegreatagnostic.com/works/a-reply-to-the-cincinnati-gazette/",
  "wordCount": 2442,
  "body": "• The Cincinnati Gazette, 1878. An Interview.\n\nQuestion. Colonel, have you noticed the criticisms made on your\nlectures by the Cincinnati Gazette and the Catholic Telegraph?\n\nAnswer. I have read portions of the articles.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of them?\n\nAnswer. Well, they are hardly of importance enough to form a distinct\nsubject of thought.\n\nQuestion. Well, what do you think of the attempted argument of the\nGazette against your lecture on Moses?\n\nAnswer. The writer endeavors to show that considering the ignorance\nprevalent four thousand years ago, God did as well as one could\nreasonably expect; that God at that time did not have the advantage\nof telescope, microscope, and spectrum, and that for this reason a\nfew mistakes need not excite our special wonder. He also shows that,\nalthough God was in favor of slavery he introduced some reforms; but\nwhether the reforms were intended to perpetuate slavery or to help the\nslave is not stated. The article has nothing to do with my position. I\nam perfectly willing to admit that there is a land called Egypt; that\nthe Jews were once slaves; that they got away and started a little\ncountry of their own. All this may be true without proving that they\nwere miraculously fed in the wilderness, or that water ran up hill, or\nthat God went into partnership with hornets or snakes. There may have\nbeen a man by the name of Moses without proving that sticks were turned\ninto snakes.\n\nA while ago a missionary addressed a Sunday school. In the course of\nhis remarks he said that he had been to Mount Ararat, and had brought\na stone from the mountain. He requested the children to pass in line\nbefore him so that they could all get a look at this wonderful stone.\nAfter they had all seen it he said: \"You will as you grow up meet people\nwho will deny that there ever was a flood, or that God saved Noah and\nthe animals in the ark, and then you can tell them that you know better,\nbecause you saw a stone from the very mountain where the ark rested.\"\n\nThat is precisely the kind of argument used in the Gazette. The\narticle was written by some one who does not quite believe in the\ninspiration of the Scriptures himself, and were it not for the fear of\nhell, would probably say so.\n\nI admit that there was such a man as Mohammed, such a city as Mecca,\nsuch a general as Omar, but I do not admit that God made known his will\nto Mohammed in any substantial manner. Of course the Gazette would\nanswer all this by saying that Mohammed did exist, and that therefore\nGod must have talked with him. I admit that there was such a general\nas Washington, but I do not admit that God kept him from being shot. I\nadmit that there is a portrait of the Virgin Mary in Rome, but I do not\nadmit that it shed tears. I admit that there was such a man as Moses,\nbut I do not admit that God hunted for him in a tavern to kill him. I\nadmit that there was such a priest as St. Denis, but I do not admit\nthat he carried his head in his hand, after it was cut off, and swam the\nriver, and put his head on again and eventually recovered. I admit\nthat the article appeared in the Gazette, but I do not admit that it\namounted to anything whatever.\n\nQuestion. Did you notice what the Catholic Telegraph said about your\nlecture being ungrammatical?\n\nAnswer. Yes; I saw an extract from it. In the Catholic Telegraph\noccurs the following: \"The lecture was a failure as brilliant as\nIngersoll's flashes of ungrammatical rhetoric.\" After making this\nstatement with the hereditary arrogance of a priest, after finding fault\nwith my \"ungrammatical rhetoric\" he then writes the following sentence:\n\"It could not boast neither of novelty in argument or of attractive\nlanguage.\" After this, nothing should be noticed that this gentleman\nsays on the subject of grammar.\n\nIn this connection it may be proper for me to say that nothing is more\nremarkable than the fact that Christianity destroys manners. With one\nexception, no priest has ever written about me, so far as I know, except\nin an arrogant and insolent manner. They seem utterly devoid of the\nusual amenities of life. Every one who differs with them is vile,\nignorant and malicious. But, after all, what can you expect of a\ngentleman who worships a God who will damn dimpled babes to an eternity\nof fire, simply because they were not baptized.\n\nQuestion. This Catholic writer says that the oldest page of history\nand the newest page of science are nothing more than commentaries on the\nMosaic Record. He says the Cosmogony of Moses has been believed in, and\nhas been received as the highest truth by the very brightest names in\nscience. What do you think of that statement?\n\nAnswer. I think it is without the least foundation in fact, and is\nsubstantially like the gentleman's theology, depending simply upon\npersistent assertion.\n\nI see he quotes Cuvier as great authority. Cuvier denied that the fossil\nanimals were in any way related to the animals now living, and believed\nthat God had frequently destroyed all life upon the earth and then\nproduced other forms. Agassiz was the last scientist of any standing who\nventured to throw a crumb of comfort to this idea.\n\nQuestion. Do you mean to say that all the great living scientists\nregard the Cosmogony of Moses as a myth?\n\nAnswer. I do. I say this: All men of science and men of sense look\nupon the Mosaic account as a simple myth. Humboldt, who stands in the\nsame relation to science that Shakespeare did to the drama, held this\nopinion. The same is held by the best minds in Germany, by Huxley,\nTyndall and Herbert Spencer in England, by John W. Draper and others\nin the United States. Whoever agrees with Moses is some poor frightened\northodox gentleman afraid of losing his soul or his salary, and as a\nrule, both are exceedingly small.\n\nQuestion. Some people say that you slander the Bible in saying that\nGod went into partnership with hornets, and declare that there is no\nsuch passage in the Bible.\n\nAnswer. Well, let them read the twenty-eighth verse of the\ntwenty-third chapter of Exodus, \"And I will send hornets before thee,\nwhich shall drive out the Hivite, the Canaanite and the Hittite from\nbefore thee.\"\n\nQuestion. Do you find in lecturing through the country that your ideas\nare generally received with favor?\n\nAnswer. Astonishingly so. There are ten times as many freethinkers\nas there were five years ago. In five years more we will be in the\nmajority.\n\nQuestion. Is it true that the churches, as a general thing, make\nstrong efforts, as I have seen it stated, to prevent people from going\nto hear you?\n\nAnswer. Yes; in many places ministers have advised their congregations\nto keep away, telling them I was an exceedingly dangerous man. The\nresult has generally been a full house, and I have hardly ever failed to\npublicly return my thanks to the clergy for acting as my advance agents.\n\nQuestion. Do you ever meet Christian people who try to convert you?\n\nAnswer. Not often. But I do receive a great many anonymous letters,\nthreatening me with the wrath of God, and calling my attention to the\nuncertainty of life and the certainty of damnation. These letters are\nnearly all written in the ordinary Christian spirit; that is to say,\nfull of hatred and impertinence.\n\nQuestion. Don't you think it remarkable that the Telegraph, a\nCatholic paper, should quote with extravagant praise, an article from\nsuch an orthodox sheet as the Gazette?\n\nAnswer. I do not. All the churches must make common cause. All\nsuperstitions lead to Rome; all facts lead to science. In a few\nyears all the churches will be united. This will unite all forms of\nliberalism. When that is done the days of superstition, of arrogance,\nof theology, will be numbered. It is very laughable to see a Catholic\nquoting scientific men in favor of Moses, when the same men would have\ntaken great pleasure in swearing that the Catholic Church was the\nworst possible organization. That church should forever hold its peace.\nWherever it has had authority it has destroyed human liberty. It reduced\nItaly to a hand organ, Spain to a guitar, Ireland to exile, Portugal to\ncontempt. Catholicism is the upas tree in whose shade the intellect of\nman has withered. The recollection of the massacre of St. Bartholomew\nshould make a priest silent, and the recollection of the same massacre\nshould make a Protestant careful.\n\nI can afford to be maligned by a priest, when the same party denounces\nGaribaldi, the hero of Italy, as a \"pet tiger\" to Victor Emmanuel. I\ncould not afford to be praised by such a man. I thank him for his abuse.\n\nQuestion. What do you think of the point that no one is able to judge\nof these things unless he is a Hebrew scholar?\n\nAnswer. I do not think it is necessary to understand Hebrew to decide\nas to the probability of springs gushing out of dead bones, or of\nthe dead getting out of their graves, or of the probability of ravens\nkeeping a hotel for wandering prophets. I hardly think it is necessary\neven to be a Greek scholar to make up my mind as to whether devils\nactually left a person and took refuge in the bodies of swine. Besides,\nif the Bible is not properly translated, the circulation ought to stop\nuntil the corrections are made. I am not accountable if God made a\nrevelation to me in a language that he knew I never would understand. If\nhe wishes to convey any information to my mind, he certainly should do\nit in English before he eternally damns me for paying no attention to\nit.\n\nQuestion. Are not many of the contradictions in the Bible owing to\nmistranslations?\n\nAnswer. No. Nearly all of the mistranslations have been made to help\nout the text. It would be much worse, much more contradictory had it\nbeen correctly translated. Nearly all of the mistakes, as Mr. Weller\nwould say, have been made for the purposes of harmony.\n\nQuestion. How many errors do you suppose there are?\n\nAnswer. Well, I do not know. It has been reported that the American\nBible Society appointed a committee to hunt for errors, and the said\ncommittee returned about twenty-four to twenty-five thousand. And\nthereupon the leading men said, to correct so many errors will destroy\nthe confidence of the common people in the sacredness of the Scriptures.\nThereupon it was decided not to correct any. I saw it stated the other\nday that a very prominent divine charged upon the Bible Society that\nthey knew they were publishing a book full of errors.\n\nQuestion. What is your opinion of the Bible anyhow?\n\nAnswer. My first objection is, it is not true.\n\nSecond.—It is not inspired.\n\nThird.—It upholds human slavery.\n\nFourth.—It sanctions concubinage.\n\nFifth.—It commands the most infamously cruel acts of war, such as the\nutter destruction of old men and little children.\n\nSixth.—After killing fathers, mothers and brothers, it commands the\ngenerals to divide the girls among the soldiers and priests. Beyond\nthis, infamy has never gone. If any God made this order I am opposed to\nhim.\n\nSeventh.—It upholds human sacrifice, or, at least, seems to, from the\nfollowing:\n\n\"Notwithstanding no devoted thing that a man shall devote unto the Lord\nof all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his\npossession, shall be sold or redeemed; every devoted thing is most holy\nunto the Lord.\"\n\n\"None devoted, which shall be devoted, of men, shall be redeemed; but\nshall surely be put to death.\" (Twenty-seventh Chapter of Leviticus,\n28th and 29th verses.)\n\nEighth.—Its laws are absurd, and the punishments cruel and unjust.\nThink of killing a man for making hair oil! Think of killing a man for\npicking up sticks on Sunday!\n\nNinth.—It upholds polygamy.\n\nTenth.—It knows nothing of astronomy, nothing of geology, nothing of\nany science whatever.\n\nEleventh.—It is opposed to religious liberty, and teaches a man to kill\nhis own wife if she differs with him on religion; that is to say, if he\nis orthodox. There is no book in the world in which can be found so much\nthat is thoroughly despicable and infamous. Of course there are some\ngood passages, some good sentiments. But they are, at least in the Old\nTestament, few and far between.\n\nTwelfth.—It treats woman like a beast, and man like a slave. It fills\nheaven with tyranny, and earth with hypocrisy and grief.\n\nQuestion. Do you think any book inspired?\n\nAnswer. No. I do not think any book is inspired. But, if it had been\nthe intention of this God to give to man an inspired book, he should\nhave waited until Shakespeare's time, and used Shakespeare as the\ninstrument. Then there never would have been any doubt as to the\ninspiration of the book. There is more beauty, more goodness, more\nintelligence in Shakespeare than in all the sacred books of this world.\n\nQuestion. What do you think as a freethinker of the Sunday question in\nCincinnati?\n\nAnswer. I think that it is a good thing to have a day of recreation, a\nday of rest, a day of joy, not a day of dyspepsia and theology. I am\nin favor of operas and theaters, music and happiness on Sunday. I am\nopposed to all excesses on any day. If the clergy will take half\nthe pains to make the people intelligent that they do to make them\nsuperstitious, the world will soon have advanced so far that it can\nenjoy itself without excess. The ministers want Sunday for themselves.\nThey want everybody to come to church because they can go no where\nelse. It is like the story of a man coming home at three o'clock in the\nmorning, who, upon being asked by his wife how he could come at such a\ntime of night, replied, \"The fact is, every other place is shut up.\" The\northodox clergy know that their churches will remain empty if any other\nplace remains open. Do not forget to say that I mean orthodox churches,\northodox clergy, because I have great respect for Unitarians and\nUniversalists.\n"
}