{
  "schema": "tga.work.v1",
  "identifier": "dresden:vol-1:individuality",
  "slug": "individuality",
  "title": "Individuality",
  "subtitle": "\\\"His Soul was like a Star and dwelt apart.\\\"",
  "excerpt": "A ringing defense of mental independence — the right and duty of every human being to think, doubt, and speak their own honest mind against custom, creed, and crowd.",
  "year": 1873,
  "volume": 1,
  "category": "Lecture",
  "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/individuality/",
  "wordCount": 7606,
  "body": "ON every hand are the enemies of individuality and mental freedom.\nCustom meets us at the cradle and leaves us only at the tomb. Our first\nquestions are answered by ignorance, and our last by superstition. We\nare pushed and dragged by countless hands along the beaten track, and\nour entire training can be summed up in the word—suppression. Our\ndesire to have a thing or to do a thing is considered as conclusive\nevidence that we ought not to have it, and ought not to do it. At every\nturn we run against cherubim and a flaming sword guarding some entrance\nto the Eden of our desire. We are allowed to investigate all subjects in\nwhich we feel no particular interest, and to express the opinions of the\nmajority with the utmost freedom. We are taught that liberty of\nspeech should never be carried to the extent of contradicting the dead\nwitnesses of a popular superstition. Society offers continual rewards\nfor self-betrayal, and they are nearly all earned and claimed, and some\nare paid.\n\nWe have all read accounts of Christian gentlemen remarking, when about\nto be hanged, how much better it would have been for them if they had\nonly followed a mother's advice. But after all, how fortunate it is for\nthe world that the maternal advice has not always been followed. How\nfortunate it is for us all that it is somewhat unnatural for a human\nbeing to obey. Universal obedience is universal stagnation; disobedience\nis one of the conditions of progress. Select any age of the world and\ntell me what would have been the effect of implicit obedience. Suppose\nthe church had had absolute control of the human mind at any time, would\nnot the words liberty and progress have been blotted from human speech?\nIn defiance of advice, the world has advanced.\n\nSuppose the astronomers had controlled the science of astronomy; suppose\nthe doctors had controlled the science of medicine; suppose kings had\nbeen left to fix the forms of government; suppose our fathers had taken\nthe advice of Paul, who said, \"be subject to the powers that be, because\nthey are ordained of God;\" suppose the church could control the world\nto-day, we would go back to chaos and old night. Philosophy would be\nbranded as infamous; Science would again press its pale and thoughtful\nface against the prison bars, and round the limbs of liberty would climb\nthe bigot's flame.\n\nIt is a blessed thing that in every age some one has had individuality\nenough and courage enough to stand by his own convictions,—some one\nwho had the grandeur to say his say. I believe it was Magellan who said,\n\"The church says the earth is flat; but I have seen its shadow on the\nmoon, and I have more confidence even in a shadow than in the church.\"\nOn the prow of his ship were disobedience, defiance, scorn, and success.\n\nThe trouble with most people is, they bow to what is called authority;\nthey have a certain reverence for the old because it is old. They think\na man is better for being dead, especially if he has been dead a long\ntime. They think the fathers of their nation were the greatest and best\nof all mankind. All these things they implicitly believe because it is\npopular and patriotic, and because they were told so when they were very\nsmall, and remember distinctly of hearing mother read it out of a book.\nIt is hard to over-estimate the influence of early training in the\ndirection of superstition. You first teach children that a certain book\nis true—that it was written by God himself—that to question its truth\nis a sin, that to deny it is a crime, and that should they die without\nbelieving that book they will be forever damned without benefit of\nclergy. The consequence is, that long before they read that book, they\nbelieve it to be true. When they do read it their minds are wholly\nunfitted to investigate its claims. They accept it as a matter of\ncourse.\n\nIn this way the reason is overcome, the sweet instincts of humanity\nare blotted from the heart, and while reading its infamous pages even\njustice throws aside her scales, shrieking for revenge, and charity,\nwith bloody hands, applauds a deed of murder. In this way we are taught\nthat the revenge of man is the justice of God; that mercy is not the\nsame everywhere. In this way the ideas of our race have been subverted.\nIn this way we have made tyrants, bigots, and inquisitors. In this way\nthe brain of man has become a kind of palimpsest upon which, and over\nthe writings of nature, superstition has scrawled her countless lies.\nOne great trouble is that most teachers are dishonest. They teach as\ncertainties those things concerning which they entertain doubts. They\ndo not say, \"we think this is so,\" but \"we know this is so.\" They do\nnot appeal to the reason of the pupil, but they command his faith. They\nkeep all doubts to themselves; they do not explain, they assert. All\nthis is infamous. In this way you may make Christians, but you cannot\nmake men; you cannot make women. You can make followers, but no leaders;\ndisciples, but no Christs. You may promise power, honor, and happiness\nto all those who will blindly follow, but you cannot keep your promise.\n\nA monarch said to a hermit, \"Come with me and I will give you power.\"\n\n\"I have all the power that I know how to use\" replied the hermit.\n\n\"Come,\" said the king, \"I will give you wealth.\"\n\n\"I have no wants that money can supply,\" said the hermit.\n\n\"I will give you honor,\" said the monarch.\n\n\"Ah, honor cannot be given, it must be earned,\" was the hermit's answer.\n\n\"Come,\" said the king, making a last appeal, \"and I will give you\nhappiness.\"\n\n\"No,\" said the man of solitude, \"there is no happiness without liberty,\nand he who follows cannot be free.\"\n\n\"You shall have liberty too,\" said the king.\n\n\"Then I will stay where I am,\" said the old man.\n\nAnd all the king's courtiers thought the hermit a fool.\n\nNow and then somebody examines, and in spite of all keeps his manhood,\nand has the courage to follow where his reason leads. Then the pious\nget together and repeat wise saws, and exchange knowing nods and most\nprophetic winks. The stupidly wise sit owl-like on the dead limbs of the\ntree of knowledge, and solemnly hoot. Wealth sneers, and fashion laughs,\nand respectability passes by on the other side, and scorn points with\nall her skinny fingers, and all the snakes of superstition writhe and\nhiss, and slander lends her tongue, and infamy her brand, and perjury\nher oath, and the law its power, and bigotry tortures, and the church\nkills.\n\nThe church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber\ndislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. Tyranny\nlikes courtiers, flatterers, followers, fawners, and superstition wants\nbelievers, disciples, zealots, hypocrites, and subscribers. The church\ndemands worship—the very thing that man should give to no being, human\nor divine. To worship another is to degrade yourself. Worship is awe and\ndread and vague fear and blind hope. It is the spirit of worship that\nelevates the one and degrades the many; that builds palaces for robbers,\nerects monuments to crime, and forges manacles even for its own hands.\nThe spirit of worship is the spirit of tyranny. The worshiper always\nregrets that he is not the worshiped. We should all remember that the\nintellect has no knees, and that whatever the attitude of the body may\nbe, the brave soul is always found erect. Whoever worships, abdicates.\nWhoever believes at the command of power, tramples his own individuality\nbeneath his feet, and voluntarily robs himself of all that renders man\nsuperior to the brute.\n\nThe despotism of faith is justified upon the ground that Christian\ncountries are the grandest and most prosperous of the world. At one time\nthe same thing could have been truly said in India, in Egypt, in Greece,\nin Rome, and in every other country that has, in the history of the\nworld, swept to empire. This argument proves too much not only, but\nthe assumption upon which it is based is utterly false. Numberless\ncircumstances and countless conditions have produced the prosperity\nof the Christian world. The truth is, we have advanced in spite of\nreligious zeal, ignorance, and opposition. The church has won\nno victories for the rights of man. Luther labored to reform the\nchurch—Voltaire, to reform men. Over every fortress of tyranny has\nwaved, and still waves, the banner of the church. Wherever brave blood\nhas been shed, the sword of the church has been wet. On every chain has\nbeen the sign of the cross. The altar and throne have leaned against and\nsupported each other.\n\nAll that is good in our civilization is the result of commerce, climate,\nsoil, geographical position, industry, invention, discovery, art, and\nscience. The church has been the enemy of progress, for the reason\nthat it has endeavored to prevent man thinking for himself. To prevent\nthought is to prevent all advancement except in the direction of faith.\n\nWho can imagine the infinite impudence of a church assuming to think for\nthe human race? Who can imagine the infinite impudence of a church\nthat pretends to be the mouthpiece of God, and in his name threatens to\ninflict eternal punishment upon those who honestly reject its claims and\nscorn its pretensions? By what right does a man, or an organization\nof men, or a god, claim to hold a brain in bondage? When a fact can be\ndemonstrated, force is unnecessary; when it cannot be demonstrated, an\nappeal to force is infamous. In the presence of the unknown all have an\nequal right to think.\n\nOver the vast plain, called life, we are all travelers, and not one\ntraveler is perfectly certain that he is going in the right direction.\nTrue it is that no other plain is so well supplied with guide-boards. At\nevery turn and crossing you will find them, and upon each one is written\nthe exact direction and distance. One great trouble is, however, that\nthese boards are all different, and the result is that most travelers\nare confused in proportion to the number they read. Thousands of people\nare around each of these signs, and each one is doing his best to\nconvince the traveler that his particular board is the only one upon\nwhich the least reliance can be placed, and that if his road is taken\nthe reward for so doing will be infinite and eternal, while all the\nother roads are said to lead to hell, and all the makers of the other\nguide-boards are declared to be heretics, hypocrites and liars. \"Well,\"\nsays a traveler, \"you may be right in what you say, but allow me at\nleast to read some of the other directions and examine a little into\ntheir claims. I wish to rely a little upon my own judgment in a matter\nof so great importance.\" \"No, sir,\" shouts the zealot, \"that is the\nvery thing you are not allowed to do. You must go my way without\ninvestigation, or you are as good as damned already.\" \"Well,\" says the\ntraveler, \"if that is so, I believe I had better go your way.\" And so\nmost of them go along, taking the word of those who know as little as\nthemselves. Now and then comes one who, in spite of all threats, calmly\nexamines the claims of all, and as calmly rejects them all. These\ntravelers take roads of their own, and are denounced by all the others,\nas infidels and atheists.\n\nAround all of these guide-boards, as far as the eye can reach, the\nground is covered with mountains of human bones, crumbling and\nbleaching in the rain and sun. They are the bones of murdered men and\nwomen—fathers, mothers and babes.\n\nIn my judgment, every human being should take a road of his own. Every\nmind should be true to itself—should think, investigate and conclude\nfor itself. This is a duty alike incumbent upon pauper and prince. Every\nsoul should repel dictation and tyranny, no matter from what source they\ncome—from earth or heaven, from men or gods. Besides, every traveler\nupon this vast plain should give to every other traveler his best idea\nas to the road that should be taken. Each is entitled to the honest\nopinion of all. And there is but one way to get an honest opinion upon\nany subject whatever. The person giving the opinion must be free from\nfear. The merchant must not fear to lose his custom, the doctor his\npractice, nor the preacher his pulpit There can be no advance without\nliberty. Suppression of honest inquiry is retrogression, and must end in\nintellectual night. The tendency of orthodox religion to-day is toward\nmental slavery and barbarism. Not one of the orthodox ministers dare\npreach what he thinks if he knows a majority of his congregation think\notherwise. He knows that every member of his church stands guard over\nhis brain with a creed, like a club, in his hand. He knows that he\nis not expected to search after the truth, but that he is employed to\ndefend the creed. Every pulpit is a pillory, in which stands a hired\nculprit, defending the justice of his own imprisonment.\n\nIs it desirable that all should be exactly alike in their religious\nconvictions? Is any such thing possible? Do we not know that there are\nno two persons alike in the whole world? No two, trees, no two leaves,\nno two anythings that are alike? Infinite diversity is the law. Religion\ntries to force all minds into one mould. Knowing that all cannot\nbelieve, the church endeavors to make all say they believe. She longs\nfor the unity of hypocrisy, and detests the splendid diversity of\nindividuality and freedom.\n\nNearly all people stand in great horror of annihilation, and yet to\ngive up your individuality is to annihilate yourself. Mental slavery is\nmental death, and every man who has given up his intellectual freedom\nis the living coffin of his dead soul. In this sense, every church is a\ncemetery and every creed an epitaph.\n\nWe should all remember that to be like other people is to be unlike\nourselves, and that nothing can be more detestable in character than\nservile imitation. The great trouble with imitation is, that we are apt\nto ape those who are in reality far below us. After all, the poorest\nbargain that a human being can make, is to give his individuality for\nwhat is called respectability.\n\nThere is no saying more degrading than this: \"It is better to be the\ntail of a lion than the head of a dog.\" It is a responsibility to think\nand act for yourself. Most people hate responsibility; therefore they\njoin something and become the tail of some lion. They say, \"My party\ncan act for me—my church can do my thinking. It is enough for me to\npay taxes and obey the lion to which I belong, without troubling myself\nabout the right, the wrong, or the why or the wherefore of anything\nwhatever.\" These people are respectable. They hate reformers, and\ndislike exceedingly to have their minds disturbed. They regard\nconvictions as very disagreeable things to have. They love forms, and\nenjoy, beyond everything else, telling what a splendid tail their lion\nhas, and what a troublesome dog their neighbor is. Besides this natural\ninclination to avoid personal responsibility, is and always has been,\nthe fact, that every religionist has warned men against the presumption\nand wickedness of thinking for themselves. The reason has been denounced\nby all Christendom as the only unsafe guide. The church has left nothing\nundone to prevent man following the logic of his brain. The plainest\nfacts have been covered with the mantle of mystery. The grossest\nabsurdities have been declared to be self-evident facts. The order of\nnature has been, as it were, reversed, that the hypocritical few might\ngovern the honest many. The man who stood by the conclusion of his\nreason was denounced as a scorner and hater of God and his holy church.\nFrom the organization of the first church until this moment, to think\nyour own thoughts has been inconsistent with membership. Every member\nhas borne the marks of collar, and chain, and whip. No man ever\nseriously attempted to reform a church without being cast out and hunted\ndown by the hounds of hypocrisy. The highest crime against a creed is to\nchange it. Reformation is treason.\n\nThousands of young men are being educated at this moment by the various\nchurches. What for? In order that they may be prepared to investigate\nthe phenomena by which we are surrounded? No! The object, and the only\nobject, is that they may be prepared to defend a creed; that they may\nlearn the arguments of their respective churches, and repeat them in\nthe dull ears of a thoughtless congregation. If one, after being thus\ntrained at the expense of the Methodists, turns Presbyterian or Baptist,\nhe is denounced as an ungrateful wretch. Honest investigation is utterly\nimpossible within the pale of any church, for the reason, that if you\nthink the church is right you will not investigate, and if you think it\nwrong, the church will investigate you. The consequence of this is,\nthat most of the theological literature is the result of suppression, of\nfear, tyranny and hypocrisy.\n\nEvery orthodox writer necessarily said to himself, \"If I write that, my\nwife and children may want for bread. I will be covered with shame and\nbranded with infamy; but if I write this, I will gain position, power,\nand honor. My church rewards defenders, and burns reformers.\"\n\nUnder these conditions all your Scotts, Henrys, and McKnights have\nwritten; and weighed in these scales, what are their commentaries worth?\nThey are not the ideas and decisions of honest judges, but the sophisms\nof the paid attorneys of superstition. Who can tell what the world has\nlost by this infamous system of suppression? How many grand thinkers\nhave died with the mailed hand of superstition upon their lips? How many\nsplendid ideas have perished in the cradle of the brain, strangled in\nthe poison-coils of that python, the Church!\n\nFor thousands of years a thinker was hunted down like an escaped\nconvict. To him who had braved the church, every door was shut, every\nknife was open. To shelter him from the wild storm, to give him a crust\nwhen dying, to put a cup of water to his cracked and bleeding lips;\nthese were all crimes, not one of which the church ever did forgive;\nand with the justice taught of her God, his helpless children were\nexterminated as scorpions and vipers.\n\nWho at the present day can imagine the courage, the devotion to\nprinciple, the intellectual and moral grandeur it once required to be an\ninfidel, to brave the church, her racks, her fagots, her dungeons, her\ntongues of fire,—to defy and scorn her heaven and her hell—her devil\nand her God? They were the noblest sons of earth. They were the real\nsaviors of our race, the destroyers of superstition and the creators of\nScience. They were the real Titans who bared their grand foreheads to\nall the thunderbolts of all the gods.\n\nThe church has been, and still is, the great robber. She has rifled not\nonly the pockets but the brains of the world. She is the stone at the\nsepulchre of liberty; the upas tree, in whose shade the intellect of man\nhas withered; the Gorgon beneath whose gaze the human heart has turned\nto stone. Under her influence even the Protestant mother expects to be\nhappy in heaven, while her brave boy, who fell fighting for the rights\nof man, shall writhe in hell.\n\nIt is said that some of the Indian tribes place the heads of their\nchildren between pieces of bark until the form of the skull is\npermanently changed. To us this seems a most shocking custom; and yet,\nafter all, is it as bad as to put the souls of our children in the\nstrait-jacket of a creed? to so utterly deform their minds that they\nregard the God of the Bible as a being of infinite mercy, and\nreally consider it a virtue to believe a thing just because it seems\nunreasonable? Every child in the Christian world has uttered its\nwondering protest against this outrage. All the machinery of the church\nis constantly employed in corrupting the reason of children. In every\npossible way they are robbed of their own thoughts and forced to accept\nthe statements of others. Every Sunday school has for its object the\ncrushing out of every germ of individuality. The poor children are\ntaught that nothing can be more acceptable to God than unreasoning\nobedience and eyeless faith, and that to believe God did an impossible\nact, is far better than to do a good one yourself. They are told that\nall religions have been simply the John-the-Baptists of ours; that all\nthe gods of antiquity have withered and shrunken into the Jehovah of the\nJews; that all the longings and aspirations of the race are realized in\nthe motto of the Evangelical Alliance, \"Liberty in non-essentials\",\nthat all there is, or ever was, of religion can be found in the\napostles' creed; that there is nothing left to be discovered; that all\nthe thinkers are dead, and all the living should simply be believers;\nthat we have only to repeat the epitaph found on the grave of wisdom;\nthat grave-yards are the best possible universities, and that the\nchildren must be forever beaten with the bones of the fathers.\n\nIt has always seemed absurd to suppose that a god would choose for his\ncompanions, during all eternity, the dear souls whose highest and only\nambition is to obey. He certainly would now and then be tempted to make\nthe same remark made by an English gentleman to his poor guest. The\ngentleman had invited a man in humble circumstances to dine with him.\nThe man was so overcome with the honor that to everything the gentleman\nsaid he replied \"Yes.\" Tired at last with the monotony of acquiescence,\nthe gentleman cried out, \"For God's sake, my good man, say 'No,' just\nonce, so there will be two of us.\"\n\nIs it possible that an infinite God created this world simply to be the\ndwelling-place of slaves and serfs? simply for the purpose of raising\northodox Christians? That he did a few miracles to astonish them; that\nall the evils of life are simply his punishments, and that he is finally\ngoing to turn heaven into a kind of religious museum filled with Baptist\nbarnacles, petrified Presbyterians and Methodist mummies? I want no\nheaven for which I must give my reason; no happiness in exchange for\nmy liberty, and no immortality that demands the surrender of my\nindividuality. Better rot in the windowless tomb, to which there is no\ndoor but the red mouth of the pallid worm, than wear the jeweled collar\neven of a god.\n\nReligion does not, and cannot, contemplate man as free. She accepts only\nthe homage of the prostrate, and scorns the offerings of those who stand\nerect. She cannot tolerate the liberty of thought. The wide and sunny\nfields belong not to her domain. The star-lit heights of genius and\nindividuality are above and beyond her appreciation and power. Her\nsubjects cringe at her feet, covered with the dust of obedience.\n\nThey are not athletes standing posed by rich life and brave endeavor\nlike antique statues, but shriveled deformities, studying with furtive\nglance the cruel face of power.\n\nNo religionist seems capable of comprehending this plain truth. There\nis this difference between thought and action: for our actions we\nare responsible to ourselves and to those injuriously affected; for\nthoughts, there can, in the nature of things, be no responsibility to\ngods or men, here or hereafter. And yet the Protestant has vied with\nthe Catholic in denouncing freedom of thought; and while I was taught to\nhate Catholicism with every drop of my blood, it is only justice to\nsay, that in all essential particulars it is precisely the same as every\nother religion. Luther denounced mental liberty with all the coarse and\nbrutal vigor of his nature; Calvin despised, from the very bottom of his\npetrified heart, anything that even looked like religious toleration,\nand solemnly declared that to advocate it was to crucify Christ afresh.\nAll the founders of all the orthodox churches have advocated the\nsame infamous tenet. The truth is, that what is called religion is\nnecessarily inconsistent with free thought A believer is a bird in a\ncage, a Freethinker is an eagle parting the clouds with tireless wing.\n\nAt present, owing to the inroads that have been made by liberals and\ninfidels, most of the churches pretend to be in favor of religious\nliberty. Of these churches, we will ask this question: How can a man,\nwho conscientiously believes in religious liberty, worship a God who\ndoes not? They say to us: \"We will not imprison you on account of your\nbelief, but our God will.\" \"We will not burn you because you throw away\nthe sacred Scriptures, but their author will.\" \"We think it an infamous\ncrime to persecute our brethren for opinion's sake,—but the God, whom\nwe ignorantly worship, will on that account, damn his own children\nforever.\"\n\nWhy is it that these Christians not only detest the infidels, but\ncordially despise each other? Why do they refuse to worship in the\ntemples of each other? Why do they care so little for the damnation of\nmen, and so much for the baptism of children? Why will they adorn their\nchurches with the money of thieves and flatter vice for the sake of\nsubscriptions? Why will they attempt to bribe Science to certify to\nthe writings of God? Why do they torture the words of the great into an\nacknowledgment of the truth of Christianity? Why do they stand with hat\nin hand before presidents, kings, emperors, and scientists, begging,\nlike Lazarus, for a few crumbs of religious comfort? Why are they so\ndelighted to find an allusion to Providence in the message of Lincoln?\nWhy are they so afraid that some one will find out that Paley wrote an\nessay in favor of the Epicurean philosophy, and that Sir Isaac Newton\nwas once an infidel? Why are they so anxious to show that Voltaire\nrecanted; that Paine died palsied with fear; that the Emperor Julian\ncried out \"Galilean, thou hast conquered\"; that Gibbon died a Catholic;\nthat Agassiz had a little confidence in Moses; that the old Napoleon\nwas once complimentary enough to say that he thought Christ greater\nthan himself or Cæsar; that Washington was caught on his knees at Valley\nForge; that blunt old Ethan Allen told his child to believe the religion\nof her mother; that Franklin said, \"Don't unchain the tiger,\" and that\nVolney got frightened in a storm at sea?\n\nIs it because the foundation of their temple is crumbling, because the\nwalls are cracked, the pillars leaning, the great dome swaying to its\nfall, and because Science has written over the high altar its mene,\nmene, tekel, upharsin—the old words, destined to be the epitaph of all\nreligions?\n\nEvery assertion of individual independence has been a step toward\ninfidelity. Luther started toward Humboldt,—Wesley, toward John Stuart\nMill. To really reform the church is to destroy it. Every new religion\nhas a little less superstition than the old, so that the religion of\nScience is but a question of time.\n\nI will not say the church has been an unmitigated evil in all respects.\nIts history is infamous and glorious. It has delighted in the production\nof extremes. It has furnished murderers for its own martyrs. It has\nsometimes fed the body, but has always starved the soul. It has been a\ncharitable highwayman—a profligate beggar—a generous pirate. It\nhas produced some angels and a multitude of devils. It has built more\nprisons than asylums. It made a hundred orphans while it cared for one.\nIn one hand it has carried the alms-dish and in the other a sword.\nIt has founded schools and endowed universities for the purpose of\ndestroying true learning. It filled the world with hypocrites and\nzealots, and upon the cross of its own Christ it crucified the\nindividuality of man. It has sought to destroy the independence of the\nsoul and put the world upon its knees. This is its crime. The commission\nof this crime was necessary to its existence. In order to compel\nobedience it declared that it had the truth, and all the truth; that God\nhad made it the keeper of his secrets; his agent and his vicegerent. It\ndeclared that all other religions were false and infamous. It rendered\nall compromise impossible and all thought superfluous. Thought was its\nenemy, obedience was its friend. Investigation was fraught with danger;\ntherefore investigation was suppressed. The holy of holies was behind\nthe curtain. All this was upon the principle that forgers hate to\nhave the signature examined by an expert, and that imposture detests\ncuriosity.\n\n\"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear,\" has always been the favorite\ntext of the church.\n\nIn short, Christianity has always opposed every forward movement of the\nhuman race. Across the highway of progress it has always been building\nbreastworks of Bibles, tracts, commentaries, prayer-books, creeds,\ndogmas and platforms, and at every advance the Christians have gathered\ntogether behind these heaps of rubbish and shot the poisoned arrows of\nmalice at the soldiers of freedom.\n\nAnd even the liberal Christian of to-day has his holy of holies, and in\nthe niche of the temple of his heart has his idol. He still clings to a\npart of the old superstition, and all the pleasant memories of the old\nbelief linger in the horizon of his thoughts like a sunset. We associate\nthe memory of those we love with the religion of our childhood. It\nseems almost a sacrilege to rudely destroy the idols that our fathers\nworshiped, and turn their sacred and beautiful truths into the fables of\nbarbarism. Some throw away the Old Testament and cling to the New, while\nothers give up everything except the idea that there is a personal God,\nand that in some wonderful way we are the objects of his care.\n\nEven this, in my opinion, as Science, the great iconoclast, marches\nonward, will have to be abandoned with the rest. The great ghost\nwill surely share the fate of the little ones. They fled at the first\nappearance of the dawn, and the other will vanish with the perfect\nday. Until then, the independence of man is little more than a dream.\nOvershadowed by an immense personality, in the presence of the\nirresponsible and the infinite, the individuality of man is lost, and\nhe falls prostrate in the very dust of fear. Beneath the frown of the\nabsolute, man stands a wretched, trembling slave,—beneath his smile he\nis at best only a fortunate serf. Governed by a being whose arbitrary\nwill is law, chained to the chariot of power, his destiny rests in the\npleasure of the unknown. Under these circumstances, what wretched object\ncan he have in lengthening out his aimless life?\n\nAnd yet, in most minds, there is a vague fear of the gods—a shrinking\nfrom the malice of the skies. Our fathers were slaves, and nearly all\ntheir children are mental serfs. The enfranchisement of the soul is\na slow and painful process. Superstition, the mother of those hideous\ntwins, Fear and Faith, from her throne of skulls, still rules the world,\nand will until the mind of woman ceases to be the property of priests.\n\nWhen women reason, and babes sit in the lap of philosophy, the victory\nof reason over the shadowy host of darkness will be complete.\n\nIn the minds of many, long after the intellect has thrown aside as\nutterly fabulous the legends of the church, there still remains a\nlingering suspicion, born of the mental habits contracted in childhood,\nthat after all there may be a grain of truth in these mountains of\ntheological mist, and that possibly the superstitious side is the side\nof safety.\n\nA gentleman, walking among the ruins of Athens, came upon a fallen\nstatue of Jupiter; making an exceedingly low bow he said: \"O Jupiter!\nI salute thee.\" He then added: \"Should you ever sit upon the throne\nof heaven again, do not, I pray you, forget that I treated you politely\nwhen you were prostrate.\"\n\nWe have all been taught by the church that nothing is so well calculated\nto excite the ire of the Deity as to express a doubt as to his\nexistence, and that to deny it is an unpardonable sin. Numerous\nwell-attested instances are referred to of atheists being struck dead\nfor denying the existence of God. According to these religious people,\nGod is infinitely above us in every respect, infinitely merciful, and\nyet he cannot bear to hear a poor finite man honestly question his\nexistence. Knowing, as he does, that his children are groping in\ndarkness and struggling with doubt and fear; knowing that he could\nenlighten them if he would, he still holds the expression of a sincere\ndoubt as to his existence, the most infamous of crimes. According to\northodox logic, God having furnished us with imperfect minds, has a\nright to demand a perfect result.\n\nSuppose Mr. Smith should overhear a couple of small bugs holding a\ndiscussion as to the existence of Mr. Smith, and suppose one should have\nthe temerity to declare, upon the honor of a bug, that he had examined\nthe whole question to the best of his ability, including the argument\nbased upon design, and had come to the conclusion that no man by the\nname of Smith had ever lived. Think then of Mr. Smith flying into an\necstasy of rage, crushing the atheist bug beneath his iron heel, while\nhe exclaimed, \"I will teach you, blasphemous wretch, that Smith is a\ndiabolical fact!\" What then can we think of a God who would open the\nartillery of heaven upon one of his own children for simply expressing\nhis honest thought? And what man who really thinks can help repeating\nthe words of Ennius: \"If there are gods they certainly pay no attention\nto the affairs of man.\"\n\nThink of the millions of men and women who have been destroyed simply\nfor loving and worshiping this God. Is it possible that this God, having\ninfinite power, saw his loving and heroic children languishing in the\ndarkness of dungeons; heard the clank of their chains when they lifted\ntheir hands to him in the agony of prayer; saw them stretched upon the\nbigot's rack, where death alone had pity; saw the serpents of flame\ncrawl hissing round their shrinking forms—-saw all this for sixteen\nhundred years, and sat as silent as a stone?\n\nFrom such a God, why should man expect assistance? Why should he waste\nhis days in fruitless prayer? Why should he fall upon his knees and\nimplore a phantom—a phantom that is deaf, and dumb, and blind?\n\nAlthough we live in what is called a free government,—and politically\nwe are free,—there is but little religious liberty in America. Society\ndemands, either that you belong to some church, or that you suppress\nyour opinions. It is contended by many that ours is a Christian\ngovernment, founded upon the Bible, and that all who look upon that book\nas false or foolish are destroying the foundation of our country. The\ntruth is, our government is not founded upon the rights of gods, but\nupon the rights of men. Our Constitution was framed, not to declare and\nuphold the deity of Christ, but the sacredness of humanity. Ours is the\nfirst government made by the people and for the people. It is the only\nnation with which the gods have had nothing to do. And yet there are\nsome judges dishonest and cowardly enough to solemnly decide that this\nis a Christian country, and that our free institutions are based upon\nthe infamous laws of Jehovah. Such judges are the Jeffries of the\nchurch. They believe that decisions, made by hirelings at the bidding of\nkings, are binding upon man forever. They regard old law as far superior\nto modern justice. They are what might be called orthodox judges. They\nspend their days in finding out, not what ought to be, but what has\nbeen. With their backs to the sunrise they worship the night. There is\nonly one future event with which they concern themselves, and that is\ntheir reelection. No honest court ever did, or ever will, decide that\nour Constitution is Christian. The Bible teaches that the powers that\nbe, are ordained of God. The Bible teaches that God is the source of all\nauthority, and that all kings have obtained their power from him. Every\ntyrant has claimed to be the agent of the Most High. The Inquisition\nwas founded, not in the name of man, but in the name of God. All the\ngovernments of Europe recognize the greatness of God, and the littleness\nof the people. In all ages, hypocrites, called priests, have put crowns\nupon the heads of thieves, called kings.\n\nThe Declaration of Independence announces the sublime truth, that all\npower comes from the people. This was a denial, and the first denial of\na nation, of the infamous dogma that God confers the right upon one man\nto govern others. It was the first grand assertion of the dignity of the\nhuman race. It declared the governed to be the source of power, and\nin fact denied the authority of any and all gods. Through the ages of\nslavery—through the weary centuries of the lash and chain, God was the\nacknowledged ruler of the world. To enthrone man, was to dethrone him.\n\nTo Paine, Jefferson, and Franklin, are we indebted, more than to all\nothers, for a human government, and for a Constitution in which no God\nis recognized superior to the legally expressed will of the people.\n\nThey knew that to put God in the Constitution was to put man out. They\nknew that the recognition of a Deity would be seized upon by fanatics\nand zealots as a pretext for destroying the liberty of thought. They\nknew the terrible history of the church too well to place in her\nkeeping, or in the keeping of her God, the sacred rights of man. They\nintended that all should have the right to worship, or not to worship;\nthat our laws should make no distinction on account of creed. They\nintended to found and frame a government for man, and for man alone.\nThey wished to preserve the individuality and liberty of all; to prevent\nthe few from governing the many, and the many from persecuting and\ndestroying the few.\n\nNotwithstanding all this, the spirit of persecution still lingers in our\nlaws. In many of the States, only those who believe in the existence of\nsome kind of God, are under the protection of the law.\n\nThe supreme court of Illinois decided, in the year of grace 1856, that\nan unbeliever in the existence of an intelligent First Cause could not\nbe allowed to testify in any court. His wife and children might have\nbeen murdered before his very face, and yet in the absence of other\nwitnesses, the murderer could not have even been indicted. The atheist\nwas a legal outcast. To him, Justice was not only blind, but deaf. He\nwas liable, like other men, to support the Government, and was forced to\ncontribute his share towards paying the salaries of the very judges\nwho decided that under no circumstances could his voice be heard in any\ncourt. This was the law of Illinois, and so remained until the\nadoption of the new Constitution. By such infamous means has the church\nendeavored to chain the human mind, and protect the majesty of her God.\nThe fact is, we have no national religion, and no national God; but\nevery citizen is allowed to have a religion and a God of his own, or\nto reject all religions and deny the existence of all gods. The church,\nhowever, never has, and never will understand and appreciate the genius\nof our Government.\n\nLast year, in a convention of Protestant bigots, held in the city of New\nYork for the purpose of creating public opinion in favor of a religious\namendment to the Federal Constitution, a reverend doctor of divinity,\nspeaking of atheists, said: \"What are the rights of the atheist? I would\ntolerate him as I would tolerate a poor lunatic. I would tolerate him as\nI would tolerate a conspirator. He may live and go free, hold his\nlands and enjoy his home—he may even vote; but for any higher or more\nadvanced citizenship, he is, as I hold, utterly disqualified.\" These are\nthe sentiments of the church to-day.\n\nGive the church a place in the Constitution, let her touch once more\nthe sword of power, and the priceless fruit of all the ages will turn to\nashes on the lips of men.\n\nIn religious ideas and conceptions there has been for ages a slow and\nsteady development At the bottom of the ladder (speaking of modern\ntimes) is Catholicism, and at the top is Science. The intermediate\nrounds of this ladder are occupied by the various sects, whose name is\nlegion.\n\nBut whatever may be the truth upon any subject has nothing to do\nwith-our right to investigate that subject, and express any opinion\nwe may form. All that I ask, is the same right I freely accord to all\nothers.\n\nA few years ago a Methodist clergyman took it upon himself to give me a\npiece of friendly advice. \"Although you may disbelieve the Bible,\" said\nhe, \"you ought not to say so. That, you should keep to yourself.\"\n\n\"Do you believe the Bible,\" said I.\n\nHe replied, \"Most assuredly\".\n\nTo which I retorted, \"Your answer conveys no information to me. You may\nbe following your own advice. You told me to suppress my opinions. Of\ncourse a man who will advise others to dissimulate will not always be\nparticular about telling the truth himself.\"\n\nThere can be nothing more utterly subversive of all that is really\nvaluable than the suppression of honest thought. No man, worthy of the\nform he bears, will at the command of church or state solemnly repeat a\ncreed his reason scorns.\n\nIt is the duty of each and every one to maintain his individuality.\n\"This above all, to thine ownself be true, and it must follow as\nthe night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man.\" It is\na magnificent thing to be the sole proprietor of yourself. It is a\nterrible thing to wake up at night and say, \"There is nobody in this\nbed.\" It is humiliating to know that your ideas are all borrowed; that\nyou are indebted to your memory for your principles; that your religion\nis simply one of your habits, and that you would have convictions if\nthey were only contagious. It is mortifying to feel that you belong to\na mental mob and cry \"crucify him,\" because the others do; that you reap\nwhat the great and brave have sown, and that you can benefit the world\nonly by leaving it.\n\nSurely every human being ought to attain to the dignity of the unit.\nSurely it is worth something to be one, and to feel that the census of\nthe universe would be incomplete without counting you. Surely there\nis grandeur in knowing that in the realm of thought, at least, you are\nwithout a chain; that you have the right to explore all heights and all\ndepths; that there are no walls nor fences, nor prohibited places, nor\nsacred corners in all the vast expanse of thought; that your intellect\nowes no allegiance to any being, human or divine; that you hold all in\nfee and upon no condition and by no tenure whatever; that in the world\nof mind you are relieved from all personal dictation, and from the\nignorant tyranny of majorities. Surely it is worth something to feel\nthat there are no priests, no popes, no parties, no governments,\nno kings, no gods, to whom your intellect can be compelled to pay\na reluctant homage. Surely it is a joy to know that all the cruel\ningenuity of bigotry can devise no prison, no dungeon, no cell in which\nfor one instant to confine a thought; that ideas cannot be dislocated\nby racks, nor crushed in iron boots, nor burned with fire. Surely it is\nsublime to think that the brain is a castle, and that within its curious\nbastions and winding halls the soul, in spite of all worlds and all\nbeings, is the supreme sovereign of itself.\n"
}