The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume VIII Part 21

I did not suppose that anybody was idiotic enough to want me arrested for blasphemy. It seems to me that an infinite Being can take care of himself without the aid of any agent of a Bible society. Perhaps it is wrong for me to be here while the Methodist Conference is in session. Of course no one who differs from the Methodist ministers should ever visit Philadelphia while they are here. I most humbly hope to be forgiven.

_Question_. What do you think of the law of 1860?

_Answer_. It is exceedingly foolish. Surely, there is no need for the Legislature of Pennsylvania to protect an infinite G.o.d, and why should the Bible be protected by law? The most ignorant priest can hold Darwin up to orthodox scorn. This talk of the Rev.

Mr. Torrence shows that my lectures are needed; that religious people do not know what real liberty is. I presume that the law of 1860 is an old one re-enacted. It is a survival of ancient ignorance and bigotry, and no one in the Legislature thought it worth while to fight it. It is the same as the law against swearing, both are dead letters and amount to nothing. They are not enforced and should not be. Public opinion will regulate such matters. If all who take the name of G.o.d in vain were imprisoned there would not be room in the jails to hold the ministers. They speak of G.o.d in the most flippant and snap-your-fingers way that can be conceived of. They speak to him as though he were an intimate chum, and metaphorically slap him on the back in the most familiar way possible.

_Question_. Have you ever had any similar experiences before?

_Answer_. Oh, yes--threats have been made, but I never was arrested.

When Mr. Torrence gets cool he will see that he has made a mistake.

People in Philadelphia have been in the habit of calling the citizens of Boston bigots--but there is more real freedom of thought and expression in Boston than in almost any other city of the world.

I think that as I am to suffer in h.e.l.l forever, Mr. Torrence ought to be satisfied and let me have a good time here. He can amuse himself through all eternity by seeing me in h.e.l.l, and that ought to be enough to satisfy, not only an agent, but the whole Bible society. I never expected any trouble in this State, and most sincerely hope that Mr. Torrence will not trouble me and make the city a laughing stock.

Philadelphia has no time to waste in such foolish things. Let the Bible take its chances with other books. Let everybody feel that he has the right freely to express his opinions, provided he is decent and kind about it. Certainly the Christians now ought to treat Infidels as well as Penn did Indians.

Nothing could be more perfectly idiotic than in this day and generation to prosecute any man for giving his conclusions upon any religious subject. Mr. Torrence would have had Huxley and Haeckel and Tyndall arrested; would have had Humboldt and John Stuart Mill and Harriet Martineau and George Eliot locked up in the city jail. Mr. Torrence is a fossil from the old red sandstone of a mistake. Let him rest. To hear these people talk you would suppose that G.o.d is some petty king, some Liliputian prince, who was about to be dethroned, and who was nearly wild for recruits.

_Question_. But what would you do if they should make an attempt to arrest you?

_Answer_. Nothing, except to defend myself in court.

--_Philadelphia Press_, May 24, 1884.

POLITICS AND BRITISH COLUMBIA.

_Question_. I understand that there was some trouble in connection with your lecture in Victoria, B. C. What are the facts?

_Answer_. The published accounts, as circulated by the a.s.sociated Press, were greatly exaggerated. The affair was simply this: The authorities endeavored to prevent the lecture. They refused the license, on the ground that the theatre was unsafe, although it was on the ground floor, had many exits and entrances, not counting the windows. The theatre was changed to meet the objections of the fire commissioner, and the authorities expressed their satisfaction and issued the license. Afterward further objection was raised, and on the night of the lecture, when the building was about two- thirds full, the police appeared and said that the lecture would not be allowed to be delivered, because the house was unsafe.

After a good deal of talk, the policeman in authority said that there should be another door, whereupon my friends, in a few minutes, made another door with an ax and a saw, the crowd was admitted and the lecture was delivered. The audience was well-behaved, intelligent and appreciative. Beyond some talking in the hall, and the natural indignation of those who had purchased tickets and were refused admittance, there was no disturbance. I understand that those who opposed the lecture are now heartily ashamed of the course pursued.

_Question_. Are you going to take any part in the campaign?

_Answer_. It is not my intention to make any political speeches.

I have made a good many in the past, and, in my judgment, have done my part. I have no other interest in politics than every citizen should have. I want that party to triumph which, in my judgment, represents the best interests of the country. I have no doubt about the issue of the election. I believe that Mr. Blaine will be the next President. But there are plenty of talkers, and I really think that I have earned a vacation.

_Question_. What do you think Cleveland's chances are in New York?

_Answer_. At this distance it is hard to say. The recent action of Tammany complicates matters somewhat. But my opinion is that Blaine will carry the State. I had a letter yesterday from that State, giving the opinion of a gentleman well informed, that Blaine would carry New York by no less than fifty thousand majority.

_Question_. What figure will Butler cut in the campaign?

_Answer_. I hardly think that Butler will have many followers on the 4th of November. His forces will gradually go to one side or the other. It is only when some great principle is at stake that thousands of men are willing to vote with a known minority.

_Question_. But what about the Prohibitionists?

_Answer_. They have a very large following. They are fighting for something they believe to be of almost infinite consequence, and I can readily understand how a Prohibitionist is willing to be in the minority. It may be well enough for me to say here, that my course politically is not determined by my likes or dislikes of individuals. I want to be governed by principles, not persons.

If I really thought that in this campaign a real principle was at stake, I should take part. The only great question now is protection, and I am satisfied that it is in no possible danger.

_Question_. Not even in the case of a Democratic victory?

_Answer_. Not even in the event of a Democratic victory. No State in the Union is for free trade. Every free trader has an exception.

These exceptions combined, control the tariff legislation of this country, and if the Democrats were in power to-day, with the control of the House and Senate and Executive, the exceptions would combine and protect protection. As long as the Federal Government collects taxes or revenue on imports, just so long these revenues will be arranged to protect home manufactures.

_Question_. You said that if there were a great principle at stake, you would take part in the campaign. You think, then, that there is no great principle involved?

_Answer_. If it were a matter of personal liberty, I should take part. If the Republican party had stood by the Civil Rights Bill, I should have taken part in the present campaign.

_Question_. Still, I suppose we can count on you as a Republican?

_Answer_. Certainly, I am a Republican.

--_Evening Post_, San Francisco, California, September 16, 1884.

INGERSOLL CATECHISED.

_Question_. Does Christianity advance or r.e.t.a.r.d civilization?

_Answer_. If by Christianity you mean the orthodox church, then I unhesitatingly answer that it does r.e.t.a.r.d civilization, always has r.e.t.a.r.ded it, and always will. I can imagine no man who can be benefitted by being made a Catholic or a Presbyterian or a Baptist or a Methodist--or, in other words, by being made an orthodox Christian. But by Christianity I do not mean morality, kindness, forgiveness, justice. Those virtues are not distinctively Christian.

They are claimed by Mohammedans and Buddhists, by Infidels and Atheists--and practiced by some of all cla.s.ses. Christianity consists of the miraculous, the marvelous, and the impossible.

The one thing that I most seriously object to in Christianity is the doctrine of eternal punishment. That doctrine subverts every idea of justice. It teaches the infinite absurdity that a finite offence can be justly visited by eternal punishment. Another serious objection I have is, that Christianity endeavors to destroy intellectual liberty. Nothing is better calculated to r.e.t.a.r.d civilization than to subvert the idea of justice. Nothing is better calculated to retain barbarism than to deny to every human being the right to think. Justice and Liberty are the two wings that bear man forward. The church, for a thousand years, did all within its power to prevent the expression of honest thought; and when the church had power, there was in this world no civilization. We have advanced just in the proportion that Christianity has lost power. Those nations in which the church is still powerful are still almost savage--Portugal, Spain, and many others I might name.

Probably no country is more completely under the control of the religious idea than Russia. The Czar is the direct representative of G.o.d. He is the head of the church, as well as of the state.

In Russia every mouth is a bastille and every tongue a convict.

This Russian pope, this representative of G.o.d, has on earth his h.e.l.l (Siberia), and he imitates the orthodox G.o.d to the extent of his health and strength.

Everywhere man advances as the church loses power. In my judgment, Ireland can never succeed until it ceases to be Catholic; and there can be no successful uprising while the confessional exists. At one time in New England the church had complete power. There was then no religious liberty. And so we might make a tour of the world, and find that superst.i.tion always has been, is, and forever will be, inconsistent with human advancement.

_Question_. Do not the evidences of design in the universe prove a Creator?

_Answer_. If there were any evidences of design in the universe, certainly they would tend to prove a designer, but they would not prove a Creator. Design does not prove creation. A man makes a machine. That does not prove that he made the material out of which the machine is constructed. You find the planets arranged in accordance with what you call a plan. That does not prove that they were created. It may prove that they are governed, but it certainly does not prove that they were created. Is it consistent to say that a design cannot exist without a designer, but that a designer can? Does not a designer need a design as much as a design needs a designer? Does not a Creator need a Creator as much as the thing we think has been created? In other words, is not this simply a circle of human ignorance? Why not say that the universe has existed from eternity, as well as to say that a Creator has existed from eternity? And do you not thus avoid at least one absurdity by saying that the universe has existed from eternity, instead of saying that it was created by a Creator who existed from eternity? Because if your Creator existed from eternity, and created the universe, there was a time when he commenced; and back of that, according to Sh.e.l.ley, is "an eternity of idleness."

Some people say that G.o.d existed from eternity, and has created eternity. It is impossible to conceive of an act co-equal with eternity. If you say that G.o.d has existed forever, and has always acted, then you make the universe eternal, and you make the universe as old as G.o.d; and if the universe be as old as G.o.d, he certainly did not create it.

These questions of origin and destiny--of infinite G.o.ds--are beyond the powers of the human mind. They cannot be solved. We might as well try to travel fast enough to get beyond the horizon. It is like a man trying to run away from his girdle. Consequently, I believe in turning our attention to things of importance--to questions that may by some possibility be solved. It is of no importance to me whether G.o.d exists or not. I exist, and it is important to me to be happy while I exist. Therefore I had better turn my attention to finding out the secret of happiness, instead of trying to ascertain the secret of the universe.

I say with regard to G.o.d, I do not know; and therefore I am accused of being arrogant and egotistic. Religious papers say that I do know, because Webster told me. They use Webster as a witness to prove the divinity of Christ. They say that Webster was on the G.o.d side, and therefore I ought to be. I can hardly afford to take Webster's ideas of another world, when his ideas about this were so bad. When bloodhounds were pursuing a woman through the tangled swamps of the South--she hungry for liberty--Webster took the side of the bloodhounds. Such a man is no authority for me. Bacon denied the Copernican system of astronomy; he is an unsafe guide.

Wesley believed in witches; I cannot follow him. No man should quote a name instead of an argument; no man should bring forward a person instead of a principle, unless he is willing to accept all the ideas of that person.

_Question_. Is not a pleasant illusion preferable to a dreary truth--a future life being in question?

_Answer_. I think it is. I think that a pleasing illusion is better then a terrible truth, so far as its immediate results are concerned. I would rather think the one I love living, than to think her dead. I would rather think that I had a large balance in bank than that my account was overdrawn. I would rather think I was healthy than to know that I had a cancer. But if we have an illusion, let us have it pleasing. The orthodox illusion is the worst that can possibly be conceived. Take h.e.l.l out of that illusion, take eternal pain away from that dream, and say that the whole world is to be happy forever--then you might have an excuse for calling it a pleasant illusion; but it is, in fact, a nightmare --a perpetual horror--a cross, on which the happiness of man has been crucified.

_Question_. Are not religion and morals inseparable?