The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll Volume XI Part 13

In other words, without liberty of thought, no human being has the right to form a judgment. It is impossible that there should be such a thing as real religion without liberty. Without liberty there can be no such thing as conscience, no such word as justice. All human actions--all good, all bad--have for a foundation the idea of human liberty, and without Liberty there can be no vice, and there can be no virtue.

Without Liberty there can be no wors.h.i.+p, no blasphemy--no love, no hatred, no justice, no progress.

Take the word Liberty from human speech and all the other words become poor, withered, meaningless sounds--but with that word realized--with that word understood, the world becomes a paradise.

Understand me. I am not blaming the people. I am not blaming the prosecution, or the prosecuting attorney. The officers of the court are simply doing what they feel to be their duty. They did not find the indictment. That was found by the grand jury. The grand jury did not find the indictment of its own motion. Certain people came before the grand jury and made their complaint--gave their testimony, and upon that testimony, under this statute, the indictment was found.

While I do not blame these people--they not being on trial--I do ask you to stand on the side of right.

I cannot conceive of much greater happiness than to discharge a public duty, than to be absolutely true to conscience, true to judgment, no matter what authority may say, no matter what public opinion may demand.

A man who stands by the right, against the world, cannot help applauding himself, and saying: "I am an honest man."

I want your verdict--a verdict born of manhood, of courage; and I want to send a dispatch to-day to a woman who is lying sick. I wish you to furnish the words of this dispatch--only two words--and these two words will fill an anxious heart with joy. They will fill a soul with light.

It is a very short message--only two words--and I ask you to furnish them: "Not guilty."

You are expected to do this, because I believe you will be true to your consciences, true to your best judgment, true to the best interests of the people of New Jersey, true to the great cause of Liberty.

I sincerely hope that it will never be necessary again, under the flag of the United States--that flag for which has been shed the bravest and best blood of the world--under that flag maintained by Was.h.i.+ngton, by Jefferson, by Franklin and by Lincoln--under that flag in defence of which New Jersey poured out her best and bravest blood--I hope it will never be necessary again for a man to stand before a jury and plead for the Liberty of Speech.

Note: The jury in this case brought in a verdict of guilty.

The Judge imposed a fine of twenty-five dollars and costs amounting in all to seventy-five dollars, which Colonel Ingersoll paid, giving his services free.--C. P. Farrell.

G.o.d IN THE CONSt.i.tUTION.

"_All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed_."

IN this country it is admitted that the power to govern resides in the people themselves; that they are the only rightful source of authority.

For many centuries before the formation of our Government, before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence, the people had but little voice in the affairs of nations. The source of authority was not in this world; kings were not crowned by their subjects, and the sceptre was not held by the consent of the governed. The king sat on his throne by the will of G.o.d, and for that reason was not accountable to the people for the exercise of his power. He commanded, and the people obeyed. He was lord of their bodies, and his partner, the priest, was lord of their souls. The government of earth was patterned after the kingdom on high. G.o.d was a supreme autocrat in heaven, whose will was law, and the king was a supreme autocrat on earth whose will was law.

The G.o.d in heaven had inferior beings to do his will, and the king on earth had certain favorites and officers to do his. These officers were accountable to him, and he was responsible to G.o.d.

The Feudal system was supposed to be in accordance with the divine plan. The people were not governed by intelligence, but by threats and promises, by rewards and punishments. No effort was made to enlighten the common people; no one thought of educating a peasant--of developing the mind of a laborer. The people were created to support thrones and altars. Their destiny was to toil and obey--to work and want. They were to be satisfied with huts and hovels, with ignorance and rags, and their children must expect no more. In the presence of the king they fell upon their knees, and before the priest they groveled in the very dust. The poor peasant divided his earnings with the state, because he imagined it protected his body; he divided his crust with the church, believing that it protected his soul. He was the prey of Throne and Altar--one deformed his body, the other his mind--and these two vultures fed upon his toil.

He was taught by the king to hate the people of other nations, and by the priest to despise the believers in all other religions. He was made the enemy of all people except his own. He had no sympathy with the peasants of other lands, enslaved and plundered like himself., He was kept in ignorance, because education is the enemy of superst.i.tion, and because education is the foe of that egotism often mistaken for patriotism.

The intelligent and good man holds in his affections the good and true of every land--the boundaries of countries are not the limitations of his sympathies. Caring nothing for race, or color, he loves those who speak other languages and wors.h.i.+p other G.o.ds. Between him and those who suffer, there is no impa.s.sable gulf. He salutes the world, and extends the hand of friends.h.i.+p to the human race. He does not bow before a provincial and patriotic G.o.d--one who protects his tribe or nation, and abhors the rest of mankind.

Through all the ages of superst.i.tion, each nation has insisted that it was the peculiar care of the true G.o.d, and that it alone had the true religion--that the G.o.ds of other nations were false and fraudulent, and that other religions were wicked, ignorant and absurd. In this way the seeds of hatred had been sown, and in this way have been kindled the flames of war. Men have had no sympathy with those of a different complexion, with those who knelt at other altars and expressed their thoughts in other words--and even a difference in garments placed them beyond the sympathy of others. Every peculiarity was the food of prejudice and the excuse for hatred.

The boundaries of nations were at last crossed by commerce. People became somewhat acquainted, and they found that the virtues and vices were quite evenly distributed. At last, subjects became somewhat acquainted with kings--peasants had the pleasure of gazing at princes, and it was dimly perceived that the differences were mostly in rags and names.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the G.o.ds from politics. They declared that "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure blasphemy--a renunciation of the Deity. It was in fact a declaration of the independence of the earth. It was a notice to all churches and priests that thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar and denied the authority of every "sacred book," and appealed from the Providence of G.o.d to the Providence of Man.

Those who promulgated the Declaration adopted a Const.i.tution for the great Republic.

What was the office or purpose of that Const.i.tution?

Admitting that all power came from the people, it was necessary, first, that certain means be adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the will of the people, and second, it was proper and convenient to designate certain departments that should exercise certain powers of the Government. There must be the legislative, the judicial and the executive departments. Those who make laws should not execute them.

Those who execute laws should not have the power of absolutely determining their meaning or their const.i.tutionality. For these reasons, among others, a Const.i.tution was adopted.

This Const.i.tution also contained a declaration of rights. It marked out the limitations of discretion, so that in the excitement of pa.s.sion, men shall not go beyond the point designated in the calm moment of reason.

When man is unprejudiced, and his pa.s.sions subject to reason, it is well he should define the limits of power, so that the waves driven by the storm of pa.s.sion shall not overbear the sh.o.r.e.

A const.i.tution is for the government of man in this world. It is the chain the people put upon their servants, as well as upon themselves. It defines the limit of power and the limit of obedience.

It follows, then, that nothing should be in a const.i.tution that cannot be enforced by the power of the state--that is, by the army and navy.

Behind every provision of the Const.i.tution should stand the force of the nation. Every sword, every bayonet, every cannon should be there.

Suppose, then, that we amend the Const.i.tution and acknowledge the existence and supremacy of G.o.d--what becomes of the supremacy of the people, and how is this amendment to be enforced? A const.i.tution does not enforce itself. It must be carried out by appropriate legislation.

Will it be a crime to deny the existence of this const.i.tutional G.o.d? Can the offender be proceeded against in the criminal courts? Can his lips be closed by the power of the state? Would not this be the inauguration of religious persecution?

And if there is to be an acknowledgment of G.o.d in the Const.i.tution, the question naturally arises as to which G.o.d is to have this honor. Shall we select the G.o.d of the Catholics--he who has established an infallible church presided over by an infallible pope, and who is delighted with certain ceremonies and placated by prayers uttered in exceedingly common Latin? Is it the G.o.d of the Presbyterian with the Five Points of Calvinism, who is ingenious enough to harmonize necessity and responsibility, and who in some way justifies himself for d.a.m.ning most of his own children? Is it the G.o.d of the Puritan, the enemy of joy--of the Baptist, who is great enough to govern the universe, and small enough to allow the destiny of a soul to depend on whether the body it inhabited was immersed or sprinkled?

What G.o.d is it proposed to put in the Const.i.tution? Is it the G.o.d of the Old Testament, who was a believer in slavery and who justified polygamy?

If slavery was right then, it is right now; and if Jehovah was right then, the Mormons are right now. Are we to have the G.o.d who issued a commandment against all art--who was the enemy of investigation and of free speech? Is it the G.o.d who commanded the husband to stone his wife to death because she differed with him on the subject of religion? Are we to have a G.o.d who will re-enact the Mosaic code and punish hundreds of offences with death? What court, what tribunal of last resort, is to define this G.o.d, and who is to make known his will? In his presence, laws pa.s.sed by men will be of no value. The decisions of courts will be as nothing. But who is to make known the will of this supreme G.o.d? Will there be a supreme tribunal composed of priests?

Of course all persons elected to office will either swear or affirm to support the Const.i.tution. Men who do not believe in this G.o.d, cannot so swear or affirm. Such men will not be allowed to hold any office of trust or honor. A G.o.d in the Const.i.tution will not interfere with the oaths or affirmations of hypocrites. Such a provision will only exclude honest and conscientious unbelievers. Intelligent people know that 110 one knows whether there is a G.o.d or not. The existence of such a Being is merely a matter of opinion. Men who believe in the liberty of man, who are willing to die for the honor of their country, will be excluded from taking any part in the administration of its affairs. Such a provision would place the country under the feet of priests.

To recognize a Deity in the organic law of our country would be the destruction of religious liberty. The G.o.d in the Const.i.tution would have to be protected. There would be laws against blasphemy, laws against the publication of honest thoughts, laws against carrying books and papers in the mails in which this const.i.tutional G.o.d should be attacked.

Our land would be filled with theological spies, with religious eavesdroppers, and all the snakes and reptiles of the lowest natures, in this suns.h.i.+ne of religious authority, would uncoil and crawl.

It is proposed to acknowledge a G.o.d who is the lawful and rightful Governor of nations; the one who ordained the powers that be. If this G.o.d is really the Governor of nations, it is not necessary to acknowledge him in the Const.i.tution. This would not add to his power. If he governs all nations now, he has always controlled the affairs of men.

Having this control, why did he not see to it that he was recognized in the Const.i.tution of the United States? If he had the supreme authority and neglected to put himself in the Const.i.tution, is not this, at least, _prima facie_ evidence that he did not desire to be there?

For one, I am not in favor of the G.o.d who has "ordained the powers that be." What have we to say of Russia--of Siberia? What can we say of the persecuted and enslaved? What of the kings and n.o.bles who live on the stolen labor of others? What of the priest and cardinal and pope who wrest, even from the hand of poverty, the single coin thrice earned?

Is it possible to flatter the Infinite with a const.i.tutional amendment?

The Confederate States acknowledged G.o.d in their const.i.tution, and yet they were overwhelmed by a people in whose organic law no reference to G.o.d is made. All the kings of the earth acknowledge the existence of G.o.d, and G.o.d is their ally; and this belief in G.o.d is used as a means to enslave and rob, to govern and degrade the people whom they call their subjects.

The Government of the United States is secular. It derives its power from the consent of man. It is a Government with which G.o.d has nothing whatever to do--and all forms and customs, inconsistent with the fundamental fact that the people are the source of authority, should be abandoned. In this country there should be no oaths--no man should be sworn to tell the truth, and in no court should there be any appeal to any supreme being. A rascal by taking the oath appears to go in partners.h.i.+p with G.o.d, and ignorant jurors credit the firm instead of the man. A witness should tell his story, and if he speaks falsely should be considered as guilty of perjury. Governors and Presidents should not issue religious proclamations. They should not call upon the people to thank G.o.d. It is no part of their official duty. It is outside of and beyond the horizon of their authority. There is nothing in the Const.i.tution of the United States to justify this religious impertinence.

For many years priests have attempted to give to our Government a religious form. Zealots have succeeded in putting the legend upon our money: "In G.o.d We Trust;" and we have chaplains in the army and navy, and legislative proceedings are usually opened with prayer. All this is contrary to the genius of the Republic, contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and contrary really to the Const.i.tution of the United States. We have taken the ground that the people can govern themselves without the a.s.sistance of any supernatural power. We have taken the position that the people are the real and only rightful source of authority. We have solemnly declared that the people must determine what is politically right and what is wrong, and that their legally expressed will is the supreme law. This leaves no room for national superst.i.tion--no room for patriotic G.o.ds or supernatural beings--and this does away with the necessity for political prayers.

The government of G.o.d has been tried. It was tried in Palestine several thousand years ago, and the G.o.d of the Jews was a monster of cruelty and ignorance, and the people governed by this G.o.d lost their nationality.

Theocracy was tried through the Middle Ages. G.o.d was the Governor--the pope was his agent, and every priest and bishop and cardinal was armed with credentials from the Most High--and the result was that the n.o.blest and best were in prisons, the greatest and grandest perished at the stake. The result was that vices were crowned with honor, and virtues whipped naked through the streets. The result was that hypocrisy swayed the sceptre of authority, while honesty languished in the dungeons of the Inquisition.

The government of G.o.d was tried in Geneva when John Calvin was his representative; and under this government of G.o.d the flames climbed around the limbs and blinded the eyes of Michael Servetus, because he dared to express an honest thought. This government of G.o.d was tried in Scotland, and the seeds of theological hatred were sown, that bore, through hundreds of years, the fruit of ma.s.sacre and a.s.sa.s.sination. This government of G.o.d was established in New England, and the result was that Quakers were hanged or burned--the laws of Moses re-enacted and the "witch was not suffered to live." The result was that investigation was a crime, and the expression of an honest thought a capital offence. This government of G.o.d was established in Spain, and the Jews were expelled, the Moors were driven out, Moriscoes were exterminated, and nothing left but the ignorant and bankrupt wors.h.i.+pers of this monster. This government of G.o.d was tried in the United States when slavery was regarded as a divine inst.i.tution, when men and women were regarded as criminals because they sought for liberty by flight, and when others were regarded as criminals because they gave them food and shelter. The pulpit of that day defended the buying and selling of women and babes, and the mouths of slave-traders were filled with pa.s.sages of Scripture, defending and upholding the traffic in human flesh.

We have entered upon a new epoch. This is the century of man. Every effort to really better the condition of mankind has been opposed by the wors.h.i.+pers of some G.o.d. The church in all ages and among all peoples has been the consistent enemy of the human race. Everywhere and at all times, it has opposed the liberty of thought and expression. It has been the sworn enemy of investigation and of intellectual development. It has denied the existence of facts, the tendency of which was to undermine its power. It has always been carrying f.a.gots to the feet of Philosophy.

It has erected the gallows for Genius. It has built the dungeon for Thinkers. And to-day the orthodox church is as much opposed as it ever was to the mental freedom of the human race.

Of course, there is a distinction made between churches and individual members. There have been millions of Christians who have been believers in liberty and in the freedom of expression--millions who have fought for the rights of man--but churches as organizations, have been on the other side. It is true that churches have fought churches--that Protestants battled with the Catholics for what they were pleased to call the freedom of conscience; and it is also true that the moment these Protestants obtained the civil power, they denied this freedom of conscience to others.

'Let me show you the difference between the theological and the secular spirit. Nearly three hundred years ago, one of the n.o.blest of the human race, Giordano Bruno, was burned at Rome by the Catholic Church--that is to say, by the "Triumphant Beast." This man had committed certain crimes--he had publicly stated that there were other worlds than this--other constellations than ours. He had ventured the supposition that other planets might be peopled. More than this, and worse than this, he had a.s.serted the heliocentric theory--that the earth made its annual journey about the sun. He had also given it as his opinion that matter is eternal. For these crimes he was found unworthy to live, and about his body were piled the f.a.gots of the Catholic Church. This man, this genius, this pioneer of the science of the nineteenth century, perished as serenely as the sun sets. The Infidels of to-day find excuses for his murderers. They take into consideration the ignorance and brutality of the times. They remember that the world was governed by a G.o.d who was then the source of all authority. This is the charity of Infidelity,--of philosophy. But the church of to-day is so heartless, is still so cold and cruel, that it can find no excuse for the murdered.

This is the difference between Theocracy and Democracy--between G.o.d and man.