O-SD-2-Atheist Morality vs. Christian Morality
Atheist Morality vs. Christian Morality (Friday afternoon, Aug. 16, 1929)
Proposition:
"Atheism is Beneficial to the Race, and is Most Conducive to Morality of any Theory Known to Man."
Affirmative: Charles Smith.
Negative: W. L. Oliphant.
Chairman, F. L. Paisley.
Smith’s First Affirmative Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honored Opponent: The question for debate this afternoon is whether or not religion is necessary to support morals. Down through the centuries the priests and clergy have contended that unless you believe in God you cannot be good. That doctrine is what we atheists call the "morality lie." The truth is, nothing so deadens the moral conscience as religion. There is a story of a young lady who visited a seaport and while riding with a captain, asked: "What do the people of this town eat?" The captain replied, "Mostly fish." The young lady continued, "I thought fish was a brain food, and these seem to be the most stupid people I ever saw." He responded: "Imagine how they would look if they did not eat fish." The clergy tell us religion is what makes Christians moral, and when we point out that they exceed others in immorality, they tell us how immoral they would be if they had no religion!
Religion and crime, generally speaking, go together. Whether you take the people by classes or by sections, you will find that to be true. What section of the United States is the most religious? The South. It is known as the "Bible belt." In proportion to population, there are more murders in the South than any other section of the country. As I told you last night, the City of Memphis, Tennessee, leads the country in murders. The City of Little Rock is near the front in murder and piety. Which class of people are most given to crime? Is it the group of college professors, most of whom are atheists? They may not use the word "atheist," but they have no God, and they are atheists. Are they given to crime? No, not so much as the lower classes of people, intellectually speaking. You know it is the uneducated who are the most religious, and are most criminal. There are more religious than non-religious people in jail. In Sing Sing, according to the report for 1926, issued by Warden Lawes, 99 percent are religious—almost no atheists in that institution. We have a book entitled "Religion and Roguery," wherein are collected the statistics from the various prisons of the country, proving that religion and crime, generally speaking, go together. You know that Jesse James was much interested in theology, and believed in God. If this doctrine that these preachers give you be true—that accepting Jesus as your Savior insures your eternal happiness in heaven—be assured that most murderers hereafter will be happy, for they accept God and Jesus at the last moment. It was a consideration of these facts that caused Mark Twain, an atheist, to exclaim:
"Heaven for climate; hell for company!" Did you ever hear of the "Mann Act"—the Federal White Slave Law prohibiting the transportation across State lines of human beings for immoral purposes? It should be called the "Preachers’ Act;" it catches so many wearers of the cloth. What is the explanation of the high criminality of the religious, and the high religiousness of criminals? Let my opponent explain why crime and religion go together. I hope he will not give the explanation given by a Georgia preacher, who stated that the clergy consume so much of their energy preaching morality as to have but little left with which to practice it.
I will give you the explanation. What causes a man to be a criminal, especially to commit violent crimes? It is an excess of emotional nature over reasoning power. That is the very thing that causes man to be religious. A thoroughly rational man does not act mad and shoot someone to get vengeance. Religion does not directly cause crime, except when some poor ignoramus has no better sense than to take certain parts of the Bible literally, and sacrifices a child, after reading in the Old Testament that human beings were sacrificed to God. That which causes religion causes crime. That is why they go together.
You heard the statement last evening that an atheist never built hospitals or established schools. If you are a preacher, you can make statements without having to prove them. If in a church, you ask questions, they call the police. If you go to an atheist meeting you can ask questions. Atheists have founded hospitals. No Bible-following Christian ever founded a hospital. You read in. James 5:1-20 th Chapter:
"Is any sick among you, send him to a hospital."
No.
"Send for the elders of the church, let them anoint him in the name of the Lord and the prayer of the faithful shall heal the sick." That is the Bible doctrine of healing; and you will find how they cured insane persons by casting devils out of them. For two thousand years after Christ there were no insane asylums. They thought that those unbalanced mentally were possessed by devils; and that they should beat the devils out of these poor unfortunate persons. My opponent last night referred especially to Harvard University, which I attended. He said it was founded by Christians. Yes, it is true Christians have founded most of the large educational institutions in the country. Atheists did not found them. Why? Up until the time the organization of which I have the honor to be President, was launched, were there any avowed atheists in this country? You know of your own knowledge that, with few exceptions, there were no atheists who called themselves that name. A man may have called another man an atheist; but the man himself did not use the title, because of the bigotry of the Christians.
It is not true that atheists never established colleges. What did Christians do when they were in power? They closed the schools of Athens, and for one thousand years humanity was in ignorance and darkness. Science and reason were outlawed. The Christians burned heretics at the stake. Spiritualism was supreme; materialism was rejected.
I shall now examine "Christian morality," and show you what a fraud it is. It is based on hope and fear—a system of threats and bribes. Heine, the German poet, asked:
"Do you want a tip because you did not poison your brother and because you took care of your aged mother?" That is what you Christians want. You want a reward for being good. I will read you a passage from the pagan writer:
"Do good, for good is good to do; spurn bribe of heaven and threat of hell." The Christian religion is profoundly immoral. The doctrine of atonement is barbarous. What is it? The innocent suffers for the guilty. An enraged God would not be at peace with us until an innocent person was put to death. Is there a mother or father who, if their child did wrong, and another child came to be whipped for the one who did the wrong, would whip that innocent child? Yet, that is what the preachers tell us God Almighty did.
Let me show you something of the immorality of the Bible. God established slavery. Read Leviticus 25:44. Who was it that abolished slavery in modern times? It was the French Revolutionists. I quote from a man who should be listened to in this church. You have heard of the Rev. Alexander Campbell. I read you his words on the subject of slavery:
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it." The founder of the Christian Church said slavery is not immoral according to the Bible, and he is right. God established it.
"Thou shall not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18.)
Three hundred thousand persons were killed because of that text. The soil of our Republic has been stained with innocent blood because of that text. John Wesley said:
"Giving up witchcraft is, in effect, giving up the Bible."
I ask my opponent if he believes in witches and whether they should be put to death.
We have a question put to Gladman. A woman writes:
"I am a Sunday School teacher. How shall I explain `concubine’ to my pupils without giving them the impression that the Bible Patriarchs had more than one wife each?" The Doctor replies:
"Tell them ’concubine’ is the Hebrew equivalent for stenographer." The Patriarchs were polygamists.
There is a good deal of the Bible that is not pure literature. This is a mixed company. Read chapters 19 and 38 of the Book of Genesis, and ask yourself what would happen to a man if he wrote a book today and incorporated into it that kind of material. He would land behind prison bars.
Liberty of thought is alien to the Bible. A man must slay his wife, friend or daughter for religion. Duet. 13: 6-10. The Bible upholds tyranny. Romans 13:1 :
"The powers that be are ordained of God. They that resist shall receive damnation."
If that be true, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Voltaire, and Thomas Paine are in hell, because they resisted the powers of their day. See also 1 Peter 2:13-14.
I will read what Moses ordered, and he said he got the order from God. He directs that innocent women and children be killed and commanded his officers: "—all the women and children who have not known man by lying with them, keep alive for yourselves." Numbers 31:17-18. Do you know how David got his first wife? He bought her with two hundred foreskins. 1 Samuel 18:27.
Just a word about the character of Christ. I quote you some of the teachings of Jesus.
"He that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:16.
What do you think of damnation for disbelief? Can a man believe contrary to the evidence? If you do not follow evidence as it appears to you, in the light of your experience, then you are a hypocrite. If the evidence convinces me that the Bible is false, where am I in error for disbelieving it? I would be a liar if I professed to believe it.
"Cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched."
Jesus taught the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell. What good will it do to punish a man forever? It could not do anybody any good. Only a vindictive being, such as Jefferson said Jehovah is, could torture persons eternally for disbelieving something that seems to them to be untrue.
One of the worst features of Christianity is the doctrine of free-will—the doctrine that somehow you have the power to do as you please, regardless of your heredity and environment; that when a man does wrong he could have avoided doing it, and therefore, must be punished. It is a childish conception. When a child stumps its toe against the chair it may kick the chair, thinking that the chair is responsible. The more enlightened persons have given up the idea of free-will and vindictive punishment. This does not mean that we should let criminals run at large. To protect society, it is necessary to lock them up. Man is what his heredity and environment make him. When a mad dog comes down the street and bites a person, you kill the animal, but you don’t torture it. If you would, you have the character of the being who invented hell.
If materialistic mechanism were not true, if man were not a machine, there would be no rational basis for effort. It would not be worthwhile to teach your child to be honest. Even Fundamentalist preachers adopt the mechanistic theory in winning souls; they use the emotional appeal that will bring the most converts. When I last evening asked the question, whether or not God made certain disease germs, the Rev. Oliphant told you that disease germs were sent by God as a punishment for sin. Let me tell you something. You take the class of people who make prostitution their profession. Do you think they are atheists? So far as I know we do not have a single prostitute in the United States as a member of our organization. Most of them are religious.
If it be true, as my opponent contends, that these venereal diseases are sent as a punishment for sin, is it not a most cruel method of punishing sin? The innocent often suffer as much as the guilty. Could not an omnipotent God find another punishment for sin than have babies born blind and women crippled for life? The doctrine of faith makes the clergy a menace to civilization. It depreciates reason. We live in a dark forest with only a candle (reason) to guide us; and here comes a person, the priest, who says:
"Blow it out and you will see better."
Faith is strongest among children and illiterate persons. If you will read, "The Belief in God and Immortality" by Professor Leuba you will find the most educated persons believe the least in the Bible. Of the psychologists eight percent believe in immortality, six percent of the women and two percent of the men. Women are in the majority in the churches. In the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism we have almost ten men to one woman. I will not say what the implications are, but man’s brain is considerably larger than woman’s. In the remaining few minutes I shall quote from this word of God concerning the use of reason. This is from St. Paul:
"Beware lest any man spoil you by philosophy and vain deceit."
Again:
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world." The whole scheme of redemption is foolishness to me. Because our parents and forefathers disobeyed God, he would not be on good terms with us until his son was nailed on a cross. That is not reasonable.
Faith means mental slavery. Are you going to be the subject of the one who first gets your ear? If you had grown up in that part of Asia where Mohammedanism prevails, you would have accepted that religion. In the Royal Society of England it was debated whether the placing of a fish in a barrel of water would increase the weight of the barrel and its contents. There were those who said it would not. King Charles commanded: "Make trial." They put the fish in the water and the weight increased. That is the way of science. Science is born of experience; religion is made of deductions from assertions. In conclusion, let me say a word about the character of the clergy. I am not personal in this, but speak of them as a group. I have intimated to you they are no more moral than other persons, and in certain crimes are in the lead. They are not a very useful class of citizens. They pay half fare on the railroads; west of the Mississippi, they pay one-third. They are exempt from military duty. They do not pay taxes on their homes. What is their profession? You know what they are doing. They are selling you homes in heaven. It is the greatest swindle ever put over on the human race. Suppose that when a man offered to sell you a piece of land and you asked where it is and he replied: "I don’t know;" "What direction?" "I don’t know." The clergy don’t know where heaven is. They have not the slightest idea in which direction it lies, or how far distant. It is a gold brick, they ask you to live on hay, and promise pie in the sky when you die.
Oliphant’s First Reply Brother Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Respected Opponent:
Contrary to the precedent set by Mr. Smith while in the negative, I intend to consider his arguments. I shall begin with the last things he said, while they are fresh in your minds.
He makes a number of statements which are not true. Preachers do not ride the trains on one-third fare. It is true that the railroad companies give ministers reduced rates; we pay two-thirds fare. Why do the railroads extend this courtesy? Being familiar with the development of this country, they know that the preachers have had a large part in building its civilization. They know that without the civilizing influence of the Christian religion they could not safely carry on their business. It is very largely due to the work of Christian missionaries that the railroad companies can now run their trains in every section of the United States, without having them attacked by Indian bands. In recognition of this service, and as an expression of gratitude for it, the railroad companies voluntarily extend the courtesy of a reduced rate to the ministry.
I know of no State in which homes owned by ministers are exempt from taxation. In some States property owned by churches, and used for religious services, is exempt. (Here Mr. Smith asked: "Most preachers live in parsonages, do they not?") Mr. Oliphant: I think not; I am of the opinion that the majority own their homes, or rent them. Where a house is furnished the minister, this is usually considered in determining his salary. The government exempts certain church property from taxation in recognition of a service considered more valuable than money.
Why are preachers exempt from military service? Because the government officials understand that there is a more vital work for ministers than carrying guns. I challenge Mr. Smith to name any class of men who rendered more service than the preachers during the World War.
It is charged that faith is contrary to reason. The basis for this charge is my friend’s misunderstanding of faith. Faith is based on testimony—evidence. It "comes by hearing," and is "the evidence of things not seen." There can be no faith in the absence of evidence; and the evidence must be reasoned upon, and accepted intelligently. The Scriptures quoted to prove that Paul condemned the use of reason do not prove it. Paul condemned a philosophy that produced "vain deceit." He also condemned "science falsely so-called." (1 Timothy 6:20.) True science was never condemned by any Bible writer. The apostle whom Mr. Smith charges with condemning reason, said:
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21.) Can atheists give us a better rule for determining truth? Do you know of a better way to use reasoning power?
All the atheist knows about historical characters is what he learns from testimony. I ask Mr. Smith if he believes Alexander the Great lived. If so, he exercises faith. He who rejects faith must reject all history. The inference about the intelligence of women is amusing. I need not defend women. As someone has said, "She speaks for herself." Some of the most intellectual feats of the age have been accomplished by women. Mr. Smith’s attitude toward woman is just another of the fruits of atheism. In spite of his boast of superior intelligence, I can name a number of women who would have no difficulty in meeting the arguments he has made in this debate.
We are told that there are more women than men in the churches; and more men than women in the atheist society. Since this is a discussion of morality, I ask what this fact implies. Does it indicate that atheism is more moral than Christianity? I challenge my opponent to say that women are more immoral than men. The argument used to prove that man is a machine proves the reverse. Mr. Smith asks: "If man is not a machine—but has free-will, why teach your child to be honest?" Why sir, that is the very reason. Why do we not attempt to teach automobiles? Because they are machines. Machines can only operate according to the design of their maker; they do not think or reason. Human beings think, and therefore, should be taught to think correctly.
Mr. Smith contends that criminals ’cannot help committing crime; that they are criminal by nature. Being mere machines, the entire course of their lives is mapped out by heredity. Hence they should not be blamed for their crimes.’ This is proved to be untrue by the thousands of criminals who have reformed. Many men who in the past have committed crimes are now respectable, law-abiding citizens. If man is a machine, there is no opportunity for reform, or for improvement of character.
What a hopeless doctrine atheism offers! Not only is a man a mere machine; but there is no one operating the machinery. If there is no God, we are machines running wild! Man has no responsibility. And then it is affirmed that this theory is conducive to morality! Will it make man better to remove all responsibility from him?
Machines do not grow; man grows. Machines do not procreate; man has the power to reproduce his species. To eliminate God, atheists must do more than show that man is a machine; they must prove that machines have the power to create themselves. The Bible is charged with teaching unquestioned obedience to governments. It is true that Christians are taught to respect in the proper manner duly constituted authority. Christians are good citizens, respecting and supporting their government. But should unrighteous authorities make laws which conflict with the law of God; if decision must be made between God and human government, the Bible says:
"We ought to obey God rather than men." 5:29. That the early Christians were governed by this rule is evidenced by the fact that when human authority forbade the preaching of the gospel, they continued to preach it. Atheism breeds anarchy. If the authority of God is rejected, what authority can be accepted?
Mr. Smith charges that Jesus condemns men for not believing, when no evidence is given. The evidence for Christianity is overwhelming. A vast majority of those who have heard it accept it. Jesus also says:
"If any man will do his will, he shall know the teaching, whether it be of God." (John 7:17.)
Any man who honestly wants to know the truth and to practice it, can learn the truth. I am convinced that the big reason for disbelief is not a lack of evidence, but an unwillingness to live right. My opponent brings the old charge that the Bible contains impure statements; literature that should not be read before a mixed audience. Text books used in medical colleges contain passages which it might not be wise to read before a mixed assembly. I have seen pictures in medical journals which I would not enjoy exhibiting to an audience of ladies. But the doctors must have these books; they are indispensible to the teaching of anatomy. We do not condemn these books because of these things. They were not written for indiscriminate public reading. The Bible deals with man’s spiritual anatomy. Sin is a disease; the Bible offers a remedy. Some sins are so vile that we would not want to discuss them in a mixed assembly. Still, these hideous sins are committed by mankind; and, therefore, must be dealt with. To point out the remedy, the Bible must first describe the disease. The mention in the Bible of an unclean thing is always to condemn it.
Bob Ingersoll charged that the Bible mentions the most vile things "without the least bit of humor." Ingersoll unconsciously confessed the reason for this charge against the Bible. If the Bible made a joke of immorality, infidels would like it. But, because the Bible deals seriously with the vile pollutions of ungodly men, infidels criticize it. It is the "hit dog that howls."
It is charged that eternal punishment is immoral. We have sympathy for the man who is being punished by the State. I do not like to see men go to the penitentiary. But who is to blame for the punishment of criminals? Not the State, but the criminals themselves. So it is with God’s punishment of the wicked. God cannot be blamed.
I may not be able to see the justice of eternal punishment. My view of life is too limited for me to attempt to judge matters of eternity. If I were asked to describe a plant and tell its uses, having never seen more than a tiny portion of its leaf, I should not be able to do so. While, after I have examined the whole plant, I can describe it, and perhaps explain the purpose of its existence, I see but a small arc broken from the great circle of eternity. Hence I cannot explain the things of eternity. The child often thinks the punishment administered by his parents is unjust and unreasonable. In later years he understands the reason for it. We are but children in regard to eternity; we must leave its government in the hands of a loving Heavenly Father, knowing that "He doeth all things well."
Mr. Smith says atheists have built schools and hospitals. I have asked him to name one. So far, he has not done so. My friends, he has a good reason for not naming a school or hospital that atheists have built. There is no such institution in the world. In explaining this situation, my opponent say that there were no avowed atheists before his "4A Society" was organized. Why my friends, some of you remember that Stanley J. Clark (who was in the audience last night) debated these very issues with Joe S. Warlick in this town some twelve of fifteen years ago. (Here Mr. Smith asked: "But did he call himself an atheist?") Mr. Oliphant: I’ll put that question back to you—did he? (Mr. Smith: "He did not.") Mr. Oliphant: Mr. Clark affirmed the very same things you are affirming. Why did he not call himself an atheist? (Mr. Smith: "Bigoted Christians made it too unpopular.") Mr. Oliphant: Then you admit that Clark was an atheist, but charge that he was too cowardly to admit it. I would not charge Stanley Clark with cowardice. I believe he was an atheist, and attempted to defend his atheism. I am more charitable toward him than you are. Everybody understood at the time of that debate that Mr. Clark was an atheist.
Mr. Smith is trying to give undue prestige to the organization of which he is president. There have been atheists for centuries. But I do not care to quibble about names: let Mr. Smith name an educational institution or a hospital that was built by anti-religionists—I don’t care what name they wore. Sir, can you name such an institution that was founded by those opposed to religion?
He says no Bible-believing Christian ever built a hospital. Investigate the history of the hospitals of our nation, and see who is responsible for their existence. Mr. Smith quotes:
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord."
Olive oil was one of the most commonly used medicines of that day. It seems to me that in modern language, James says: "Pray for the sick, and use the best known remedies in nature." God has given man intelligence. He should use his intelligence in combating disease, and at the same time, pray to God. When Mr. Smith charges that Christianity forbids the use of a physician he speaks without knowledge. Jesus said:
"They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick." (Luke 5:31.)
Luke, the disciple who recorded this statement, was a physician. Mr. Smith’s charge is contrary to the facts. He should inform himself on the teaching of the Bible before he attempts to say what it teaches.
I stated in the beginning of the debate that I would not attempt to defend perversions of Christianity. All of my friend’s talk about Christians closing the schools of Athens, and being responsible for the Dark Ages, is irrelevant. Everyone who has studied the history of medieval times knows that the institution then posing as the church was far from being like the church established by our Lord. Christianity should not be condemned because of the conduct of those who have apostatized from it.
Even this corruption of Christianity is a vindication of the inspiration of the New Testament; it was foretold. (See 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Acts 20:30; 1 Timothy 4:1-3.) The crimes of the Dark Ages were the fruits of Christianity’s being rejected, rather than practiced. The teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles could never bring about such conditions. Christianity must be judged by the teachings of its Author. The charge is again made that educated people do not believe in God. I refuted that charge yesterday by the statements of a number of the most scholarly men in America. Mr. Smith now refers to Dr. Leuba’s book. I have examined this book. Dr. Leuba’s findings are not what they might appear to be. His investigation was not conducted fairly. He did not ask the scientists to whom he addressed his questionnaire if they believed in God; but prepared his own question to which they were to answer yes or no. Some questions cannot be answered so simply. If I were to ask Mr. Smith if he has quit stealing, he would not want to answer with a simple yes or no.
Dr. Leuba’s question embraced a belief in the answer to prayer, and intimated a specific method of answer. Many people believe wholeheartedly in an intelligent Creator, who is interested in His creatures; and at the same time they hesitate to say just to what degree, and in what way, He answers our prayers.
While Dr. Leuba’s question was unfair, it is interesting to note that forty-one percent of the scientists answered in the affirmative. To me, this indicates that forty-one percent of the scientists who answered were so firm in their conviction that, lest their answers be used against God, they affirmed everything Dr. Leuba asked. No one can justly charge the other fifty-eight percent with unbelief, simply because they refused to accept the position Dr. Leuba tried to hand them.
Mr. Smith has seen a few newspaper accounts of preachers having committed crime, and he jumps at the conclusion that preachers are more immoral than others. It is true that some, preachers are sinners; but their sin is not caused by Christianity. When they sin they go contrary to the gospel they preach. But Mr. Smith has an exaggerated estimate of the number of this kind of preacher. I once criticized the editor of a great daily paper for "displaying" the accounts of preachers’ crimes. He said
"Do you know why we print the, story of a preacher’s immorality on the front page? Because it is news. We do not display articles about the good done by preachers, because that is not news. Everybody knows that. It is his mistakes that are unusual—hence, news. We do not write front-page stories about the misdemeanors of great criminals. You should consider every newspaper story about a preacher’s immorality a compliment to the ministry." The atheist tract, "Religion and Roguery," does not prove that religion causes crime. The statistics given do not indicate the number of irreligious in the penal institutions. All who expressed a church preference are listed as religious. This is not necessarily true. Even an atheist may prefer one church above another. Such dastard crimes as that committed by the two young atheists, Leopold and Loeb, are but logical fruits of the atheistic philosophy of life.
I deny his statement that most college professors are atheists. He offers no proof; until he attempts to prove it, I shall simply say it is untrue.
Let me give you an example of the honesty of atheist scientists. Ernst Haeckel, an atheist, in an effort to prove that in certain rudimentary stages animals of wholly different species exactly resemble each other; printed pictures of what purported to be embryos of a man, an ape and a dog. He also printed pictures supposed to be the embryos of a dog, a fowl and a turtle—all being identical.
Soon Professor Ruthmeyer, of Basle, discovered that the embryos were in both instances, the same plate printed three different times. This was proved by accidental scratches on the face of the plates. This fact was brought to Haeckel’s attention. He did not deny it. In 1908 Haeckal published a defense to put to rest what he termed "brutal fuss" and "Christian slanders." In this reply he freely confesses that a small portion of his embryo illustration had been "faked," but this had been done "in connection with such picture when the available data was insufficient," and that he was compelled to fill in the "lacunal with hypotheses, and to construct the missing links by comparative synthesis." Quite an alibi for outright dishonesty! When scientists try to prove atheism, they sometimes do peculiar things!
Dr. Horace J. Bridges was a member of the Rationalist Press Association, which association issued Haeckel’s "Riddles of the Universe," and "Evolution of Man." Dr. Bridges calls Haeckel’s essay on "Science and Christianity" a "farrago of ignorant nonsense." He then tells how Professor Freidrich Loofs of Halle, Germany, denounced Haeckel, deliberately choosing such language as would make it possible for Haeckel to prosecute him for libel. Dr. Bridges points out that Haeckel did not see fit to do so. He also says that the controversy disclosed the fact that Haeckel had gotten his information from a "tenth-rate free-thought book by an obscure English journalist." Dr. Bridges remarks that "no such crushing exposure of presumptuous ignorance was ever made before in the case of a man of academic training and career." (Criticisms of Life, pgs. 77-120.)
Mr. Smith talks a great deal about reason. Reason has been the god of many infidels. When man succeeds in getting God out of his mind, he usually resorts to some form of idolatry. Robert Ingersoll said:
"We are looking for the time when the useful shall be the honorable; and when Reason, throned upon the world’s brain, shall be King of Kings, and God of Gods." (The Gods, pg. 64.)
Let us notice France during her Revolutionary period. We have here a most clear-cut example of the results of atheism. Dr. Shailer Matthews, Professor in the University of Chicago, speaking of Denis Diderot, D’Alembert, Helvetius, Holbach, Rosseau, and others, says:
"They attacked not only Christianity, but immortality and God as well." As for morals, the historian tells us that they would have "none of, such conventions as marriage, and championed the most extreme of free-love doctrines." He says that they found in "the natural, or uncivilized man the ideal being."
Rosseau lived some ten or twelve years with a woman of "accommodating morals," left her, because of a rival lover, when he was thirty years old. He then went to Paris, where he lived with an illiterate maid-servant, Therese Levasseur, by whom he had five children, each of whom he promptly sent to the foundling asylum.
Rosseau contended that the progress of the arts and sciences had tended to corrupt morals; that civilization was a curse, and the uncivilized man the ideal of life. The historian points out that "the millennium of his gospel was The Reign of Terror." (The French Revolution, pgs, 63-66.)
After the overthrow of the French Monarchy, by the masses, led by the atheistic leaders, the "Convention of Public Safety" had full sway. Dr. Matthews says their "actions were coarse and irrational."
"On November 10, 1793, the convention established the worship of Reason. Decked out in red liberty caps, the deputies went in a body to the cathedral of Notre Dame, and consecrated it to the Goddess of Reason, whose representative, a beautiful actress, sat on the altar, while women of the town danced in the darmagnole in the nave." The historian says the service then degenerated into a "shameless orgy." In Paris, the words: "Liberty and Equality," were inscribed over the door of every householder; yet the Committee of Public Safety suppressed freedom of thought, opened letters, instituted a secret police, destroyed right of trial by jury, and put hundreds of poor lace women to death because they wanted to begin their work with prayer. The City of Lyons, which had offered resistance to their armies, was ordered annihilated, and the name of its site changed. Some two thousand persons were massacred during five months. An order of a levy en masse started a rebellion of the people in La Vendee (lying on the Bay of Biscay, between the Loire and La Rochelle). After they were defeated, the Committee of Public Safety undertook to punish them. Troops were sent, villages were burned, thousands of people were executed. At least eighteen hundred people were shot without trial. This method, however, proved too slow for these blood-thirsty atheists. They turned to drowning. Men and women were stripped naked, bound and sent out by companies in old vessels which were sunk in the Loire. Perhaps two thousand were killed this way within less than two months. This terrible program continued until the mouth of the river was stopped with corpses, and thousands of people died from pestilence resulting from unburied bodies. (French Revolution, pgs. 245, 246.)
All this, ladies and gentleman, is but a part of the picture of a country ruled by atheism. Is this the atheist’s conception of morality? May God keep us far from such!
I charge that the philosophy of atheism is brutal, savage and immoral. In Mr. Smith’s tract, "Godless Evolution," he quotes Cardinal Manning as saying: "Darwinism is a brutal philosophy—to-wit, there is no God, and an ape is our Adam." Mr. Smith follows this quotation with one word of his own: "Correct." In other words, Mr. Smith accepts Darwinism as his philosophy, and then admits that it is "brutal." I need no further proof of my first charge. I have Mr. Smith’s own words in substantiation of it.
I quote again from this tract, Mr. Smith’s words:
"The crowning glory of evolution is to have shown how to improve the human stock—not by prayers to God; no, not even by education, but by selective breeding. Evolution links man with the animals. The laws of heredity operate as inexorably with him as with them. Mental and moral dualities are no exception, for these have a physical basis, which is inherited."
I want you to notice that Smith says education has no, part in the development of the human race. He is the man who has been charging that Christianity is opposed to education! Ile also says, "Mental and moral qualities are no exception." These too, must be disregarded in his brutish program. To continue the quotation:
" ’To grade up the cattle of the country,’ a rich religious stockman demands: ’A pure-bred bull for every herd.’ There is but one way to grade up the human race —to let only the best breed. This does not mean that the State should adopt the primary principle of animal breeding, so that the best male in a community should be the father of its children? But if it were not immoral, the principle would be the greatest possible engine for elevating the human race, compared to which other means are feeble."
There you have it, in Mr. Smith’s own words: Place human life on the same plane with that of the brute, disregard all mentality and morality; simply develop the biggest brute possible! This is the "morality" of atheism.
Smith says that "if it were not immoral, the best male in a community should be the father of the children." But, who told him it would be immoral? According to the standard of atheism, it would not be immoral. Sir, the only reason you do not attempt the practice of your heathenish, degrading plan of "breeding" is that you live in a country whose government has too many Christian standards to permit it! Why don’t you go to some heathen country, where God’s old Bible has never gone? You should fit in nicely with the lowest grade of heathenism. Perhaps some strong "physically-developed" cannibal would eat you. At least, you could there try on human beings your brute system of living. I am of the opinion that such an opportunity will never be given you in a civilized country.
I want to continue the quotation from Mr. Smith’s "Godless Evolution:"
"Weakness of mind and body are now transmitted to increasing numbers in each generation, when, Nature, left alone, would weed them out. Birth control would lessen the evil." No wonder atheists have never established hospitals! Mr. Smith advocates letting "nature weed out" the weak. In other words, do not take care of the weak or the sick; just let them die! I am wondering if that principle would have rid the world of my opponent! Perhaps not, since mentality and morality are not to be considered. He would possibly survive on the basis of a strictly beast "survival of the fittest." My friends, can you imagine a more beastly philosophy? This principle—of letting nature "weed out" the physically weak, would have deprived the world of some of the greatest characters that have ever lived. Many of the greatest minds have been in weak bodies. John T. Faris wrote a book, "Men Who Made Good," in which he gives sketches of the lives of twenty-six men—artists, authors and lecturers, editors and publishers, inventors, philanthropists, religious workers, scientists, statesmen. Nearly all of these men had a handicap of heredity or environment. Without the aid and protection of Christian society, these men might have been "weeded out" by nature. The world would have been loser. My charge that atheism is brutal, savage and immoral, has been proved. Let my opponent attempt to refute it.
One of the "fundamentals of atheism," as expressed by Mr. Smith is "that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct." If it gives me happiness "here and now" to, knock a man in the head and rob him, what prevents my doing so? Atheism makes no difference between a man and a beast. If it is not wrong to kill a hog, why is it wrong to kill a man?
I challenge my opponent to show any reason why he should not be killed. If a mad dog goes about endangering the physical health of people, we kill him. Mr. Smith goes over the country trying to rob peopleof their spiritual health and happiness; why shouldn’t he be killed, like the mad dog? Rejecting God and the Bible as he does, he cannot offer a single reason why it would be wrong for someone to shoot him. Again I ask him: Why is it more wrong to kill a man than to kill a snake?
Atheism, if adopted by a nation, would lead to the most chaotic condition imaginable; no man respecting the rights of any other; every man "a law unto himself," looking only to his own happiness "here and now." The French Revolution is but a small sample.
I again ask Mr. Smith to show us atheism’s standard of morality. And again, I charge that it has none. To be an atheist, you need not believe anything; you need not do anything, you need not be anything. As to religion and crime, let me give you a few statements from men who should know. Judge Fawcett of New York City has said:
"In the five years I have been sitting on the bench, I have had 2,700 boys before me for sentence and not one of them was an attendant at Sunday School."
Judge John R. Newcomber, of the Municipal Court of Chicago, reported that as prosecuting attorney and presiding judge, he had handled more than one hundred thousand cases. Out of this vast number of cases, not as many as ten defendants were boys or girls who had been regular attendants in the Protestant Sunday Schools up to the time of their majority. (Week Day Religious Instruction, introduced by John H. Finley, LL.D., Associate Editor, New York Times, formerly Commissioner of Education, New York State.) The work of Judge Hoyt as Judge of the Children’s Court of New York City, led him to say:
"If our experience in the Children’s Court has proved one thing, it is that religion is essential in the training of children and that no lasting good can be achieved when their spiritual development is neglected." (Quicksands of Youth, pg. 229.) Dr. Wm. H. Cox says:
"In Chicago in the five years up to 1915, out of 55,000 persons below the age of sixteen who had passed through the hands of the police, fewer than one-sixth had ever heard of the Ten Commandments."
Judge B. J. Humphreys says that in his twenty years on the bench he cannot recall but one of the thousands of criminals brought before him who had had a Sunday School training. (Quoted by Charles S. Knight, "Both Sides of Evolution." pg. 160.)
We shall introduce one more witness on this point. These facts were reported in the Evangelical Messenger, July 7, 1929:
"During the last twenty years 20,000 young men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-five years have been admitted to the Indiana Reformatory, now at Pendleton. More than 85 percent of these were from broken homes—fathers and mothers had separated and remarried. There was not a single Boy Scout in the number. Only four percent of the twenty thousand belonged to a church."
These are facts, stated by men who have been in a position to see the effects of religious training on young lives. I put these plain statements up in contrast to Smith’s garbled statistics.
I want you people to remember that, though Mr. Smith is supposed to be affirming that atheism is conducive to good morals, he has not said one word in defense of the morality of atheism. He has done nothing but attack Christianity. This method of debating is in harmony with the whole program of atheism; it is entirely destructive. In the few minutes I have left, I shall introduce a few of the principles of morality taught in the New Testament. The religion of Jesus Christ teaches: Avoiding hatred (Matthew 5:21-22); No lustful thinking (Matthew 5:24); No unfair judgments (Matthew 7:1-2); Love of enemies. (Matthew 5:44); Reconciliation (Matthew 5:24); Non-resistence (Matthew 5:38-39); Avoiding Anxiety (Matthew 6:25-29); Self-examination (Matthew 7:3-5); Respect for government. (Romans 13:1-7); Equality of man (James 2:1-4); A universal Brotherhood (Matthew 23:9); Forgiveness (Matthew 11:25); Thrift and industry (Ephesians 4:28); Progress (Hebrews 6:1); The value of truth (2 Corinthians 13:8); Truth as the basis for freedom (John 8:32); Humility (Luke 14:11); Benevolence (Acts 20:35); Honesty (Romans 12:17); Single standard of morals (Galatians 3:28); Unselfishness (Romans 12:10).
Consider the Golden Rule:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12.) This expresses the world’s only perfect standard of conduct. I challenge any atheist to find a single fault in it.
I could continue indefinitely in naming the principles of righteousness given in God’s word. I do not deem it necessary. To reduce this question to the most definite, concise issue, I am willing to risk the whole proposition on this challenge: I challenge Mr. Smith to name any principle of morality that I cannot read in the Bible. Let him mention any virtue he may think of, and I will read it in this Book—the Christian’s standard of life.
Smith’s Second Affirmative Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Honored Opponent:
I have been asked to name one moral principle my opponent cannot find in the Bible. Perhaps I cannot; you can prove most anything by the Bible. It contains contradictory teachings on most every subject. But the good teachings were not original with Jesus or with the authors of the Bible. They stole them—or took them—from earlier writers. The Golden Rule was taught by various philosophers long before Jesus came into the world. My opponent seems to take special pleasure in accusing me of egotism because I deny the existence of God. I do not care to make any personal remarks of the character he has made against me. But if it be egotism to deny the existence of one god, where is the humility in saying that there is only one god? Why is it more egotistical to deny the existence of God than to deny the existence of hobgoblins, and demons?
It is not necessary to deny the existence of God to be an atheist. The man who has no god is an atheist, though he may not have the courage to admit the fact. I can think of no more egotistical person that he who believes that a being who created the innumerable myriads of stars and directs the universe is interested in him.
It is charged that atheism is anarchistic. The charge is baseless. We accept the government. We believe in the United States Constitution. We are a duly chartered organization. I will tell you who are the law-breakers in this country. You have no more law-breaking class than the clergy, who are willing to disregard the Constitution in the separation of Church and State. They want to get into the State, and bootleg their religion into our public schools. Some of them, as chaplains, are in the army and navy, paid for, in part, by the atheist. That nothing so deadens the moral conscience as religion was shown by the persecution of me last year in Arkansas. It was stated last night that I was arrested there because of my blasphemous remarks. What is the status of the Arkansas case? The bigoted Christians in Arkansas arrested me, though I was violating no law. I was distributing atheist tracts when I was arrested on a charge of blasphemy. By their actions, my prosecutors have exonerated me. They dismissed one case and have refused to set the other for trial. They know they had no right to arrest me. In Arkansas today, an atheist cannot testify in court, not even in his own defense. A Christian can steal an atheist’s watch and the atheist cannot testify against him. A Christian can shoot down an atheist in cold blood, and if only atheists are witnesses, the Christian will go free. That is the law which the bigoted Christians in Arkansas do not want tested. Amendment 14 of the United States Constitution says that no State shall deny a citizen of the United States the equal protection of the laws. They are violating the Federal Constitution. No wonder they don’t want to stay in court.
You heard it charged that Ernst Haeckel, a German scientist, was guilty of fraud. That is too long a subject for me to go into in this rebuttal. I challenge my opponent to deny that scientists have vindicated him. The facts are set forth in "Haeckel’s Answer to the Jesuits."
You have heard a great deal about the French Revolution, painted in the colors of eloquence of which my opponent is capable. The number of persons killed in that revolution is insignificant compared to those killed in obedience to certain Bible commands. Witchcraft and slavery are thorns in the flesh of Christians. You have observed that my opponent has not replied to this except by saying that God regulated slavery. A God capable of making the world and the stars would be able to stop slavery. He could have said: "Thou shalt not have slaves." Was there not room on those stones Moses got on Sinai to write another command? The Bible deity gave instructions how to brand a slave, by piercing through the ear. Exodus 21:6. The Rev. Oliphant has not said a word about witchcraft. I ask him to tell you whether or not he believes in witches. If there be a true God there should be true witches. In Pennsylvania last year they put three boys in the penitentiary for following the command given by Jehovah not to suffer witches to live. My opponent did not refute the statement that the French Revolutionists were first to abolish slavery. He did not say anything about Alexander Campbell, who said that according to the Bible slavery is not immoral. I ask you, did Campbell tell the truth or not? He is the founder of the Christian Church. He said:
"According to the Bible, slavery is not immoral."
I say Campbell is right, but that his Bible is wrong.
What is morality? What is the original meaning of the word? It comes from the Latin word "Mor," plural, "mores," meaning "custom." Morals are good customs.
You remember those vivid pictures which our oratorical friend painted of the French Revolution. He has made a mountain out of a molehill. The French Revolution at the worst is a dim copy of what the Christians did before that; and what they did was a dimmer copy of what God did in establishing a hell where they torture persons who do not believe, torture them for not being hypocrites. What in the French Revolution is comparable to that? When they were persecuting those poor heretics for not believing the stories told in the Bible, they made them suffer as much as possible. Servetus was burned because he did not believe in infant damnation and because he said the Holy land was not fertile. The Bible says it was a land "flowing with milk and honey." Every sensible man knows it is a barren country, and has always been so. How did they burn him? They used green wood so as to have a slow fire to prolong the agony. As the victim was burning, he asked: "Did not the watch and the gold chain that you took from me suffice to buy enough dry wood?" The inquisition is man’s nearest approach to God’s hell. No atheist would be guilty of creating such a place as hell. I ask my opponent, "If the devil were to die, would God create another?"
"Atheists have no standard of morals," say the clergy. The charge is untrue. Happiness here and now determines our conduct. The Golden Rule expresses enlightened self-interest. It was taught by pagan philosophers long before Jesus was invented. Conscience is not the voice of God, but is the result of social experience. Morals have not been revealed, but have evolved. The Bible is not a safe moral guide, for it sanctions slavery, witchcraft persecution, intolerance of opinion, subjection of women, damnation for disbelief, and many other immoralities. The history of the Christian Church and the record of Christians today refute the assertions of my opponent.
Reference has been made to Rosseau. He was not an atheist. It seems Rev. Oliphant is unable to distinguish between an atheist and an infidel. Leopold and Loeb are offered as examples of what atheism leads to. What about Hickman, Hight, and Hotelling, a few of the religionists who in recent times have committed dastardly deeds?
Now we come to the question of eugenics. The Rev. Oliphant takes exception to my statement that only the best should breed. What are you going to do? Let the inferior breed? If you do, you are going to get hillbillies and morons. A weak-minded person is apt to produce weak-minded offspring. According to Christians, every person has a soul. They try to save every defective person that comes into the world. They let the deaf and dumb multiply. In a few States, the leaders are beginning to take some thought of tomorrow. They don’t want to debase the stock of the human race. They are passing more laws for the sterilization of the unfit. Christians oppose that, and also oppose birth control.
I conclude with an account of a recent occurrence in Newark, New Jersey. A family there had as many children as the parents were able to provide for. The mother was in delicate health and did not want to bear more children. They were Catholics, but the mother went to the birth control clinic and obtained information on how to prevent conception. The husband found out what she was doing and called in the priest, who said she was committing a mortal sin against God. What could the poor woman do? She threw away her medicines and appliances, but declared that if ever her husband forced his relations upon her she would not bear children—she would commit suicide first. The husband did force relations upon her, and the next night on returning from work he found the house had burned down, with his wife and children inside. It was published in the newspapers that the cause of the tragedy was unknown. That is what Christianity causes—unhappiness in this world. Atheism teaches that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct.
Oliphant’s Second Reply Brother Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Respected Opponent:
I am now to make the last speech on the present proposition. I do not have much to do as I am following my opponent and, consequently, when he makes no argument I have nothing to answer.
I thank the gentleman for his admission that he cannot name a moral principle not contained in the Bible. I want it to go on record that the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism has admitted publicly that the Bible contains a complete system of morals—at least, that he cannot think of anything that is lacking.
Mr. Smith says the Golden Rule was taught before the time of Christ. His only proof is his assertion. Sir, your word is not authority with this or any other intelligent audience. If, as Mr. Smith says, preachers do not have to prove what they say; is it not a pity that he is not a preacher? With reference to my charge that for one to say he KNOWS there is no God is egotism, my friend asks why it is more egotistical to deny all gods than to deny one. The proof that the religions of many gods (polytheism) are degenerate forms of the original religion of one God (monotheism), still stands. I offered it in my first speech; my opponent has never noticed it.
I am charged with egotism because of my believing that God will hear my prayers. If that be egotism, it is in behalf of the race of men—not an exaltation of myself. Nor, do I contend that men are worthy of the attention of God; but because man is a rational being, capable of development, God has seen fit to be "mindful of him." We thank God that this is true.
Mr. Smith is certainly inconsistent in his definitions of an atheist. When he is trying to dodge a charge made against atheists, he minimizes the number, and makes a clear distinction between "infidels" and "atheists." When he wants to attribute something good to atheism, he makes every man who is not devoutly religious, an atheist. There are many people not actively engaged in church work who will earnestly contend for the existence and goodness of God. The most foolish absurdity that I have heard is Mr. Smith’s statement (made last night) that he could come into this pulpit and say just the reverse of what was said last Sunday, and it would be accepted; provided he assumed a pious expression. No sane man believes that statement to be true. I would not make such an absurd assertion in regard to an atheist meeting. I could, with as much reason, say that I could preach the gospel to an atheist meeting, and that it would meet their approval; provided I assumed an "impious and blasphemous" look. The attitude of this audience toward his speeches indicates whether they accept his doctrines.
We are charged with being law-breakers in not adhering to the doctrine of separation of Church and State. I firmly believe in the separation of Church and State. Jesus taught that men should "render unto Caesar (civil governments) the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21.) Nor, do we demand the teaching of religion in the Public Schools. We do insist that if religion is not to be taught, that anti-religion shall not be taught. Is it lawlessness to insist that the religion of an overwhelming majority of the tax-payers shall not be attacked in institutions supported by taxes?
I believe in freedom of speech, hence, would not want to see Mr. Smith imprisoned for his teaching. I do not think he can do much harm among intelligent people. However, there is some justification for the State of Arkansas forbidding an atheist to testify in court. Testimony is offered "in the name of God." How can a man testify in the name of a God whom he does not think exists? No honest atheist would so testify. My friend has a great deal to say about Alexander Campbell’s attitude toward slavery. I am not obligated to defend Mr. Campbell’s position. A man may be influenced by his environment. Campbell lived among a people who believed in slavery. I do not know that he ever gave the question much consideration. I have a high regard for Brother Campbell. I believe him to have been a great and good man, but, as a Christian, with no denominational obligations, I have as much right to differ from him as from any other teacher. I am not a member of a church founded by Alexander Campbell. Mr. Smith should inform himself or refrain from speaking on that subject. My opponent denies that Ernst Haeckel was guilty of fraud. He does something for Mr. Haeckel that he refused to do for himself. Haeckel admitted that he "faked" the embryo pictures. Possibly some so-called scientists did vindicate him. Haeckel said "hundreds" of them were guilty of the same thing.
Mr. Smith says "morals" comes from the Latin "mores," meaning customs. It is easy to see that one’s customs (practices) bear close relation to his morals (as we now use the word). Granting that "good morals" are "good customs," does not help the position of atheism. What are good customs? What standard of customs (morals) does atheism offer? How can any man determine from atheism what are good customs, or morals?
Mr. Smith implies that religion was responsible for the terrible crime of Edward Hickman. Just the reverse is true; lack of religion and the presence of atheism caused this heinous crime. Just before Hickman was hanged he handed a message to Warden Holohan, who asked a newspaper man to read it aloud. Among other things, the statement contained these words:
"A young man who tries to build character without truth is like the house built on the sands. It is very dangerous for young men to neglect their spiritual welfare. During high school I took an interest in evolution and atheism and denied Christian faith. Therefore, I became susceptible to worse errors and finally took up crime and murder." (Clipped from press reports, by Free Tract Society, Los Angeles, Cal.).
You see we have from Hickman, himself, the reason for his crime. No doubt Mr. Smith can find where crimes have been committed by religious people. False religion may have contributed to some crimes; but the religion of Jesus Christ never caused any one to commit a crime. On the contrary, it is the strongest deterrent of crime the world has ever known.
If any individual atheists are moral, their morality is stolen from Christianity; they are moral because of the influence of religion upon their lives.
Christianity does not cause unhappiness in this world, as Mr. Smith charges. The spirit of the Christian religion is one of rejoicing. (See Php 3:1; Php 4:4; 1 Peter 1:8.) Christianity condemns those things that are not conducive to lasting happiness, and authorizes conduct that gives happiness "here and now," as well as eternal happiness.
It is only a misinterpreted Bible that produces unhappiness. What has caused more unhappiness than misunderstood science? Shall we condemn science because some have harmed themselves by a wrong application of its principles?
Christians did not kill Servetus. He was burned by fanatical apostates. Mr. Smith cannot consistently charge Christianity with such crimes, unless he can show that the Founder of Christianity sanctioned such deeds. This, he cannot do.
I do not believe in infant damnation any more than did Servetus. The Bible does not teach it; on the contrary, Jesus taught that children are fit subjects for the Kingdom of Heaven, (See Matthew 18:3; Matthew 19:14; Mark 10:14.) Our friend says every sensible man knows that Palestine is a barren country, and "has always been so." This is just another sample of his disregard for facts. That this land was at one time fertile and productive, a "land flowing with milk and honey," can be established by an abundance of authority outside of the Bible. Josephus, Jewish historian, says of the Galileans:
"Their soil is universally rich and fruitful, and full of the plantations of trees of all sorts, insomuch that it invites the most slothful to take pains in its cultivation by its fruitfulness; accordingly, it is all cultivated by its inhabitants, and no part of it lies idle. Moreover, the cities lie here very thick, and the very many villages there are here are everywhere so full of people, by the richness of their soil, that the very least of them contained above fifteen thousand inhabitants." (Jewish Wars, book 3, Chapter 3.) Tacitus, Roman historian, gives this testimony:
"The soil is rich and fertile; besides the fruits known in Italy, the palm and balm trees flourish in great luxuriance." (History, book 6, section 6.) Edward Gibbon, in his "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," says:
"From the age of David to that of Heraclius the country was overspread with ancient and flourishing cities." (Chapter 51.)
It is true that the country is now desolate. This condition was foretold by Old Testament writers. (See Leviticus 26:22; Leviticus 26:31-34; Deuteronomy 29:22-25.) Its desolation is a most minute fulfillment of these Old Testament prophecies. That Palestine was not always desolate, can be proved by infidel writers. C. M. F. Volney, comparing the present with the ancient condition of the country, says:
"We are informed by the philosophical geographer, Strabo, that the territories of Jamnia and Joppa in Palestine, alone were formerly so populous as to be able to bring forty thousand armed mien into the field. At present they could scarcely furnish three thousand. From the accounts we have of Judea in the time of Titus, and which are to be esteemed tolerably accurate, that country must have contained four millions of inhabitants; but at present there are not perhaps above three thousand * * There is nothing in nature or experience to contradict the great population of high antiquity; without appealing to the positive testimony of history, there are innumerable monuments that depose in favor of the fact." (Travels through Syria and Egypt.-1783-4-5, ch. 32.) The same infidel writer also says:
"The plain country is rich and light, calculated for the greatest fertility." (Travels, ch. 1, sec. 6.)
Because infidels do not want to admit the fulfillment of Moses’ prophecies, they assert that Palestine never flourished as the Bible says it did. But, unfortunately for their cause, they are refuted by reliable historians, as well as by their own writers. He who is familiar with history cannot fail to see in this country as it stands today, conclusive proof of the inspiration of the Old Testament writers.
Mr. Smith asks: "If the devil were to die, would God create another?" I think not, there are enough atheists in hell to fully replace him. I realize there is no sense in this answer; neither is there any in his question. I am forced to the advice of Solomon: "Answer a fool according to his folly."
Thomas Jefferson is brought up again. Not only was Jefferson not an atheist; he was not an infidel, in any sense that will help my opponent. In addition to the quotations from Jefferson I gave you last night, I Want you to hear him again:
"To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself." (Letter to Benjamin Rush, 1803, F. VIII, 223.) Referring to his "Philosophy of Jesus," Jefferson says:
"It is a document in proof that I am a REAL CHRISTIAN, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call ME infidel and THEMSELVES Christians and preachers of the Gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw." (Letter to Charles Thompson.) In a letter to his daughter, written In 1803, Mr. Jefferson characterized the charge that be was irreligious as "the libels published against me." Do these statements sound like Jefferson belonged in the, camp occupied by Smith? The faith of Jefferson cannot possibly be reduced to less than that of Unitarianism. The fact that he said, "I am a Materialist," proves nothing. There is now a religious sect known as Materialists. It depends altogether on how you use the term.
Mr. Jefferson certainly did not agree with Mr. Smith on the morality of Christianity. In a letter to Wm. Canby, 1813, he says:
"Of all the systems of morality, ancient and modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."
If I had time I could continue at length such quotations. Why did Mr. Smith bring Jefferson into this controversy anyway?
We are told that the Golden Rule "expresses enlightened self-interest." Can Mr. Smith give us a rule that will furnish better protection for the rights of others? A certain amount of interest in self is commendable. In the Golden Rule, and all other New Testament teachings, self-interest comes second to the interests of others. Jesus said:
"Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant; even as the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28.) Paul, in harmony with his Master’s teaching, said:
"Let no man seek his own, but every man another’s wealth." (1 Corinthians 10:24.) Can Mr. Smith see any unwholesome self-interest in this teaching? The charge that the Bible teaches the subjection of women comes with poor grace from Mr. Smith, after his having argued that women are inferior in intelligence. A sufficient answer is to remind him that it is in the countries where the Christian religion is accepted that woman occupies the highest position. Compare woman’s position in the United States with her position in Japan. In the East Indies it was for a long time the custom to burn the widow alive on the funeral pyre of her dead husband. What stopped this custom? The introduction of Christian civilization by Great Britain. Before the Bible was introduced to the American Indians, their women were made to do all the hard work, and then occupy the coldest place in the wigwam. The Bible lifts woman to her rightful place by man’s side—his co-partner and helpmate.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for we are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28.) Is the charge that the Bible sanctions intolerance of opinion, true? Jesus forbids us to judge our fellow men. (Matthew 7:1.) Paul, in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of Romans, advocates the most liberal attitude toward those who differ from us in matters of opinion. I quote a few of his statements:
"One believeth that he may eat all things; another eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him." (14:2,3.)
"One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (14:5.)
"Let us not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s way." (14:13.)
"Let us therefore follow after the things which make for his neighbor, for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not himself." (15:2,3.)
Now to the arguments on eugenics: It is charged that Christians try to save people who are physically weak. Thanks for the compliment. Christians do not feel at liberty to take a man’s life just because he is not physically strong. Christianity is not a brute philosophy; it deals with intellect and spirit, as well as flesh. Christianity does not place man on the level of a beast, and judge his value on a purely physical basis.
We are not discussing the question of legal sterilization of the physically unfit. Why avoid the main issue? Mr. Smith argued, in his tract, that for "the best male in a community to be the father of its children" would be the finest thing for the human race. I charged that this is immoral, vulgar and brutish. He does not deny the charge.
I do not know that Christianity opposes birth control, under certain conditions. An unnatural, illegal, mechanical birth control is opposed. I am not contending for the co-habitation of mental and physical defectives. In reality, the issue is: shall we accept the atheistic "survival of the fittest," and kill all the weak—or let them die, without attempting to save them? Or, shall we follow the humanitarian program of Christianity, in helping the helpless? The doctrine of "the survival of the fittest" is simply the old Iron Rule: "Might makes right." If I am stronger than you, and can, therefore, crush you, it is right for me to do so. Mr. Smith says the only standard of morals atheists have is based on "happiness here and now." I again ask him if it would be wrong, according to atheism, for me to knock a man unconscious and rob him. Judged by the atheist standard, if it contributed to my happiness "here and now," it would be right.
You will remember that I asked my opponent to tell us why it would be wrong to kill him. He offered no reason. He cannot offer a consistent reason. I suppose it is up to me to defend his right to live. I’ll tell you why it would be wrong to kill him; he has an immortal spirit, made in the image of God, and in spite of the fact that he has degraded and deformed the soul God gave him, it is still wrong to take his life. Let Mr. Smith offer a reason why it would be wrong! Listen to him carefully, and see if he attempts it.
Denying the Biblical standard of manhood as he does, my friend cannot prove that he is a man. He cannot prove that he is not a hog. In order to give him a chance to refute it, I charge that he is a hog! Now deny it and offer your evidence, Sir! In practice, if not in theory, the atheist recognizes a difference between men and animals. When an animal kills another of his species we do not try him in our courts. Why not? If a man, in a car, ran over Mr. Smith and injured him, he would probably sue the driver. If a horse kicked him, would he sue the horse? Even an atheist has more sense than that! What, then, is the difference? According to the atheist’s theory, there is no difference between a man and a horse. In closing, I maintain that I have fully established my charge that atheism is brutal, savage and immoral; that it offers nothing constructive, but is devastating in its results. Let me repeat: What must a man believe to be an atheist? Nothing. What must one do to be an atheist? Nothing. What must one be to be an atheist? Nothing!