FREETHOUGHT FROM ELSEWHERE

The Fundamentalist Menace

Mr. Charles T. Gorham writes in “The Literary Guide”:-

Only the resolute reasoner knows what Humanity has suffered from religion. The typical Christian is not interested in his faith and does not study its developments. To-day religion presents itself in two outstanding forms, widely differing in details, but each clinging firmly to the broken reed of authority: Rome on the one side, Protestant Bible-worship on the other. The Fundamentalist movement, which has been of late years, and still is, in full swing in the United States, is a religious phenomenon at once amusing and alarming. It is amusing because of its singular faith in human stupidity; alarming because it is trying hard, and with much success, to stifle human thought. It appears strange, but is not really so, for no one need be surprised at anything, however absurd, which springs from the union of pious zeal with invincible ignorance.

In his “War on Modern Science”, published last year in New York, Mr. Maynard Shipley, the well-known President of the Science League of America, relates the story of this remarkable outbreak of fanaticism. Religious intolerance is always with us, but only during the last few years has it taken in America the organized form known as “Fundamentalism,” which is substantially the old Inquisition with modern trimmings. It now claims to number more than twenty-five millions of the adult population of the United States, and is made up largely of the notorious Ku Klux Klan and two other organizations, the Bible Crusaders and the Supreme Kingdom, each of which is said to number at least five million supporters.

The avowed aim of the Fundamentalist movement is to kill the doctrine of Evolution – in fact, to suppress all knowledge which does not completely square with the teaching of the “Word of God.” One of its leaders has said: “Any man that does not believe the Bible… is a traitor to his country.” It is true the country has no State Church, but then it ought to have, and the Fundamentalists are out to make good that deplorable omission. Frantic efforts are being made to secure “compulsory teaching of the Bible in public schools and the establishment of Christianity as the State religion.” To the Fundamentalist there is, of course, only one form of Christianity, and that is his own. He has not the faintest doubt that translations of ancient documents produced long, long ago by unknown writers are in very truth the final authority in morals, history and science. There are, said one sage, only three books which are “necessary for any one to read”  the Bible, the hymn book, and the almanac – “therefore I am opposed to all libraries.” Charming husband and father! Men like that are ruling millions.

Here are the “minimum basic doctrines” of this cheery faith: “The inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible; the Virgin Birth and the complete Deity of Christ Jesus; the resurrection of the same body of Jesus which was three days buried; the substitutionary atonement of Jesus for the sins of the world; the second coming of Jesus in bodily form, according to the Scriptures.” Some of these doctrines may be in accordance with the Scriptures, but all of them are not, presuming, of course, that “the Scriptures” are rationally interpreted, a feat of which no Fundamentalist has yet proved him capable.

The teaching of Evolution and allied branches of science is to be absolutely suppressed, and in school text-books every reference, even indirect, which in any way countenances or recognizes Evolution, is to be struck out. In two States, Tennessee and Mississippi, these drastic measures have been passed, and for their violation penalties up to five hundred dollars may be imposed. Other Southern States, Mr. Shipely apprehends, are likely to fall victims to the foolish but splendidly organized forces of reaction; and even the more enlightened North is not beyond the danger zone. Anti-Evolution Bills have been introduced into the legislatures of many States, and lost only by small majorities. Texas has decreed that “no infidel, Atheist, or Agnostic shall be employed in any capacity in the University of Texas,” and such books as Mr. Well’s Outline of History have been publicly burnt. It is hoped by the fanatics, and feared by saner people, that at the Presidential elections next year the Fundamentalist octopus will clutch the greater part of the country in its tentacles. Should it do so, what will be the outcome? A State Church? If so, will it mean a Church which will insist on teaching Fundamentalist doctrines, or a Church pledged to obey the orders of the Vatican? On may expect difference of opinion on that matter.

How do these petrified bigots go about their work? By means of abuse, misrepresentation, and suppression of facts – by the methods of force.

One clerical gentleman terms the Modernists “a gang of Infidels… an insane set of ignorant educated fools who insist on lowering their own organic life to that of a monkey or animal. Take a jackass, a hog, and a skunk, and tie them together, and you have a scientific evolutionist or a Modernist.” This gang “should be exiled out of our country”. In one city the Ku Klux Klan, “decided definitely and positively that no Atheist should speak in that city.’ To the Fundamentalist every Modernist, every science teacher, is an Atheist like Voltaire and Paine, only far worse (admire the accuracy!), and his form of Christianity is the only one worth a red cent. One representative in Georgia declared: “My children shall not be subject to the inroads of scientists. We must protect them from the poison that is being injected.” Said another shining light: “If the Bible and the microscope do not agree, the microscope is wrong” It is so easy to prefer a theological inference to the testimony of one’s own senses. A minister whose name need not. be given, because charges of arson and murder have been laid against him, stated that Evolution is “the most damnable doctrine that has come out of the bottomless pit.”

These aberrations of the human mind form a curious psychological problem. Is it not astonishing that persons looking just like normal human beings, with some small particles of grey matter in their craniums, can thus rave against what they do not understand? For, be it observed, the fury is not the result of candid examination, but of willful ignorance. They fling aside with contemptuous abuse the idea of applying rational criteria to writings which they ignorantly revere as divine. They are blind to questions regarding the mental status of the writers of the Jewish Scriptures and the circumstances and times in which they were written, the criticism which might throw a great light upon them being regarded as impious. If such a nonsensical attitude were to become general in the United States, the future of that country would be indeed grave. The attitude will not, I think become general; but what limit can be put to the babblings of the willfully ignorant pietist? What is involved is a serious menace to human liberty in a country which was once called the land of liberty. A huge and thoroughly well organized revival of religious bigotry is in progress, and many people in Great Britain will give it a hearty welcome. The spirit of the Fundamentalist is the spirit of the persecutor, who would punish all opinions that differ from his own, and who relies upon an authority as fallacious and absurd as that of Rome. Does he realize what would be the effect on human welfare of the assassination of thought and the enthronement of stupidity? Does he suppose it possible to suppress Reason for ever? It cannot be. The intelligence of the United States is surely strong enough to meet this revolt of the intellectually unfit. Knowledge must be organized as ignorance has been. Who can doubt the issue of the struggle? Great is truth, and the hosts of ignorance shall not prevail against it. The Republic will be free when it proves itself worthy of its heritage.

– Revolt, 7 November 1928

A Bolshevik Archbishop.

Alpha writers in the Freethinker:-

We hope that we shall not bring ourselves within the law of libel, but we feel it to be our duty to the National Church, which is supported by all right minded men who support it, and towards Christianity, which is accepted by all good men – who accept it, to call attention to a remarkable passage in the enthronement sermon of the new Archbishop of Canterbury. Lifting up his voice, and standing in full view of the people, he distinctly exhorted them to practice thinking, not shouting.

The advice was so startling, coming from an Archbishop, that the newspapers very properly called attention to it in large headlines as being a “remarkable address.” And as the Archbishop was talking about religion they were to think. No wonder the papers called it a remarkable address. We go further, and say it is the most insidious, the most diabolical attack made on Christianity of recent years. It is equal to Mr. Maxton telling his followers that the time had come for shooting, not voting. We should not be surprised to discover that the Archbishop is a Bolshevik in disguise, that his very robes may have been purchased with money from Moscow. It is time that all true-blooded Protestants went into action.

Look carefully at this advice of our new Archbishop. What Scriptural warrant has he for the advice? None at all. Nowhere in the New Testament are we told that man is to be saved by thinking. Our Lord did not say that “All things shall be given to those who think,” but to those who believe. To be saved by thinking is, on the face of it, impossible. For the act of thinking might impose limitations on what we ask by showing the absurdity of some of the things we desire. It is by belief that man is saved, and we know that if you begin by believing that what you ask for will be given and continue by believing that what you asked for has been given, there could be no doubt as to the efficacy of prayer. It is by faith that great things are done; and it will be recalled that even our Lord could do no great works in certain cities because the people there did not believe. Had they believed that our Lord could do great works and also believed that great works had been done, the waves of unbelief would have beaten vainly against them. I have no doubt that in these cities the people had given themselves up to thinking, and so nullified the work of the world’s great teacher.

There is nothing in the enthronement of the Archbishop of Canterbury that has reference to thinking. He was not elected because of his capacity for thinking, but for his power of believing. Never is the appointment of a clergyman determined by thinking. The only thing asked in such cases is, what does he believe? When Bishop Barnes was objected to in Birmingham, the chief offence alleged was that he had been thinking. The official creed of the Church the Archbishop is sworn to protect, does not lay it down that to be saved a man must think. It says that the only thing that will save a man is belief. About this there has never been a shadow of doubt in any of the churches. It is the one thing on which there has been complete agreement. It is the one thing that has proved that Christianity believed in the absolute equality of man. It saw no distinction between the fool and the philosopher. It paid no regard whatever to what they thought, the sole question was, what did they believe?

Christianity is a democratic religion, and in the world of thought democracy has no existence.Thought is of all things the most aristocratic. It laughs at the doctrine of the equality of man, and established division that are easily recognized. And never in the history of the Christian Church has thinking been made the condition of the receipt of honour. In the history of the Church there is not single saint in the calendar who was canonized because he thought. Take any list of alleged portraits of the saints, and see if this is not true, on the face of them. Men have been evicted from the Church because they thought too much, but never because they did not think enough. In heaven, thinking is not one of the depicted occupations. Its inhabitants sing, dance, laugh, spend an occasional hour in watching the torments of the damned, but in heaven they do not think.

It is in hell that the thinking is done. For we are told that the damned sit there thinking of the eternity of their tortures, and the impossibility of escaping from them. According to the Christian scheme of salvation, men are saved because they believe certain doctrines. If they could not be saved until they understood them, their damnation would be certain.

The Archbishop tells us that what the Church needs most is peace. How is thinking going to secure this? When has thinking brought peace to the Church? The seed-plot of all the heresies that have troubled the Church of Christ is thinking. What is classic characteristic of Satan but pride of intellect, thinking setting itself against the devotees of the Almighty? Had Satan never thought, he might still be in heaven. There was recognition of this truth when orthodoxy met revolutionary thought with the epithet “child of the Devil’. When man applied the unlawful thinking to astronomy, the planets system upon which the Church relied was destroyed. And if one takes the disputes between Christians and scientists ever since, it will easily be seen that had these scientists believed more and thought less, the number of unbelievers would today be smaller than it is.

It was thinking that destroyed the flat earth upon which Our Lord relied, the demon which Our Lord taught caused all disease which has almost destroyed the fear of hell and greatly diminished the attractiveness of heaven. How did Paul become the follower of Christ? Not by thinking. So long as he thought he was its bitter enemy. It was walking along a road on a hot day that he suddenly saw a great light, fell down unconscious, and arose a Christian. Even then thinking might have destroyed the spiritual benefit of this message by taking it to be case of heat apoplexy. But to Paul it was no such thing. He did not say, let me think about what had happened to me, but let me believe.

Religious truth has come by illumination, by sudden inspiration, never by thinking. The lives of the most saintly characters teach this. Their prayer was never: “O Lord help my thinking”, but, “O Lord help thou my unbelief ”, make me believe, not make me think. And in one religious autography after another you will see how the Lord answered their prayers. When he made them believe he almost stopped their thinking.

And now we have an Archbishop urging this revolutionary, this incendiary doctrine upon his followers. Nothing like it has occurred before. Beaten in the attack on the Prayer Book, the enemy has now turned his attack in a new direction. I discern the hand of aethistic Russia in this. I suggest that an inquiry be held as to the Archbishop’s antecedents. Is he Russian? Has he any undisclosed sources of revenue? Darkest thought of all, is he really Cosmo Gordon Laing, or have the emissaries of Moscow murdered him, hidden his body, and then sent one of their representatives to masquerade in his stead? The subject is surely worthy of serious consideration.

– Revolt, 9 January 1929

Religions

Mr. Charles T. Gorham writes in the Literary Guide of February 1929:-

So great and so harmful are the excesses to which religion has given rise that one is sometimes tempted to regard religion as a disease. You never meet with a religionist who considers it a disease; he is like the consumptive who thinks he is in excellent health. And the more closely a man’s religion approaches to sanity the more likely will he be to treat its aberrations as due to the inborn depravity which we are supposed to have inherited because Adam and Eve sampled some forbidden fruit. Of course Adam and Eve never existed but those who believe they did seldom realize that our so called “first parents” seem to have had no particular religion before their “fall”; possibly they developed one afterwards. This may not mean that religion is an abnormal state of mind, for it must have existed long before the Garden of Eden was prepared for the unfortunate gardener who “lost his job” suddenly. Religion was a necessary outcome of the ignorance and the fear of the unknown which were everywhere manifested by primitive man. The modern student need not puzzle his head greatly as to whether religion is an innate or an acquired characteristic; he is concerned either with the extraordinary variety of the forms in which it has been manifested.

The tendency of religion to become fanatical may be explained by theologians to their own satisfaction, though by the lay mind the distinction is not readily grasped. Why should an instinct or impulse alleged to be divinely implanted so readily lend itself to ill-will, to violent and surly intolerance of other people’s opinions? The reason is that men feel strongly about religion, though why they should feel strongly on matters of which they know nothing or very little is a conundrum for the psychologist. This combination of strong with invincible ignorance has been the bane and the disgrace of religion. Reason is the sole antidote, and, so far, the human race as a whole has not shown any remarkable power of reasoning or any particular desire to possess it.

– Revolt, 13 February 1929

The Gospel of Reason

(‘Broadcasting Address’ by the Secretary of the Rationalist Press Association, delivered at the London Station)

This little address is called “The Gospel of Reason”, because I believe that if we all followed faithfully the light of Reason we should soon have the millennium here.

What is Reason? One might say it is simply the activity of the mind. If it is not the whole mind, it is by far the most important and the most reliable part of the mind; it is the function of drawing conclusions and forming judgments. It is the only instrument in our possession by which the statements may be analysed, compared, and supported or refuted. It is the means by which we see that thoughts and words are in harmony or out of harmony with fact – plain, undeniable fact.

For various causes some persons distrust reason. They jeer at the mistakes and failures of Reason – as if anyone claimed infallibility for it. They pounce upon every erroneous opinion of science as a proof that science is generally wrong. Parrot-like they trot out the phrase ‘science falsely so-called’, as if no true scientific method existed.

As long as all truth is not known there are certain to be errors and failures. But the effort to use our only means of gaining knowledge is more likely to result in worthy achievement than the deliberate refusal to employ them. Prove that reason cannot be trusted, and you would commit intellectual suicide. For how could that be proved except by reasoning?

Reason and faith are sometimes spoken of as if they were a great gulf fixed between them. That by no means follows. They are both mental processes. The only difference is that faith is tentative and incomplete knowledge – a groping in the twilight. Reason seeks by patient research to know the whole truth and rejoice in the sun light.

Reason tends for more than faith to promote unity of opinion. Faith is prone to run to all sorts of absurdities. But, if they reason, men are bound to agree when they see that a particular assertion precisely fits the fact. The difficulty with speculative opinions is that we have so few facts to go upon – sometimes none at all –and where assumptions are made to do duty for certainties it is Reason that determines which are most likely to be right.

Reason is not opposed to emotion, but regulates it. The emotions furnish valuable spurs to action, but all history shows how dangerous they become if Reason is deprived of its legitimate control.

Sincerity is one of the most beautiful moral qualities, but Reason enhances its value. You may with genuine sincerity act up to your convictions, but if they happen to be wrong convictions you may get into trouble. Ignorant sincerity has been the curse of the world, and religious persecution has been one of its fruits. The persecutors acted in accord with the spirit of their age. But it was an age which had not elevated Reason into the guide of conscience.

Reason is universal. Everyone uses it according to his capacity and knowledge. As the knowledge increases the capacity grows and Reason becomes better equipped for the work which every day has to be done. Its exercise brings out the best that is in man, just as physical training increases the power and efficiency of his frame.

The wise men of ancient Greece knew that Reason was the guiding principle of life. And in the book of “Proverbs’ the praise of the wisdom that is ‘above rubies” is the praise of the Reason. The old guesses at the secrets of the universe led to the revival of learning. The unknown inventors of the alphabet, of fire, of tools, of ships, of the mariner’s compass, of paved roads, and wheeled vehicles were the forerunners of the men to whom we owe printing, steam locomotion, the postal system, and the doctrine of evolution, telegraphy, and the wireless. All honour to the pioneer!

These things have not come by faith or vague spiritual aspirations that cannot be translated into deeds. They are the result of hard work, of resolute and incessant investigation of the ‘laws of nature’. We cannot explain the universe, but we can keep on trying.

Reason is opposed to authority as mere authority, because it has an objection to narcotics. If you accept authority without question, you deny Reason; you give up your intellectual birthright for a mess of pottage. If you wish to know whether authority is right, you must use your reasoning powers. Every man has a right to his private judgment, but he is morally bound to see that his judgment is as correct as he can make it.

Reason negates supernaturalism, because it sees no valid evidence for claims that assume interferences with natural law. Such claims are against the weight of evidence.

Reason dictates right conduct because it is found that right conduct is the best for everybody in the long run. The highest ideals are those which best serve the permanent interests of the race. There are no nobler ideals than those of truth and justice, and these have been evolved in the course of long experience.

Nature commands us to rise to the summit of our powers, to realize our highest capacities. The formula “Live according to nature” needs a little qualification. It means, follow the best that Nature has so far evolved and to do that, you must have faith in Nature’s power to overbalance evil by good.

Knowing that our strength is but feebleness that our temptations are many, and that in our ignorance we cannot reach ultimate truth, Reason enjoins universal tolerance, universal sympathy, and universal charity to all shades of speculative opinion. Men do not willfully embrace error.

Reason is essentially constructive. To remove error is to clear the way for advancing truth. Reason does not disintegrate; it binds. It aims at the fullest liberty of others. Its duty is to discriminate between opinions and, where a decision cannot be arrived at, to hold the judgment in suspense.

This test has to be applied to all debatable questions, with special relevance, one may say to questions of religion, and we should face the result without fear or favour. If the endless difficulties of religion are ever to be cleared up, it will be by fresh light shed on them by Reason and research.

Finally, Reason bids us to be hopeful of man’s future, because so much has been achieved in the past. Through all the struggle, all the folly, all the suffering, Reason has held aloft the torch that guides humanity along its devious way; nor need any fear that process of improvement is about to end. To point men to the great heritage of the past, to awaken them to glorious powers and possibilities, to urge the cultivation of Reason, is to preach the only gospel that will endure, because it stands on the ‘impregnable rock’ of Truth.

– Revolt, 27 March 1929

What is Truth?

Jesus answered: “To this end was I born and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness into the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice,”’

Pilate saith unto him: “What is truth?”

According to the belief in which most of us have been brought up, Pilate’s question was answered almost as soon as it was spoken. The act of crucifixion, to which he delivered Christ, was the climax of a revelation. A divine revelation. A revelation designed by God for the eternal illumination of the human mind and the complete salvation of the human soul.

That was about two thousand years ago. Today the vast majority of people are not even nominally Christian. Among those nominally Christian the majority are either openly skeptical or merely indifferent, while the minority are riven into sects perpetually disputing over the real meaning of the revelation.

Since the dawn of organized Christianity the argument “about it and about” has never ceased. Among the first Christians there were differences of opinion on whether Christ had come to save the Jews in particular or the Gentiles in general. Early Church Councils were marked by violent and sometimes bloody recriminations on points of divine doctrine. When the Church grew powerful it developed its missionary service on a large scale and finding even its supernatural message slow of acceptance hastened the good work of conversion with crusades of slaughter and pillage.

Later, from within the Church itself, there grew up an organized revolt against the errors which the Church taught. The reformers claimed to have found the true truth in the Bible, not in the traditions of the Church. Since the Reformation the Roman Church has held obstinately to its error, while the Protestents have produced a multitude of competing sects each one claiming to represent the genuine essence of the divine revelation.

A hundred years ago every Protestant believed without the least hesitation, that the Bible was literally the Word of God. Today this belief survives here and there as a mental curiosity. Among educated people it has vanished, along with the religious belief in miracles, in the efficacy of holy relics, in the earth being the centre of the Universe, in the existence of demons, in witchcraft, in the eternal damnation of all but a few selected souls.

We know now that these and kindred beliefs are false. Yet they were once beliefs defended by the Church – the inheritor of divine truth – with banishment, torture and death.

While the “truth” of two thousand years ago has been dissolving under dispute and doubt, a new body of truth has been forming and strengthening. It is the truth which the Churches, from the days of Galileo, have sought to slay – the truth we gain from the patient study of our bodies, our minds, the earth beneath us, the stars above us. Each generation has added to the mosaic of sciences and made firmer and clearer the message that knowledge bears for the guidance of human endeavour.

Pilate’s question may never be fully answered. But we have at last set our feet on the path that leads to the answer.

– R.P.A. Tracts for the Millions

Revolt, 24 April 1929

God and the Elections

Mention of the election suggest just one other thing. Religious considerations, have bulked rather largely n this election, writes Mr. Chapman Cohen in The Freethinker, as I suggested some time back they would. There are quite a number of Non-conformist parsons putting up for Parliament, and some will certainly get in. Cardinal Bourne calls upon Roman Catholics to make a promise to put “Rome on the rates” – more than is the case at present, a test question, and to vote only for such candidates as will promise their help. Never mind any other issue, he says, let this one be decisive. Help the Church first, and let all other things come afterwards. That is all quite usual, so far as talk is concerned, but what part does genuine religion play in it? The Catholic Church has arranged the usual excursions to Lourdes and brought back its usual bath of “cures.” Not to be behind hand, certain sections of Protestants have tabulated their list of miracle cures. The Yorkshire Vicar thinks he can get good crops by praying over the fields. The Bath parson thinks he will help the tobacconist by blessing his shop. But none of these people even claim that the election figures will be decided by similar means. They tell you that it is God’s will you shall act in this or that manner, the Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a prayer – at one penny a dozen which will inform God almighty what his followers expect from him, but none of them appear to place much reliance upon God in the matter of the election. They seem to place no more reliance upon God than did King George and Queen Mary during the Kings recent illness! Yet, surely, if God can help the fishing industry after the blessing of the nets, if he can boost a tobacconist’s business or procure good crops, surely, he can manage such a little thing as a general election!.

Perhaps, the real reason why these political gentlemen do not leave it to God, is that an election is a definite affair, and the result can be seen within a very short time. Recovery from illness, growing a crop etc., are things on a different footing. The element of uncertainty is present and where that exists religious opinion has always a chance. Besides, looking after the crops has always come within the province of the medicine man and something is to be said for the power of association. After all, we do not become intelligently reasonable by putting on trousers nor scientific by driving a motor car. The medicine man is a medicine man whether dressed in a black suit with a dog collar, or with a scanty covering of paint and feathers. To say that, means also that his followers, while following him in a change of dress, remain loyal to him in the continuity of their mental outlook. Savagery belongs to no particular time, but runs through all time, in diminishing quantity, one hopes, but it is there. And today all these primitives have a vote at least in this country.

Revolt, 23 June 1929

What do the Clergy Think About?

Mr. Irving Levy writes in The Truthseeker

The question frequently arises as to whether the clergy as a whole are not in the moron class. Their infantile attitude towards the problems of life and their absurd standards of conduct justify such an inquiry. Here is the mental pabulum they serve as culled from their sermons of Sunday, March 24 and reported in the New York Press of the following day.

Read and weep or laugh, as the spirit moves you.

No. I

One hundred and twenty people were burned to death while viewing a picture at a cinema theatre in Vladimir, Russia. At the public funeral the village priest relived himself of the following during the course of his sermon:

“This would never have happened in the old days when men feared God. It is a judgment upon an unbelieving generation. The victims who perished in the flames died quickly. But what about the eternal flames of hell that await sinners and blasphemers and those who deny god’s name?”

Bless you, dear priest, for your sweetness of character.

No. 2

Theology and nonsense hold close kinship. A perfect example is the following vaporizing of Rev. R. A. Brown of the New York Glad Tidings Tabernacle:

“Electricity is the best agent by which we can illustrate the workings of the Holy Ghost. Electricity can do almost anything. The same is true of the Holy Ghost.”

Cross word puzzlers and mental magicians, get busy and try to make sense out of this verbiage.

No. 3

While the next exhibit is not a clergyman he might readily be mistaken for one. The speaker is Supreme Court Justice Callaghan, the gathering the Bible class in Brooklyn. He stated that Bible classes reduced criminality and added this amazing statement:

“Every man should go to church whether he believes in God or not for the good example he is setting for the youth”.

A splendid instance of important role hypocrisy plays in religion!.

No. 4

Bishop J. L. Larned of Long Island got away with this one:

“The existence of hospitals and the changed status of women in the modern world and similar matters are the result of Christian influences”.

Do not Biblical teachings advocate healing by prayer, and do not Paul and the Christian fathers literally wipe the floor with woman? And do not the facts of history belie these pious assertions?

What is a mere untruth among religionists!

No. 5

For temerity, this specimen arouses admiration.

The Rev. J. S. Durkee of Brooklyn very modestly says:

“The plan and program of Jesus Christ are the last words in financial, social political and religious wisdom”

Away with all schools, teachers, books, and studies. Let us follow Jesus – to chaos.

No. 6

The Rev. R. Norwood of Park Avenue Church can shake hands with his brother priest from Vladimir, Russia. In his sermon he said: “The World War is an example of how God may bring a scourge to stop blasphemy”, and then warns his audience that God is prepared to wreak his vengeance today for misdeeds, making specific reference to the oil scandals of Washington.

Nice prospect! Will the Lord limit his punishment solely for the guilty ones?

Thus speak the representative clergymen of an enlightened section of our country. And millions of misguided people look to this class for guidance.

– Revolt, 29 May 1929