A Dispute Between Rustic (Moses Harman) & Sylvester, 1880

Republished from the Valley Falls New Era, this dispute led to the creation of Moses’s newspaper

From Peter’s Creek – Sylvester, 4/17/1880

Planting corn and sowing oats. Our lyceum has closed for the season. Spring, with its bloom, its song, its verdure,
and all its invigorating influences, is upon us. John Strinback, of Oregon, who was visiting friends here, and who
wanted to buy a farm until the deed was ready to sign, stepped out suddenly, leaving behind him the impression
that he is a healthy “dead beat.” We presume that if the members of the “Liberal League” fail to induce the Christian
people to “combat” with them upon Bible doctrines, they will not allow their patriotism to languish, but will turn their
batteries at once upon some other “evil” which is “pernicious in its tendencies” and threatens the stability of our
republican institutions. We look for great achievements in moral and political reform. We don’t belong to “meetin’,”
but we desire to know if we are to take some of the episodes of their lives for our standard of morals, instead
of the examples of true Christianity found in that “inimical and pernicious” Bible. The L.L.’s will excuse us, but
it always did amuse us to see a few gnats on a carriage wheel calling to the folks within to take off those
“inimical and pernicious” horses and let us run this thing alone.

A Word to Sylvester – Rustic, 4/19/1880

MR. EDITOR: Please allow a sun-browned “clodhopper” a few words in reply to your worthy reporter, “Sylvester.”
I do not wish to be considered the “champion” of those Quixotic L. L.’s whom he thinks are so eager for a fray with
somebody or something, but simply as a lover of fairness. I would ask a few questions. S. asks if we are to take
some of the episodes in their lives for our standard of morality instead of the examples found in the Bible. So far
as I know, the L. L.’s have never set themselves up as patterns of morality; but if the comparison must be made
between their lives and those of ordinary Christians, or even those of some of the Bible worthies, I think they
need not shrink from the ordeal. Would “Sylvester” have us take pattern after certain “episodes” in the life of
Abraham, for instance, the “father of the faithful”? Or of David, the man after God’s own heart? Or of Solomon,
the wisest of men? Freeman, of Pocasset notoriety, took pattern after Abraham and killed his child. Libertines
and murderers take pattern after David, when he took Uriah’s wife and slew her husband; and after Solomon,
when he ordered his brother to be put to death and took to himself one thousand wives and concubines. Finally,
S. compares Liberals to a few gnats on a carriage wheel, meaning, I suppose, that they are too insignificant to
deserve attention except as objects of derision. Now this strikes one as rather “rich,” in view of the fact that a
large majority of the foremost men in the scientific world, together with a large proportion of the statesmen,
orators, etc., of the present day, are Liberals, or infidels, so called. And as to their morals, the statement was
made in a public lecture lately in town, by one well informed, that of the four hundred and fifty leading men of
science in Europe and America who are also Liberals, not one has even been accused of disgraceful crime.
Could the same be truthfully said of an equal number of the most prominent ministers of the church?

A Word to “Rustic” – Sylvester, 5/1/1880

DEAR RUSTIC:—As you announce yourself as simply a lover of “fairness,” and as your “League” announces the
following in their communication—“Of course it is understood that the League is not responsible for the conduct
or characters of its individual members. Every man answers for himself”—I ask where is the fairness of selecting
a poor lunatic who, in his insanity, killed his child, and, because that lunatic belonged to a church, charging the
murder to the Bible? We believe no Christian was ever mean enough to charge the murders committed by crazy
unbelievers to infidelity. In the same spirit of unfairness, you take advantage of the fact that the Bible historian
gives the evil as well as the good deeds in each individual’s life; and you enumerate the sins of David as though
they were Bible teaching, neglecting to give the Bible teaching in that very case: “But the thing David had done
displeased the Lord,” as set forth in the rebuke of David by the prophet Nathan. You also enumerate Solomon,
but neglect to say that the Bible condemns him in his sins: “And Solomon did evil in the sight of the Lord,” etc. In
short, because God didn’t make angels out of those old “worthies” before dealing with them as men, you would
have the world believe that the God of the Bible was responsible for the sins of their humanity. Then you make a
ridiculous assertion about the “foremost men in the scientific world”; but if true, and however “rich” it may seem
to you, the scientific world has very little to do in making the laws and controlling the destinies of this nation. And
judging from the history of the past, there is nothing so unreliable, nor so liable to be changed, as the theories
of speculative science. You quote a statement of a “Liberal” lecturer that of the “four hundred and fifty leading
men of science in Europe and America who are also ‘Liberals,’ not one has ever been accused of disgraceful
crime.” Now, my dear sir, if a Christian man—or an angel—had told you that the “four hundred and fifty leading
men of science in Europe and America” were “Liberals,” you would have known he lied. But if a “Liberal” lecturer
were to tell you that Tom Paine wrote the Commandments, or first preached Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, I
believe you would swallow it down.

In regard to being “accused of disgraceful crime,” I believe that that great Liberal light, the editor of the Truth Seeker,
is in prison for sending obscene literature through the mails. I recall a case of that kind during my school days: two
books of that nature were sent to students in the school. The name of one I have forgotten; the other was The Lustful
Turk, and its name was a fair index to its contents. I remember with what eagerness a few boys devoured the filth
of those books, and I believe that was the starting point of their afterward disgraceful lives—but they grew to be
stalwart “Liberals.” Also, the most rampant “Liberal” lecturer I ever heard abuse the Bible was turned out of the
Evangelical Lutheran ministry and church in Cincinnati for adultery; and yet the “Liberals” applauded him vociferously.
But if the church were to be half so diligent in scenting out and heralding abroad the sins of “Liberals” as the
“Liberals” are the shortcomings of gospel ministers, there would be room for nothing else in the newspapers.
But perhaps you are ignorantly helping to fulfill the prophecy: “But know this also, that in the last days perilous
times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient
to parents, unthankful, unholy, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God…Yea,
and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.” Your “League” also boasts that many of them
have been church members. They are then, of necessity, either backsliders or hypocrites, having drawn on the
sheep’s hide to deceive someone. We presume there are plenty in the church today of the same sort who will
make good “Liberals” after they are sheared. Yet your “League” claims that whatever their faults are, hypocrisy is
not one of them. Indeed, what do they call it when one of their members, for political purposes, denies the League
and makes some folks think he could almost preach Christ in the synagogue; or another, to secure a country
school, declares to the Christian school board in solemn tones, “Mine is the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and I know no other,” and subsequently asserts to another person that the Bible is a pack of lies and that the
man Jesus Christ never lived?

Now, you gentlemen of the L. L. seem greatly exercised because the Christian people don’t send someone to meet
your Goliath. I have talked to some of them about it, and their reason seems to be good. In the first place, when their
millions of witnesses—who have testified, and are now testifying through all their lives and on their dying beds, to
their individual conscious knowledge of the reality of the Christian religion—you “Liberals” denounce the evidence
as false, and either brand them as “liars,” “hypocrites,” or poor deluded children of superstition. They regard this
as trampling their best pearl under your feet and turning again to rend them. Even Christians do not wish to be
called “liars,” “hypocrites,” or “fools” to their faces and be required to keep good tempers. Then some of them have
discussed with you in the past, and your champions would select only from the historical portions of the Bible the
record of some man’s wickedness—sometimes of one not represented at all as a good man—and would claim the
record of his evil deeds as the teaching of the God of the Bible. I heard that argument myself and regarded it as
disgustingly silly. Now, we told you before, we don’t belong to “meetin’,” but we will discuss your question with your
Goliath if you will first discuss the following with us: RESOLVED, That there is no such thing as daylight. You the
affirmative, and we the negative. You have exactly the same proofs in my question as in yours—which is that
those who are blind, those who are asleep, and those who wilfully hold their eyes shut cannot and do not see it.

Word to Sylvester, No. 2 – Rustic, 5/8/1880

FRIEND SYLVESTER: You have attempted a reply not only to Rustic but to the V. F. L. League. This imposes a
difficult task upon me. You seem to treat the League and “Liberalism” as somewhat synonymous. The League
has only a very recent origin and is secular in its aims, as you may see by its platform. It cannot be said to have
a moral code. Liberalism, however, is old, and has a well-defined code. The true Liberal, as the name indicates,
is one who claims absolute freedom for himself, so long and so far as he does not infringe the rights of others.
This is the cardinal principle of Liberalism, and, as will be seen, embodies the very highest morality known to
civilized man; and he who habitually violates it is not a good Liberal. For lack of space I can only touch lightly
upon the different points of your article, but promise to answer them in full if you desire it, and will call on me
personally. First. You accuse me of “unfairness” because I select a poor lunatic, etc. The only sign of “lunacy”
in Freeman’s case was his great faith in the Bible, and you certainly know it if you read the case attentively. He
believed that the Bible meant just what it said about the working of miracles in answer to faith. He also believed
that what the church needs most in these latter days is a new miracle; also, that God required the same kind of
test of his faith that He did of Abraham—i.e., the sacrifice of his child. Hence the very logical result. If Freeman
was a lunatic, then his wife and church were so also, for they sustained him in the act. And further, my dear sir,
if Freeman was a lunatic, what must we say of all our good friends whose creeds bind them to a literal rendering
of the Biblical text? Is it not fortunate for the race that Bible believers are better than their creeds would make
them? No Christian was ever mean enough, etc. Gently, friend S., let us keep cool. Losing one’s temper is not
the best sign of a good cause, you know. And you enumerate the sins of David as though they were Bible
teaching. Look again, and you will see that I did nothing of the kind. I simply accepted your challenge to
compare the lives of Liberals with the examples found in the Bible. I did not say the Bible sanctioned the
deed. But since you spring the issue, I will ask: where does the Bible condemn polygamy, concubinage,
massacre, and mutilation of dead bodies?

As in the case of David, when he butchered two hundred Philistines and mutilated their dead bodies for the booty
wherewith to purchase a wife? You think my assertion ridiculous concerning the “foremost men of science,” etc.
Maybe so, but I still think it true; also that there is nothing so reliable as the deductions of that science whose
triumphs have raised man from primitive barbarism to his present condition in the civilized world. And it still
seems to me that such men as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Lincoln, Greeley, Wendell Phillips, Carl Schurz,
etc., have had something to do with the making of the laws and controlling the destinies of the country; and
these are or were all stalwart Liberals, if I am not misinformed. As to the statement of the Liberal lecturer, the
word the should not have preceded four hundred. With this correction I gave it for what it was worth, and
presume it is substantially true and susceptible of reasonable proof. As for the “swallowing” business, I turn
that over to where it belongs. Liberals are the only people who claim and exercise the right to question all
things. Church people must swallow the whole book—the bitter with the sweet—and also the dicta of the
authorized expounders of the same. No one claims the editor of the Truth Seeker as a man of science; and
while I admit that he was accused of sending obscene matter through the mails, I can show by very good
authority that the charge was never proved, and that his trial and imprisonment constitute one of the greatest
outrages ever committed in this country in the name of justice. As to your schoolmates, ex-minister, etc., I as
confidently pronounce them bad Liberals as you would pronounce the most profligate roughs in the country
(most of whom believe the Bible) to be bad Christians. No class of people are more opposed to obscenity
than are true Liberals—so much so, indeed, that one of their chief objections to the Bible is that it contains
too much of that kind of reading.

In reply to your very charitable assumption that I am probably helping to fulfill prophecy by being one of those
covetous, proud, blasphemers, etc., it can pass for a specimen of religious toleration. You quote, “And all that
will live godly, etc., shall suffer persecution.” Friend S., did you ever read the little story of the wolf that accused
the lamb of persecuting him? And don’t you know that from the time that Christianity, so called, seized the reins
of the Roman Empire till the imprisonment of the editor of the Truth Seeker, it has persecuted more for opinion’s
sake than all other religions put together? You are quite welcome to apply the word backslider to one who, having
once burst the shackles of orthodoxy, has progressed to that plane where he is no longer under bondage to that
fear which hath torment. As for the term hypocrite, let the facts show to whom it belongs. Of course it is not claimed
that there are no cheats in the Liberal ranks; all that is meant is that as a class they are not hypocritical. You
mention the case of a politician and also of a teacher. The charge with regard to the first is rather too vague to
be considered personal; but with regard to the latter it is very nearly so. As I happen to be one of the very few
teachers belonging to this league, I call upon you, as an honorable man, to make your charge a little more specific;
then prove or retract it. I hope you do not consider it necessary to bolster up your cause by making charges which,
if untrue, are little less than slanderous. As to the reasons alleged for declining the “challenge of the L. L.’s,” if
any man claiming to be Liberal has treated you or your friends in the way you mention, I would simply say he is
not a good Liberal; he violates the cardinal principle aforesaid. But surely you do not mean to say that the conscious
knowledge of millions of witnesses should be received by others as positive proof of the reality of the Christian
religion? You are no doubt aware of the well-known fact that the devotees of nearly all religions claim the same
“conscious knowledge,” and are willing to make equal sacrifices for their religion.

And now, for your final proposition. If it means anything at all, it must mean that you, and those whose cause you
so evidently represent (notwithstanding the disclaimer that you don’t belong to meetings), cover your retreat from
our challenge by thus charging us with wilful mental blindness or moral dishonesty. In plain English, because we
do not view the Bible as you do, we are of necessity either fools or knaves. Of course, self-respect allows us only
to reply to this by asking our readers, “How is this for fairness?” How is this for a land that boasts religious toleration?
Space fails; but as this may be my last letter on this subject, allow me a few words for myself and at least some
other Liberals. While we maintain that the Bible, as a divine revelation, has been the cause of woes unnumbered
to the human race, yet we would by no means throw it all away. Take away its divine character, and treat it as
any other book—i.e., select the good and reject the bad; in other words, expurgate it—and it becomes not only
harmless but worthy of high honor. Many Liberals are strong believers in the “Christ Principle,” as we understand
it. In fact, we claim Jesus of Nazareth as one of us—as one of the most distinguished Liberals the world has
known. He was most decidedly “infidel” to the church of his time—a “backsliding” Jew—and was persecuted
to death for his “infidelity.” And if his religion could have been kept pure, it would truly have proved what it was
intended to be—the “gospel,” or good news. But unhappily, after his death his followers deified him, and engrafted
upon his religion of love and liberality the religion of hate and intolerance. Hence it is that Christianity, so called,
has been, on the whole, more of a curse than a blessing to mankind. Good night, friend Sylvester. When next
you write for the ERA, it is to be hoped that you will exhibit a little more of that “charity that thinketh no evil.”

Reply to “Rustic.” – Sylvester, 5/22/1880

“With that charity that thinketh no evil,” and a knowledge that “by their fruits ye shall know them,” I will proceed
with your No. 2. Your League is challenging for a discussion of the code of morals taught by the Bible, and you
claim that the League has no code of morals at all. One of the first steps in organizing a society of any kind for
the moral improvement of mankind is to adopt a code, and as you have none, why should Christians be abused
for preferring Christianity to your Liberalism? And who is there in this broad land of ours who does not enjoy
absolute freedom so long as he does not infringe upon the rights of others? You charge the insanity of poor
Freemian to his great faith in the Bible. I knew a man who went crazy over the invention of a bridge, but nobody
blamed the bridge; and another who became deranged over the invention of a machine for the lap-welding of
sheet iron, but neither the machine nor the sheet iron should be censured. Another, whose brain was racked
over a Bible concordance—yet a concordance isn’t a bad thing to have—and a poor woman who, in a fit of
insanity, cut her throat because her son volunteered in the army, and yet patriotism is commendable. Your
charge is simply absurd. You ask, where does the Bible condemn polygamy, concubinage, massacre, and
mutilation of dead bodies? Did you ever read the commandments? I ask, where does it sanction such? You
think there is “nothing so reliable as the deductions of that science whose triumphs have raised man from
primitive barbarism to his present condition in the civilized world.” What science do you mean? Was it taught
by opposers of the Bible? If so, why has it not raised China, Turkey, etc.? History tells us the Chinese of
ancient times had attained a considerable degree of civilization, but have made no further progress to the
present day. Why has not science raised Africa, whose people have never been cursed with the Bible?
Why are not those Indians who know nothing of the Bible as civilized as those who have embraced
Christianity? Why were not the people of the Sandwich Islands civilized before their conversion to
Christianity? Why do Liberal scientists never venture where the missionaries of Christ have not
already civilized the people?

Idolatry, superstition, and barbarism have only been successfully assailed and overthrown by the Bible.
Rome, Greece, and other ancient nations once worshipped the mythic deities of Grecian mythology, and
it is due to the Bible alone that you and I, with all our boasted science, are not worshipping those deities
or bowing to images of wood and stone today. You still claim four hundred and fifty leading scientists
as Liberals. What are they doing toward elevating the race? Why have they never built, endowed, nor
conducted a college in this country? The Bible teaches that wisdom is better than rubies; therefore,
Christian people are continually building academies, colleges, and universities all over the land, besides
paying their share of taxes for the common schools. While Liberals, by scurrilous attacks upon the Bible,
succeed in drawing a few fourth-rate intellects from among the students into their ranks, and then by
advertising them into notoriety make the ignorant think them leading scientists. If you have such a large
proportion of respectable citizens as you claim, why is it that you do not—and never will—build an
educational institution in this country? You claim Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Greeley, and Jesus
Christ as stalwart Liberals, yet there are men and women now living whose fathers often heard
Washington praying in the seclusion of the forest; and it is a matter of history that he read a sermon
over Braddock’s grave and was a member of the Episcopalian Church. And your League says that
Washington said in his treaty with Tripoli that this government is in no sense founded upon the
Christian religion. How is that for a bolstering assertion, since Washington died in 1799 and the
war with Tripoli was not until 1803, and the treaty was made June 4, 1795, by Consul General Lear?

In regard to Franklin, we challenge you to produce any of his writings which prove him to have been an
infidel; but we do not take yours or any Liberal lecturer’s bolstering assertion. And though Lincoln was
perhaps not a church member, yet his messages and proclamations were so blended with a fervent piety
and trust in God that no reasonable man could call him an infidel. And anyone who has read Greeley’s
Recollections of a Busy Life knows that he was no infidel. And Christ continuously enjoined upon men
the study of the Scriptures. He summed up the law and the prophets in one grand statement of duty and
set it forth as the whole duty of man, while you claim the Bible as too obscene to be studied and as the
“cause of woes unnumbered to the human race.” He claimed to be the Son of God, while you say his
followers deified Him and “engrafted upon his religion of love the religion of hate and intolerance,” and
your League class primitive Christians with Oneida free-lovers, Shakers, and Mormons; and yet the
infidel historians of the first few centuries commended primitive Christians for their loyalty, honesty,
virtue, and peaceful habits, but ridiculed their faith. You say, “Many Liberals are strong believers in the
Christ principle as we understand it.” I demand a straightforward answer to the following questions:
When He declared Himself the Son of God, the Judge of the living and the dead, did He tell the truth,
or did He lie? When He promised to attest His divine commission by rising from the dead on the third
day, had He any such power, or did He only mean to play a juggling imposture? Is Jesus Christ the
Son of the living God, or a deceiver? You say that Christianity on the whole has been more of a curse
than a blessing to mankind, and your League suggests that it was the ascendancy of the Church that
caused the superlative darkness of the later Dark Ages.

Yet it was not until the enemies of the Bible had destroyed all the Bibles they could obtain and had set
themselves up “as God,” to do as prophesied of them before and in the name of Christ to reveal “the man
of sin,” that the superlative darkness began. I did not say the editor of the Truth Seeker was a scientist,
but “that great Liberal light.” I do not accuse Liberal leaders of being scientists at all. If you can show by
good authority that the charge against him was never proved, why didn’t you do it and save him from
punishment? You pronounce that ex-minister a bad Liberal; then why was he so much applauded by
good Liberals? I do not pronounce roughs to be Christians at all, much less applaud them. You say,
“Christianity, so called, has persecuted more for opinion’s sake than all other religions put together,” and
your League accuses the churches of working might and main to secure a departure from the principles
for the liberty of which this government was established, by trying to incorporate the Bible into the
Constitution and by sending good men to languish in prison for no crime except that of opposing the
Bible and daring to assert their rights as freemen. That is beyond the pale of the absurd; it borders
on the infamous. Ecclesiastical courts do not imprison men in this country, and no Christian is willing
that they should. But let us examine this “persecuting” business a moment. How about the wholesale
massacres of primitive Christians by their infidel opposers, and the cruel destruction of thousands of
Christians by crucifixion, burning alive, and being covered with the skins of wild beasts and devoured
by dogs, under the direction of the great infidel leader Nero and his compeers? And the grand triumph
of Liberalism in France in 1793, when the churches were plundered, the Sabbath abandoned, and the
Convention decreed the abolition of the Christian religion in France; the worship of Reason was substituted
in its stead, and a prostitute set up as Reason’s goddess. They destroyed the Bibles, changed the calendar
and the names of the months, made the year commence from the birthday of the French Republic,
butchering millions of men, women, and children “for opinion’s sake,” shooting down children from
two years old to fourteen by the hundreds at one time—pushing little children who were clinging to
them, begging for their lives, far enough away to shoot them.

This shows what men of your belief have done when they had the power. You call upon me to make my
charge in regard to the teacher more specific, then prove or retract it. My informants in regard to the first
statement were Isaac Morford, J. M. May, Wilson Griffith, and Mrs. J. M. May, who was also present; and
on the last statement, Samuel Lampman. If you will ask them, they will tell you who the teacher was, and
then I will find out who you are—which I very much desire to know. And several of us would like to know
who your League are, for a friend of Christianity came nearly twenty miles the other day to arrange with
your large and respectable portion of the community, etc., for your challenged discussion; and although
some of the Christian people referred him to everyone in the city whom they supposed were Liberals,
yet after a day’s hunting he had to return without finding a man who would claim any knowledge of the
matter. I am not aware that any other religion except the Christian is accepted from a conscious knowledge
of its reality. The devotees of others make sacrifices from a vague, blind belief that good will follow or that
evil will be averted. I fear you consider it necessary to bolster up your cause by charges which may be
untrue and slanderous. Have you examined calmly and according to the best of your ability the arguments
by which the truth of revealed religion may, in the judgment of learned and impartial men, be established?
You will admit that thousands of learned and impartial men in all ages have embraced revealed religion as
true. Whether these men have all been in error, enveloped in the darkness of ignorance, shackled by the
chains of superstition, while you and a few others have enjoyed light and liberty, is a question you will please
answer. You want to “expurgate” the Bible. Would you reject as bad the historical portions which record the
sins of otherwise good people, that we may shun the snares into which they fell, or its divine teaching as to
our duty to God and our fellow man?

Let me suggest to you that the word Liberal is a misnomer for your League, for you have no liberality as
regards Christianity; and as opposition to Christianity is the only principle upon which you all agree, the
word adversary would suit you better. And as the word Satan in the Hebrew means adversary, let me
suggest that it would be a more appropriate name, and a better index to its character, to substitute the
word “Satan’s” for “Liberal.” And would it not also be very appropriate to have some sort of suggestive sign
hanging out—say, for instance, an image of his Satanic majesty, with his huge horns, his cloven feet, and
in his right hand his sceptre, his left holding his long, slim, barbed tail, and beneath his feet the Bible? This
you could place over the entrance of your Eden, and circling over it in large letters its name: “SATAN’S
LEAGUE OF VALLEY FALLS.” Then all could tell at a glance its character, and those who desire light (?),
upon science, history, and morality (as it cannot be obtained elsewhere), could step in and be informed.

The Reply to “Sylvester.” – Rustic, 6/5/1880

You say “with that charity that thinketh no evil,” etc. To our readers your charity may have the genuine ring, but
to the dull perceptions of an infidel it sounds very much like the charity of Torquemada, Bishop Bonner, John
Calvin, and Co., who loved infidel heretics so much that they gave them a foretaste of their doom in the next
world by treating them to fire and tortures in this. In other words, your charity is strongly suggestive of thumb
screws and sulphur. But I suppose we must not blame you for that. From your theology, or rather mythology,
standpoint it is utterly impossible that you should be otherwise than intolerant. Your creed itself is the very
essence of bigotry and intolerance. “Believe (as I do) or be damned” is the option it gives us. The chief
difference between you and those old-time inquisitors is that they followed their creed to its logical results;
you do not. Therefore they were much better Christians than you and your friends are. John Calvin struck
the keynote of orthodoxy when he said, “They who say it is unjust to burn heretics are equally guilty with
them,” and, of course, should be likewise burned. And why not? If God will forever burn heretics in the
next world, and we are commanded to be like Him and do His will, why should we not take a hand at the
business now, while we have a chance? For in the next world it will be too late. All we can then do will be
to lean over the battlements of heaven and help God to laugh at their calamity and mock when their fear
cometh. So the infidels of today may well thank their stars that the Church has lost, to a great extent,
either its consistency or its power. As a specimen of your fairness, you utterly ignore what I said of the
distinction between the League and Liberalism, and say, “As you have no code, why should Christians
be abused for preferring Christianity to your Liberalism?” When did we abuse you for that or any other
cause? Is it necessary to repeat again that our opposition is not against persons, but principles?
Towards the former we cherish none but kindly feelings. We impugn no man’s motives.

As to “forming a society for the improvement of mankind,” the success of the churches in that direction has not
been so very marked as to encourage us to embark in a like enterprise. We prefer to rely on the inculcation of
obedience to those well-tried principles of morality which the experience of the race in all ages, from Confucius
down, has demonstrated to be best adapted to man’s nature and well-being. But because we do not build a high
fence round our camp and throw stones at all outsiders, it certainly does not follow that we are indifferent to
moral obligations. We are asked why we oppose Christianity. We reply: First, because we think many of the
doctrines now taught as such are contrary to the “Christ principle” and therefore spurious. Second, because it
threatens to deprive us of the liberties bought by the blood of our fathers. You ask, “Who in this broad land does
not enjoy absolute freedom so long as he does not infringe the rights of others?” If you had witnessed what the
writer of this has done—the attempts to crush men for opinion’s sake by unfair opposition in business, by social
and political ostracism, by threats of lynch law—you would not ask the question. In Texas, not long since, Dr.
Russell, an old and respected citizen, was taken from his bed at night, tied to a tree, and beaten nearly to death
by Christians because he had delivered an infidel lecture. Even here in Kansas we are told that no infidel should
have a certificate to teach in the public schools. I knew one case where a good citizen was denied the right to
testify in court because of his infidel opinions. How is that for “equal rights”? Third, we oppose it for the same
reason that the old abolitionists opposed slavery. They were often asked, as we are now, “Why do you seek
to overthrow the established order of things?” They replied: “Slavery is not quite established as the controlling
power in this government, but it soon will be if we lie supinely still. It is aggressive, always demanding more.
Moreover, we sympathize with the poor slave and would gladly help him to freedom.”

In like manner, we answer: Christianity—or rather Churchianity—is not quite established astride the neck of our
government, but it promises soon to be so unless its encroachments be stoutly resisted. It is aggressive, always
demanding more power. Then, too, we sympathize with those who groan under a bondage more fearful than
that which oppressed the poor African. Instance: A young friend of mine, a bright, amiable youth, was suddenly
called away by death. His mother, a most estimable woman, was for months driven to the verge of insanity by
the maddening thought that her dear boy was every moment calling for a drop of water to cool his parched
tongue in that lake that burneth with fire and brimstone forever and ever. Who of us does not know of many
such cases? My own young life was darkened by the pictures of the devil and hell drawn by my good-meaning
parents and teachers, so that I often thought that existence, under such conditions, was scarcely to be desired.
Is it strange that H. W. Beecher, in his pulpit, swore, “By the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, I hate Hell!” We who
say we, except that we do not swear—which Christian habit or practice we hate too, since it is a legitimate child
of this same doctrine of hell. Instance: A man reads in his Bible, and hears from the pulpit, that God will eternally
damn all unrepentant sinners. He then gets into a quarrel with his neighbor, and what so natural as that he should
call on God to damn his enemy? In like manner, when a man takes a legal oath, what is it but calling on God to
damn him if he should not tell the truth? Hence he gets the habit of using it in trivial matters until finally it loses
its terrible significance and becomes a mere byword. In all this, of course, Christians are infidel to the teaching
of the Nazarene, who said, “Swear not at all.” We repeat, with all the energy of our nature, we HATE this doctrine
of hell, because, being emphatically the “doctrine of hate,” it has taught mankind to hate each other; to persecute,
torture, and kill each other; until, in thousands of instances, it has made the earth literally a vale of blood and
tears—a doctrine so supremely unnatural and horrible that it of necessity produces on the mind of the hearer
one of three things: 1st. Unbelief 2nd. Insanity 3rd. Demonism

Fortunately, it generally has the first-named effect. It so outrages all our ideas of justice, goodness, etc., that we
instinctively reject it, just as we would reject the image and character of Moloch (from whom, no doubt, this doctrine
sprang). Hence we claim that but few, even of Christians, really believe it at the present day. Actions speak louder
than professions. Christians, their ministers included, can spend their time in mirth and gaiety, can laugh and
perpetrate puns on the subject of hell, just as though they considered it simply a capital joke; which it certainly
is utterly impossible they could do, and yet remain both sane and humane, while at the same time having
anything like a realizing sense of belief in it. Yet some do apparently get a realizing belief in its unspeakable
horrors, and then their only refuge is either insanity or demonism. The records of insane asylums show that
thousands have been driven by it to insanity, and history shows that it made demons of the old inquisitors.
Nay, more: if this doctrine be true, then the saints in heaven, the angels, and God himself must be demons;
for none but a demon could look with delight, or even indifference, upon such unutterable suffering. We
undertake to prove that this doctrine is the legitimate source of nearly all the wars and persecutions that
have devastated the civilized world since the days of Constantine. Can you blame us, then, for doing our
mite toward dethroning such an enemy of the human race, and by timely and dispassionate discussion
seek to prevent a repetition of such horrors? Your illustrations in the Freeman case are certainly unfortunate
for your argument. Freeman was walking by the light of faith in the Bible, the only true guide for mortals here
below; while your would-be inventors were simply following the creations of their own brains—naturally, no
doubt, unbalanced. Your “concordance” man was trying to solve the impossible problem of reconciling
Scripture texts with each other and with common sense, like the celebrated Hugh Miller, who went crazy
and shot his brains out because he could not reconcile Genesis with geology.

The mother of the volunteer, knowing the bad morals of the army, feared that her son would be killed while there
and go straight to hell—cause enough, I should say, to drive the poor woman to madness. Now whose position
is the absurd one? You refer me to the “commandments” for answer to my question with regard to polygamy,
concubinage, massacre, etc. I have yet to learn that said commandments prohibit these two practices; but if
they do, the prohibition was simply a dead letter, for out of the vast number of cases on record in the Bible,
no one was ever punished, so far as I now recall. You ask, “Where does the Bible sanction such?” Read 2nd
Samuel, chapter 12, verse 8: “And I gave thy master’s wives into thy bosom,” etc. Is this sanctioning polygamy
or not? Then as to sanctioning massacre, read the accounts of the slaughter of the Midianites, the Amalekites,
the various Canaanite nations as recorded in Joshua, and so on ad libitum. In the language of a noted historian,
Russell’s Modern Europe: “The God of Moses delighted in slaughter and blood.” It would seem indeed that his
chief, if not his sole delight, was in blood—not only of lambs, goats, and bulls, but of human beings as well. If
Moloch was called the “Fire God,” surely Jehovah merited the title of “Bloody God.” For proof of the statement
that Washington said in the Treaty with Tripoli, “This government is in no wise founded on the Christian religion,”
I refer you to U.S. Laws, Vol. 1, p. 320. It is of little consequence, however, to the main question whether
Washington, Jefferson, or Franklin was the author of said statement. The laws themselves show whether or
not they are founded on the Bible. Moreover, the above worthies all believed in, and fought for, the Declaration
of Independence, one of the most emphatic protests against the Bible ever written; and I have too high an
opinion of the good sense and honesty of these men to think that they could so stultify themselves as to be
the champions of human liberty and still believe the dogmas of the Bible. They could not have been true to
both Bible and Declaration. They were true to the latter, therefore not true to the former.

They believed in a God, no doubt—but it was the God of the universe; a God who had no peculiar people, but was
equally the Father of all—not in Jehovah, or the God of the Bible, a partial, jealous, fickle, deceitful, revengeful,
tyrannical, murderous, robber god; who, if he were made flesh and dwelt among us today, would have to be kept
in confinement to prevent him from murdering and robbing his neighbors. As to Washington’s “praying in the
grove,” you certainly do not need to be told that thousands of Liberals, or so-called Infidels, of today are praying
people. In this, however, they imitate the Nazarene rather than his professed followers; i.e., their prayers are short
and private instead of long and public—which latter practice Jesus so strongly condemned as pharisaical, and
of which he was never known to be guilty. Then you say he “belonged to the Episcopalian Church.” You are
certainly aware also that thousands of church members of today have no faith whatever in such dogmas as
Total Depravity, Fall of Man, Personal Devil, Endless Hell, etc., but remain in the church simply from the force
of habit, and for social, political, and pecuniary reasons. So notorious has this become that many assert there
are more infidels in the church than out of it. When, however, one is honest and bold enough to say that he
has outgrown his creed and begins to show up the absurdities of these old dogmas, he is denounced at once
as a “backslider” or a hypocrite. Such a thing as honest change of opinion is considered quite impossible by
the church. So, to avoid the odium, the loss of social and political position, and perhaps the prospect of pecuniary
ruin, the infidel, once inside the church, prudently smothers his convictions and keeps his mouth shut. As to
Lincoln, his speeches and messages stamp him a true Liberal. Greeley, besides, being one of the chief
apostles of human liberty as against the Bible doctrine of slavery, was a lifelong Universalist, as is well
known, and therefore he cannot belong to you.

At the head of the list of those to whose labors we are indebted for the form and character of our government, I
should have placed the name of one “without whose pen,” to quote John Adams, “even the sword of Washington
would have been of no avail.” And as we know that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” he should at least share
with Washington the title of “Father of His Country.” That name, of course, is THOMAS PAINE—a man whose
religion, like that of the Nazarene, was “to do good”; who believed in one God and only one, and who hoped
for happiness beyond this life; and yet who, for the last century, has been perhaps the most abused man in
history, simply because of his unanswerable arguments against the divinity of the Bible. You suggest that the
word “Liberal” is a misnomer, and that the only principle upon which you all agree is opposition to Christianity,
etc. Is this latter any more true than its counterpart—viz., that the only thing on which all Christian sects agree
is opposition to Liberalism, or Infidelity, so called? How much worse is it for Infidels to oppose Christianity than
for Christians to oppose Infidelity? One chief difference in their respective modes of opposition is that whereas
Liberals always invite their opponents to reply and always give them respectful attention, the Goliahs of Christianity
(your word) never reciprocate these courtesies. Liberals, as their name indicates, are always tolerant, whereas
Christians cannot be true to their creed, as we have shown, and not be intolerant. We need not go any further
for proof of this than to look at this final paragraph of our opponent, which he no doubt supposes will be the coup
de grâce to Liberalism in Valley Falls. Our readers will bear with us while we, for once, take the advice of Solomon
in our reply. S. suggests a “sign for the entrance to our den,” i.e., an image of “his Satanic Majesty, with horns,
hoofs, barbed tail, etc.,” with the words “Satan’s League of Valley Falls.” Sylvester, this is just the “unkindest
cut of all.” We were called “mean” before, but we can scarcely believe that anyone could accuse us of baseness
so ineffable as to wish to rob orthodoxy of its chief divinity.

What! steal a god!! Perish the thought!! Without Satan, what would—or what could—the churches do? Could they
“keep house” at all? They would then have no Fall of Man, no killing of God’s oldest boy, no Hell; and then what
would Heaven itself be worth without a Hell to put the other fellow in, and to keep the saints themselves from
backsliding? No, thank you, good friends—keep your Satan. You cannot spare him. We have no use for any
gods of the Bible sort, although if we had to choose between Jehovah and Satan, we are not sure but that we
should take the latter, as being the more humane, truthful, respectable, and powerful of the two. And as, in
the final winding-up of the partnership business, Satan is to have the lion’s share of the proceeds, he certainly
deserves the chief place in the firm. As we do not like to be outdone in courtesy, we will reciprocate by
suggesting a sign for your temples of worship (excuse us—we should have said “dens,” as you like the word),
viz.: OFFICE OF SATAN, JEHOVAH & CO. The agent will be at his post every Sunday morning to deal out
the myths of the above-celebrated firm at a nickel a dose. These myths are warranted to be of proper age
and toughness (2,000 years old, more or less). They are warranted to kill or cure—generally the former;
inasmuch as the nature of the dose is such that all who refuse it when offered, or who do not continue to take
it according to directions as long as they live, will be ANATHEMA MARANATHA—or cursed in this world
and damned eternally in the next. So come one, come all! Salvation’s free! (Ditto damnation.) “Without
money and without price”—but be sure not to forget to bring the nickel! Caution! Beware of counterfeits!
This sign or advertisement, Sylvester, would save said agent much time and breath in explaining the real
nature and effects of his business; then all who wished either salvation or damnation could go in and be
accommodated with those articles duly warranted genuine.

Being duly notified, people could not complain, as now they have a right to do, of being entrapped by the ringing
of the auctioneer’s bell into a place whose real character they did not know until the fatal dose had been offered
—and then, of course, it is too late to retreat. Our really good Christian friends, whose feelings we would by
no means wantonly wound, will excuse our apparent levity in treating a subject regarded by them as sacred.
This is contrary to our usual practice, but you see, we can in no other way show our opponents how their
arguments look from our side. The rest of our answer, in which we speak of Liberalism and the schools,
Jesus, persecution, the charge against the teacher, who the League are, etc., is crowded out. Will appear
next week. DEO (ET HOMINE) VOLENTE.

Reply to Sylvester #3 Concluded – Rustic, 6/19/1880

Your charge against the teacher evidently points to the person who taught the Pleasant Hill school last winter, as
this League was only organized last fall. I am authorized by said teacher to say that he is not in the habit of paying
attention to anonymous charges; that when you make them over your own proper signature, it will be time enough
to inquire whether the source is sufficiently respectable to deserve notice. He has too high an opinion of the persons
named by you to think that they could lend themselves to anything so despicable, not to say unchristian, as trying
to injure a neighbor’s reputation who has never treated them otherwise than kindly and gentlemanly. He claims that
his religious opinions are his private property and is not vain enough to think that the public cares to know what
they are. Your report of his language is by no means correct, but if anyone is curious enough to know what he
did say to those gentlemen, he is ready to give the desired information. Meanwhile, our readers will probably
ask: why is this personal matter introduced, if not to distract attention from the main question? Also, has a man’s
religious notion anything to do with his qualifications to teach a country school? Again, suppose said teacher did
make statements so contradictory— is it a crime to change one’s opinion? Then why should Christians try so
hard to make Hindoos and Fijians change theirs? You, Sylvester, charge that Liberals are more eager to circulate
charges against the good name of Christians than the latter are against Liberals. Does this look like it? We do not
think it necessary to assail private character in order to sustain our argument, nor to blacken the reputation of others
so that our own may appear white by contrast. By the way, Sylvester, did you learn in your “code of honor” (viz.,
to assail the reputation of a man from behind the safe cover of a false name) at the college you mention? If so,
it is to be feared that you, too, must have read some of those bad books that so corrupted the morals of your
schoolmates. At the backwoods schoolhouse where the writer was drilled in the “rudiments,” such a method of
bolstering an argument would hardly have been considered honorable; but as you are college-bred (was your
college a theological one?), from your standpoint, it is all right, I suppose.

We give notice now that hereafter we shall ignore all such side issues and hold you strictly to the main question,
i.e., the morality and divinity of the Bible. Another word of explanation to our readers before we proceed: some
surprise has been expressed that the League should reply to anonymous articles. The facts stand about thus:
some time since, the League published a challenge to the churches to debate the points at issue between
them, and soon after, a brief explanation of their motives in doing so. The churches made no response, but
two anonymous writers, one signing himself “Believer” and the other “Sylvester,” attempted to reply to the
statements and arguments put forth by the League. Whether this was done by the authority or consent of
any, or all, of the churches we are left to conjecture. If I address a question or proposition to James, and he
says not a word in reply, but John, a friend of his, standing by, answers my question or proposition, am I not
justified in assuming that James is content that John should answer for him? Whether this is so or not, so
long as the ordinary arguments of the churches are used by these champions (accompanied by no more
than the ordinary amount of intolerance and unfairness), the League, through some of its members, will
probably reply. The present writer, as he has already explained, claims not to be the officially authorized
champion of the League, but has written rather as a member thereof. If the churches have authorized no
one to defend them in this matter, and do not like the manner of said defense, we advise them to call off their
volunteer champions and either appoint someone to conduct the discussion for them or, by keeping entirely
silent, indicate that they will have nothing to do with it. Otherwise, our readers might infer that they are
conducting the debate on the plan of the hunter when he shoots at the deer, viz., he shoots so that if it
is a deer he hits it, but if it proves to be a calf, he misses it. In other words, if said champions should get
the better of their opponents in argument, all the glory would belong to the church; if worsted in debate,
the church would suffer no loss, since it had not authorized these gentlemen to speak for it—one of
whom at least did not even “belong to meeting.”

By the way, we do not, by any means, object to “Sylvester” on that account. We reasonably expect more tolerant
treatment from an outsider who takes the part of attorney than from one who makes a business or trade of theology;
in other words, a trained pugilist on the orthodox side. Moreover, if S. should be really an attorney by profession
or member of the legal fraternity, it would not be at all strange that he does not “belong to meeting,” since the
Bible is by no means complimentary to lawyers; and as a matter of fact, I believe but few of them are members
of the church. A word or two more with regard to the proposed debate: our church friends claim that they know
absolutely that they have truth on their side. If so, why should they fear or avoid discussion? Even many who
are not church members deprecate the agitation of these subjects on the ground that it will engender strife and
bad feeling between neighbors. Just so, in the good old days of the reign of pro-slaveryism—all over the South,
and nearly all over the North—free discussion was tabooed, and for precisely the same reason. So long as the
discussion was all on one side, no one objected. The friends of slavery could say what they chose in its favor,
misrepresent the aims and characters of abolitionists to their heart’s content, and it was all right; but let an
abolitionist ask to be heard, and forthwith he was denounced as a dangerous “agitator.” Every possible means,
fair or foul, were used to silence him. All that the anti-slavery men asked for then was “free discussion,” by
means of free speech, a free press, and free mails, believing these alone would work an effectual and peaceful
cure of the dreadful evil of slavery. But these weapons their opponents were determined they should not have,
well-knowing that if these were free, it would not be long until the slaves themselves would be free. The slave
power controlled the government in their interest (witness the “Fugitive Slave Law,” “Dred Scott Decision,” etc.),
just as the church today is trying (as we shall prove) to control the government in its interest.

We make no boasts or threats, but solemnly assure our opponents, as well as our timid friends who deprecate
discussion, that the friends of free thought, a free platform, a free press, and free mails are just as earnest and
determined now in opposition to the encroachments of church power as they were then in resistance to the
encroachments of slave power. We believe now, as then, that the above-named agencies are all that are
necessary to secure the triumph of truth and right over error and wrong. All agree now that if free discussion
on the slavery question had been allowed, the most fearfully destructive civil war of modern times might have
been averted; and if ever our fair land should be deluged with fraternal blood over the religious question, as
some predict, the blame will as surely rest with those who frown on free discussion now. “Sylvester” says that
church people decline to debate with Liberals because the latter are abusive and ungentlemanly in conducting
such debates. We never knew a case where such a charge would have been true; but in case the church
accepts our challenge, we promise them honorable, respectful, and gentlemanly treatment, according to
the most approved methods of conducting such debates. Our readers will judge whether or not our
proposition is fair and honorable. You say, “Several of us would like to know who your League are, etc.” I
am supplied by the Secretary with the following statement: The Valley Falls Liberal League was organized
last November by electing N. H. Harman, President; Joshua Vandruff, Vice President; A. J. Searl, Secretary;
and Mrs. Susan Reicheter, Treasurer. There is now a membership of about fifty. The organization is in good
condition, having no debts and money in the treasury. Meetings are held the first Sunday in each month,
usually at Kendall’s Hall. A full exposition of the aims of Liberalism would take too much space for an article
of this kind, but such an exposé will be given at a public meeting in the near future, notice of which will be
published in the ERA. The League is not a secret organization. All are invited. No contribution basket will
be passed at the close of the exercises.

It seems a little strange that a man should make a journey of forty miles, all told, to arrange for a debate on a
most important question, and after a search extending over an entire day and much territory, be obliged to go
away without being able to find any of the officers of the League, who are all old citizens, well known as Liberals,
and also, except the Treasurer, live in close proximity to town. Where could the “forty-miler” have gone, and
whom could he have interviewed during that long and toilsome search? Did he visit the post office, either of
the banks, drug stores, blacksmith shops, or meat shops in town? Surely at some of these places he could
have found gentlemen courteous enough to have put him on the right track to obtain the information so much
desired. Upon a full examination of the case, we are obliged, though against our will, to conclude that the
“forty-miler” is a myth, foisted upon the public through the columns of the ERA simply to make an impression
that you are anxious for debate when, in reality, you are very careful to avoid it. However, as your religion is
founded on myths, you are excusable for manufacturing one more when it will help you out of a tight place.
We call upon you, if you are not a myth yourself, to give us the “forty-miler’s” name and address so that we
may correspond with him and learn whether his “credentials” are sufficient to justify “arranging” with him.
You say, “If you can show that the charge against him (i.e., Bennett, of the Truth Seeker) was never proved,
why did you not do it and save him from punishment?” You also characterize as bordering on the infamous
our statement that “the churches send men to prison, etc.” Let us examine the matter a little. Who prosecuted
Bennett? Ans. One Anthony Comstock. And who is Comstock? Ans. The agent of the so-called “Vice Society,”
which society was organized by the churches and the Young Men’s Christian Association ostensibly to prevent
obscene matter being sent through the U.S. mails. How was the charge obtained? Ans. By means of a decoy
letter sent by Comstock, asking Bennett to send him a copy of Cupid’s Yokes.

Who was the judge that sentenced him? Ans. One Benedict, a bigoted partisan of the church. What was the
evidence against him? Answer: Garbied extracts from the pamphlet itself. Bennett asked that the whole tract
be read to the jury; also that experts, such as Rev. O. B. Frothingham, be heard as to whether the book was
obscene or not—all of which were denied. The charge to the jury was such as would have condemned as
obscene not only the Bible but most of our classical literature, both ancient and modern. Attorney General
Devens, Secretaries Sherman and Schurz, and other high officials, after reading the book, could not call it
obscene. Even President Hayes is reported to have said, “Bennett has committed no crime and does not
deserve punishment.” You will ask, “Why then did he not pardon him?” Echo answers, “Why?” There seems
to be only this answer: Mr. Hayes lacked the manhood to say to the church and its agent, Comstock, “You
have gone too far; I will release Bennett.” Petitions for his release, signed by some 200,000 names from all
parts of the country, were entirely ignored by Mr. Hayes—a fact unprecedented in the history of this country.
Commissioner Chase, no doubt, was right when he said to Bennett in prison: “The fact is, Bennett, the church
has been too strong for you.” His real offense evidently was not that he had sent the said pamphlet through
the mails, but that he was the publisher of the most prominent “infidel” periodical in the country and, therefore,
must be silenced. Now, where does the infamy come in? You say, “Ecclesiastical courts do not imprison men
in this country, etc.” Just so—the apologists for the persecutions in England say that the “church did not hang
and burn men and women under Jeffries, Bonner, etc.; it was the secular power that did it.” But who that reads
history does not know that these hangings and burnings were done at instigation, and in obedience to the
demand of the church? You charge Liberals with making “scurrilous attacks on Christianity.”

Our readers will observe that it depends upon whose “ox is gored” as to whether language is “scurrilous” or
not. Our opponents may say what they please of us and of Liberalism, and it is all right. A Christian minister
may read any passage in the Bible to his congregation, but when an infidel like G. F. Train publishes a few
passages from the same book without comment, he is sent to the Tombs for six months. And when an infidel
publisher sends, through the mails, in answer to a lying decoy, a little book which he neither publishes nor
endorses, but which is publicly exposed for sale by booksellers and sent through the mails by the hundred,
he is sentenced to thirteen months’ imprisonment in the penitentiary. In this, however, as in many others,
the zeal of the church has outrun her prudence. She has overshot the mark—or rather, she loaded her gun
so heavily that the recoil did far more execution than the shot. This persecution of Bennett has probably
done more to spread Liberalism than all the Infidel lectures for the past dozen years. Where one man read
the Truth Seeker and other Liberal papers before, perhaps half a dozen read them now. Men who have
heretofore taken no interest in the matter have paused and asked the question, “If a man can be sent to
prison for mailing a physiological tract, how long will any man’s personal liberty be secure?” And so the old
adage comes up again: “QUOS DII VOLENT PERDERE”—or “Whom the gods destroy, they first make mad.”
I defy you to show that good Liberals applauded your adulterous clergymen. The statement is absurd on the
face of it, since a good Liberal is one who does not “infringe the rights of others,” which the adulterer does;
and those who applaud are PARTICEPS CRIMINIS with him. You say you do not claim “roughs as Christians,
etc.,” and yet have they not a right to call themselves such, since they believe the Christian creed and are
acting on the plan sanctioned, or at least allowed, by that creed?

Is it not natural, Sylvester, that men should take all the pleasure that is offered them in this life? Your creed offers
to save the vilest life-long sinner on the simple condition of repentance and faith. The sinner says, “I believe now,
and as to repentance, it will be time enough to do that when I have done something to repent of. I have done
scarcely anything yet worthy of repentance,” while Paul boasted that he was the chief of sinners, and yet Christ
saved him—in fact, came into the world on purpose to save such. So then, what’s the use of depriving myself
of the pleasures of sin when I can just as well have them and Heaven too, all at the same price? Now, my young
friend (your letters indicate that you are still young), I hope you will not take it amiss if I use a little ARGUMENTUM
AD HOMINEM. Do you not adopt this same logic yourself? Do you not postpone joining the church simply because
you wish to enjoy the “world, the flesh, and the devil” a while longer? Is it because you know that your own good
works can avail you nothing—that if ever so good, your righteousness would be only as “filthy rags” compared to
the “righteousness of Christ?” That the merit of your salvation, if saved, will all belong to Him anyway; and therefore,
you are not going by any good works of yours to try to rob Him of the entire credit of the job? Of course, you and
said “roughs” all expect to get to Heaven. O yes! You all intend, by and by, like Burns, to “turn a corner, Jenkin,
and cheat the devil yet.” But really now, Sylvester, do you think this quite honest? If I were to tell you in a common
business matter that you were cheating, you would take it as an insult. But is it not as bad to cheat the devil as
“any other man?” Should not even the devil have his due? In all seriousness, however, friend S., allow me to
exhort you, after the manner of our clerical brethren, as one that loves your soul: follow no longer such an IGNIS
FATUUS as this doctrine of vicarious atonement—one of the clumsiest, most unnatural, unjust, and mischievous
doctrines ever invented by priestcraft to delude poor mortals in order to serve its own selfish purposes.

Like the Will o’ the Wisp, it will lead you into the bogs of superstition only to leave you in utter darkness at last. Adopt
instead, as the only safe guide: Do right because it is right. By always keeping this beacon in view, your pathway will
shine “bright and brighter unto the perfect day.” In answer to my statement as to the persecuting spirit of Christianity,
you refer me to the massacres of primitive Christians by their infidel opposers, etc. Your statements show that you are
either ignorant of the facts of history or that you assume the readers of the ERA to be so. The early Christians, instead
of being always “commended for their loyalty, honesty, etc.,” as stated by you, were described by the heathen in the
4th century as being “ferocious as wild beasts when their religion was opposed,” or words to that effect. So they no
doubt brought much of this persecution upon themselves by their own intolerance. Then, when Nero butchered
Christians, Jews, or any other sect, it was simply because he was a bloody tyrant, and like the God of Moses,
“delighted in slaughter and blood,” and not because he was an “infidel.” His atrocities were certainly no worse
than those of Constantine, the first Christian emperor. It was the custom of the times to throw prisoners taken
in war to the wild beasts in the amphitheater; but persecution for religion was almost unknown in the Roman
Empire until it passed into the hands of the Christians, after which it became the rule rather than the exception.
Then you speak of “that grand triumph of Liberalism in France in 1793, etc.,” and this shows what men of your
belief have done when they had the power. Sylvester, don’t you think this statement of yours borders on the
infamous? Let us see where the blame for these atrocities properly belongs. What was the cause of our own
revolution? Evidently, the immediate or secondary cause was the liberal ideas taught by such men as Franklin,
Paine, Adams, etc., but the chief cause was the tyranny of the British government. So, in France, the immediate
cause may be said to have been the spread of liberal principles, but the underlying and primary cause was the
oppression of the people by King, Priest, and Noble, backed by the Bible. The people had been kept in ignorance
because “Ignorance is the mother of devotion.” They had been kept in the most abject slavery to the doctrine of
“Fear God (and his priests) and honor the King” (and his nobles)—had been robbed of their earnings, their liberties,
and their lives, in order that their oppressors might live in luxurious ease and sensual indulgence, until outraged
human nature could bear it no longer. Then, with a fearful rebound, it rushed to the opposite extreme.

Having been the persecuted lamb so long, it tried to make things even by suddenly becoming the persecuting
wolf. Having been trained in the school of hate and revenge; remembering such lessons as the St. Bartholomew
massacre, the people said to their oppressors, as did Shylock in the play, “The villainy you do teach me I will
execute; and it will go hard but I will better the instruction.” The story of the “Goddess of Reason,” if true, only
shows to what extremes human nature can go when goaded to madness by oppression. The whole story,
however, is discredited by historians as being simply a creation of the fertile brain of Sir Walter Scott. To show
that it was not “for opinion’s sake” that these frenzied people took the lives of others, it is only necessary to
remind you that they condemned Thomas Paine to the guillotine, and he escaped by the merest accident.
The number of lives lost during this “reign of terror” will never be known; history records about 4,000 political
executions. But when you say “butchering millions of men, etc.,” it only shows your recklessness in stating facts.
I think our readers will agree with us that these atrocities, instead of being due to the teachings of Liberalism,
are directly chargeable to Kingcraft and Priestcraft and to the Bible, the main bulwark of these. Liberals never
persecute; they would deny their name and principles if they should. We are obliged to Sylvester, however, for
introducing this subject, although not directly pertinent to the main question, as it serves to illustrate the maxim
that “all republics are founded by Infidels.” From the Bible standpoint, it is clear that no republic can ever be
established, and no prominent revolutionist can hope for mercy in the world to come. “Do right and fear nothing”
is the motto of the Infidel, and from this standpoint have the rights of men been vindicated in all ages when any
such vindication has taken place. You ask what science I mean when I speak of “that science which has raised
man from primitive barbarism, etc.” I answer: all science. Science, like nature, is a unit; it means demonstrated
knowledge or truth. Consequently, there can be no uncertainty about it. Man does not make science; all he
can do is discover and apply it.

We sometimes speak of “speculative science,” not because it is uncertain and liable to be changed, as you say,
but because it depends mainly on mathematical reasoning instead of being learned by experiment, as chemistry
is. It is no more uncertain than the science of mathematics itself. The word “speculative” has its primitive meaning
here: “to espy or search out.” The church has always opposed every new discovery in science until she found
she could not suppress it. Then, like the mountebank with his “Presto! Change!” she adopted it and tried to make
people believe that she had always taught it. Take, for instance, the science of astronomy. The church opposed
it because, as self-preservation is the first law of nature, astronomy destroyed the Biblical account of creation
and revealed the absurdity of the idea that the God of the Universe could send His only Son to die for the
inhabitants of a mere speck or molecule in His Universe. The same is true of geology, and similar sciences.
Now, however, the church has been driven to acknowledge the truth of these and kindred sciences and
exhausts her ingenuity trying to reconcile them with her dogmas, persuading people that she has always
been the friend of science. Until recently, all churches opposed the “evolution theory” of Darwin, Huxley, and
others as the rankest heresy. Now, I am told that the organ of one of the most influential sects has squarely
adopted it and declares that we must accept it because it is true and co-ordinate accordingly. Thus, the
heresy of one generation becomes the orthodoxy of the next. At this rate, “orthodoxy” itself may soon become
only a name or an empty shell. With regard to general education, the fact is notorious that churches, both
Catholic and Protestant, opposed it until they found it too strong for them. Then they adopted it and tried to
control it in their interest. Public schools, including all state institutions, are, in theory at least, strictly secular
and therefore infidel to the Bible. They are the only institutions that do much toward elevating the masses of
mankind, and they owe their origin mainly to the infidels, who are abused without stint for refusing to allow
the Bible to be used as a textbook.

Your allusion to the efforts of the church in civilizing the Indians and Sandwich Islanders is certainly unfortunate.
Christianity found these peoples comparatively peaceful, happy, and prosperous, and it has nearly civilized them
out of existence. The specimens that remain are far inferior to the original types. The Cherokees, Choctaws, and
others were comparatively civilized when Christians first encountered them, and after spending millions in civilizing
—or rather Christianizing—them, they could not prevent these tribes from scalping our wounded in the late war.
The Indians who committed such atrocities in Minnesota had been Christianized. A high official in King Kalakaua’s
train, while visiting this country, remarked, “It is remarkable that wherever the missionaries come, in the Sandwich
Islands, depopulation follows.” This statement is corroborated by travelers. I extract a few passages from a late
article in the Mirror of Progress: “One of the most common boasts of Christians in general is that the civilization
of the nineteenth century is the result of the teachings of the church. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In
nations most civilized at the present time, Christianity is the dominant religion and intemperance the prevailing
vice. With as much justice could civilization be claimed as the result of one as of the other. Neither does our
civilization attest the truth of Christianity, for if it did, then the civilization of the Moors in 1400 A.D., the Greeks
in 300 B.C., and the Chinese in 100 B.C. attested the truth of their respective religions. With the march of
progress, our religions become more civilized, but generally remain in the rear rank of the army and have
never been known to take the lead.” You ask, “When Jesus called himself the Son of God, did he tell the truth,
or did he lie?” Before I answer, let us examine the subject from your standpoint. You say Jesus claimed to be
the “Son of God.” How do you know he made any such statement? You reply, “Because the Evangelists said
so.” But did Jesus give these Evangelists authority to write his history? Did they write over their own signature?
Does any contemporary writer refer to them as reliable authority? The first historical reference to these writings
occurs near the close of the second century, and even then, nobody pretends to know who wrote them, or when
or where they were written. So we may safely assume that we are entirely ignorant not only of these important
facts but also of how many changes or additions were made after their original composition.

As Mosheim notes, the early Christian fathers openly advocated deception or lying “when truth and piety required
it,” so we may reasonably suppose they were not slow to make whatever changes or emendations they thought
necessary for the good of the cause. Some such changes are even admitted by the church. Then, as to internal
evidence: do these gospels agree with each other? Consider the two accounts of the lineage of Jesus as given by
Matthew and Luke. Do they match? Then consider the story of the nativity itself, on which the claim rests that
Jesus is the Son of God. Who asserts it as true? You say, “Mary says that God, or the Holy Ghost, is the father
of her child, and Joseph dreamed that it was so.” Sylvester, could you present this case in any court of justice
and expect a respectful hearing? Would not attorneys, jurors, and judges laugh you out of court? This story of
Jesus’ nativity lacks even originality. These writers, whoever they were, did not even need to use their imaginations
to invent a divine birth—they found plenty of similar stories in ancient mythologies, as all readers know. All
heathen religions older than Christianity had heroes or saviors, such as Buddha, Krishna, Hercules, etc.,
who were said to have had a god for a father and a woman—often a virgin—for a mother. If this story of Jesus’
nativity had not been taught from our infancy, if we had not been constantly told that doubting it would result in
eternal damnation, and if we did not hear it preached weekly by men considered wiser and holier than common
people, would it be possible to find any intelligent person forced to believe it? But you will say that Jewish
prophecies foretold the coming of Jesus as the Son of God. I will postpone further consideration of that
subject for another time. You say, regarding the “dark ages,” that “it was not until the enemies of the Bible
had destroyed nearly all the Bibles that the superlative darkness set in.” What enemies do you mean?

Were they outside barbarians or the Roman hierarchy? In either case, is this not a pitiable plea for your cause?
Where all this time could have been your God, Son, and Holy Ghost, that they did not come to rescue their
persecuted “Word,” on which the salvation of the world depended? Were the devil and bad men more powerful
than God and His hosts? Or was there an agreement beforehand that the devil should be allowed to do this to
secure the greater part of mankind? This latter seems the true explanation, since you say it was prophesied
beforehand. Friend S., if a general prophesied that on a certain day he would be defeated and then withdrew
his troops to allow the enemy to destroy them so that the prophecy would come true, would it not be said that
he was in league with the enemy? This, I suppose, is what your book calls the “mystery of iniquity.” If this does
not make your God responsible for said iniquity, then I do not know what language means. Between the “mystery
of iniquity” and the “mystery of godliness,” it seems to me, there is little room for plain common sense in your
book. But then, “the wisdom of man is foolishness with God,” and conversely, the foolishness of man is wisdom
with God. If this is not so, why, in the name of all that is sensible, was your Bible not given to the world until
countless generations had passed? Generations of men had been lost for want of it—or, as Paul would say,
because they never had a chance to reject it—and then it was given only to a few. Of those few, perhaps not
one hundredth part understand it as you do; and of those, we may safely say, not one ever has, or ever can,
live up to it, on account of its almost perpetual contradictions. Yet it is claimed that this book points out the
way so plainly that “the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein.” If this be so, what is the use of
keeping here in the United States alone some 60,000 men, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars annually,
to expound this same book—and that, too, when out of the hundreds of sects, no two explain it alike?

Now, Friend S., is it strange, in view of these facts, that some men prefer the Book of Nature as a revelation of the
Divine will—a Bible that is always open to be read by the humblest and most ignorant human being; that does not
require translation into every language under heaven; that cannot be made a football, to be kicked and cuffed by
priest and infidel until nearly destroyed, as you say yours has been; that contains no doctrines which set men to
cutting each other’s throats over their meaning, nor to hanging and burning one another; that does not need a costly
priesthood to explain it in costly temples made by human hands, but whose temple is the blue vault of heaven,
and whose priests, as well as worshippers, are all who sincerely love and teach the common fatherhood of God
and the common brotherhood of man—in other words, the laws and principles of nature. It is because some men
believe in this latter book, and cannot subscribe to yours without being hypocrites, that their names are “cast out
as evil.” They are denied equal rights of citizenship with the worshippers of the other book, and even here are
told that “they should not be allowed to live in a civilized community.” Our space is full, but we are not done. It is
easy to ask questions, but not so easy to answer them fully. You, S., are quite welcome to enjoy your Bible, provided
you and your friends allow us to enjoy ours. You claim that your Bible teaches the only road to heaven. We do
not envy you your heaven if your Bible’s account of it be literally true. It describes your Jehovah as a kind of
demon, and your heaven as a kind of pandemonium, since human sympathy for suffering is not allowed there.
In view of these facts, S., do you not think the colored parson was about right when he said: “My bredrin, de Bible
shows but two roads in dis world, shuah: one leads to damnation, and t’uddah to hell—take your choice”? And
was not the response sensible: “Well, bruddah, seein’ dat’s de case, dis chile takes to de woods!” Some points
are still omitted and will be taken up soon, if we can get a hearing. Meantime, as you express a desire to know
who I am, if you will come to a meeting of the League and ask to see the roll, you will find recorded there,
among others, the real name of the humble individual who sometimes subscribes himself.

Moses’s address to Sylvester from the 1st & 2nd edition of the Kansas Liberal:

Rustic Heard from – Moses Harman, 9/1/1880

Moses’s retrospective on the dispute:

Lucifer’s Coming of Age – Moses Harman, 8/31/1901