An Exposition of Liberalism – S, 1st 8/1/1880, Parts 1 – 3

Republished from the predecessor publication to Lucifer the Light Bearer

Being a Series of Reasons Why It Has Come into Notice So Prominently at the Present Time

The enemies of Liberalism—and Liberty has always found many and bitter enemies in the ranks of creed and
dogma—seem to take special delight in saying that Infidels live alone by denial; that they affirm nothing; that
they constantly seek to tear down, but do not trouble themselves about repairing ruins or rearing new edifices.
Liberals are accused of being barbarians and are often invited to go to Barbary, where it is said they belong; and,
from the pulpit, we may weekly, if we will attend the churches, hear them all doomed to an endless Hell, where
they may gnash their teeth and beg for a drop of water throughout a never-ending eternity. In view of these facts,
and some others which will present themselves as we proceed, this exposition of Liberalism is undertaken. Liberalism
seeks nothing but what is just and can be fully demonstrated to be true. It assails no religion but Christianity, as it
is the only one now trying to plant its heel upon the liberties of all but a chosen few; and they, to be protected, must
become as little children. Pause for a moment and think of the absurdity of a man of sixty years becoming a little
child, and allowing a man of twenty-five to hear his humble confessions, absolve him from sin, and then spit in his
ear just for his own amusement. These absurd things are now taking place within the pale of the good old Mother
Church; and Liberalism finds here a reason for taking the field in defence of the liberties of men and women who
are, in its estimation, suffering a most tyrannical bondage. You may say, “Let them suffer if they have no more
sense.” This, however, was the motto of dogmatism with regard to the African, and we believe in it no more. If
people are poor and ignorant, this is, says Liberalism, the very reason why we should favor them with all the
assistance in our power. Liberals do not blame a certain class for endeavoring to keep down Infidelity by threats
of excommunication and a red-hot hell, and propping up their own system by all manner of tricks, many of which
are far from honorable. Bread and butter go very well to a hungry man, and men whose business it is to keep
myths and fables before the people as facts get hungry just as often as anybody.

You will probably call it a vile slander when we say that the ministry work for the money just the same as other
men do. “Oh no, they work for the salvation of souls!” Do they, indeed? Try one once without a salary and see
how long you can keep him; or, what is better, refuse to pay him and see how quick he will sue you. Or, if he
makes a statement you do not fancy—as that dancing is a good recreation if conducted within bounds as to
lateness of hours, etc.—see how soon you can make him take it back and rail against the practice by threatening
to cut off the portion of his salary paid by yourself. Liberalism here finds darkness, myths, and selfishness
taking the place of reason, and feels itself called upon to come to the front and, by a higher and nobler
education, cause the people to discard mythology and accept the truth only, as it can be demonstrated.
Do you call this exposition an attack upon Christianity? Do you throw down the paper in a rage, threaten
to have the writer arrested, and wish him in hell, his arm paralyzed, etc.? So be it. Facts are facts, and it
shall be the object of The Liberal to strew as many of them among the people as possible. It is called a willful
and malicious slander when Liberals accuse Christianity of endeavoring to capture the government and wield
it in its own interests. We would respectfully invite the attention of those who cry “slander” to the following lines:
“The National Association has been formed for the purpose of securing such an amendment to the Constitution
as will suitably acknowledge Almighty God as the Author of the Nation’s existence and the ultimate source of
its authority, Jesus Christ as its ruler, and the Bible as the foundation of its laws, and thus indicate that this is
a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government on an undeniable
legal basis in the fundamental law of the land.” This, in exact words, is what the Christians say they wish to do;
and we say, without fear of successful contradiction, that a more infamous proposition was never made, and
a more flagrant outrage was never designed to be perpetrated.

Surely Liberals here have another reason to be wide awake to defeat this diabolical scheme to make slaves of a
free people. This idea, if carried out, would firmly cement Church and State, and from history and experience we
know too well what that means. What Christianity has done heretofore when it has succeeded in becoming the
state religion, it will do again under like circumstances; for it is possessed of the same bigoted and intolerant spirit
of years ago. It has the same blasphemous, contradictory book, in which may be found authority for committing
every crime known to humanity. It has the same murderous, bloodthirsty Deity. “By their fruits shall ye know them.”
Let us look for a moment at the fruits of Christianity as a state religion, having the authority of law for all its acts.
Bitter, indeed, are the fruits of the religion of peace; sickening, indeed, are the details of its transactions while
in the heyday of its power. Three hundred years of the Christian Era sees that red-handed monster and champion
of the Church, Constantine, become sole ruler of the Roman Empire. He was a man whose garments were
dripping with the lifeblood of his innocent victims, many of whom were of his own family; but as he professed
a belief in Christ, of course he was all right for time and eternity, although he continued to become more and
more a brute till the close of his evil life. Thus does Christianity offer a premium for crime—the more flagrant
the better, as the healing efficacy of the blood of Jesus is shown to better advantage in extremely bad cases.
Being now in full power, Christianity commenced its favorite work and erected its first stake in Spain, and the
fire that consumed its first victim shines darkly red in the early history of the Church as a state institution. The
ominous glare of this funeral pile is now before the eyes of Liberals, and they are constrained, while the groans
of the heretic at the stake are ringing in their ears, to put upon record this sentence: “Christians, we cannot trust
you with our liberties.”

Persecution, then, is the first bitter fruit of the Church. Death and confiscation of property are, with it, the legal
penalties of unbelief. Charlemagne, “the eldest son of the Church,” as he has reverently been styled by some
Christian writers, foully murdered, with his army, in one day, 40,000 Saxons because they would not submit to
the barbarous rite of baptism. Hypatia, “the beautiful philosopher,” was dragged from her carriage by Cyril’s monks,
taken to a church, and there literally cut to pieces with oyster shells, after which her remains were burned. Her
crime was that of not believing in the Christian God, and she was thus murdered in obedience to Jehovah’s
command (Ex. XXII:20). The command of the Christian in power is the same as it was at the storming of Béziers:
“Kill them all; God will know his own.” These butchers have the express command of God to back them in their
bloody work (Deut. XIII:12–16). St. Peter Martyr has the honor of introducing burning at the stake as the special
punishment for the crime of unbelief: “Since God will burn heretics in hell forever, it is meet that his children
should burn them on this side of the grave.” The last woman burned in Spain was a poor, half-witted creature
who was accused of making contracts with the Devil. She was burned at Seville only ninety-six years ago. John
Calvin, “the father of the Presbyterian Church,” burned Servetus at Geneva, and he and his fellow Presbyterians
stood around, made fun, and cracked coarse jests while he was being consumed by a slow fire of green wood.

Part 2., 9/1/1880

The Duke of Alva was a shining light of the Church. He was sent to the Netherlands to extirpate heresy and bring the
inhabitants to a knowledge of the true faith as taught by the meek and lowly Jesus. He boasted that in five years he
had put to death 18,000 heretics. The massacre of St. Bartholomew is another instance of the fruits produced by this
poisonous tree. It occurred at Paris, August 24, 1572; 40,000 were slain—the King, from his palace window, firing at
the unfortunate victims of Christian malice and intolerance. The church bells tolled the signal for the commencement
of the massacre, and the cross was the badge of the murderers. The Pope, Gregory XIII, struck a medal to commemorate
the event and chanted a grand Te Deum of gratitude to the great God, Jehovah, for so grand a victory over heresy.
The last burning for heresy in England took place in 1611. Two men, Legate and Whitman, were the unfortunate
victims. These instances will serve to show what has been experienced by unbelievers when the Bible has been
taken as the supreme authority. Locality makes no difference. It is the same in Spain, France, Germany, England,
and even in America, as witness the persecutions of such dissenters as Anne Hutchinson, Roger Williams, and the
Quakers; also the proceedings against witches under the Bible command, “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Now,
if we want a repetition of the cruelties and inhuman butcheries, we can have them by adopting the proposed amendment
to the Constitution. The amendment proposes a something which it styles Almighty God; but there are many gods.
Every nation on earth has a god and a religion of some kind, except the Inuits of the frozen North—and, strange to
say, they are, in most respects, superior to all other nations; never warring with each other, and always ready to
assist each other when in distress. Buddha is a very good, peaceable god, but he is a foreigner too, and would not
answer as the author of our Nation’s existence. Jehovah is also a foreigner, but has become pretty well naturalized;
and, as Jesus Christ is mentioned in the same connection, we conclude the god of the Bible is the one referred to.
This is the same gentleman who was put in a box called the Ark of the Covenant and hauled around with oxen for
a long term of years. He belongs entirely to the Jewish nation and has been adopted by the Christians, somewhat
as all other forms and dogmas, signs and symbols of Christians have been adopted from the pagans.

We read in the book which contains the history of this famous individual that, as he was riding around in his box,
some men—through curiosity, we presume—peeked into the concern to find out what it contained; whereupon he
went into a violent rage and slew 70,000 of them. At another time, when the cart upon which the box was mounted
was about to upset, one indiscreet fellow put out his hand to keep the thing right side up, and although his intentions
were the best, the occupant of the box reached out and handed him one, from the effects of which he died. Is this
the individual you want acknowledged as the author of the Nation’s existence? Again, we read of him as throwing
stones and chunks of burning brimstone at his subjects, utterly ruining whole cities. We certainly do not want such
a madcap as this around if we can help it! He might, some day, get mad and conclude to put on his big boots and
walk around and crush four or five millions of us. No, kind Christians, although we are much obliged to you for
your kind offer of a god—free, gratis—we are bound to politely refuse to accept him. As to Jesus Christ being the
ruler of this Nation, we are inclined to treat the whole thing as a huge joke. Why, he could not be elected to any
office even in the township of Delaware. He would not do for trustee, on account of his being such an outrageous
spendthrift; he would squander all the money and bankrupt the town in six weeks. He would not do for Justice
of the Peace, as he was addicted to taking things which did not belong to him. A man who would steal roasting
ears on Sunday, and steal a donkey and its colt from where its owner had left it tied on the street, would not make
a good justice; he would leave us at the mercy of thieves. He would not do for constable, for he would then go
around with a lariat making checkerboards on the backs of the bankers and money changers, and those who try
to turn an honest penny by selling a dove now and then. He would kick the tables and chairs over, pour out the
chink and waste it, thereby causing a general suspension of business.

He would not do for pound-master, for if he should see a pig roaming around looking for an acorn, instead
of driving him quietly into the pound—where the owner could claim him by paying charges—he would set
the Devil on him and run him over a steep bank into the broad and placid Delaware, into whose bosom
he would quietly sink to rise no more. Again, after a full and fair canvass of the character and qualifications
of the candidate, we are bound to reject him. We further object to this candidate on account of his father
being a ghost. We do not believe in ghosts, either ancient or modern, sacred or profane, holy or unholy.
To the Infidel nothing is sacred. The Bible, the Constitution, the sciences are all common and may be
approached and examined with the utmost freedom. One man is as good as another so long as he
behaves himself.

Part 3., 10/1/1880

Liberals no longer want to give money to pay a preacher, called a chaplain, to go over a senseless mummery
called a prayer from one to three times a day. If there is a God, and he is good and just, he will do right whether
we ask him or not; and if we ask him to do wrong, we equally waste our time, as he certainly will not heed us.
It is a well-known fact that the prayer of a chaplain in Congress is paid no more attention to than the gabbling
of a goose. It is a useless, senseless affair and should be done away with when done at the public expense.
If any man wants to hire someone to do his praying for him, all right; let him do so and foot the bill like a man,
and not seek to derive benefit from a ceremony and make one pay for it who is not interested. There are 45
million people in the United States; 9 million are Protestants and 5 million are Catholics; this leaves 31 million
who profess no religion at all. And yet the 5 million Catholics wish to dominate over the 9 million Protestants;
the 9 million Protestants wish to dominate over the 5 million Catholics; and the 14 million religionists show a
determination, worthy of a better cause, to dominate over 31 million non-religionists. How is this for cheek?
How is it for pure impudence? We are aware that an unresisting majority are often trampled underfoot by a
determined minority. Must it continue in this case? During the years 1871, 1872, and 1873, New York City gave
unlawfully out of the public treasury over one million dollars for religious purposes. Of this vast sum, the Catholics
got 91 percent, while the Protestants and Jews got 9 percent. The Catholics are the masters and sit at table,
while the Protestants and Jews are spaniels and curs who, with starving greed, lick up the crumbs. Liberalism
finds reason to complain and enters its most solemn protest against this useless and unlawful expenditure of
money, two out of every three dollars of which are paid by those who have no faith whatever in the dogmas of
Christianity. All laws relating to the observance of Sunday as a holy day should be repealed. All days are alike,
and only an absurd religious custom makes any difference in them. Saturday is the Jewish Sabbath and is
derived from the pagan custom of worshiping the planet Saturn on that day. Sunday is also of pagan origin
and is the day on which they worshiped the sun.

Popular opinion has already said to the Christians, “I will no longer regard your Sunday as holy”; yet it stands,
a disgrace to our present enlightenment, with a penalty of five dollars attached as a menace to those who dare
violate the provisions of the statute therein made and provided. My religious teachers used to tell me that the
bees rested on Sunday, and I thought it true for a long time; now I know they obeyed the instructions of Paul
and lied to me for the good of the cause of mythology. Our Congresses are frequently in session and legislate
on Sunday; our mails are carried on that day; great battles are fought and victories gained on this holy day;
and our ministers, who are the very essence of goodness itself (?), do the greater part of their labor on that
day and receive their pay therefor. There should be no privileged orders. If one can drive his business on
Sunday, another can of right do the same thing. No man should be allowed to saddle, bridle, and ride his
neighbor for any cause whatever. All judicial oaths should be done away with. The custom now is for a man
to be sworn with quite a long preamble, the tail of which is, “So help you God.” This, it would seem, should
be sufficient to make a man tell the truth; but the shallowness of the ceremony is shown by the law regulating
penalties for untruthfulness. You swear a man and then shake your fist under his nose and tell him if he does
not tell the truth you will put him through for perjury. Simple affirmation should be sufficient. A great deal is said
about Christian morality, and a great farce it is. Christians are great drunkards, liars, and murderers, and the
statistics of houses of correction will bear us out in the assertion. This article has been extended beyond its
proper length, and we will now close by briefly summing up our position. We shall be glad to answer any
questions which anyone may see fit to propound to us with regard to our platform.

Our Demands

We demand that churches and other ecclesiastical property shall no longer be exempted from just taxation.

We demand that the employment of chaplains in Congress, in the State Legislatures,
in the navy and military, and in prisons, asylums, and all other institutions supported
by public money shall be discontinued.

We demand that all appropriations of public funds for the support of sectarian schools shall be discontinued.

We demand that all religious services sustained by the government shall cease.

We demand that no more fast days be observed.

We demand the abolition of all judicial oaths, and that affirmation, under the penalties of perjury, be established in their stead.

We demand that all Sabbath or Sunday laws be repealed.

We demand that no privilege, either political or financial, shall be granted to any religious order.