FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   >>  
c forms of religion are extremely offensive to those who do not believe them." If the law does not in any sense recognize the truth of Christian doctrine, it would have to apply the same rule to the Salvation Army. In fact the law "can be explained and justified only on what I regard as its true principle--the principle of persecution." The opponents of Christianity may justly say: If Christianity is false, why is it to be attacked only in polite language? Its goodness depends on its truth. If you [246] grant its falsehood, you cannot maintain that it deserves special protection. But the law imposes no restraint on the Christian, however offensive his teaching may be to those who do not agree with him; therefore it is not based on an impartial desire to prevent the use of language which causes offence; therefore it is based on the hypothesis that Christianity is true; and therefore its principle is persecution. Of course, the present administration of the common law in regard to blasphemy does not endanger the liberty of those unbelievers who have the capacity for contributing to progress. But it violates the supreme principle of liberty of opinion and discussion. It hinders uneducated people from saying in the only ways in which they know how to say it, what those who have been brought up differently say, with impunity, far more effectively and far more insidiously. Some of the men who have been imprisoned during the last two years, only uttered in language of deplorable taste views that are expressed more or less politely in books which are in the library of a bishop unless he is a very ignorant person, and against which the law, if it has any validity, ought to have been enforced. Thus the law, as now administered, simply penalizes bad taste and places disabilities [247] upon uneducated freethinkers. If their words offend their audience so far as to cause a disturbance, they should be prosecuted for a breach of public order, [1] not because their words are blasphemous. A man who robs or injures a church, or even an episcopal palace, is not prosecuted for sacrilege, but for larceny or malicious damage or something of the kind. The abolition of penalties for blasphemy was proposed in the House of Commons (by Bradlaugh) in 1889 and rejected. The reform is urgently needed. It would "prevent the recurrence at irregular intervals of scandalous prosecutions which have never in any one instance benefited any one, lea
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   126   127   128   129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   >>  



Top keywords:

principle

 

language

 
Christianity
 
persecution
 

offensive

 
uneducated
 

blasphemy

 
liberty
 
Christian
 

prosecuted


prevent
 
regard
 

places

 

disabilities

 
offend
 

audience

 
expressed
 

freethinkers

 

enforced

 

politely


library

 

person

 

ignorant

 

bishop

 

administered

 

simply

 

penalizes

 

validity

 
palace
 

Bradlaugh


rejected

 
reform
 

Commons

 

penalties

 

proposed

 

urgently

 

needed

 

instance

 

benefited

 

prosecutions


scandalous

 

recurrence

 

irregular

 

intervals

 

abolition

 
blasphemous
 
breach
 

public

 

injures

 

church