1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/dbbccb730ff36c526a8ddf14e02617c9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=B%7Exik2-QJ3og5hpVBU44KQSLGvz8Jkh-ia6nQ0qFRT9USwxdrzESRl-c6Hk73jRvrnvzGUsoCt9SlnSh%7EOC8mnIr4wZsX%7E73MK5J64CzUe1nydptYcfLILit7t1MsWcNDiiJTlxuTn1KJC3UiWMnT3RVjaWQ-7L5Ex0c3baPUzIj9Si0N0N0Bx-kudlYSgbKWnmdMW5OtmzFJLf5wTxWhmwskcSBaXA1AL-%7EBeL00xgqIne0jPBM2X2qqcBJp57aDTh-36K6zGDi13UFbpRxb%7EELAputGPoy6h4usSpW2n88WqJ58YzyYNm8NvftRvzTSh1l0mYEdbjT4rDpkkGCsA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
925564b80f29f004b39b58ef1b374308
PDF Text
Text
f nationalsecular society
WHY WOMEN SHOULD
BE SECULARISTS.
21 Cecture,
•*
BY
LOUISA
SAMSON.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
$
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891
��B 3118
A-
®II)D Women shoulJr be Secularists,
has been said that “ every nation has got the government it deserves.’
The same might, perhaps, be as truthfully, or as untruthfully, stated
regarding its religion. I am inclined to question the veracity of that
proverb. If we had, in the past, taken such an axiom for granted, all
great progressive movements would have been impossible. We must re
member, however, that reforms, political, religious or social, have always
originated with minorities—they have generally been fought for in the
face of popular scorn, derision, or laughter, worked for amid persecution
and hardship, accomplished finally by dint of stern resolve and noble
self-sacrifice. And when these great reforms or progressions have be
come accomplished facts, the people have looked back shudderingly at
what, before, they were content to accept without grudge; and come to
regard, perhaps, as barbaric and repulsive, what at one time was con
sidered natural and convenient. The emancipation of the slaves might
never have been accomplished, if the individual desires of the slaves
themselves had been first consulted. Long years of slavery and of
oppression had rendered thousands of them apathetic and indifferent to
freedom. Had it not been for such men as Rousseau, Voltaire, and
Montesquieu, France might never have shaken herself free from the
grinding oppression of the monarchy; while to Mazzini and Garibaldi,
the prophets and liberators of Italy, is due, perhaps, the turning point
in that country’s history. Political and religious freedom go hand in
hand—the women of England need both. To-day they are pleading for
political rights—for a voice in the making of the laws they are compelled
to obey, and in the levying of the taxes for which they are made
responsible ; to-morrow they will throw oft the shackles of superstition,
and breathe the pure air of religious liberty of thought.
I am addressing myself particularly to women to-night, because we
are told, and I admit with truth, that women are the backbone of the
Christian Churches to-day. The congregations of our churches and
chapels are composed mainly of women, while among Freethought
audiences and societies women are decidedly in the minority. However
much we regret the fact, it is nevertheless true. And the reason is not
far to seek. Through long ages the education of women has been
neglected. Their need for mental progress has been entirely ignored.
t
I
�4
The Church, which owes so much to woman, has always been the one
to insist upon her position as the chattel and the slave of man ; to deny
to her intellectual liberty, to oppress her with the chains of servitude
and the bonds of ignorance.
It is an admitted fact, and I do not suppose the most devout or
bigoted Christian would attempt to deny it, that superstition has always
been the handmaid of ignorance. The Christian creed had its origin in
mythological tales, its first followers were drawn from the uneducated
classes, its teachers were illiterate men; its devotees from then until
now have been composed, to a large extent, of men and women who
have been ready to accept, without thought, the teachings of its priests,
while those who have rejected it have usually been men who have
studied science and the phenomena of nature. And so heresy has
spread wherever science has set her foot, honest unbelief has flourished
in proportion as education has advanced, and those who have been denied
the benefits of scientific culture have remained correspondingly in the
grasp of ignorance and religious credulity.
In order to understand the state of mental poverty which, until
recently, women occupied, it will be necessary to take a glance into the
past, and to consider, for a short time this evening, the conditions and
surroundings of the women of the Old and New Testaments. In the
second and third chapters of Genesis, we are introduced to the “first
woman,” who, according to that account, was made by God, as a sort
of after-thought, out of the rib of Adam as he lay sleeping. She is
taught, almost at the commencement of her career that she is an in
ferior animal: “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee” (Gen. iii. 16). The book of Genesis then goes on to recount
how this inferior creature, this woman, held a conversation with a ser
pent (and evidently animals had the power of speech in those wonderful
days), and that in accordance with the directions of the serpent (who
seems to have had far more knowledge of the world than either she or
Adam), she picked an apple and handed one to her husband, who “like
wise did eat,” and who, as soon as he was found out, after skulking be
hind the trees, threw, like a coward, all the blame upon his wife.
Throughout the Old Testament women are treated with contempt.
They are bought and sold in the same way as other objects of merchan
dise. Rebekah was bought with precious things by Abraham’s servant
for Isaac. The account of the purchase is given in Genesis xxiv. 53.
Jacob paid seven years’ service to Laban for each of his two first wives
(Gen. xxix. 15-28). In the twenty-first chapter of Exodus, from the
seventh to the tenth verses, permission is given for men to sell their
daughters into slavery. We find also that, in many cases, there were
�5
actually no formalities of marriage. Sarah made a present of Hagar,
her maidservant, to Abraham ; in the words of the Bible, “she gave her
to her husband Abraham to be his wife ”; and when he was tired of her
he sent her away, with her child, into the wilderness, with the magni
ficent present of a piece of bread and a bottle of water from his stores
of wealth. And this, we are told in the twenty-first chapter of Genesis
and the twelfth verse, was with the express permission of God.
In Exodus xxi. 4 it is related that in the case of a man being a slave,
and having married during his term of slavery, when he went free he
had to leave behind his wife and his children; he had to “go out by
himself,” while his wife and family became the property of his master.
A little farther on (Deut. xxiv. 1) we find that after a man had taken a
wife, if she found no favor in his eyes, he might “ write her a bill of
divorcement, give it into her hand and send her out of his house.”
After he had turned her out, she might, if she liked, go and be another
man’s wife; and as nothing at all is said about giving her money, or
food, or clothes, it is probable that she would have to do that or starve.
After she had been cast adrift a few times, it is just as likely she would
prefer starvation. It is just as well to notice, too, that the woman had
no appeal. The husband was the accuser, the judge, and the jury. All
he had to do was to write out his sentence of divorce, give it to his wife
and send her away into the wide world. Women might also be taken as
captives of war, outraged and then cast aside. Express directions for
this kind of treatment are given in the twenty-first chapter of Deuter
onomy from the tenth to the fourteenth verses. Polygamy was general
among the peoples of the Bible ; perhaps the most remarkable example
of a much married man is that of Solomon, “the wisest man who ever
lived,” one of whose acts of wisdom was the possession of 700 first-class
and 300 second-class wives. But we do not need to rely only upon the
teachings of the Old Testament to find proof of the low estimation in
which women have always been held in Biblical times.
In Corinthians it is stated, “For the man is not of woman, but the
woman of the man; neither was man created for the woman, but the
woman for the man,” and again, “Let the women keep silence in the
churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are
commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they
will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a
shame for women to speak in the church.” If a woman has a healthy
desire for information, it is nipped in the bud. If her husband be as
ignorant as herself, she must be content, and ask nothing further.
But this is not all. In the 5th chapter of Ephesians we read: “Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, for the
�6
husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the
Church, and he is the savior of the body. Therefore, as the Church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands
in everything.” Nothing is said here about the beautiful doctrine
of forbearance one with another—no suggestion of mutual friend
ship and comradeship, which should exist in all true marriages.
Peter, in fact, commands the wives to couple their conversation
with fear. The New Testament looks upon marriage as a sort of
necessary evil. St. Paul taught that it was only to be adopted
as a concession to the weakness of man’s animal nature. That
purity and dignity of life, or that intellectual and sympathetic com
panionship should be the attributes of marriage never seems to have
occurred to the New Testament teachers. Mr. Lecky, in his History of
European Morals, says that marriage, under Christian rule, was viewed
in the most degraded form. The notion of its impurity, too, took many
forms, and exercised for some centuries an extremely wide influence
over the Church.
There is not one word in the New Testament condemnatory of poly
gamy. The restriction to one wife appears only to apply to bishops and
deacons (1 Tim. iii., 2, 12). Writing of the mediaeval Christians, Lecky
says: “ Christianity had assumed a form as polytheistic, and quite as
idolatrous as the ancient Paganism.” Sir William Hamilton, too, in his
Discussion of Philosophy and Literature, dealing with later Christianity,
and speaking particularly of Luther and Melancthon, says : “ They
promulgated opinions in favor of polygamy, and went to the extent of
vindicating to the spiritual minister the right to a private dispensation,
and to the temporal magistrate the right of establishing the practice, if
he chose, by public law.”
Professor George Dawes tells us that on December 19, 1539, at
Wittenberg, Luther and Melancthon drew up the famous Concillium,
authorising Phillip of Hesse to have a plurality of wives. This impor
tant document bears the names of nine of the most prominent men of
the Protestant Reformation. I find, from the same authority, that
John of Leyden established the practice of polygamy at Munster, and
drove from their homes all those who dared to oppose the odious custom;
and other Protestants followed his example. Until quite lately, the
Mormons, who are an extremely religious sect, practised polygamy.
The Mormons take the Bible as their moral guide, and are so sancti
monious that even their dances and festivities are opened and closed
with prayer.
It is instructive to compare the treatment of women under the rule
of Christianity with that of the ancient Romans. Moncure Conway,
�7
in one of his able discourses in South Place Institute some years ago
said, “ there was not a more cruel chapter in history than that which
records the arrest, by Christianity, of the natural growth of European
civilization as regards woman. In Germany it found woman partici
pating in the legislative assembly, and sharing the interests and counsels
of man, and drove her out and away, leaving her to-day nothing of her
ancient rights but the titles that remain to mark her degradation. In
the Pagan countries of Egypt, Greece, and Rome, woman’s position was
far higher than under Christian sway. The Egyptians neither degraded
her by polygamy nor kept her secluded. The Greeks, who at first treated
their women almost as slaves, gradually improved their condition, and
learnt from the Egyptians the arts of humanity and justice towards
women.” Lecky, in his Position of Women, says: “On the whole,
it is probable that the Roman matron was from the earliest period a
name of honor; that the beautiful sentence of a jurisconsult of the
Empire, who defined marriage as a lifelong fellowship, of all
divine and human rights, expressed most faithfully the feelings of the
people, and that female virtue had, in every age, a considerable place in
Roman biographies.” Long before the era of Christianity, the great
poetess Sappho flourished, of whom Plato spoke in such high terms of
honor. In ancient Greece, women taught in the philosophical schools,
and lectured on scientific and literary subjects. The last prominent
popular representative was Hypatia, the daughter of Theon, the
mathematician, who not only expounded the doctrines of Plato and
Aristotle, but commented upon the writings of Apollonius. But just at
this time Christianity was coming into power, and one of its apostles
was St. Cyril, who succeeded Theophilus to the Bishopric of Alexandria.
Hypatia was a heretic, St. Cyril was a Christian. One day as Hypatia
was proceeding to her lecture hall, she was set upon by a mob of monks
who, under the religious direction of Cyril, stripped her naked, dragged
her into a church, and there murdered her. They afterwards cut her
body to pieces, scraped the flesh from her bones with shells, and cast
the remnants into the fire. St. Cyril, the pious minister of Christ, was
never called to account for this terrible crime. In fact, to the Christians
the extermination of heretics was no crime, and so philosophy was
stamped out and destroyed, just as the great Alexandrian Library was
destroyed by Theophilus, the uncle of this St. Cyril, who for fear of the
heresy which inevitably accompanies knowledge, did away with the
grand array of literature which had been collected by the Ptolemys—
the Ptolemys who, in the words of Draper, “ recognized that there is
something more durable than the forms of faith, which, like the
organic forms of geological ages, once gone, are clean gone for ever, and
�8
have no restoration, no return. They recognized that within this world
of transient delusions and unrealities, there is a world of truth; and
that that world is not to be discovered through the vain traditions that
have brought down to us the opinions of men who lived in the morning
of civilization, nor in the dreams of mystics, who thought that they
were inspired. It is to be discovered by the investigations of geometry,
and by the practical interrogation of nature. These confer on humanity
solid, and innumerable, and inestimable blessings.”
I have endeavored to show that Christianity has always been the
enemy of education and of science. Such men as Galileo and Giordano
Bruno have fallen victims to its bigotry and intolerance. Servetus was
roasted to death over a slow fire, by order of Calvin, because he had the
audacity to think for himself upon religious matters. Dr. Draper, in
his Conflict between Religion and Science, says of the Inquisition, that
“ in general terms, its commission was to extirpate religious dissent by
terrorism, and surround heresy with the most horrible associations;
this necessarily implied the power of determining what constitutes
heresy. The criterion of truth was thus in possession of this tribunal,
which was charged to discover, and to bring to judgment, heretics
lurking in towns, houses, cellars, woods, caves, and fields. With such
savage alacrity did it carry out its object of protecting the interests of
religion that between 1481 and 1808, it had punished 340,000 persons,
and of these nearly 32,000 had been burnt.”
It has often been argued that persecution only emanated from the
Catholic Church. But Protestants have persecuted Catholics ; both of
these Christian sects have fallen upon each other whenever they have
had the chance. Not much more than 300 years ago, in the reign of
Elizabeth, who boasted of her religious tolerance, within twenty years
more than 200 Catholic priests were executed, while a yet greater num
ber perished in the filthy and fever-stricken gaols into which they were
plunged (Green’s Short History of the English People).
Whenever the Church has been most powerful, she has been most in
tolerant, and by “ the Church” I mean all communities whose thoughts
are bound by religious creeds. To-day the Church is losing her power
with the spread of education, and she is becoming more tolerant. One by
one, the old doctrines are slipping from under her feet. Priests of the
Established Church, like Archdeacon Farrar, have rejected Eternal
Punishment by Hell Fire; and the Inspiration of the Bible, the Birth
of the World 6,000 years ago, the Universal Flood: all these things which
at one time it was death at the stake to deny, are not now insisted upon
by many ministers of the gospel, who claim to be of the Broad School
of Christianity. And why are these things not as true to-day as they
�9
were a hundred years ago ? Simply because the pure light of science
has streamed upon them, and civilization is crumbling to atoms the
theories which have descended from primitive and barbaric times ; be
cause men and women are profiting by the experiences of the ages
because the inventions of railways and the telegraph, of newspapers,
and of the postal system are placing within reach of the poorest the
knowledge which, in the past, was withheld from them.
Now, it may be asked, What do I mean by Secularism? I mean,
the religion of this life. Secularists are constantly charged with
“negativeness.” We are charged with pulling down with one hand,
and building up nothing with the other—or rather we are accused
of expending all our energies upon the work of destruction, and with
constructing nothing—because, say the Christians, we have “nothing
to construct.” Let us see, therefore, what code of morals our Secular
ism embraces. Secularism sees only this world. It does not pretend
to waste valuable time, which might be employed in practical work
for the good of humanity, in discussing whether there may or may
not be, in some far off misty region, which has never yet been defined,
another world where all the ills of this one may be set right. Our
experience of this world has never proved to us, by any possible
method of reasoning, that another one, which at best must be an im
aginative one, will be any improvement on the present. We are content
to place the mythologies of the Bible upon a par with the mythologies
of Greece, or of Rome; to read the writings of the Biblical prophets
only as we might read the literature of other and more ancient reli
gions ; to study the welfare of our fellow creatures, to do right for the
love of rectitude, and not for the hope of a future reward, or the fear of
a future punishment. We hold that only by making happiness for
those around us, and by endeavoring, individually, to make the world
a little brighter for our having lived in it, can we hope to gain happi
ness for ourselves. We believe in the liberty of thought and of speech,
but we do not believe in any individual attempting to explain the
workings of some supposed cause, outside the universe of which, like
us, he knows nothing. We believe in concentrating our efforts upon
the improvement of this world, which is all the world we know of.
If this other world, with which Christians are apparently so well ac
quainted, should really exist; according to their own creed, only a very
few people are to get there. “ Strait is the gate and narrow the way,
and few there be that find it.” There will be no room for the heretics,
for the great reformers and inventors of all ages, for such men as
Galileo, or Bruno, or Spinoza. Truly the Secularist would rather seek
immortality in the hearts of men, the Secularist would rather recognise
�10
the eternity of great works accomplished, of liberties won, of all those
influences which can never die, than he would sigh for the paltry glory
of never-ending psalm-singing and knee-bending. But, alas, with all
our progress, with the gradual rejection of creeds among men, we
women, the larger part of the community, are still bound by the fetters
of the Church. Yet, as we gather by slow degrees the advantages of
education, which have until recently been withheld from us, so surely
shall we begin to think, to reason, and so to doubt. The great cry against
women is, that they “do not think.” Yes! but you have not let us
think. You have withheld from us the means by which we should have
been taught to think. We have only been thrown the crumbs which
fell from the table of knowledge. In an excellent article by Dr. Fitch,
in the latest edition of Chambers' Encyclopaedia, upon Education, he
says, speaking of endowed schools of the 18th, and the beginning of the
present century: “It is to be observed that while schools of the charity
class were open to girls, the whole of the grammar school education
was provided for boys only. There is scarcely a record in all the
voluminous reports of later charity commissions, of any school whose
founder deliberately contemplated a liberal education for girls ; certainly
not one which fulfilled such a purpose, whether it was contemplated by
the founder or not. A girl was not invited to the university or grammar
school; but she might, if poor, be needed to contribute to the comfort
of her ‘ betters,’ as an apprentice or a servant, and therefore the
charity schools were open to her.” It is only recently that some of the
Universities have partially thrown open their doors to women ; the
secular University of London led the way. Even now, when women,
as in the case of Miss Fawcett, outstrip the men in intellectual attain
ments, they are not allowed to receive the honorable rewards of their
work.
Fortunately, the emancipation of women has begun, the spirit of the
age points to freedom, and by and bye, when the myths and super
stitions of religious creeds shall have taken their places far back amid
the shadows, women shall stand side by side with all honest men, work
ing hand in hand with them in the arena of life for the commonweal,
given the same opportunities, the same rewards, the same inducements
for effort. And I would have you bear in mind that in order to have
strong intellectual men, in order that the race may grow in mental as
well as in physical vigor, it is necessary that the minds of women
should be cultivated.
The ancient Spartans, who were remarkable for the wondrous vigor
and strength of their men, recognised this necessity, at any rate as
regards the physical education of their women. They desired men of
�11
strong bodily configuration ; their ideal heroes were hardy, daring, and
resolute. Professor James Donaldson, writing in the Contemporary
Review, in 1878, says of the Spartans: “ The one function which
woman had to discharge was that of motherhood. But this function
was conceived in the widest range in which the Spartans conceived
humanity. In fact, no woman can discharge effectively any one of
the great functions assigned her by nature without the entire culti
vation of all parts of her nature. And so we see in this case. The
Spartans wanted strong men: the mothers therefore must be strong.
The Spartans wanted brave men; the mothers therefore must be
brave. The Spartans wanted resolute men—men with decision of
character: the mothers must be resolute. They believed with in
tense faith that, as are the mothers, so will be the children. And they
acted on this faith. They first devoted all the attention and care they
could to the physical training of their women. From their earliest
days the women engaged in gymnastic exercises ; and when they reached
the age of girlhood, they entered into contests with each other in
wrestling, racing, and throwing the quoit, and the javelin.” Farther
on in his essay, Professor Donaldson says: “ Such was the Spartan
system. What were the results of it ? For about four or five hundred
years there was a succession of the strongest men that possibly ever
existed on the face of the earth. The legislator was successful in his
main aim. And I think that I may add that these men were among
the bravest. They certainly held the supremacy in Greece for a con
siderable time, through sheer force of energy, bravery, and obedience to
law. And the women helped to this high position as much as the men.
They were themselves remarkable for vigor of body and beauty of form.”
Dealing with the education of the Spartan women, Donaldson says:
“Many of the wives were better educated than their husbands, and the
fact was noticed by others. ‘ You of Lacedemon,’ said a stranger lady
to Gorgo, wife of Leonidas, ‘ are the only women in the world that rule
the men.’ ‘ We,’ she replied, ‘ are the only women that bring forth
men.’ There is a great deal of point in what Gorgo said. If women
bring forth and rear men, they are certain to receive from them respect
and tenderness, for there is no surer test of a man’s real manhood than
his love for all that is noblest, highest, and truest in women, and his
desire to aid her in attaining to the full perfection of her nature.”
And so even now, late in the day as it is, we have begun to learn the
lesson that it is necessary, if men would advance, the women should
advance also.
Ah ! but we are told, women are not logical like men, they are more
impulsive, they are naturally more sentimental and superstitious. I
�12
admit it, but I contend that their position in these respects is the result
of their past training, or, rather, neglect of training. Does not the
tree of ignorance always bear the fruit of superstition? And just in
proportion as women become educated so do they become logical and
self-reliant. No one, however, pretends to deny that the highest
education and belief in Christianity often go together. But one must
remember, also, that part of the doctrine of Christianity is “to become
as little children ”—or, in other words, when dealing with religious
questions, it is necessary to accept the Bible narratives, with the simple
credulity of children. When an educated person comes, therefore, to
deal with Christianity—if he wishes to remain true to his faith—he
must necessarily put inductive and deductive reasoning out of sight; he
must be prepared to swallow whole, miracles, resurrections, marvellous
births, and other wonders, without the slightest attempt at mental
mastication. In dealing with these matters, the educated Christian is
compelled to throw reason and logic to the winds, or his belief would
falter. But it is impossible to settle these matters without the use of
reason. The Christian must therefore be content to shelve them, and
he finds the usual hackneyed phrase very useful at this crisis: “ These
are mysteries, ive do not attempt to understand them.” Now, that is where
the Secularist differs radically with the Christian. The Secularist main
tains that it is the duty of every man and woman to reason out, upon
the lines of experience, each and every question which affects the pro
blem of life. Secularists cannot see tl^e necessity of making exceptions
to this rule whenever religion is concerned. Naturally, women who
have always been kept in subjection—who have been taught that blind
unquestioning obedience and servile submission are qualities which
they should possess, are more readily adaptable to religious dogmas than
men, who have always enjoyed a wider freedom than women. Sub
mission to the rule of the Church, and humble reverence for its mini
sters have always been part and parcel of religious teachings.
As I have said, too, men are, by their training in the past, and in the
present, more logical in thought than women. It has often occurred
to me that this is one reason, out of many, why women are more
devoted to the Christian faith than men. It, however, only partially
explains it, because, as we have just seen, a vast number of people are
content to put into the background their logic and reason when they
come to deal with questions of belief.
And by following this plan they are, as they think, honestly able to
accept Christianity in its entirety, and to regard belief in such matters
as the Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement as essential to their
salvation. Individuals of this school, like Jonathan Edwards, or, to
�13
take examples of the present period, men like Mr. Spurgeon or Dr.
Talmage, are, as far as their religion is concerned, perfectly consistent;
and for my part I would far more respect men of this type than those
who belong to what is called the Broad school of Christianity, the men
who are neither true to Christianity nor Secularism; but who, to use a
vulgar phrase, run with both hare and hounds, and endeavor to keep
within distance of the advanced thought of the nineteenth century
while at the same time they pander to the superstitions of a creed
which is barbarous and unfit for a civilised community. I am not con
tending, however, that consistent Christians are not honest. I know
that great names are cited upon the side of Christianity, such as those
of Mr. Gladstone, Cardinal Newman or Sir Isaac Newton; and that, on
the other hand, Secularists can refer to such men as Charles Darwin,
Herbert Spencer, or Colonel Robert Ingersoll as having rejected the
Christian dogma. The real fact is that great names prove nothing so
far as individual thought is concerned. What we need to do is to
think for ourselves,—what we have no right to do is to control the
thought of others.
Mothers have no right to take advantage of the plasticity of their
children’s minds to instil into them doctrines which by and bye they
will have to unlearn. Of all confidences there is none greater, none
more unfaltering, than that of the child in its parent. Long before
reason has grown, the myths of the Bible have been related as veritable
facts to the infant mind. Slowly but surely the child is moulded for
the Church prison, and its impressionable nature stamped with creed
and dogma. What a terrible responsibility is this! and yet it is under
taken every day and every hour by the mothers of our nation, under
taken as a duty, as a labor of love—undertaken, too, with honesty and
sincerity. And so the child is sent out into the world, handicapped at
the outset; his mind warped with the narrow tenets of the Christian
faith. He goes forth to take his part in the world’s struggle wrapped
round with the mantle of superstition, which clings and drags around
his mental form, impedes the free movement of his thought, and
obstructs his reasoning faculties. And for this, as I have said, the
mother—nay, the education of the mother—is responsible. Well, in
deed, if women were taught to
Then would the wider field of
duty appear; the individuality of the child would not be sacrificed to
the authority of the parent; the spirit of enquiry would be nurtured
and stimulated; and the child would gain in self-reliance and percep
tion, while he would be untrammelled with delusions and faiths. We
have no right to bind the intellects of our children. We have no right
to pollute their minds with the horrible doctrines of Everlasting Dam
�14
nation and of the natural depravity of man; we have no right to
describe to them the barbarous and bloodthirsty actions of the men of
the Bible, and fill their youthful minds with horror at the awful doom
awaiting those who will not accept these stories as divine.
One duty at least we owe to our children—to give them fair play. I
do not mean, by that, that we are to bring them up in ignorance of
Biblical knowledge. Such knowledge is necessary and useful. But so
also is a knowledge of other religions of the world. The history and
development of Buddhism, of Hinduism, of Muhammadanism, and of
other ancient or modern faiths are of value to every thinking individual,
inasmuch as something may be learned from each oHthem. But if we
place before our children the religion of the Bible, it is surely our duty
to acquaint them with the important fact that it is but one out of
many religions ; and that having special prominence in this country, it
is perhaps necessary to study in particular its history and methods.
I think it is generally admitted that women are both practical and
sympathetic. If the great majority of women were Secularists, how
much more temporal work might be done. The time spent in praying
to the God of the Christians to grant favors or to avert disasters, to
alter decrees which, at the same time, he is supposed to have immut
ably determined, might be occupied in useful work; the hours spent at
the confessional or at the altar might be employed in the discharge of
the duties of citizens; the days given to Scripture reading would be
spent in the search for truth; the observance of religious rites and
forms would give place to following after the teachings of science; the
inmates of nunneries, at present shut away from the world, and offici
ating only in the solitudes of the cell, as the brides of Christ, would
become earnest, active workers, helping to spread the doctrine of intel
lectual freedom.
Let us look for a moment at some of the work that is being accom
plished to-day in the name of Christianity; and it may be as well to
bear in mind that women are always to the front whenever practical
work is to be done. Let us take, for instance, the British Women’s
Temperance Association. Perhaps no organisation for reform is more
energetic or can show better results than this society. But what I
want to draw special attention to is that the work is said to be done in
the, name of Christianity. Now, putting aside the fact that the founder
of Christianity on more than one occasion clearly sanctioned the prac
tice of wine-drinking, it must be obvious to anyone jwho at all seriously
considers the matter, that the drink question has absolutely nothing
whatever to do with any distinctive creed. In order to reform a drunk
ard he must be brought to see that excessive drinking is injurious to
�15
himself; that unless it be given up it will sooner or later end in the de
struction of his body. (I say nothing about the soibl because, according
to Christians, the repentance of an hour is sufficient to atone for the
sins of a lifetime, and is a certain passport to glory.) I say, then, that
the acceptance or non-acceptance of a creed has nothing to do with the
drink question. In fact, the followers of Muhammad set the Christian
bishops and priests a good example, for one of the Muhammadan rules
is abstention from intoxicating liquors, and the Muhammadans have no
taverns or gaming houses. Christians, too, are in the habit of sending
out batches of missionaries to preach the gospel of Christ to the poor
deluded heathen; and the same ships that carry the missionaries are
loaded with barrels of vile, adulterated rum which it is intended they
should consume in the intervals of digesting the good news which these
Christian ministers preach to them. The North American Indians are
indebted to Christianity for the introduction of drunkenness among
them! Then there is the great Peace Movement, started in this country
chiefly by the Quakers. Both the Peace Society and the International
Peace and Arbitration Society has its Female Committee, a band of
women who are pledged to support arbitration and use their influence
to put down war in the name of Christianity! And yet the Archbishop
of the Christian Church, as by law established, publicly consecrates the
flags of the army, and in times of war the Christian priests pray to the
God of the Christians to bless the murderous work of hewing down their
fellow creatures or blowing out their brains. Take, for instance, the
case of the Zulu war, when thousands of Zulus, fighting in defence of
their own country, and with only assegais to defend themselves against
the scientific weapons of civilised England, were butchered wholesale by
the English soldiers; who, upon their return to this Christian land, were
publicly applauded for their heroic deeds, and upon whose breasts her
Most Gracious Majesty the Queen pinned medals of honor. And then
the drums rolled and the trumpets played, and the ministers of the
Christian Church offered public thanksgiving to God for this glorious
victory. And the women—the peace-loving women of England—knelt
within the Church pews and joined devoutly in the national thanks
giving. And yet the Peace Movement is called a Christian movement!
and the religion which has been responsible for centuries of oppression
and bloodshed poses as affording its blessing and sanction to English
Peace Societies.
But I might go on interminably enumerating the great reform move
ments of the age which have been engendered by the spirit of progress
and of humanity, and which are totally distinct from any question of
creed or belief. I maintain that all great progressions tending towards
�16
political or social freedom, all noble endeavors to better the conditions
and surroundings of mankind have been undertaken in spite of and not
as a consequence of Christianity. I do not need to remind you of the
prominent place that women have taken in the secular work of the
Salvation Army. I am endeavoring to show how much the secular
work of women is impeded, and not advanced, by the Christian creed.
If the women of the Salvation Army devoted themselves entirely to
secular work, so much the more would their services be of value to the
community. But it is at least one step nearer truth when religionists
of the nineteenth century admit practically, if not theoretically, that
the salvation of the body is of more urgent necessity than that of the
soul; it is at least one point gained when secular work comes first and
spiritual work second; it is a significant sign of the times when Chris
tians are forced to admit that the only way in which it is to-day possible
to keep alive their creed among the poorest classes is to sandwich the
Atonement in between a good supper and a night’s rest, and silver the
pill of Eternal Damnation with a coating of material help. The Chris
tian women of the Salvation Army have, -in spite of themselves, had
to reject at least one of the teachings of the New Testament. If they
had followed the advice of St. Paul in one particular respect they could
not have undertaken the positions of preachers; they would have had
to “keep silence”; and if the women had kept silence, I will venture to :i
say the Army would not have become the big thing it has turned out to 'f
be. Mr. Stead, in his article in the Review of Reviews for October, ’.A
1890, says that the Salvation Army was “largely founded by a woman,”
i
and that “the extent to which the Salvation Army has employed women 2
in every department of its administration has been one of the great J.:
secrets of its strength.” I am not quoting this remark in order that
women may appear to take special credit, but only as proving the truth 'J;
of the assertion that women possess, perhaps in particular, the faculty ,
of persuasion.
The conversion, therefore, of women to Secularism will mean the.ijBft
increase of Secularism among men, and among the children who will be
the men and women of the future; it will mean the gradual relinquish
ing of prayer for helpful work; it will mean the abandonment of peni
tent submission for the display of energy in improving the surroundings
of life; it will mean the closing of the eye of faith in the supernatural
and the increase of confidence in noble self-effort; it will mean the ulti
mate death of .tyranny and fear and the beautiful realisation of the
Brotherhood of Man.
J .
j.
o
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why women should be secularists : a lecture
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Samson, Louisa
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N604
Subject
The topic of the resource
Women
Secularism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why women should be secularists : a lecture), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
Secularism
Women
Women Freethinkers