T H E TORCH OF REASON, SILV E R T O N , OREGON, TH U R SD A Y , JA N U A R Y 20, 1898.
4
I T ir c h
I O I V II
ai
VI
I
L ib e rty to Do W ro n g .
P P M Q f i r i ' S ecu larism > ar,d how can a n V reaw'
r y v c i o v r i i onable person pxpect Us to print
The Only P aper of Its Kind.
all the ol<l re-hashes of god and
spirit m ysticism s th at real S ecular
Published W eekly bv the Lilieral U n i ists are tired < f?
T h e re are many
versity Com pany, in the In terests of
honest people with m any honest
C onstructive, Moral secularism .
thoughts, and we respect them for
J. E. H o sm e r,....................... E ditor
In th at excellent Ereethought
journal, the Boston Investigator, of
December 25th, is an article by Mr.
Cyrus W. Coolridge, in which this
gentlem an calls to account a state
ment we m ad e in th e T orch some
Manager’the'r
tyjn,‘Ft5r ""d w"uld ?«ht ,or
th e ir rig h t to ex p ress >uch th o u g h t-1. w eeks
p.
ago.
T h e s ta te m e n t is as
E ntered at th e jw>stotfice at Silverton, hut we are not able to assist them follows: “ No one should have the
Oregon, as seconu-class mail m atter.
in publishing all their thoughts, liberty to do wrong.”
SUBSCRIPTION
RATES.
One year, in a d v an c e .................. ..$ 1 00
..
5G
Six m onths in a d v an c e ....................
25
T hree m onths, in ad v an ce................
In clubs of five or m ote, one year,
<o
in a d v an c e ..........................................
Money should lie sent by registered
le tte r or m oney order.
Notice!
A pencil m ark here denotes th a t your
subscription will expire w ith th e next
num ber. You are earnestly requested
to renew so th a t you may receive the pa
per w ithout in te rru p tio n . We bave de
cided th a t it is best for all concerned
th a t we do not send pcpers longer th an
th e tim e paid for u less so ordered.
T his will prevent any loss ami we will
know ju st where we stand.
W e request you to send us the nam es
of Secularists who m ight become su b
scribers ami we will mail sam ple copies.
THURSDAY, JA N . 20, E. M. 298
T h e F ifth P s a lm .
To th e F reethinker» called S ecularists.
G ive ear to our words, O ye p e o p le ;
List to th e Voice of our cry.
U nto thee we will p ra y ; thou c a n st hear
us,
And answ er a t once if th o u ’lt try.
As long as we’ve breath we will pray
thee,
For we’re sure you’ve no pleasure in
sin,
And will help us to spread th e glad tid
in g s
Of freedom from wrongs th a t
been.
have
T h e foolish old dogm as and errors,
W e know th a t thou h a te st them a l l ;
B ut we would redeem , not destroy them
W ho’re d rin k in g life’s bitterest gall.
W e’ll build for thee, houses of science
W here the youth will learn tru th
w ithout fear.
Oh, help us to do this, ye people,—
To enem ies tu rn a deaf ear.
To the cause, som e cannot prove fa ith
ful ;
T h eir m inds are u nable to clasp
Any th o u g h t except th a t of d e stru c tio n :
C onstruction they never can grasp.
W e would not condem n them , O people,
B u t show them th e tru th am i th e
rig h t,
And help F reeth o u g h t children he build
ers
To work against orthodox blight.
T hen soon we’ll rejoice all to g eth er;
H u m a n ity ’ll all shout for joy,
Because we will all lie as b ro th ers;
No creeds to m olest nor destroy.
And if w ith thy shield th o u ’lt protect us,
And help us In righteousness b u ild ;
Spite the Davids of old and th e lovers of
gold,
Sec’lar prophesies will be fulfilled.
N o t O p en to All.
It seems to he the param ount
boast of some L ite ra l papers and
societies th a t they are open and
free to all for the expression of ev-
ery honest thought. This irf not
th e boast of the T orch of R eason ,
and we believe that it is not for the
interest of our cause nor our pa-
trons to endeavor to publish every-
thing. We haven’t space nor time
t<> publish h alf what we w ant 10 on
the subject of constructive, m oral
even if we wished to, and some peo
ple have thoughts th at seem so il
logical to us th a t we think their
pnhlic-'tion a waste of time and a
detrim ent to the world. This does
not signify th a t we do not want
our friends to write articles for the
T orch . The tru th is, for this very
reason, we need more help than
those who print everything for ev
erybody.
Our idea is not to print anything
th a t will mystify the m inds of even
the children. Of course we might
see fit to publish a regular spook or
other unscientific or illogical a rti
cle, hut if we should it would he
im m ediately followed with our
ideas of its absurdities. In this
way we hope to appeal to the com
mon sense of our readers, and when
they see that their children and
friends are not to he stuffed with
absurdities from the pens of m ys
tery mongers and unprincipled
mongrel m inisters they will appre
ciate the change. Every periodical
is a teacher, and for a teacher to
teach th a t which tends to mystify
his pupils is stultifying, destroying,
crim inal. And yet here are period
icals— teachers that are full of m ys
tery. They are not satisfied with
printing, hut the picture of a m y th
ical savior with glory shining all
about his tangled hair, angels with
feathered wings and doves sup
p o sed to be holy ghosts, etc., etc.,
are dished up to the poor children
who ought to be learning the tru th .
Don’t you think, dear reader, th at
it is about tim e to have one little
Porch of Reason?
We can make
an excellent teacher and friend out
of our papei if those who love com
mon sense will help m ake it so.
W hat do we want? We want
more subscribers; we w ant money
enough so we can have the paper
illustrated each week; we w ant a
larger correspondence; we want
friends who will write good, short
Secular stories and other articles,
and we w ant the very best you can
“ scare u p ’’ in the way of Secular
poems and gems of thought. Pure
Secular literature suitable for our
work is scarce, and as we are busy,
very busy, with our school work, it
oftentim es overworks our force to
keep everything going.
Secular friends, help bs keep the
T orch of R eason Secular; help us
m ake it better in every way possi-
ble; help us to give it a wider cir-
culation, and the seeds of good we
may thus sow working together will
spring up in after years and hear
the precious fruits of happiness.
We are open to conviction and
w ith o u t reg ard to who is right <»r
wrong in his ideas of this im p o rt
ant question, let us investigate it.
Mr. Coolridge asks us to tell who
is to decide what is lig h t and w hat
is wrong.
W ell, friend Cyrus,
your reason should decide for you,
and if you disobey its decisions it
will punish you. If, in actions af
fecting others, your reason leads
you to d<> what is contrary to the
reason of the m ajority of those with
whom you associate, and they con
sider your actions wrong or d etri
m ental to the society, then the m a
jo rity should decide. T he m ajority
m ay make a m istake, hut its decis
ion is the highest standard we have
—the best guide th a t can he found
— the best and nearest to an infal
lible regulator of our actions tow
ard others, and without obedience
to this regulator, which the world
has been so long in learning to
obey, we can have no free men and
women.
Surely •r our friend would not ad-
vacate the idea th at one should
have the liberty to commit m urder.
“ Murder is wrong” , says M r. Cool-
ridge’s reason. “ M urder is wrong,”
says the m ajority, and laws are
made to prevent m urder.
O ur
friend makes some statem ents which
we believe to be true, hut they have
hut little bearing on the subject.
It m ay be hard — it is very hard to
decide w hat is for the good of hu
m anity, i. e., v>hat is right.
The
T orch oe R eason believes th at it is
not wrong to work on S unday and
the C hristian Advocate believes
th a t it is, hut this does not argue
th at anyone should have the liberty
to do wrong. Infidels with a
m ajority of the C hristians of this
country have decided th a t it is
right for man to think as he choos
es, and that he can express th at
thought, being o«dy accountable for
the abuse of the right, therefore we
have the right to th in k and ad-
vocate what is thought to be wrong
by others, and they have the sam e
privilege, hut certainly no one
should have the liberty to do
wrong. It may l>e hard to decide,
we repeat, w hat is wrong, but no
one should have the liberty to do
wrong when it is decided by the
best ability of the m ajority. If
we contradict this and say th a t all
should have the liberty to do wrong,
or as Mr. Coolridge seems to ad-
vocate, th at all should do as they
think is right w hether it is or not,
then if one th in k s it rig h t to “ en-
joy himself at the expense of
another m an ”, he should have the
liberty to do so. If we should have
the liberty to do one wrong we eer-
t&inlv should have the liberty to
do all wrong. Now where are we?
Should I have the right to murder?
Should Mr. C<>olridge have the
r ig h t to steal? Should we have
the liberty io do any wrong? Jef-
ferson,
Paine, and W ashington
were not m urderers, Mr. Coolridge;
th e y fought in self defense and for
the defense of th eir friends. If
they d id n ’t, if they were m urder
ers, they should not have had the
liberty to kill their fellow men.
In regard to using the U. S.
m ails for all kinds of pictures, we
are of the opinion th a t the m ajor
ity of the people of the United
States should decide this question,
and if they see fit Io delegate the
power to regulate th is m atter to
some one m an or set of men we see
nothing in this, w hether it is
thought to be right or wrong, to
prove that anyone should have the
liberty to do wrong.
The T orch of R eason th in k s it
can see the fallacy of Mr. Cool-
ridge’s reasoning(?). H e says th at
our statem ent that ‘ no one should
have the liberty to do wrong” , is
ihe m otto of the C atholic Church
and all haters of progress. The
Catholics m ay have m isconstrued
its m eaning and used it th u s to
further its cause, and so we think
our friend has m isconstrued its
m eaning as his next statem ent
shows. H e says, “ Every man
should have the right not only to
think hut also to do wrong— th a t is
to say, what o th er people consider
wrong— so long as he does not in
fringe upon the rights of other peo
ple.” W hy, of course, Mr. Cool
ridge, a m an should have the liber
ty to do what others consider
wrong, and they should have the
liberty to do w hat he considers
wrong. No one disputes this, hut,
poor fellow, can you not see that
you, in your blind endeavor to pick
a little flaw in the T orch of R eas
on , ju st because you have some
ideas th a t you know seem very
ridiculous to us, have proven that
in one instance at least your judg
m ent is poor and your reason lack
ing?
A m an should have the liberty
1° do wrong provided he does right,
i-
provided “ he does not infringe
upon the rights of o th ers” . You
^ee, when a m an does a thing think-
R is right and it does not in-
fringe upon the rights of others, it
is rig h t even if it is wrong. The
trouble lies in Ihe m eaning of the
words right and wrong. Pope said,
hatever is is rig h t.” If this be
true, and we th in k there is some
tru th in it if we are careful to u n
derstand w hat he m eans by right,
do one can have the liberty to do
wrong.
We do not pretend, and did not
pretend, to tell w hat is right and
wrong, although we are willing to