don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote an editorial on October 19, 2009 in USA Today. He addressed the infamous UN resolution described in my home page blog that seeks limits on speech to insulate Muslims and other religious interests from comments they might find offensive. Turley wrote: "The public and private curtailment of religious criticism threatens religious and secular speakers alike. However, the fear is that, when speech becomes sacrilegious, only the religious will have true free speech. It is a danger that has become all the more real after the decision of the Obama administration to join in the effort to craft a new faith-based speech standard. It is now up to Congress and the public to be heard before the world leaves free speech with little more than a hope and a prayer."

Mr. Obama and his advisers would profit from reading the remarks of Robert G. Ingersoll uttered more than a century ago (May 19, 1887) to a jury hearing the trial of C. B. Reynolds, a man being tried by the State of New Jersey for this offense.

Ingersoll began by noting that the trial involves freedom of speech, the intellectual liberty of every citizen of New Jersey. He posed a choice facing the jury: "Does an American citizen have a right to express his honest thought?" He judged the significance of the trial: "No case of greater importance could ever be submitted to a jury," adding that he would "not wish to live in a world where I could not express my honest opinions. Men who deny to others the right of speech are not fit to live with honest men."

Ingersoll was only warming up: His closing argument lasted two hours and twenty minutes. Yet, nearly every part of his summation has been cited by free speech advocates ever since that day in 1887. Unrestricted expression, said Ingersoll, is an "intellectual liberty," without which we "are poor, miserable serfs and slaves." (Source: The Works of Robert G. Ingersoll, Vol XI., p. 55-117.)

To summarize or interrupt the flow of Ingersoll is akin to painting over a da Vinci, altering a Mozart concerto, editing Shakespeare or remodeling a design by Wright. It would be a secular "sacrilege" (not that there is or should ever be such a thing, secular or sacred or any other). Yet, there is no choice but to offer but morsels of the masterpiece—space and visitor schedules are limited.

The following excerpts will show that to read the spoken word of Ingersoll (delivered to the jury without notes) is to learn history, marvel at the beauty of language and wonder at the power of the human mind. Reading these excerpts also raises the question: Would science and society be as advanced today if blasphemy statutes had been common and enforced everywhere in Europe and elsewhere in recent centuries? It seems unlikely, especially when reflecting on the following passages from Ingersoll's plea to the New Jersey jurors weighing Mr. Reynolds' fate:

We have now a science called astronomy That science has done more to enlarge the horizon of human thought than all things else. We now live in an infinite universe. We know that the sun is a million times larger than our earth, and we know that there are other great luminaries millions of times larger than our sun. We know that there are planets so far away that light, traveling at the rate of one hundred and eighty-five thousand miles a second, requires fifteen thousand years to reach this grain of sand, this tear, we call the earth -- and we now know that all the fields of space are sown thick with constellations. If that statute had been enforced, that science would not now be the property of the human mind. That science is contrary to the Bible, and for asserting the truth you become a criminal. For what sum of money, for what amount of wealth, would the world have the science of astronomy expunged from the brain of man? We learned the story of the stars in spite of that statute.

The first men who said the world was round were scourged for scoffing at the Scriptures. And even Martin Luther, speaking of one of the greatest men that ever lived, said: "Does he think with his little lever to overturn the Universe of God?" Martin Luther insisted that such men ought to be trampled under foot. If that statute had been carried into effect, Galileo would have been impossible. Kepler, the discoverer of the three laws, would have died with the great secret locked in his brain, and mankind would have been left ignorant, superstitious, and besotted. And what else? If that statute had been carried out, the world would have been deprived of the philosophy of Spinoza; of the philosophy, of the literature, of the wit and wisdom, the justice and mercy of Voltaire, the greatest Frenchman that ever drew the breath of life -- the man who by his mighty pen abolished torture in a nation, and helped to civilize a world.

If that statute had been enforced, nearly all the books that enrich the libraries of the world could not have been written. If that statute had been enforced, Humboldt could not have delivered the lectures now known as "The Cosmos." If that statute had been enforced, Charles Darwin would not have been allowed to give to the world his discoveries that have been of more benefit to mankind than all the sermons ever uttered. In England they have placed his sacred dust in the great Abbey. If he had lived in New Jersey, and this statute could have been enforced, he would have lived one year at least in your penitentiary. Why? That man went so far as not simply to deny the truth of your Bible, but absolutely to deny the existence of your God. Was he a good man? Yes, one of the noblest and greatest of men. Humboldt, the greatest German who ever lived, was of the same opinion.

And so I might go on with the great men of today. Who are the men who are leading the race upward and shedding light in the intellectual world? They are the men declared by that statute to be criminals. Mr. Spencer could not publish his books in the State of New Jersey. He would be arrested, tried, and imprisoned; and yet that man has added to the intellectual wealth of the world.

So with Huxley, so with Tyndall, so with Helmholtz -- so with the greatest thinkers and greatest writers of modern times.

You may not agree with these men -- and what does that prove? It simply proves that they do not agree with you -- that is all. Who is to blame? I do not know. They may be wrong, and you may be right; but if they had the power, and put you in the penitentiary simply because you differed with them, they would be savages; and if you have the power and imprison men because they differ from you why then, of course, you are savages.

.. For thousands of years people have been trying to force other people to think their way. Did they succeed? No. Will they succeed? No. Why? Because brute force is not an argument. You can stand with the lash over a man, or you can stand by the prison door, or beneath the gallows, or by the stake, and say to this man: "Recant, or the lash descends, the prison door is locked upon you, the rope is put about your neck, or the torch is given to the fagot." And so the man recants. Is he convinced? Not at all. Have you produced a new argument? Not the slightest. And yet the ignorant bigots of this world have been trying for thousands of years to rule the minds of men by brute force. They have endeavored to improve the mind by torturing the flesh -- to spread religion with the sword and torch. They have tried to convince their brothers by putting their feet in iron boots, by putting fathers, mothers, patriots, philosophers and philanthropists in dungeons. And what has been the result? Are we any nearer thinking alike today than we were then?

.. The most important thing in this world is liberty. More important than food or clothes -- more important than gold or houses or lands -- more important than art or science -- more important than all religions, is the liberty of man. How has the church in every age, when in authority, defended itself? Always by a statute against blasphemy, against argument, against free speech. And there never was such a statute that did not stain the book that it was in and that did not certify to the savagery of the men who passed it. Never. By making a statute and by defining blasphemy, the church sought to prevent discussion -- sought to prevent argument -- sought to prevent a man giving his honest opinion. Certainly a tenet, a dogma, a doctrine, is safe when hedged about by a statute that prevents your speaking against it. In the silence of slavery it exists. It lives because lips are locked. It lives because men are slaves.

The conclusion of this essay will appear here on November 9.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the MEANING DOMAIN under the skill area of applied wellness. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell