[968] _Ibid._ p. 117.

[969] _After Bread, Education_, p. 10.

[970] Bebel, _Woman_, p. 227.

[971] Ethel Snowden, _The Woman Socialist_, p. 70.

[972] Blatchford, _Merrie England_, p. 49.

[973] Jowett, _The Socialist and the City_, p. 60.

[974] Vandal, _L'Avenement de Bonaparte_.

[975] _Rapports de police publies par Schmidt_, iii. p. 389.

[976] Roussel, _Un Eveque a.s.sermente_, p. 298.

CHAPTER XXVI

THE SOCIALIST ATt.i.tUDE TOWARDS CHRISTIANITY AND RELIGION

What is the att.i.tude of Socialism towards Christianity and religion?

A clerical apologist of Socialism informs us that "Socialism is founded on the doctrine of the Fatherhood of G.o.d and brotherhood of man."[977] Another reverend gentleman states: "Socialism in the first place means combination, bringing together men for the building up of a sacred, holy life on this earth. It means the building up together of the different elements of human life. It is, in the grand words of the New Testament, which we were told Socialists did not believe in, 'No man liveth unto himself, and no man dieth unto himself.'"[978] A third clergyman tells us that "The ethics of Socialism are identical with the ethics of Christianity."[979]

Some British Socialist leaders explain that Socialists are good Christians, and that Socialism attacks only the Church and professed Christians, but not religion. "Much of what is regarded as anti-Christian Socialist doctrine is only an attack upon the Churches and professed Christians, and, so far from being anti-Christian, is, as a matter of fact, inspired by the ethics of Christ's teaching."[980] Other British Socialist leaders say that Socialism, not being a religious doctrine, has no concern with religion and does not meddle with it. "A charge against Socialists is that they are Atheists whose aim is to destroy all religion and all morality. This is not true. It is true that many Socialists are Agnostics, and some are Atheists. But Atheism is no more a part of Socialism than it is a part of Toryism, or of Radicalism, or of Liberalism."[981] "Socialism has no more to do with a man's religion than it has with the colour of his hair. Socialism deals with secular things, not with ultimate beliefs."[982]

It is quite true that "there is at present no consensus of Socialist opinion on religious questions,"[983] but it is hardly honest on the part of Socialist leaders to a.s.sert that Socialism has nothing to do with religion. The leading journal of the Fabian Society frankly confesses: "There is the argument that Socialism has nothing whatever to do with subjects such as religion and marriage. But if Socialism is a theory of the State, nothing human is alien to it. It may be true that no one of the specific theories of religion or marriage so far put forward by Socialists has any claim to be regarded as the Socialist view; but there is all the difference in the world between such an admission and the denial that Socialism has any concern with the questions at all."[984]

Some Socialists proclaim that Socialism will carry out the will of Christ upon earth. Mr. Keir Hardie, for instance, says: "Christ laid down no elaborate system of either economics or theology. No great teacher ever did. His heart beat in sympathy with the great human heart of the race. His words are simple and not to be misunderstood when taken to mean what they say. His prayer--Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in Heaven--was surely meant to be taken literally Are our opponents prepared to a.s.sert that in Heaven there will be factories working women and children for starvation wages; coal-mines and private property in land, dividing the population of Heaven into two cla.s.ses, one revelling in riches and luxury, destructive of soul and body, the other grovelling in poverty, also destructive of all that is best in life? If not, how can they consistently support the system which inevitably produces that state of things upon earth?"[985]

Other Socialists frankly confess that Socialism is absolutely incompatible with Christianity and all other religions; that Socialism can succeed only if religion be abolished, and that therefore religion must be abolished. The philosopher of British Socialism states: "Socialism utterly despises the 'other world' with all its stage properties--that is, the present objects of religion. It brings back religion from heaven to earth."[986] "As to the ethical teaching of Christ, with its one-sided, introspective, and individualistic character, we venture to a.s.sert that no one acquainted with the theory of modern scientific Socialism can for one moment call it Socialistic. Socialism has no sympathy with the morbid, eternally-revolving-in-upon-itself transcendent morality of the Gospel discourses. This morality sets up a forced, to the vast majority impossible, standard of 'personal holiness' which, when realised, has seldom resulted in anything but (1) an apotheosised priggism, _e.g._ the Puritan type, or (2) in an epileptic hysteria, _e.g._ the Catholic saint type."[987] Mr. Blatchford states: "I have been asked why I have 'gone out of my way to attack religion.'

In reply I beg to say that I am working for Socialism when I attack a religion which is hindering Socialism, that we must pull down before we can build up, and that I hope to do a little building, if only on the foundation. I oppose the Christian religion because I do not think the Christian religion is beneficial to mankind, and because I think it an obstacle in the way of humanism."[988] Another very influential writer says: "Personally I feel called upon to attack Christianity as I would any other harmful delusion. I do not believe in the theology of Jesus any more than I do in his sociology. It is no use pretending that Socialism will not profoundly revolutionise religion.

The change in the economic basis of society is the more important thing to strive for; but if the triumph of the Socialist ideal does not crush supernatural religion, then we shall still have a gigantic fabric of falsity and convention upon which to wage war. Happily Christianity becomes less and less of a power every day. So far, indeed, from Christianity being able to support Socialism, it goes hard with Christianity to stand by itself. As a support to Socialism it would surely prove a broken reed."[989]

A Socialist poet proclaims:

The name of Christ has been the sovereign curse, The opium drug that kept us slaves to wrong, Fooled with a dream, we bowed to worse and worse.

"In heaven," we said, "He will confound the strong."

O hateful treason that has tricked too long!

Had we poor down-trod millions never dreamed Your dream of that hereafter for our woe, Had the great powers that rule, no Father seemed, But Law relentless, long and long ago Had we risen and said, "We will not suffer so!"

"O Christ, O You who found the drug of heaven, To keep consoled an earth that grew to h.e.l.l, That else to cleanse and cure its sores had striven, We curse That name!"[990]

There is an eminently practical reason for the hostility of Socialists to Christianity. Religious people are not likely to become Socialists.

"Christianity is like a set of manacles fastened upon the minds of those who believe in it. It is vain for us to look for aid from the Church and Christianity. It might be supposed that a hungry Christian would rebel against his hunger as readily as a hungry Atheist. But it is not the case."[991]

The belief in a life after death also is incompatible with Socialism, and must therefore be combated: "We are compelled to abandon the belief in immortality. He who is given to meditating on his latter end and for whom the question of a post-physical future life for himself as an individual is of primary importance, is, generally speaking, indifferent where not positively hostile to social ideals."[992] "The moment this belief in an after-death existence is erected into a dogma, the moment it comes to be looked upon as an article of faith, which it is a duty to hold, or at least which it is the evidence of an ign.o.ble disposition of mind not to hold, then it becomes an enemy to be combated."[993]

The practical teachings of Christ are directly opposed to the practical teachings of Socialism: "Jesus said, 'Blessed are the poor.'

Socialism recognises that wealth is a good thing, and it exists for the purpose of securing a better share of it for the 'blessed' poor.

Socialism declares that all ought to work; but Jesus did no manual work after he was thirty years of age, and he encouraged his disciples to leave their occupations, to wander about and to beg, and this last feature of discipleship has in all ages been well maintained.

Socialism incites the workers of all countries to unite for the prosecution of the cla.s.s war; but Jesus approved of obedience, contentment, and humility of spirit."[994]

Socialism has no use for Christianity. "To-day we have to settle down to our primers and our programmes, our Blue-books and our social experiments, just as if Jesus had never lived, or perhaps all the more because he lived. We get no a.s.sistance from Him. His followers are our enemies in every country which owns His influence--and the worst enemies of all because ever professing friendship."[995]

Christianity is, according to Socialists, an outworn creed. "As Marx says, 'The religious world is but the reflex of the real world.

Christianity, like all religions, is but an expression of material conditions, a direct outcome of social relations, the unsubstantial image of a world reflected in the muddy pool of human intellect. Jesus varies with the ages. Redeemer of Roman slave; War-G.o.d of Crusader; General Overseer of Manufacturing Capitalist."[996] Besides, Socialists resent "the continual reference of ideal perfection to a semi-mythical Syrian of the first century when they see higher types even in some now walking this upper earth, but in vulgar flesh and blood and without the atmosphere of nineteen centuries to lend enchantment to them."[997]

Lastly, Christianity has been a failure: "The success of Christianity as a moral force has been solely upon isolated individuals. In its effects on societies at large it has signally and necessarily failed."[998] "Holiness! Your religion does not make it. Its ethics are too weak, its theories too unsound, its transcendentalism is too thin. There ought to be no such thing as poverty in the world. The earth is bounteous: the ingenuity of man is great. He who defends the claims of the individual, or of a cla.s.s, against the rights of the human race is a criminal. A hungry man, an idle man, an ignorant man, a dest.i.tute or degraded woman, a beggar or pauper child, is a reproach to society and a witness against existing religion and civilisation. In such a world as this, friend Christian, a man has no business reading the Bible, singing hymns, and attending divine worship. He has not time. All the strength and pluck and wit he possesses are needed in the work of real religion, of real salvation.

The rest is all 'dreams out of the ivory gate and visions before midnight.'"[999] "In a really humane and civilised nation there should be and need be no such thing as poverty, ignorance, crime, idleness, war, slavery, hate, envy, pride, greed, gluttony, vice. But this is not a humane and civilised nation, and never will be while it accepts Christianity as its religion."[1000]

Our belief in G.o.d also must be abandoned, but if we continue believing in G.o.d it follows that man is not responsible for his actions, that he cannot do wrong: "Man is what G.o.d made him; could only act as G.o.d enabled him or constructed him to act. If G.o.d is responsible for man's existence, G.o.d is responsible for man's act. Therefore man cannot sin against G.o.d."[1001] "If G.o.d is all-knowing, He knew before He made man what man would do. If G.o.d is all-powerful, He need not have made man at all, or He could have made a man who would be strong enough to resist temptation. Or He could have made a man who was incapable of evil. If G.o.d had never made man, then man could never have succ.u.mbed to temptation. G.o.d made man of His own divine choice and made him to His own divine desire. How then could G.o.d blame man for anything man did? Man might justly say to G.o.d: 'I did not ask to be created. You knew when You made me how I should act. If You wish me to act otherwise, why did You not make me different? I was fore-ordained by You to be and to do what I am and have done. Is it my fault that You fore-ordained me to be and to do thus?' The actions of a man's will are as mathematically fixed at his birth as are the motions of a planet in its...o...b..t. G.o.d, who made the man and the planet, is responsible for the actions of both."[1002]

"Divine law says that certain acts are good and that certain acts are evil; and that G.o.d will reward those who do well and will punish those who do ill. And we are told that G.o.d will so act because G.o.d is just.

But I claim that G.o.d cannot justly punish those who disobey, nor reward those who obey His laws. If G.o.d created all things, He must have created the evil as well as the good. Who, then, is responsible for good and evil? Only G.o.d, for he made them. He who creates all is responsible for all. G.o.d created all: G.o.d is responsible for all. He who creates nothing is responsible for nothing. Man created nothing: man is responsible for nothing. Therefore man is not responsible for his nature, nor for the acts prompted by that nature. Therefore G.o.d cannot justly punish man for his acts. Therefore the Divine law, with its code of rewards and punishments, is not a just law and cannot have emanated from a just G.o.d."[1003]

"I do not pretend to say whether there is, or is not, _a_ G.o.d, but I deny that there is a loving Heavenly Father who answers prayer. I deny the existence of Free Will and possibility of man's sinning against G.o.d. I deny that Christ is necessary to man's salvation from h.e.l.l or from Sin. I do not a.s.sert or deny the immortality of the soul. I know nothing about the soul, and no man is, or ever was, able to tell me more than I know."[1004] "I do seriously mean that no man can, under any circ.u.mstances, be justly blamed for anything he may say or do.

That is one of my deepest convictions."[1005]

Mr. Blatchford's philosophy excuses, and therefore encourages, every action based upon a bad impulse, every vice and every crime, and his creed should find the unqualified approval of habitual criminals and loafers.

Views similar to those of Mr. Blatchford are expressed by many other Socialists. We read, for instance: "It was pleasant to believe that a benevolent hand was guiding the steps of society; overruling all evil appearances for good; and making poverty here the earnest of a great blessedness and reward hereafter. It was pleasant to lose the sense of worldly inequality in the contemplation of our equality before G.o.d.

But utilitarian questioning and scientific answering turned all this tranquil optimism into the blackest pessimism. Nature was shown to us as 'red in tooth and claw': if the guiding hand were indeed benevolent, then it could not be omnipotent, so that our trust in it was broken: if it were omnipotent, it could not be benevolent; so that our love in it turned to fear and hatred."[1006]

As long as childhood pines in City slum; As long as Landlords steal their racking rent; As long as Love and Faith to gold succ.u.mb; As long as human life in war is spent; While false religion teaches men to pray To a false Tyrant, whom they misname G.o.d; Whose "Holy Will" is--so they glibly say-- The poor should suffer 'neath His chast'ning rod; As long as men do buy and sell the soil, And thereby make their fellow men their slaves; While selfishness exacts its cruel spoil; While yet the poor are ground into their graves; Until these crying wrongs are made to cease Nowhere upon this earth can there be peace.[1007]

Although the Socialists have declared war against the Christian religion and the Christian Churches, they freely quote the Scriptures and the Fathers if it suits their purpose, and shamelessly misuse the name of Christ. In support of their maxim "Property is theft," they quote St. Jerome's saying: "Opulence is always the result of theft: if not by the actual possessor, then by his predecessors."[1008] They quote Christ in support of their demand for the abolition of private property, marriage and the family. "Christ abolished all private property, and with it the State. He abolished all distinctions of race, rank, s.e.x, and intellect. He made the first last and the last first, acknowledging only devoted _service_ as true greatness; the only law, the Law of Love. In His sweeping condemnation of egoism in every form it seems doubtful if He did not even lay iconoclastic hands on marriage and the family, as they existed and exist. In the resurrection they neither marry nor give in marriage, but are as the angels in heaven. Woman (to His mother), what have I to do with thee?

Whosoever shall do the will of My Father which is in heaven the same is My brother, and sister, and mother."[1009] They use the name of Christ for electioneering purposes. At a West Ham election, for instance, the electors received leaflets which stated "If you vote for the Munic.i.p.al Alliance you vote against G.o.d. If Christ were in Plaistow Ward, Christ would vote for Coe."[1010]

Professor Schaffle, perhaps the most fair-minded and moderate scientist who ever criticised Socialism, was perfectly right in stating: "Socialism of the present day is out-and-out irreligious, and hostile to the Church. It says that the Church is only a police inst.i.tution for upholding capital, and that it deceives the common people with a 'cheque payable in heaven,' that the Church deserves to perish."[1011] The above words were written with regard to German Socialism, and British Socialism is far more irreligious, violent, and revolutionary than is the German variety.

FOOTNOTES:

[977] Rev. E.T. Russell in _Forward_, November 23, 1907.

[978] Rev. L. Jenkyns Jones in _Forward_, November 16, 1907.

[979] Rev. Frank Ballard in _Socialism: A Cancerous Growth_, p. 19.

[980] Macdonald, _Socialism_, p. 99.

[981] Blatchford, _Real Socialism_, p. 4.