Blue-grass blade., 1895-08-04
AN INTOLERENT INFIDEL.


In extenuation of our sons fiery
criticism of Mr.. c. G.. Moore, of the
Blue Grass Blade, perhaps we ought
to say that this is his first effort of
a polemic character. Last month
he had charge of the editorial de-
partment of The Pulpit, and, there
fore, wrote the article on prohibi
ton, in criticism of which Mr..
Moore filled more than two col
umns of his paper with a lot of
silly bluster and empty bravado
that we would not consider worth
noticing were he not an infidel in
whom we feel considerable inter-
est.
The boy very naturally feels, that
inasmuch as he wrote the offending
article, we should allow him space
for a reply of his own, and, after all,
we think it well enough to do so,
since Mr.. Moore is an admirable
subject for a new beginner to prac-
tice upon.
Mr.. Moore seems to have directed
his criticism at us not, perhaps,
having noticed that we were sick
last month, and that another was
in charge, all of which was explain
ed over our sons signature, but we
make no objection to this since we
are perfectly willing to assume all
responsibility for the article referred
to, and now it is in order, perhSps,
for us, too to take a hand in the
fray.
Several months ago Mr.. Moore
wrote us proposing an exchange of
advertisements, to which we agreed
and the exchange was made. Now
he flies into a passion and threatens
to break up this friendly exchange
because we are not prohibitionists.
This shows him to be as intolerent
and narrow mind, ID as an orthodox
preacher. In trying to convert us
to prohibition views he resorts to
the same methods used by the
Christians in trying to convert inf
dels. He prides himself on being
Infidel, yet he is as intolerent as a
Christian. In regular Christian
prohibition style he tries to create
the impression that we are immoral
because we oppose prohibition and
that he is too moral to advertise SO
immoral a journal as The Indepen-
dent Pulpit.
Were i, not for what we are about
to relate, one might give Mr.. Moore
credit for being at least an honest
and candid fanatic, unwilling to
advertise journal that he believed
to be immoral; but what are we to
think of his fine talk about moral
ity when the fact is known that he
understood the position of the Pull
pit on the prohibition question as
we'll when he proposed an exchange
of advertisements as he does now?
This the files of his own paper
during last year will show, we have
twice discussed the matter. If in
50 short time he had forgotten
this, then he is an imbecIle and it
don't make any difference what he
says. But if, as the above facts go
10 show, he proposed that exchange
knowing our position on the prohi-
bition question he is only a hypo-
critic, and all his loud talk about
honesty and morals is cant and
and he can now take
which ever horn of this dilemma he
prefers.
We don't care fig as to whether
ne publishes our advertisement or
not. He can do just as he likes
about it. We have just as poor an
opinion of his views on prohibition
rs he can possibly have of ours, but
We are liberal enough to tolerate his
light to them, and we do not wish
% punish him for exercising his
light. He acknowledges that his
advertisement in The Pulpit brings
lim subscribers, and we will not be
he first to break up the exchange,
hough in view of his whimsical
disposition and the intolerant big
try that so frequently characterizes
lis writings, which comprises most
f what the Blade contains, we will
ave to change the wording OF his
advertisement in strict accord with
he truth, which we understand J