The Cape Girardeau Democrat. (Cape Girardeau, Mo.) 1876-1909, 1896-01-11
GAZETTE VS.. lNaeRsoLLIsM.
Poor Bob Heareth Not the Feeble
Bark Altar in His Rear.

Bark Altar in His Rear.
In recent issue of the Southeast
Gazette there appeared a slanderous
article upon Mr.. Robert G. Ingerson
anu the editor of this paper. We did
not make immediate reply because we
were so astonished to hear such Ian
guage uttered by professed christian.
The editor of the Gazettee surely for
gets that this ls the nineteenth century,
that this is free country, that we are
entitled to our own free thoughts and
need not a ruler or dictator to follow
and guide us along the path of life.
He denOunces us for publishing Mr..
Ingersoll's lectures and accuses US of
attempting to lead the young people
OF this city astray. We are not
publishing a religious paper, nor do
we attempt to teach religion to our
which we think we are rightly entitled,
as is every man or woman in this en-
tire country. MIR. 1ngersoll, infidel
though he is called, has never as yet
been guilty of uttering such blasphe-
nous language against fellow-man
as did the editor of the Gazette
against ne who has the respect of
millions of the most highly educated
of the entire universe.
In speaking of the lengthy editorial
which appeared in the Gazette the
Festus Times says:
The Times is not a religious weekly,
and can take care of the gods only by
letting the gods take care of them
selves. There is good in every reli-
gion, but the least good is always
found in the most dogmatic. and the
most erring are those claiming to be
the least. In olden times men who
dared to express doubts respecting
religion were brutally put to death,
but to-day a man who will not accord
his fellowmen the right to express
their own opinions is a curiosity.
<AHu IL SSSlnS SuCH d CuI1OSIGS cAlStS
in Cape Girardeau, and it is the edi-
tor of the the Southeast Gazette, judg-
ing from a two-column editorial in
that paper-and the funniest of lit is
that he does it sin the name of God!"
Be he ever so mistaken, Mr.. Inger-
soil has as much right to believe in
le,
Flynn has to believe in three gods or
in one god-or in both one god and
three gods. If Ingersoll is Clown
a "blasphemous wretch, a ''dauber,''
an "arch-infdel, ''proverbial
bull, " ''raging lunatic asylum" a
"brutal iconolast," ''filthy idol,''
a monster with cloven hoof," and
"criminalI' merely because he be-
lieves in no god, what is Mr.. Flynn
because he believes in one or three
gods? And if Mr.. IngersOll in ex-
pressing his belief sis diabolism,
works irretrievable injury, sheds gan
grened chunks of meat, belches forth
satanic vomit, invites a depraved
class to his banquet of filth and rot
with microbic viands," ETC., what are
the effects if MIR. Flynn's beliefs are
expressed? And why does Mr.. Flynn
think it criminal in others to enjoy
the same right to think and speak
which he demands and assumes him
self? Has our Heavenly Father made
him of a superior kind of clay? If
Mr.. Ingersoll in discussing religion
were to call Mr.. Flynn by such terms
as we have above quoted from that
most remarkable editorial of his in
characteriziRg Mr.. Ingersell, would
Mr.. Flynn think it was sin the name
of decency?" And all this concerning
a man whose character is noble and
who commands the respects of the
world, despite his fearless attacks
upon established religions. Perhaps
he is wrong, but he posses little of
that narrow-minded bigotry and un-
christian and intolerant spirit dis
played by that curiosity of the South
ga of Gazatta