Waterbury evening Democrat., 1908-09-18


 that tendency of socialism exists to-
 day than France where the unjust
 confscation of church property Is the
 work of socialists.
 The committee informs us that so-
 cialism has not attacked the church
 in the United States. In the pres
 ent condition of affairs 1t does not
 dare to. If 1t did, Unterman in his
 "A Socialists Confession of Faith"
 gives us its attitude: "If," he says.
 "a supreme being created the world
 in the beginning and then left us
 to ourselves because we refused to
 submit to divine tyrant, so much
 the worse for him. We have man. aged to struggle along without his help so long and we can also rise
 higher without him in the future" :"
 (Appeal to Reason, Feb 21. 1903). {.
 And l have already quoted Bebel as saying that Christianity and social
 ism stand toward each other as fire and water" And both Unterman
 and Bebel are scientific socialists
 And l would suggest to the commit. tee that if it reads the Manifesto, :" the joint work of Marx and Engels, it will find there Marks sentiments concerning religion.
 The committee says that again our opponent tries to draw the com mittee into discussion on the re- lation of socialism to the church." In the instance referred to, the case was the other way around. The committee lugged in the Pan-An- glican convention as an argument and thereby compelled me to make the distinction between Christian so- cialism and scientific socialism. The committee says that there Is but one kind of true socialism and that is scientific socialism. In that the committee agrees with the great leaders of socialism. And since scientific socialism, as both Engels and Heron state, (the one German, the other American) places private property, religion and the present form of marriage" in the same cate gory; since scientific socialism every where, even in America, takes its stand in the religious question, why should We not expect the committee to tell us where it stands? In one breath the committee tells us that its members are the disciples of scientific socialism which has taken very positive and antagonistic at titude toward religion; in another breath, the committee, still claim ing discipleship with scientific so- cialism, says that 1t takes no stand on religious questions. Which of the two statements are We to be- lieve? The favorite doctrine of so- cialism as expressed in the work Economic Determinism necessar- fly includes an attitude toward re- ligion, for, according to it, economic relations rule all others, religious, social, political, educational, and the boast of socialism is that when the economic era has come, all these and others will be revolutionized. General programmes do not of course necessarily reflect individual opinions; but when the committee insists on the connection with scien- tific socialism. I think 1t is but fair that it should state whether or not It embraces socialism in the entire ! ty. If not, the committee would | hardly be personae gratae to the leaders of socialism both here and abroad. I object to socialism, not alone from it's. economic standpoint, put to socialism as a whole. And I object to its economic view partly because it makes its economic fea- ure the basis of it's relationship with 'eligion, education, the family, etc.
 The committee is very fond of luoting Christ as If the Son of God | vas in harmony with their teach ngs. Perhaps it would go so far as 0 say with one socialist that Christ vas a socialist Yet the Gospels tell IS that Christ loved poverty and vol, chose it. Christ was not continually appealing to the worst dement's in man, his envy, pride and ove of ease He preached content nent. humility, self denial. even to owe those who hate us. And that is ertainly not the spirit of socialism. n all that I have read in socialist writings, and for 10 years I have pe- used them freely. I have seen noth- ng but diatribes against God, gainst Christianity, against the assessing classes and not a word of to sobriety, frugality, hrift. Its sole gospel is social up eaval and when that upheaval ones, if it ever does, we'll it might e as true now as in the days of t Paul: What things a man shall ow, those shall he reap" And judging from the past hatred and ury some among the masses will cap a dangerous crop, crop such S the French revolution gave us
 crop of Dantons and Robes ierres and all the ensanguined hor- DTS of that period so prolific in rimes of every disgusting nature. Will such time come in this coun, ry? God forbid.
 Bax. good socialist authority nat the committee has quoted. is lore honest in this than some oth- rs. He tells us Religion of So- alism, D. 97: "As to the ethical , eaching of Christ with the one ded, interpretive, and individual tic character. we venture to assert lat no one acquainted with the the " of modern scientific (take notice, socialism can for a mo- ent call 1t socialistic"