Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1910-02-15

~ H-~-~-~-~-0-S-o-~- S'~7v-~-e-~%%$e~N Il
"offers Readers a Few Observations"
Editor Courier:
On January 20 you published in the
columns of your valuable paper COM
advocating the taxation OF
property devoted to religious uses.
Emboldened by the absence of an
adequate reply, the writer next
launched criticism of Christianity in
general.
AS no one else seems disposed to
take up the gage, and lest certain
class of minds concludes that there is
nothing to be said on the other side,
will you kindly permit me to offer
your many readers few observa-
tons? The Christian scholar refuses
to argue these questions with him for
the same reason that Senator Smith
would perhaps decline to discuss the
code of Hammurabi with a boot,
black
While enjoying my afterdinner cigar
this fine Sabbath afternoon for |
sometimes WOO Dame Nicotine), /
have joted down few thoughts sug-
gested by study of the letters before
referred TO.
Before examining the two articles in
question. wish to say that the per
sonality of the writer interests me not
at all. l shall conflne myself strictly
to his published remarks.
From his first effusion l take the
following:
why not discard the past, quit
looking backward, live in the present
and future and use twentieth century
common sense and reason?
Describing the past, though often
resorted to, is no evidence of wisdom
I deem it wiser to learn from the eX-
perience of the past, and garner the
cumulative wisdom of the race. 1t Is
only through progress in times passed,
that we are able to advance. l think
the reader will agree with me. l can
understand how one can live in the
present and view the past and future,
but how anyone can, except in a
poetic sense, live in the future, is 81
conundrum I give up. The future is
only a possibility. not reality. Just
observe how the writer perches him
self on high Olympus and looks down
with supreme contempt upon us poor
uulolIulldtc luOl ldiS SlI uSsSHHS III lliC
darkness of the valley below.
why not use twentieth century
common sense and reason?"
Because, my dear sir, you are not
the accepted judge of what is common
sense and reason. Your position is
the quintessence of the highest order
of egotism, and the fallacy underlying
1t is the assumption that they who
think as you do have common sense
and reason, while they who do not,
lack them. One who is misled by the
superficial gush of DR.. Andrew White
has small qualification for the Office of
public mentor.
During my brief existence I have
observed that there is very f1uctuat-
ing gage to what is termed common
sense" although the term has fixed
and definite meaning in the science OF
philosophy. If you were to study the
masters who have dealt with these
questions, get your mind out Of the
rut into which it has been placed by
the idle vaporings of White, Buchner
ct al, you would not perpetrate some
Of the absurdities you have advanced
in your recent letters. One who ap,
pears to be so socialistically inclined
should be opposed to monopolies, and
not try to corner all the common
sense and reason extant. He ought al
| least concede the possession Of d
slight pinch to such Christian Scient
| lists as Newton, Gallileo, Copernicus
| Leibnitz, Columbus, Pasteur, Newman
| Wiseman, Roentgen and hundreds Of
the same mental calibre. 1t is also
mistake to imagine that infidels have
corner on science, and that reminds
mo that it was the scientists of theil
time who ridiculed Gallileo, Colum
| bus and others Oh, Science, wha
nonsense is promulgated in thy name
/ Not all is. science that is so labeled.
Here is another ponderous observa
/ ton selected from the first letter
named: IF you get right down t.
common sense and justice it must bt
admitted that one class Of people car
! have no right to regulate religious OBJ
servances of another class" Pardon
me- It is not admitted. Your crude
notions were evidently formed in hast'
for the occasion. The American peopl
regulated the Mormon's religious oh
servances by putting an end to opel
polygamy They also regulated tn
religious observances of the Southern
ers who With Bible in hand, endeavore'
to uphold human slavery. One in
stance is as good as thousand t.
/ disprove q general proposition.
In regard to his statements con
corning the relation of religion t
morality this observation of th
skeptic Renan is apropos: An in
mense moral and probably intellectual
degen Grafton would follow the dii
appearance Of religion from tn
world"
The precise difference between tn
I. Christians code of morals and that c
the so-called free thinker" is this
the first has a logical basis in the dos
trines of Christianity, while the SCI
ond is purely arbitrary, and has onl
the ipse dixit of certain writer's posses
sing unlimited personal assurance an
infallible self assertion; is illogicl
and inconsistent with his principles
With the remainder of his first le
ter | am but little interested in dea
ing. The church to which | have tn
honor of belonging, will be ready