Robert G. Ingersoll on "What I Want For Christmas"

Here's part of what he said in the year 1897:

If I had the power to produce exactly what I want for next Christmas, I would have all the kings and emperors resign and allow the people to govern themselves.

I would have all the nobility crop their titles and give their lands back to the people. I would have the Pope throw away his tiara, take off his sacred vestments, and admit that he is not acting for God — is not infallible — but is just an ordinary Italian. I would have all the cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests and clergymen admit that they know nothing about theology, nothing about hell or heaven, nothing about the destiny of the human race, nothing about devils or ghosts, gods or angels. I would have them tell all their “flocks” to think for themselves, to be manly men and womanly women, and to do all in their power to increase the sum of human happiness.

I would have all the professors in colleges, all the teachers in schools of every kind, including those in Sunday schools, agree that they would teach only what they know, that they would not palm off guesses as demonstrated truths.

I would like to see all the editors of papers and magazines agree to print the truth and nothing but the truth, to avoid all slander and misrepresentation, and to let the private affairs of the people alone.

I would like to see the whole world free — free from injustice — free from superstition.

This will do for next Christmas. The following Christmas, I may want more.

Robert Green Ingersoll – “What I Want For Christmas” (1897)

Link.

2 comments:

Joel Varner said...

Hey man, I appreciate your article but I feel it's pretty weak. You should check out my blog so you can see where modern-day Christian apologetics are arguing from. Feel free to e-mail me or comment on any of my articles, I'd love your feedback! www.rationallychristian.blogspot.com

Thanks,

Joel

Unknown said...

What is it about the article that is weak? The author of this blog didn't even write it, notice the date? Hes using a selection of writing from the 1800s to show that the idea that Christianity (and indeed, all religion) is ridiculous, and NOT rational, as you might have us believe, is not a modern one. The article he used may be from 1897, the ideas about nobility controlling the lands etc. may not be very modern arguements for putting an end to religion, but I really don't think that was the point. Like I said, the purpose was to show that the belief in the fallibility of religion is hardly a new thing.

I find it amusing that you would insult this blog authors intelligence by suggesting that he isn't aware of your "modern-day Christian apologetics" arguements. I'd be willing to bet he knows your arguements better than you do.