Edit Liberal Paper

By Robert Green Ingersoll [found via Majikthise]

A LIBERAL paper should be edited by a Liberal man. And by the word Liberal I mean, not only free, not only one who thinks for himself, not only one who has escaped from the prisons of customs and creed, but one who is candid, intelligent and kind -- that is to say, Liberal toward others.

This Liberal editor should not forever play upon one string, no matter how wonderful the music. He should not have his attention forever fixed upon one question -- that is to say, he should not look through a reversed telescope and narrow his horizon to that degree that he sees only one thing.

To know that the Bible is the literature of a barbarous people, to know that it is uninspired, to be certain that the supernatural does not and cannot exist -- all this is but the beginning of wisdom. This only lays the foundation for unprejudiced observation. To kill weeds, to fell forests, to drove away or exterminate wild beasts -- this is preparatory to doing something of greater value. Of course the weeds must be killed, the forests must be felled. and the beasts must be destroyed before the building of homes and the cultivation of fields.

A Liberal paper should not discuss theological questions alone. Intelligent people everywhere have given up most of the old superstitions. They have pretty well made up their minds what is false, and they want to know something that is true. For this reason, a Liberal paper should keep abreast of the discoveries of the human mind. No science should be neglected; no fact should be overlooked. Inventions should be described and understood. And not only this, but the beautiful in thought, in form and color, should be preserved. The paper should be filled with things calculated to interest thoughtful, intelligent and serious people. There should be a column for children as well as for men and women.

Above all, it should be perfectly kind and candid. In discussion there is no place for hatred, no opportunity for slander. A personality is always out of place. An angry man can neither reason himself, nor perceive the reason of what another says. The orthodox world has always dealt in personalities. Every minister can answer the argument of an opponent by attacking the character of the opponent. This example should never be followed by a Liberal man. Nobody can be bad enough to prove that the Bible is uninspired, and nobody can be good enough to prove that it is the word of God. These facts have no relation. They neither stand nor fall together.

Nothing should be asserted that is not known. Nothing should be denied, the falsity of which has not been, or cannot be, demonstrated. Opinions are simply given for what they are worth. They are guesses, and one guesser should give to another guesser all the right of guessing that he claims for himself. Upon the great questions of origin, of destiny, of immortality, of punishment and reward in other worlds, every honest man must say, "I do not know." Upon these questions, this is the creed of intelligence. Nothing is harder to bear than the egotism of ignorance and the arrogance of superstition. The man who has some knowledge of the difficulties surrounding these subjects, who knows something of the limitations of the human mind, must, of necessity, be mentally modest. And this condition of mental modesty is the only one consistent with individual progress.

Above all, and over all, a Liberal paper should teach the absolute freedom of the mind, the utter independence of the individual, the perfect liberty of speech. We should remember that .the world is as it must be; that the present is the necessary offspring of the past; that the future must be what the present makes it, and that the real work of the reformer, of the philanthropist, is to change the conditions of the present, to the end that the future may be better. --

Secular Thought, Toronto, January 8, 1887.

Comments

this sucks

this sucks

Yeah? Well... that's just --

Yeah? Well... that's just -- like -- your opinion... man... the big lebowsky

I think relativism is just another one of those slur words . . .

I think 'relativism' is just another one of those slur words that conservatives use constantly and yet are unable to define. Using a word as if the word itself has magical power is not debate--it's just some kind of shamanism. Words are very poor conveyors of ideas. We use them because they're all we have. But what matters is the ideas we're getting at. Typical American liberals have a list of preferences. Conservatives have a slightly different list. It's time for us to leave obsession with the differences between the two lists to the incumbants desperately running to be re-election, and focus on the very long subset that we all have in common: 1. Opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons; 2. Opposition to terrorism; 3. A general distaste for crime and poverty and illiteracy; 4. A general revulsion for corruption whether it takes place in the boardroom OR the cloakroom; 5. And support by acclamation for the idea that Americans should live and let live when dealing with each other as much as possible.

A liberal is not a relatvist

While Mr. Ingersoll has a eloquent form of expression, his definition of a liberal mind is self defeating. To suggest a liberal cannot assert anything that is not known, with specific reference to religous ideaologies, is in fact not liberalism, but relatvism. To be truely void of normative bias one cannot consistently uphold virtues such as freedom of speech, thought, or action. Relativism asnwers questions regarding good and evil with "I do not know." Liberalism claims to know some absolute fundamental right and wrong, differing from a conservative only in the implementaion and valuation of actions. A liberal editor must forever play upon one string, exalting the virtues of individual freedoms. An unbiased relatvist cannot make such assertions about freedom as good or evil; to a relatvist good and evil, freedom and censure, are merely different points of view.