Col. Robert Green Ingersoll

THE Declaration of Independence is the grandest, the bravest, and the profoundest political document that was ever signed by the representatives of a people. It is the embodiment of physical and moral courage and of political wisdom.       I say of physical courage, because it was a declaration of war against the most powerful nation then on the globe ; a declaration of war by thirteen weak, unorganized colonies; a declaration of war by a few people, without military stores, without wealth, without strength, against the most powerful kingdom on the earth; a declaration of war made when the British navy, at that day the mistress of every sea, was hovering along the coast of America, looking after defenseless towns and villages to ravage and destroy. It was made when thousands of English soldiers were upon our soil, and when the principal cities of America were in the substantial possession of the enemy. And so, I say, all things considered, it was the bravest political document ever signed by man. And if it was physically brave, the moral courage of the document is almost infinitely beyond the physical. They had the courage not only, but they had the almost infinite wisdom, to declare that all men are created equal.       Such things had occasionally been said by some political enthusiast in the olden time, but, for the first time in the history of the world, the representatives of a nation, the representatives of a real, living, breathing, hoping people, declared that all men are created equal. With one blow, with one stroke of the pen, they struck down all the cruel, heartless barriers that aristocracy, that priestcraft, that kingcraft had raised between man and man. They struck down with one immortal blow that infamous spirit of caste that makes a God almost a beast, and a beast almost a god. With one word, with one blow, they wiped away and utterly destroyed, all that had been done by centuries of war  centuries of hypocrisy  centuries of injustice.

      What more? That every man has the right to pursue his own happiness in his own way. Grander words than. these have
  never been spoken by man.

      And what more did these men say? They laid down the doctrine that governments were instituted among men for the purpose of preserving the rights of the people. The old idea was that people existed solely for the benefit of the state  that is to say, for kings and nobles.

      The old idea was that the people were the wards of king and priest that their bodies belonged to one and their souls to
  the other.

      And what more? That the people are the source of political power. That was not only a revelation, but it was a revolution. It changed the ideas of people with regard to the source of political power. For the first time it made human beings men. What was the old idea? The old idea was that no political power came from, or in any manner belonged to, the people. The old idea was that the political power came from the clouds; that the political power came in some miraculous way from heaven; that it came down to
kings, and queens, and robbers. That was the old idea. The nobles lived upon the labor of the people; the people had no rights; the nobles stole what they had and divided with the kings, and the kings pretended to divide what they stole with God Almighty. The source, then, of political power was from above. The people were responsible to the nobles, the nobles to the king, and the people had no political rights whatever, no more than the wild beasts of the forest. The kings were responsible to God; not to the
people. The kings were responsible to the clouds; not to the toiling millions they robbed and plundered.

     And our forefathers, in this Declaration of Independence, reversed this thing, and said: No; the people, they are the source of political power, and their rulers, these presidents, these kings are but the agents and servants of the great sublime people. For the first time, really, in the history of the world, the king was made to get off the throne and the people were royally seated thereon. The people became the sovereigns, and the old sovereigns became the servants and the agents of the people. It is hard for you and me now to even imagine the immense results of that change. It is hard for you and for me, at this day, to understand how thoroughly it had been ingrained in the brain of almost every man that the king had some wonderful right over him that in some strange way the king owned him; that in some miraculous manner he belonged, body and soul, to somebody who rode on a horse  to somebody with epaulets on his shoulders and a tinsel crown upon his brainless head.

     Our forefathers had been educated in that idea, and when they first landed on American shores they believed it. They thought they belonged to somebody, and that they must be loyal to some thief who could trace his pedigree back to antiquity's most successful robber.

     It took a long time for them to get that idea out of their heads and hearts. They were three thousand miles away from the despotisms of the old world, and every wave of the sea was an assistant to them.  The distance helped to disenchant their minds of that infamous belief, and every mile between them and the pomp and glory of monarchy helped to put republican ideas and thoughts into their minds. Besides that, when they came to this country, when the savage was in the forest and three thousand miles of waves on the other side, menaced by barbarians on the one hand and famine on the other, they learned that a man who had courage, a man who had thought, was as good as any other man in the world, and they built up, as it were, in spite of themselves, little republics. And the man that had the most nerve and heart was the best man, whether he had any noble blood in his veins or not. It has been a favorite idea with me that our forefathers were educated by Nature, that they grew grand as the continent upon which they landed; that the great rivers  the wide plains  the splendid lakes  the lonely forests  the sublime
mountains that all these things stole into and became a part of their being, and they grew great as the country in which they lived. They began to hate the narrow, contracted views of Europe. They were educated by their surroundings, and every little colony had to be to a certain extent a republic. The kings of the old world endeavored to parcel out this land to their favorites. But there were too many Indians.

    There was too much courage required for them to take and keep it, and so men had to come here who were dissatisfied with the old country  who were dissatisfied with England, dissatisfied with France, with Germany, with Ireland and Holland. The kings' favorites stayed at home. Men came here for liberty, and on account of certain principles they entertained and held dearer than life. And they were willing to work, willing to fell the forests, to fight the savages, willing to go through all the hardships, perils and dangers of a new country, of a new land; and the consequence was that our country was settled by brave and adventurous spirits, by men who had opinions of their own and were willing to live in the wild forests for the sake of expressing those opinions, even if they expressed them only to trees, rocks, and savage men.  The best blood of the old world came to the new.

     When they first came over they did not have a great deal of political philosophy, nor the best ideas of liberty. We might as well tell the truth. When the Puritans first came, they were narrow. They did not understand what liberty meant  what religious liberty, what political liberty, was; but they found out in a few years. There was one feeling among them that rises to their eternal honor like a white shaft to the clouds  they were in favor of universal education. Wherever they went they built schoolhouses,
introduced books and ideas of literature. They believed that every man should know how to read and how to write, and should find out all that his capacity allowed him to comprehend. That is the glory of the Puritan fathers.

     They forgot in a little while what they had suffered, and they forgot to apply the principle of universal liberty  of toleration. Some of the colonies did not forget it, and I want to give credit where credit should be given. The Catholics of Maryland were the first people on the new continent to declare universal religious toleration. Let this be remembered to their eternal honor. Let it be remembered to the disgrace of the Protestant government of England, that it caused this grand law to be repealed. And to the honor and credit of the Catholics of Maryland let it be remembered that the moment they got back into power they reenacted the old law. The Baptists of Rhode Island also, led by Roger Williams, were in favor of universal religious liberty.

      No American should fail to honor Roger Williams. He was the first grand advocate of the liberty of the soul. He was in favor of the eternal divorce of church and state. So far as I know, he was the only man at that time in this country who was in favor of real religious liberty. While the Catholics of Maryland declared in favor of religious toleration, they had no idea of religious liberty, They would not allow anyone to call in question the doctrine of the Trinity, or the inspiration of the Scriptures. They stood ready with branding iron and gallows to burn and choke out of man the idea that, he had a fight to think and to express his thoughts.

     So many religions met in our country  so many theories and dogmas came in contact  so many follies, mistakes, and stupidities became acquainted with each other, that religion began to fall somewhat into disrepute. Besides this, the question of a new nation began to take precedence of all others.

     The people were too much interested in this world to quarrel about the next. The preacher was lost in the patriot. The Bible was read to find passages against kings.  Everybody was discussing the rights of man. Farmers and mechanics suddenly became statesmen, and in every shop and cabin nearly every question was asked and answered.  During these years of political excitement the interest in religion abated to that degree that a common purpose animated men of all sects and creeds.

     At last our fathers became tired of being colonists  tired of writing and reading and signing petitions, and presenting them on their bended knees to an idiot king. They began to have an aspiration to form a new nation, to be citizens of a new republic instead of subjects of an old monarchy. They had the idea the Puritans, the Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Baptists, the Quakers, and a few Freethinkers, all had the idea  that they would like to form a new nation.

     Now, do not understand that all of our fathers were in favor of independence. Do not understand that they were all like Jefferson; that they were all like Adams or Lee; that they were all like Thomas Paine or John Hancock. There were thousands and thousands of them who were opposed to American independence. There were thousands and thousands who said: "When you say men are created equal, it is a lie;  when you say the political power resides in the great body of the people, it is false." Thousands and thousands of them said: "We prefer Great Britain." But the men who were in favor of independence, the
men who knew that a new nation must be born, went on full of hope and courage, and nothing could daunt or stop or stay the heroic, fearless few.

     They met in Philadelphia; and the resolution was moved by Lee of Virginia, that the colonies ought to be independent states, and ought to dissolve their political connection with Great Britain.

     They made up their minds that a new nation must be formed. All nations had been, so to speak, the wards of some church. The religious idea as to the source of power had been at the foundation of all governments, and had been the bane and curse of man.

     Happily for us, there was no church strong enough to dictate to the rest. Fortunately for  us, the colonists not only, but the colonies differed widely in their religious views. There were the Puritans who hated the Episcopalians, and Episcopalians who hated the Catholics, and the Catholics who hated both, while the Quakers held them all in contempt. There they were, of every sort, and color and kind, and how was it that they came together? They had a common aspiration. They wanted to form a new nation. More than that, most of them cordially hated Great Britain; and they pledged each other to forget these religious
prejudices, for a time at least, and agreed that there should be only one religion until they got through, and that was the religion of patriotism. They solemnly agreed that the new nation should not belong to any particular church, but that it should secure the rights of all.

     Our fathers founded the first secular government that was ever founded in this world. Recollect that. The first secular government; the first government that said every church has exactly the same rights and no more; every religion has the same rights, and no more. In other words, our fathers were the first men who had the sense, had the genius, to know that no church should be allowed to have a sword; thai it should be allowed only to exert its moral influence.

     You might as well have a government united by force with Art, or with Poetry, or with Oratory, as with Religion. Religion should have the influence upon mankind that its goodness, that its morality, its justice, its charity, its reason, and its argument give it, and no more. Religion should have the effect upon mankind that it necessarily has, and no more. The religion that has to be supported by law is. without value, not only, but a fraud and curse. The religious argument that has to be supported by a musket, is
hardly worth making. A prayer that must have a cannon behind it, better never be uttered. Forgiveness ought not to go in partnership with shot and shell. Love need not carry knives and revolvers.

     So our fathers said: "We will form a secular government, and under the flag with which we are going to enrich the air, we will allow every man to worship God as he thinks best." They said: "Religion is an individual thing between each man and his creator, and he can worship as he pleases and as he desires."  And why did they do this? The history of the world warned them that the liberty of man was not safe in the clutch and grasp of any church. They had read of and seen the thumbscrews, the racks, and the
dungeons of the Inquisition. They knew all about t he hypocrisy of the olden time. They knew that the church had stood side by side with the throne; that the high priests were hypocrites, and that the kings were robbers. They also knew that if they gave power to any church, it would corrupt the best church in the world. And so they said that power must not reside in a church, or in a sect, but power must be wherever humanity is  in the great body of the people. And the officers and servants of the people must
be responsible to them. And so I say again, as I said in the commencement, this is the wisest, the profoundest, the bravest political document that ever was written and signed by man.

     They turned, as I tell you, everything squarely about. They derived all their authority from the people. They did away forever with the theological idea of government.

     And what more did they say? They said that whenever the rulers abused this authority, this power, incapable of destruction, returned to the people. How did they come to say this? I will tell you. They were pushed into it. How? They felt that they were oppressed; and whenever a man feels that he is the subject of injustice, his perception of right and wrong is wonderfully quickened.

     Nobody was ever in prison wrongfully who did not believe in the writ of habeas corpus. Nobody ever suffered wrongfully without instantly having ideas of justice.

     And they began to inquire what rights the king of Great Britain had. They began to search for the charter of his authority. They began to investigate and dig down to the bedrock upon which, society must be founded, and when they got down there, forced there, too, by their oppressors, forced against their own prejudices and education, they found at the bottom of things, not lords, not nobles, not pulpits, not thrones, but humanity and the rights of men.

     And so they said, We are men; we are men. They found out they were men. And the next thing they said, was, "We will be free men; we are weary of being colonists; we are tired of being subjects; we are men; and these colonies ought to be states; and these states ought to be a nation and that nation ought to drive the last British soldier into the sea." And so they signed that brave Declaration of Independence.

     I thank every one of them from the bottom of my heart for signing that sublime declaration. I thank them for their courage  for their patriotism  for their wisdom  for the splendid confidence in themselves and in the human race. I thank them for what they were, and for what we are  for what they did, and for what we have received  for what they suffered, and for what we enjoy.

     What would we have been if we had remained colonists and subjects? What would we have been today? Nobodies  ready to get down on our knees and crawl in the very dust at the sight of somebody that was supposed to have in him some drop of blood that flowed in the veins of that mailed marauder  that royal robber, William the Conqueror.

     They signed that Declaration of Independence, although they knew that it would produce a long, terrible, and bloody war. They looked forward and saw poverty, deprivation, gloom, and death. But they also saw, on the wrecked clouds of war, the beautiful bow of freedom.

     These grand men were enthusiasts; and the world has been raised only by enthusiasts. In every country there have been a few who have given a national aspiration to the people. The enthusiasts of 1776 were the builders and framers of this great and splendid Government; and they were the men who saw, although others did not, the golden fringe of the mantle of glory that will finally cover this world.  They knew, they felt, they believed that they would give a new constellation to the political heavens that
they would make the Americans a grand people  grand as the continent upon which they lived.

Above us only sky...

John Lennon Honored by Liverpool Airport

     John Lennon was honoured by his home city with Liverpool Airport being renamed after the star.  The airport will be given its
new title in Spring of next year when a new terminal opens.  Liverpool John Lennon Airport will be the first UK airport to be
named after an individual.

     Lennon joins figures like John F Kennedy (New York), Leonardo Da Vinci (Rome) and Josef Strauss (Munich) who have
been honoured in such a way.

     Airport owners Peel Holdings saw the move as a "fitting and lasting tribute" to the star.

     A new logo for the transport hub includes a self-portrait of Lennon and the line "above us only sky," taken from his classic
peace anthem Imagine.

Dear Atheist Alliance:

      I am a collector of Charles Dickens first editions and I have a copy of an 1894 publication by him, Sunday Under Three
Heads. As It Is, As Sabbath Bills Would Make It; As It Might Be Made, published by Peter Eckler, Publisher, 35 Fulton Street,
New York.  Dickens wrote the little book in 1836 and published it under the nom de plume of Timothy Sparks. Always concerned
with the plight of the poor and downtrodden, the piece was concerned with the class bias of Sunday Observance legislation that
periodically was taken up by Parliament, legislation which would in effect  have forced the working class to go to church or
nowhere.

      My research thus far has turned up the major role of Mr. Eckler in the publishing of Atheist and reformist literature, but the
information I have on him is scanty and I have no information on how he came to publish SUNDAY UNDER THREE HEADS
fifty eight years after it was originally published in England. Nor have I discovered any other American edition of the work.

      Obviously the tenor of the piece might well have appealed to Mr. Eckler's sense of justice.  In any case, I'd like to know more
about Eckler, the man and the publisher and, if possible, more about the publication of the Dickens effort and its reception.

      If you can cite me to any appropriate sources, etc., I would be most grateful.

     John J. Miller
     598 N. W. 9th Court
     Boca Raton, Florida 33486
     E-mail:  mil924@bellsouth.net

     P.S. I might add that, while much is made of Dickens" religious professions in his will, his stated beliefs and actions throughout
most of his life suggest that at most he had Unitarian sentiments.  There are no records of any church attendance on his part.

Your Political Action Needed!

      In the coming weeks, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on the "Charitable Choice" expansion bill, H.R. 7, the
Community Solutions Act. "Charitable Choice" would explicitly allow federally funded employment discrimination, lead to the
proselytization of people seeking aid, and authorize new lawsuits against the government by religious organizations denied federal
funding.  It is an unnecessary and unconstitutional proposal that would harm religious liberty, turn back the clock on civil rights and
burden local government with lawsuits.

      However, H.R. 7 is more than "Charitable Choice." Aside from the "Charitable Choice" section, H.R. 7 is a good tax package
that will be a bipartisan accomplishment for Congress and the President.  This act contains a combination of provisions that would
provide tax incentives to increase charitable giving, yet it will also extend federal funding opportunities for religious congregations
that wish to mix social service with religious activity, unconstitutionally blurring the line between separation of church and state.

      The message to your Representative in Congress should be that you, as a constituent, oppose H.R. 7's "Charitable Choice"
provision because:

      * 78% of Americans oppose allowing government funded religious groups to only hire people of the same faith (Pew Forum on
Religion and Public Life poll, conducted among 2,041 adults including an over sample of African Americans, March 5-18. Margin
of error equals plus or minus 2.5 points) Trouble is, this is the main plank of the president's "Charitable Choice" proposal.

      * "Charitable Choice" is highly controversial and divisive -- so troublesome that the Senate bill (S. 592) did not include the
"Charitable Choice" section.

      * "Charitable Choice" erodes regulatory protections in federally funded programs because houses of worship are exempt from
certain accreditation standards, safety standards, licensing laws, and other regulatory mechanisms that protect beneficiaries and
ensure quality service delivery.

      * The "Charitable Choice" provisions of H.R. 7 would explicitly allow federally funded employment discrimination, lead to the
proselytization of people seeking aid, and authorize new lawsuits against the government by religious organizations denied federal
funding.  It is an unnecessary and unconstitutional proposal that would harm religious liberty, turn back the clock on civil
rights and burden local government with lawsuits.

     For information on H.R. 7, follow this link http://www.au.org/charchoice107.htm
     For more information on "Charitable Choice," visit our website at http://www.au.org