 Welcome to George H. Schmitz's Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. Jean Messliet and Christian Ethics In chapter 40 of his testament, Three Principle Errors of Christian Morality, the atheist priest, Jean Messliet, displayed a depth of criticism of Christianity that few free thinkers have ever equalled, much less surpassed. This should come as no surprise to readers who make it to chapter 40, for in earlier chapters, especially chapter 33, what was his preaching? Messliet accused Jesus of malice and viciousness, even attributing to him mental derangement. It is easy to see by all his speeches that Jesus Christ was really only a fool and a fanatic, and it is certain that if he came back again today among us, if it were possible, and did and said the same things as before, we would certainly consider him nothing but a fool and fanatic. This assessment runs contrary to the opinion of many early free thinkers, especially those English deists who expressed admiration for the moral teachings of Jesus and criticized later Christians for deviating from those teachings. But Messliet would have none of this, and his criticisms reflect a radical strain in French atheism that was largely, though not entirely, lacking in the English free-thought tradition. Messliet criticized the moral teachings of Christianity on three major points. The first is that it makes the perfection of virtue and greatest good or advantage of man consistent in the love and pursuit of pain and suffering according to the maxim of Christ, its chief, who said to his disciples that happy are the poor, happy are those who cry, who are hungry and thirsty, who suffer persecution for justice, Matthew 5, 3 through 10, and according to other maxims of this Christ, we have to carry our cross, renounce ourselves and all we possess, and if anyone wants to be perfect he has to sell everything he has and give it to the poor, Matthew 1921, Luke 1822. Messliet, who lived with the poor during his decades as a parish priest, saw nothing virtuous or admirable in poverty, especially when that poverty resulted in exploitation by the powerful. It is clearly an error and madness to say that the greatest good and happiness of man consists in weeping and groaning, in being poor and unhappy, hungry and thirsty, etc. Of course, Messliet understood that Christians did not teach poverty and suffering for their own sakes, rather, they claimed that the poor and suffering will be awarded in an afterlife, but his teaching was absolutely false according to Messliet. This life is all there is, the so-called Kingdom of Heaven, which our superstitious God cultists seem to make such a big deal about, is only an imaginary kingdom. The desire for pleasure and a good life is part of human nature, so it is an abuse to teach the ignorant to love and pursue real pain and suffering on the pretext of acquiring lovely rewards that are only imaginary. The teachings that pain and suffering will be rewarded in an afterlife and that we should renounce everything we possess, is based only on the word of a miserable fanatic, Jesus. And it is an error and madness in men to want to follow or put any faith in such a maxim that is so contrary to the good of nature and good judgment. Messliet's comments on this matter were closely related to his belief that governments and churches teach the virtues of poverty and suffering as a means to keep the poor in their place, while expropriating from the poor the fruits of their labor. The doctrine of an afterlife served as an ideological smokescreen for political control and exploitation. Messliet's second criticism focused on what he viewed as the Christian bias against innocent sexuality and especially the condemnation not only of overt deeds but of sexual thoughts and feelings as well if those thoughts and feelings occur outside the context of marriage. Nothing is more natural to man than sexuality and to condemn this natural impulse as sinful and worthy of hell life is to condemn an essential aspect of human nature, one rooted in the most intimate depths of our being. Would an infinitely good God really want to make young people burn eternally in the dreadful flames of hell only for having a few moments of pleasure together? Or even only for having consented and indulged in thoughts, desires, or carnal motions that God himself had formed and aroused in them? To attribute such intentions to a perfect and infinitely good God is entirely ridiculous and absurd and disgraceful. The thought alone with such cruelty is monstrous. Before we accuse Messliet of favoring unbridled libertinism, an accusation commonly hurled against early atheists and other free thinkers, we would need to keep in mind that he disapproved of the debauchery of men or women who would indiscreetly or excessively abandon themselves to this animal inclination. Messliet condemned this excess and disorder as well as all other kinds of excess and disorder. People should conform to the laws, customs, and practices of the countries in which they live. Messliet simply wished to protest the Christian doctrine that sexual, actions, desires, or thoughts and indulgences are crimes worthy of eternal punishments and torments. Sexual excesses are ultimately slight and trivial human failings. To teach that a wise and benevolent deity would punish people severely for such actions is at once absurd and disgraceful. Messliet's third objection to Christian ethics, as taught by Jesus, is in some ways the most interesting of the lot. Here again is another error of this Christian morality. It teaches that we must love our enemies, not take revenge for injuries and not even resist vicious men, but on the contrary, that we must bless those who curses, do good to those who would do us harm, let them rob us when they want to take what we have, and always quietly suffer the injuries and mistreatments that they do, etc. These teachings, according to Messliet, are contrary to natural right and reason. It is obviously a natural right, natural reason, natural equality, and justice to preserve our life and goods against those who would want to take them from us unjustly. And as it is natural to hate evil, it is also natural to hate those who unjustly do evil. Now the aforementioned maxims of Christian morality go directly against all these natural rights and consequently are false, and it is an error to want to teach them and make people practice them, seeing that they are contrary to all natural rights and that they clearly tend to the reversal of justice to the oppression of the poor and weak, and they are contrary to the good government of men. Here again, Messliet criticized maxims of the Christian religion because they clearly tend to favor the vicious and their oppression of the good and the weak. The doctrine that we should love our enemies and not resist or seek revenge against those who harm us has benefited rulers who boldly attack the good and do whatever they want without punishment and without fear. Messliet repudiated the doctrine of passive obedience unequivocally. Throughout the testament, he endorsed violent resistance against tyrannical rulers and their unjust actions. Indeed, in chapter 2, we find the first formulation of a saying that has commonly been attributed to the French atheist Denis Diderot, 1713-1784. Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. Messliet shared the sentiment but did not take credit for the idea. He referred instead to a common Frenchman who had no culture or education but who had the sound judgment to understand the evils inflicted on him and other poor people by the French government and Gallican church. In his wish and in his way of expressing his thought, it seemed that he saw rather far and penetrated rather deeply into the detestable mystery of iniquity of which I just spoke and recognized very well the perpetrators and instigators. His wish was that all the rulers of the earth and all the nobles be hanged and strangled with the guts of priests. This expression, Messliet remarked, may seem hard, rude, shocking, but you must admit that it is candid and simple. It also expresses, if crudely, what rulers deserve for their merciless exploitation of the ruled. If Messliet could have been granted a single wish, he would have wished for the strength, courage and resolve of Hercules so that he could have the pleasure of bludgeoning all the monster tyrants with their crowned heads and all the other monsters and ministers of errors and iniquity who make all the people of the earth grown so piteously. Since Messliet did not believe in hell, he did not agree with those Christians who believed that tyrants will suffer eternal torment for their crimes, however comfortable their life on earth may be. He preferred to see rulers punished in this life at the hands of their victims. Messliet did not reserve justice and revenge for a God in whom he did not believe. This has been Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. To learn more about Libertarian philosophy and history, visit www.libertarianism.org.