 Welcome to George H. Smith's Excursions into Libertarian Thon, a production of Libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. Shaftesbury on the Value of Ridicule In English prosecutions for blasphemy, which extended well into the 19th century, prosecutors typically applauded England for its freedom of speech and press. But this freedom, they went on to say, had its limits. It did not include the right to treat the Christian religion with contempt and ridicule. Criticisms of Christianity were legal, but only if done in a serious, respectful manner. Ridicule, however, was a common tactic of free thinkers, so their convictions were virtually guaranteed. For example, George W. Foot, liberal editor of The Free Thinker, delighted in publishing satirical essays and cartoons that lampooned Christianity, and these efforts earned him a year in prison in 1883. The salesman and the printer of The Free Thinker were also prosecuted. For Foot's account of his trial, see his prisoner for blasphemy, 1886. Foot's comic Bible sketches, which were published regularly in The Free Thinker, played a major role in his prosecution. Foot was straightforward about his reason for publishing the sketches, which were quickly reprinted by French free thinkers. We honestly admit that our purpose is to discredit the Bible as the infallible word of God. Believing as we do with Bolter, that despotism can never be abolished without destroying the dogmas on which it rests, and that the Bible is the ground source and sanction of them all. We are profoundly anxious to expose its pretension. Foot's offensive cartoons and the controversy they provoked bring to mind the recent massacre of the 12 cartoonists and staff members of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo. Both cases provoke debates about whether freedom of speech and press may be carried too far, as when satirists deliberately offend Muslims by making fun of their sincere religious beliefs. As with most other controversies, however, this one is nothing new, except that in earlier centuries it was Christians who argued that their religion should be exempt from public ridicule and that offenders should be silenced by legal means. Early free thinkers constituted the shock troops in the campaign to remove all legal liability for freedom of speech and press, including the ridicule of Christianity and other religions, however offensive their buffoonery may be. Some free thinkers paid a heavy personal price in this campaign. In the early 19th century, for example, the English free-thought publisher, Richard Carlisle, served more than nine years in prison, and his wife, sister, and many dozens of his workers were imprisoned as well for an early display of mass civil disobedience. See Chapter 7 for the details of the Carlisle prosecutions. The foremost defender of ridicule in every area, especially religion, was the free thinker and deist, Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1671-1713, better known as Lord Shausbury. In the first two parts of characteristics of men, manners, opinions, and times, a collection of previously published essays first published in 1711 and subsequently expanded, Shausbury, a classical liberal, presented a fascinating defense of the personal and social benefits of ridicule and satire, and his remarks profoundly influenced later free thinkers. I discussed Shausbury and his influence in this chapter and the next. Shausbury repudiated the notion that some doctrines are so important or sacred as to render them exempt from any and all ridicule. Any such claim is bound to foster pretentiousness. There can be no impartial and free censure of manners where any particular custom or national opinion is set apart and not only exempted from criticism, but even flattered with the highest art. It is only in a free nation such as ours that imposter has no privilege and that neither the credit of a court, the power of a nobility, or the awfulness of a church can give her protection or hinder her from being arraigned in every shape and appearance. But what if ridicule is pushed too far? Is it wrong to ridicule beliefs that many people hold as sacred? Shausbury pointed out that we are apt to become offended when our own beliefs are ridiculed, even though we may not hesitate to ridicule the beliefs of others. But who shall be judge of what may be freely examined and what may not? Where liberty may be used and where it may not? What remedy shall we prescribe to this in general? Freedom itself, according to Shausbury, is its own remedy. Trial and experience will eventually reveal when ridicule is appropriate and when it is not. Many religious believers will claim that their beliefs are so sacred and beyond reproach that anyone who ridicules them should be punished. Oh, say we, the subjects are too grave. Perhaps so, but let us see first whether they really are grave or no, for in the manner we may conceive them they may per adventure be very grave and weighty in our imagination but very ridiculous and impertinent in their own nature. Gravity is of the very essence of imposture. Now what rule or measure is there in the world except in the considering of the real temper of things to find which are truly serious and which ridiculous? And how can this be done unless by applying the ridicule to see whether it will bear? Myrth, for the most part, cuts through weighty matters with greater firmness and ease than seriousness. Like other classical liberals of his time, Shausbury compared freedom of discussion to free trade. Just as free trade will bring about an equilibrium between supply and demand, free discussion will eventually discredit, at least among serious thinkers, scurrilous buffoonery that is inappropriately crude. By freedom of conversation, this illiberal kind of wit will lose its credit, for wit is its own remedy. Liberty and commerce bring it to its true standard. The only danger is the laying in embargo. The same thing happens here as in the case of trade. Impositions and restrictions reduce it to a low ebb. Nothing is so advantageous to it as a free port. Freedom of discussion is the foundation of civil discourse. All politeness is owing to liberty. We polish each other and rub off our corners and rough sides by a sort of amicable collision. To restrain this is inevitably to bring a rust upon men's understandings. It is a destroying of civility, good breeding, and even charity itself under pretense of maintaining it. Shausbury called attention to the hypocrisy of many religious zealots who engaged in debates with our modern free writers, i.e. deus and other critics of Christianity. While appearing to engage in open discussions with religious skeptics, these jainist-faced champions of Christianity were quick to call on government to enforce blasphemy laws and other oppressive measures to silence their adversaries. Having entered the lists and agreed to the fair laws of combat by wit and argument, they have no sooner proved their weapon than you hear them crying aloud for help and delivering over to the secular arm. Shausbury's mention of the secular arm was probably a tacit reference to Catholicism. Since the Catholic Church was technically forbidden to shed blood, it turned heretics and blasphemers over to the secular arm for punishment, with the clear understanding that they would be put to death. John Milton and other liberal Protestants had condemned persecution as a uniquely Catholic policy, one that Protestants should not emulate. Thus, in referring specifically to the secular arm, Shausbury was following suit. To link a policy directly to Catholicism was to discredit that policy among many Protestants. Shausbury had many other interesting things to say about the benefits of free and open public discussions. Consider his reply to the objection that unrestrained debates about religion will often generate an uncertainty that may lead to disbelief or skepticism. Reasoning is mental labor, and, as with other kinds of labor, people will not engage in serious reasoning unless they find it agreeable in some way. The unrestrained freedom to use wit and railery provides this kind of incentive. It is the habit of reasoning alone which can make a reasoner, and men can never be better invited to the habit than when they find pleasure in it. A freedom of railery, a liberty and decent language to question everything, and an allowance of unraveling or refuting any argument without offense to the arguer are the only terms which can render such speculative conversations any way agreeable. For, to say truth, they have been rendered burdensome to mankind by the strictness of the laws prescribed to them and by the prevailing pedantry and bigotry of those who reign in them and assume to themselves to be dictators in these provinces. Chasbury's defense of wit and ridicule bore fruit among free thinkers. Although Voltaire is the best known example of a free thinker who used ridicule and humor in his criticism of Christianity, he was far from the only free thinker who used this tactic. Consider the case of Thomas Wollstone, 1669-1733, a Cambridge graduate admired by Voltaire, who is the most vilified of the deistic critics of Orthodox Christianity. Wollstone's sarcastic criticisms of a literal belief in the Bible brought accusations of insanity. Poor, mad Wollstone, most scandalous of the deists, as the 19th century historian Leslie Stephen put it in history of English thought in the 18th century, 1876. According to Stephen, who was himself an agnostic, Wollstone attacked the gospel narratives of Wollstone as preposterous, and this would have been sufficient of itself to raise doubts of its author's sanity. Stephen considered Wollstone a mere buffoon jingling his cap and bells in a sacred shrine. Even Stephen admitted, however, that there are queer gleams of distorted sense and even a literary power in the midst of his buffoonery. A good deal of abusive sarcasm may be found in the writings of 18th century critics of deism, but none of those respectable Christian writers, so far as I know, was ever accused of being insane. Wollstone believed that hireling preachers were conspiring against him, another indication of his paranoid insanity according to Stephen. Yet Wollstone's fear of persecution proved well founded. In 1729 he was convicted of blasphemy, find 100 pounds and sentenced to a year in prison. Then, unable to pay a security of 2,000 pounds to ensure his future good conduct, Wollstone is reported to have spent the remaining three years of his life in prison. Voltaire, who was in England at the time, disputed the claim that Wollstone died in prison. Several of my friends have seen him in his house. He died there, at liberty. The great historian of free thought, J. M. Robertson, attempted to reconcile these conflicting accounts by suggesting that Wollstone may have been under some kind of house arrest during his last three years. A contemporary critic charged Wollstone with infunery and gross railery, a charge that has been echoed by modern historians. For example, in Reason and Authority in the 18th century 1964, G. R. Craig called Wollstone's criticism of the Bible hysterically abusive. But few, if any, historians mentioned the reason for Wollstone's abusive tactics. In a passage that reads like a less sophisticated version of Shasbury's arguments in favor of ridicule, Wollstone wrote the following, and how then is such a work to be performed to best advantage? Is it to be done in a grave sedate and serious manner? No, I think ridicule should here take the place of sober reasoning, as the more proper and effectual means to cure men of their foolish faith and absurd notions. As no wise man hardly ever represents a blunderbus for his bull any other way, than by laughing at him. So the assertors of Wollstone were laughing at him. So the assertors of nonsensical notions and theology should, if possible, be satirized and gested upon, or they will never desert their absurd doctrines. 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.