nalist
publications on sociological lines:

If there be a God who rules men and things by His arbitrary will,
it is an impertinence to attempt to abolish poverty, because it is
according to His will. But if there be no such God, then we know
that poverty is caused by men and may be removed by men. If there
be a God who answers prayers, the remedy for social injustice is to
pray. But if there be no such God, the remedy is to think and act.

If men go to heaven when they die, and if heaven is a place in
which everybody will be made perfectly happy, then there is no need
to struggle against poverty in this world, because a few years of
trouble, or even degradation, in this world are of no consequence
when compared with an eternity of happiness that must be ours by
simply following the directions of the clergy. But if there be no
such heaven, then it becomes a matter of first importance that we
make our condition as happy as possible in this world, which is the
only one of which we are certain.

I maintain that there is no God who rules men and things by His
arbitrary will and who answers prayers, and that there is no heaven
of everlasting bliss to which we are to be wafted after death. And
I maintain this not only because I think that these religious
beliefs are erroneous, but because I know that they are most potent
to make men docile and submissive to the most degrading conditions
imposed on them. I feel sure that the doctrine that obedience to
rulers and contentment in poverty are according to the will of God,
and the doctrine that the poor and the oppressed will be
compensated in heaven are the chief causes of slums, prisons,
lunatic asylums and poor-houses.

All political tyranny is backed up and made possible by belief in
an arbitrary God, and all poverty is endured because of the belief
that after death everlasting happiness and wealth await us. Two
conditions are necessary to human happiness: personal freedom and
general wealth. But we never can be free as long as we believe that
it is the will of an infinite heavenly ruler that we should submit
to a finite earthly ruler, whether he gets upon the throne by
hereditary succession or by the votes of a majority; and wealth
will never be justly, and therefore, generally, distributed as long