💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › charles-malato-religions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:40:59. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Religions
Author: Charles Malato
Date: 1893
Language: en
Topics: anti-christian, atheist, France, history, religion
Source: Retrieved on 29 July 2011 from http://michaelshreve.wordpress.com/category/malato-charles/
Notes: Translated from the French from La Plume no. 97, May 1, 1893

Charles Malato

Religions

“Fear gave birth to the first gods,” a Latin poet said.

Yes, Very Holy Father, representative of that tramp Jesus, humbly give

your holy slipper to kiss, if some sad idiots prostrate themselves

before your sacred toes — it is because one fine day the polished monkey

who was our ancestor was too scared of thunder — from this fear was born

the idea of religion.

Only the most uneducated minds can still imagine that religions were

created all at once. Spontaneous generation (as in the physical world so

in the moral) is much rarer than you might believe. For such a birth to

take place, all the constitutive elements have to have already

developed, met and combined. The superficial observer, by himself, might

believe that it happened all at once; in reality, a religion is not, any

more than a man, made in five minutes.

How our primitive ancestors must have trembled! Everything was

mysterious and hostile to them: lightning, hurricanes, snow, storms,

epidemics and monsters magnified by the imagination, leaving their dens

to battle with men! All these forces, inherent in eternal matter, all

these formidable beings seemed to them to be greater than them — poor,

naked, ignorant animals. Everything became a god whom they sought to

sway, to whom they attributed passions, with whom they tried to talk.

And to succeed in such an enterprise, wasn’t the best thing to offer

gifts? The first believers naturally offered to the gods what they

themselves loved: fruits, flowers, the products of the hunt or the

harvest — that’s the origin of worship, an immense field open to the

exploitation of the gullible by conmen. And then there arose imaginative

people, the poets, the false savants who claimed to know more than the

others, the swindlers who wanted to capitalize on the situation, and

everyone adding legend upon legend and codifying the superstition. Thus,

side by side with the monarchs and the warlords, they created an

infinitely more frightening authority, for it was based in the heavens,

i.e. in the unknown — the almighty mystery.

There went humanity down the road of marvels. Where will it end? While

those lagging farthest behind linger in fetishism, in the worship of raw

matter, others stole their cosmogonies. The Persians set up a whole

system based on the dualism appearing in nature: Ohrmazd-light and

Ahriman-darkness are in constant struggle.

Egypt deified its Nile and, in sketching out an astronomical science,

took its basic mythology from it. Everywhere else, too, the climate, the

place and the race had an affect upon the development and the form of

the religious idea.

Man was not created in the image of God: he himself created his gods.

The Greeks, a nation of artists, sitting on the coast of the

Mediterranean, deified their shores, their mountains, their laurel

forests, their chanting springs — they raised a temple to lovely nature.

On the contrary, the Semites, wandering in the gloomy deserts, living

under a constantly blazing sky, made a menacing Jehovah, always ready to

punish; and it was only after the Macedonian conquest, when the Greeks

of Alexander brought a few scraps of Platonic ideology into Judah, that

these two such opposite beliefs began to fuse together. From this fusion

was born the Christian religion.

The social revolts of Judas the Gaulonite, of Mathias and later of

Joseph Gorionides were stifled in Palestine by the Roman generals, but

something survived: an idea of reform blowing through the old world. A

renewal, not just symbolic but real, was able to come out of it. The

first Christians, revolutionary innovators, had proclaimed human

equality. Consequently, the disciples who claimed to follow them should

have preached (then and still) the holy insurrection against the

powerful. A few of them did, but after the destruction of Jerusalem,

their successors trembled before the power of the Caesars, mumbling

their opportunist words, “My kingdom is not of this world.” They

submitted and protested their submission. However, they had to do

something to feed the zeal of the faithful, if they did not want to be

dragged by them into some perilous movement, like of the Bagaudae in the

third century. The bishops gave up all social demands, threw themselves

whole-heartedly into theology, intoxicating the naĂŻve flocks with their

casuistry. At the same time they conspired among the emperors, crept

into their palaces, into the Senate, into public offices. These

descendants of communist-anarchists became clever and power-hungry when

Constantine, knowing all the help they could give him, summoned them to

him. It was their ascension: all of a sudden these reformers turned into

unyielding guards of the old order — the usual about-face for all the

upstarts, men and parties.

Such is, in a few lines, the historical summary of the Christian

movement from its apparent origin to its moment of triumph. Jesus

(taking into account his existence stripped of miracles) was less an

originator or chief than a poet; a popular poet writing in prose and

parables; a poet who was remembered because he appealed to the emotions

more than to the intellect and he had the crowd and women on his side.

Paul, who came after him, had a completely different role to play as

founder and organizer of the Church. At his urging the first communities

of the faithful were formed, drawing up their statutes, electing their

ministers, striving to influence the profane world and enter into it.

How did this organization, which was democratic at first, turn into the

most tyrannical of autocracies? It was the work of centuries and also of

circumstances, just as much as the stubborn ambition of the Latin

bishops, who were closer than the others to the spectacle of imperial

power and by this very fact were more quickly corrupted.

Constantine summoned the heads of the Church; they flaunted their

victory at the Council of Nicaea where they established the grounds of

the faith that the world would have to suffer. We know the results: the

emperors abandoned more and more of the West to the power of the

barbarians; the Roman bishops ended up taking their place and becoming

temporal as well as spiritual masters.

This lasted eleven centuries. For eleven centuries people were forced to

believe even in the absurd, especially in the absurd, credo quia

absurdum; for eleven centuries men were burned, drowned, hanged and

tortured for the crime of thinking or simply of doubting. And when the

popular sentiment threatened to rebel, fast, we need a diversion: Go

after the Jews! They’re the ones who spread disease! Go after the

Muslims! God wants it! Those miscreants are living among you, as they

want, without asking permission from the Pope!

And the disinherited rush out to reforge their chains.

Against this papal Christianity is a popular Christianity, which gave

rise to the revolts of Judas the Gaulonite and the Bagaudae ended up

bursting forth. The Albigensian anarchists — for, the anarchist

inclination, if not the conception, is as old as the world — massacred

in the 13^(th) century, found their avengers in the Germanic countries.

While the princes and the bourgeois followed Luther in his revolt

against Rome, demanding a few liberties, the disinherited, who called

for all liberties because they had none, (with Stork and Munzer) waged a

war to the death against the convents and castles. Crushed in

Frankhausen, they were reborn in Munster and even though they were

conquered again, they scattered the seeds of republican and communist

ideas into the winds of the future.

These enragés played the same role as the Hébertists who 260 years later

shook up the reluctant Conventionnels. Without them the Reform could not

have worked — it had capitulated right away to Rome. But they stopped it

and that is what brought upon them the hatred of Luther and Melanchton,

who were scared of what they had done and were still thinking of

negotiating with the enemy. They finally saw (and this to their great

honor) that it was not simply a religious overhaul but a complete social

and human renovation.

Since the 16^(th) century the truncated Church has lost its power, in

spite of the invisible protection that the Jesuists provide to it. It is

tough, however, and gives up ground only inch by inch, often carrying

out terrible offensive counter attacks. The revolution chases it away

and it returns; the Empire tames it and it snaps at the heels; the

socialist state threatens to devour it and it tries to sidetrack it

because it cannot fight head to head.

That’s where we are right now: a tremendous trap is laid out for the

modern mind. The champions of the Papacy, dressed up like Christian

Socialists and Anti-Semites know that the huge mass of people, disgusted

by the old credos, has still not digested all positive philosophy. They

know that the human mind, in search of wonders, is easy to lead astray

and centuries of atavism lie heavily upon us. Having decided to take

advantage of every opportunity to give life back to the idea of

religion, they are lying in wait for us in the students of Loyola. It’s

up to us to understand their plans and to fight relentlessly against a

disguised enemy for the intellectual and material emancipation of

humanity!