I'll be honest with you. I've lived UK in nearly all of my life SubhanAllah and I've never been targeted personally because of the clothing I was wearing Now I never felt a conversation came to an end because of clothing I was wearing if anything it starts because of actually to be honest It started but then again, I'm not gonna make my experience of course everyone else's experience There are people who are targeted for their clothing what they wear male. I make easy for them I mean and people who live in other parts of Europe where obviously that it's not as multicultural if they Decides to wear jeans and a t-shirt to in purpose for the sake of giving that one Sometimes you even have to out like giving that one line again It's allowed. It's allowed. No one's saying it's haram as long as it fulfills the criteria and the obligation to cover your But it's it's something I wouldn't feel comfortable. I wouldn't feel comfortable in going to Person I'm not saying it's just my personal personal preference I don't want to impose on everybody else because my personal preference is only mine but I'm saying that As a Muslim, I don't know. I just as a Muslim. I want to I want to be different Mm-hmm, and that might mean that might mean me wearing Pakistani You know, Joachim is like I prefer that way before wearing a suit with suit. I prefer wearing an Arab Muslim's culture clothing with a lot of wear or Clothing Somali's wear or clothings which African wear then, you know, I mean like yeah, then jumping on the clothing worn by Generally worn by non-Muslims. I just want to look different to them Sure, not that I'm saying that the Somali mawis that we wear is like somehow from the Prophet I was a Sunnah.  Yeah, and the blazer is so tight. Yeah, I think that's a potential argument I also think that I mean in that situation What is someone to do when their office mandates upon them? You can't wait to open the office in a corporate world in Canary Wharf No, but why can't you just wear a bit, you know, like a looser one a bit a looser one? Yeah Because remember the word Sarawil The word Sarawil The word Sarawil it's In the Arabic language is different from the word Bantalon Trousers Bantalon where the people were okay tight stuff that way Sarawil liking is the one you In the Indians they were as well the Pakistanis. Yeah, I know what you mean the big one leg the bomb you keep But you can't win at the office man. No, I'm saying that's that's good That's nice That's very nice because our doesn't show his father. It's very good. I'm not saying that I'm saying if you know where the monkey suit Make sure you it's not too tight because some people they come to the mystery They pray and then you can see their backside. They're out of show. It's so tight even when they walk They it's like they're struggling So of course above the ankles as well and again, it has to be above the ankles There are things that you have to observe. Yeah, by the way It can't be below the ankles. That's what it is. It can't be on the ankle. By the way, okay We just loosely say above that. Yes, so you're right I'm and I think just one more thing that I'd had probably from the that work perspective is that I can actually see and I've seen experiences Where people actually dress for example in the Islamic dress actually are more productive and given that were because there's an Element of that the person who is given that were to look at them So you really believe in what you believe don't you like it's changed your whole life It really affects you and that kind of conviction that you can see in you can often be a means for him to really think about Am I really convicted about my own beliefs? Where is that when there's someone thinks all for the sake of that one when the wet jeans and the t-shirts they can relate to me They're just thinking there's not really much difference when you and you and me You know, I can just carry on living my life the way I am Don't you think like you even your personal experience Don't you think like sometimes the clothing you wear has an effect on your reactions and your do your dealings 100% I've actually come from previously the corporate world where for example I was wearing a monkey's as you to call it and it affects the way you think It affects the way you your action fix the way you move even an actual worship like the salaf for example in the masjid Wearing in a suit is not the same feeling as when it as doing it in the thug Yeah, I just it's hard to put your finger on it But there's a profound effect between the clothing you wear and I suppose this is why there should be a place It's such a huge importance for the clothing you wear and that actions and even your mindset I know I'm not gonna lie even me personally when I'm driving and you know I've got my Mamma on I've got my hat on my head. I've got my thobon and it's visible and a car cuts me I'm calm. No problem brother. Take care. Make sure you watch next time Honestly, and I'm not the type to get angry anyways I don't have this road rage that people have and they get angry there so general I don't even have that slur. They cut me as just you know, you might cut someone else and they might do something to you But The way I react I might not be happy with what this person does, but I never respond and never vulgar and of course but I Act more sensible because I know I'm I'm resembling something and I'm I'm what I have to hold up hold what the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam I would have done in this situation What would he have done? And I know a brother subhanallah a group of brothers actually to honest They said to me that when they're in the roads and they get road rage They get angry they like whenever we want to get at this person and so that we take off our hat We follow on the front seat and we start saying things and then when we leave we pull out It's one I remember some kind of like here you a I basically was driving and I had got lost So you know this country the signs a bit sometimes hard So the Santa said turn right turn I was like oh not I looked I just had and I cut the front car Yeah, so he got angry really took your personal so he He came cut me and he breaks right in front of me You know yeah, so for me. It's I did it to you you did it to me But then he came to which came to traffic light he got out of the car He got angry came to the window very angry very angry because he what made him even more angry is because I smiled I was only smiling as it like don't worry about it. It's all good Yeah, you did to me. I he thought you're laughing at him or something maybe so he came on the window and he said to me As soon as he saw me and he saw my thobb. He saw my mama. He saw you know, he said your own practicing brother, man Why do I slow brother? I'm using a stand up. I don't know the city I caught you you did it to me and I smiled because you got me back. I have no rights to get angry But look how it is clothing makes people say you have to uphold it particular the other side my point Yeah, so true. It's so true. I know I know but like people in the UK for example It's not just limited to clothing's even the beard for example. It will actually stop you from committing sins Yeah, there might be people who would normally Before they go they did they might be thinking about going to the club for example You'd never dare walk into a club with a beard.  Yeah, so true. Yeah, we did it just All these acts the outer appearance that we have as muslims we have to understand it's to actually tell us in advance What we're gonna fall short in I know a sister who fell off. I Asked her a question. I said she came to you know help me. I am problems. Okay first question What was the first thing that happened before you yeah, and he started listening to music You started doing this side is what was first? She's like I took my hijab It is a hijab Not physically, but it's also a spiritual hijab it conceals all these problems from you the woman she takes off a niqab Just the niqab that she takes off Then the jilbab comes then it becomes a khimar then sometimes the hair is showing and sometimes this is not the point I'm trying to come to is The outer appearance has a strong effect on the heart


Hello friends welcome to the session. I am Alga. We are going to discuss determinants I given question is find the inverse of each of the matrices if it exists given an exercises fire to 11 our sex exercises matrix minus 1 5 minus 3 2 now, let's start with the solution We are given a equal to matrix minus 1 5 minus 3 2 and since we have to find the a inverse which is equal to 1 upon determinant of a into a joint of a As you know that a inverse is possible only if Determinant of a is not equal to 0. So first of all we'll find the determinant of a which is determinant of a equal to minus 2 and Plus 13 or 15 Which is equal to 13 not equal to 0 there this implies a Is a Non-singular matrix This implies a inverse exist Now we'll find the co-factors for calculating the adjoint of a co-factor of minus 1 equal to minus 1 to the power 1 plus 1 into 2 Which is equal to 2 now co-factor of 5 equal to minus 1 to the power 1 plus 2 in 2 minus 3 Which is equal to 3? Similarly, we'll write the co-factors of minus 3 and 2 Co-factor of minus 3 equal to minus 5 and co-factor of 2 equal to minus 1 therefore the matrix obtained by the co-factors is Matrix 2 3 minus 5 minus 1 now we'll find the adjoint of a therefore adjoint of a Equal to transpose of matrix formed by the co-factors, which is 2 3 minus 5 minus 1 transpose this is equal to 2 3 minus 5 minus 1 Now we'll find the a inverse a inverse equal to 1 upon determinant of a into adjoint of a which is equal to 1 upon 13 into adjoint of a is 2 minus 5 3 and minus 1 so a Inverse equal to 1 upon 13 into matrix 2 minus 5 3 1 which is a required answer Hope you understood the solution and enjoyed the session. Goodbye and take care


Hey everyone, this is Jack. I hope you're all doing well. A couple of super important updates about the future of the channel and really where this channel is going to be going over the next year and into the foreseeable future. And the first thing that I wanted to announce, I guess, is that longer videos are going to be coming back. Basically what happened in case you missed the update from a little while ago. I was literally unable to make videos for the past five-ish weeks, so I prepared several in advance, which was tough, but I'm glad I was able to get some content out for you because that's always my biggest goal. And I'm really happy with a lot of the videos that I made. I know that the shorter ones weren't everyone's tempo, but all things considered, I'm glad I was able to get some content out there for you. I'm glad to add that content to my repertoire. But anyway, one of the major things that I wanted to announce today is that I'm going to be launching a Patreon. This is something that I've kind of resisted for a long time and for the simple reason that I've never really wanted this channel to be about money. I've always seen it as a way to talk about movies, and I felt that if you try and monetize it, it can kind of dilute that in a lot of ways, which is something that I of course never wanted. With that in mind, money is a great resource that it can lead to great things. And I think that having the show have a budget could be great for it. So that means everything from more research, better editing, being able to spend more on that, and also being able to spend more time on it, which comes through money obviously, I think can drastically improve the quality of the show. And over the next year and into the foreseeable future, I'm really going to be concentrating on trying to make the videos the best that they can be. Truth be told, there was a time when I kind of grew stale of making these videos, but I think that working on a couple of changes can really make these the best that they can be. Anyway, I'm going to be going into a lot more detail about the future of this channel, the Patreon, just a general Q&A live stream later today. It's going to be at 12 o'clock Pacific time, which is 3 o'clock Eastern, 8 UK time, and 9, 10 for most of the rest of Europe. I'm certain that there is a conversion tool that can be made if that didn't clear it up. So anyway, check that out. Be here. It's going to be a lot of fun and be hanging out, talking movies, talking the future of the channel, talking anything that you would like to talk. So anyway, be here then. Thank you so much for watching and get excited for the return of the regular content. Thanks, everyone.


Section 21, Ingersoll's Lecture on Voltaire. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Ingersoll's Lecture on Voltaire, Part 1 of 2 from the book, Lectures of Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll, Volume 2. Ladies and gentlemen, the infidels of one age have often been the early old saints of the next. The destroyers of the old are the creators of the new, as time sweeps on the old passes away and the new in its turn becomes of old. There is, in the intellectual world, as in the physical, decay and growth, and ever by the grave of buried age stands youth and joy. The history of intellectual progress is written in the lives of infidels. Political rights have been preserved by traitors, the liberty of mind by heretics. To attack the king was treason. To dispute the priest was blasphemy. For many years the sword and cross were allies. Together they attacked the rights of man. They defended each other. The throne and altar were twins, two vultures from the same egg. James I said, No bishop, no king. He might have added no cross, no crown. The king owned the bodies of men. The priest, the souls. One lived on taxes collected by force. The other on alms collected by fear. Both robbers, both beggars. These robbers and these beggars controlled two worlds. The king made laws. The priest made creeds. Both obtained their authority from God. Both were the agents of the infinite. With bowed backs, the people carried the burdens of one and with wonders open mouth received the dogmas of the other. If the people aspired to be free, they were crushed by the king and every priest was a hered who slaughtered the children of the brain. The king ruled by force. The priest by fear and both by both. The king said to the people, God made you peasants and he made me king. He made you to labor and me to enjoy. He made rags and hovels for you, robes and palaces for me. He made you to obey and me to command. Such is the justice of God.  He made me holy and wise. You are the sheep. I am the shepherd. Your fleeces belong to me. If you do not obey me here, God will punish you now and torment you forever in another world. Such is the mercy of God. You must not reason. Reason is a rebel. You must not contradict. Contradiction is born of egotism. You must believe. He that has ears to hear, let him hear. Heaven is a question of ears. Fortunately for us there have been traitors and there have been heretics, blasphemers, thinkers, investigators, lovers of liberty, men of genius who have given their lives to better the condition of their fellow men. It may be well enough here to ask the question, what is greatness? A great man adds to the sum of knowledge, extends the horizon of thought, releases souls from the Bastille of fear, crosses unknown and mysterious seas, gives new islands and new continents to the domain of thought, new constellations to the firmament of mind. A great man does not seek applause or place. He seeks for truth. He seeks the road to happiness and what he ascertains he gives to others. A great man throws pearls before swine and the swine are sometimes changed to men. If the great had always kept their pearls, vast multitudes would be barbarians now. A great man is a torch in the darkness, a beacon in superstition's night, an inspiration and a prophecy. Greatness is not the gift of majorities. It cannot be thrust upon any man. Men cannot give it to another. They can give place and power, but not greatness. The place does not make the man nor the scepter the king. Greatness is from within. The great men are the heroes who have freed the bodies of men. They are the philosophers and thinkers who have given liberty to the soul. They are the poets who have transfigured the common and filled the lives of many millions with love and song. They are the artists who have covered the bare walls of weary life with triumphs of genius.  They are the inventors, the discoverers, the great mechanics, the kings of the useful who have civilized this world. At the head of this heroic army, for most of all, stands Voltaire, whose memory we are honoring tonight. Voltaire, a name that excites the admiration of men, the malignity of priests. Pronounce that name in the presence of a clergyman, and you will find that you have made a declaration of war. Pronounce that name, and from the face of the priest the mask of meekness will fall, and from the mouth of forgiveness will pour a Niagara of vituperation and calamity. And yet Voltaire was the greatest man of his century, and did more for the human race than all other of the sons of men. On Sunday, the 21st of November, 1694, a babe was born, a babe exceedingly frail, whose breath hesitated without remaining. This babe became the greatest man of the 18th century. When Voltaire came to this great stage of fools, his country had been Christianized, not civilized, for about 1400 years. For a thousand years, the religion of peace and good will had been supreme. The laws had been given by Christian kings, sanctioned by wise and holy men. Under the benign reign of universal love, every court had its chamber of torture, and every priest relied on the thumbscrew and rack. Such had been the success of the blessed gospel that every science was an outcast. To speak your honest thoughts, to teach your fellow men, to investigate for yourself, to seek the truth, these were crimes, and the holy mother church pursued the criminals with sword and flame. The believers in a god of love, an infinite father, punished hundreds of offenses with torture and death. Suspected persons were tortured to make them confess. Convicted persons were tortured to make them give the names of their accomplices. Under the leadership of the church, cruelty had become the only reforming power. In this blessed year, 1694, all authors were at the mercy of king and priest. The most of them were cast into prisons, impoverished by fines and costs, exiled, or executed. The little time that hangmen could snatch from professional duties was occupied in burning books. The courts of justice were traps in which the innocent were caught. The judges were almost as malicious and cruel as though they had been bishops or saints. There was no trial by jury, and the rules of evidence allowed the conviction of the supposed criminal by the proof of suspicion, and hearsay. The witnesses being liable to torture generally told what the judges wished to hear. When Voltaire was born, the church ruled and owned France. It was a period of almost universal corruption. The priests were mostly libertines, the judges cruel and venal. The royal palace was a house of prostitution. The nobles were heartless, proud, arrogant, and cruel to the last degree. The common people were treated as beasts. It took the church a thousand years to bring about this happy condition of things. The seeds of the revolution unconsciously were being scattered by every noble and by every priest. They were germinating slowly in the hearts of the wretched. They were being watered by the tears of agony. Blows began to bear interest. There was a faint longing for blood. Workmen blackened by the sun, bowed by labour, deformed by want, looked at the white throats of scornful ladies and thought about cutting them. In those days the witnesses were cross-examined with instruments of torture. The church was the arsenal of superstition. Miracles, relics, angels, and devils were as common as lies. Voltaire was of the people. In the language of that day he had no ancestors. His real name was François-Marie Arwet. His mother was Marguerite de Maart. This mother died when he was seven years of age. He had an elder brother, Armand, who was a devotee, very religious and exceedingly disagreeable. This brother used to present offerings to the church, hoping to make amends for the unbelief of his brother. So far as we know none of his ancestors were literary people, the Arwet said never written a line. The Abbe Lechelieu was his godfather, and although an abbe was a deist who cared nothing about his religion except in connection with his salary. Voltaire's father wanted to make a lawyer of him, but he had no taste for law. At the age of ten he entered the college of Louis Lagrange. This was a Jesuit school, and here he remained for seven years, leaving at seventeen, and never attending any other school. According to Voltaire he learned nothing at this school but a little Greek, a good deal of Latin, and a vast amount of nonsense. In this college of Louis Lagrange they did not teach geography, history, mathematics, or any science. This was a Catholic institution controlled by the Jesuits. In that day the religion was defended, was protected, or supported by the state. The entire creed were the bayonet, the axe, the wheel, the faggot, and the torture chamber. While Voltaire was attending the college of Louis Lagrange, the soldiers of the king were hunting Protestants in the mountains of Sevan for magistrates to hang on gibbits, to put to torture, to break on the wheel, or to burn at the stake. There is but one use for law, but one excuse for government. The preservation of liberty, to give to each man his own, to secure to the farmer what he produces from the soil, the mechanic what he invents and makes, to the artist what he creates, to the thinker the right to express his thoughts. Liberty is the breath of progress. In France the people were the sport of a king's caprice. Everywhere was the shadow of the Bastille. It fell upon the sunniest field, upon the happiest home. With the king walked the headsman. Back of the throne was the chamber of torture. The church appealed to the rack, and faith relied on the faggot. Science was an outcast, and philosophy, so-called, was the pander of superstition. Those and priests were sacred, peasants were vermin, idleness sat at the banquet, and industry gathered the crumbs and crusts. At seventeen Voltaire determined to devote his life to literature. The father said, speaking of his two sons Armand and Francois, I have a pair of fools for sons, one in verse and the other in prose. In seventeen thirteen Voltaire in a small way became a diplomat. He went to the haig attached to the French minister, and there he fell in love. The girl's mother objected. Voltaire sent his clothes to the young lady that she might visit him. Everything was discovered, and he was dismissed. To this girl he wrote a letter, and in it you will find the keynote of Voltaire.   You have experienced it too well. Dissymbol it is your only chance. Tell her that you have forgotten me, that you hate me. Then after telling her, love me all the more. On account of this episode Voltaire was formally disinherited by his father. The father procured an order of arrest and gave his son the choice of going to prison or beyond the seas. He finally consented to become a lawyer, and says, I have already been a week at work in the office of a solicitor, learning the trade of a pettifogger. About this time he competed for a prize, writing a poem on the king's generosity in building the new choir in the cathedral Notre-Dame. He did not win it. After being with the solicitor a little while, he hated the law. He began to write poetry and the outlines of tragedy. Great questions were then agitating the public mind, and questions that throw a flood of light upon that epoch. Louis XIV having died, the regent took possession, and then the prisons were opened. The regent called for a list of all persons then in the prisons sent there at the will of the king. He found that as to many prisoners nobody knew any cause why they had been in prison. They had been forgotten. Many of the prisoners did not know themselves and could not guess why they had been arrested. One Italian had been in the Bastille thirty-three years without ever knowing why. On his arrival to Paris thirty-three years before he was arrested and sent to prison, he had grown old, he had survived his family and friends. When the rest were liberated he asked to remain where he was, and lived there the rest of his life. The old prisoners were pardoned, but in a little while their places were taken by new ones. At this time Voltaire was not interested in the great world, knew very little of religion or of government. He was busy writing poetry, busy thinking of comedies and tragedies.  He was charged with having written some cutting epigrams. He was exiled to Toul, three hundred miles away. From this place he wrote in the true vein, I am at a chateau, a place that would be the most agreeable in the world, if I had not been exiled to it, and where there is nothing wanting for my perfect happiness except the liberty of leaving. It would be delicious to remain if I only were allowed to go. At last the exile was allowed to return. Again he was arrested, this time sent to the Bastille, where he remained for nearly a year. While in prison he changed his name from François-Marie Arwais to Voltaire. And by that name he has since been known. Voltaire began to think, to doubt, to inquire. He studied the history of the Church of the Creed. He found that the religion of his time rested on the usurpation of the Scriptures, the infallibility of the Church, the dreams of insane hermits, the absurdities of the Fathers, the mistakes and falsehoods of saints, the hysteria of nuns, the cunning of priests, and the stupidity of the people. He found that the Emperor Constantine, who lifted Christianity into power, murdered his wife, François, and his eldest son, Crispus, the same year that he convened the Council of Nice to decide whether Christ was a man or the son of God. The Council decided in the year 325 that Christ was consubstantial with the Father. He found that the Church was indebted to a husband who assassinated his wife, a father who murdered his son, for settling the vexed question of the divinity of the Saviour. He found that Theodosius called a Council at Constantinople in 381, by which it was decided that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father, that Theodosius the Younger assembled a Council at Ephesus in 431 that declared the Virgin Mary to be the Mother of God, that the Emperor Martin called another Council at Calcedon in 451 that decided that Christ had two wills, that Pognatius called another in 680 that declared that Christ had two natures to go with his two wills, and that in 1274 at the Council of Lyons the important fact was found that the Holy Ghost proceeded not only from the Father, but also from the Son at the same time. So Voltaire has been called a mocker. What did he mock? He mocked kings that were unjust, kings who cared nothing for the sufferings of their subjects. He mocked the titled fools of his day. He mocked the corruption of courts, the meanness, the tyranny, and the brutality of judges. He mocked the absurd and cruel laws, the barbarous customs. He mocked popes and cardinals, bishops and priests, and all the hypocrites on the earth. He mocked historians who filled their books with lies and philosophers who defended superstition. He mocked the haters of liberty, the persecutors of their fellow men. He mocked the arrogance, the cruelty, the impudence, and the unspeakable baseness of his time. He has been blamed because he used the weapon of ridicule. Hypocrisy has always hated laughter and always will.  Voltaire was the master of ridicule. He ridiculed the absurd, the impossible.  He found pretense and mendacity crowned by credulity.  He found the historian saturated with superstition, filling his volumes with the details of the impossible, and he found the scientist satisfied with, they say, Voltaire had the instinct of the probable. He knew the law of average, the sea level. He had the idea of proportion, and so he ridiculed the mental monstrosities and deformities, the non sequiturs of his day. Aristotle said women had more teeth than men. This was repeated again and again by the Catholic scientists of the eighteenth century. Voltaire counted the teeth. The rest were satisfied with, they say. We may however get an idea of the condition of France from the fact that Voltaire regarded England as the land of liberty. While he was in England he saw the body of Sir Isaac Newton deposited in Westminster Abbey. He read the works of this great man, and afterward gave to France the philosophy of the great Englishman. Voltaire was the apostle of common sense. He knew that there could have been no primitive or first language from which all other languages had been formed. He knew that every language had been influenced by the surroundings of the people. He knew that the language of snow and ice was not the language of palm and flower. He knew also that there had been no miracle in language. He knew it was impossible that the story of the Tower of Babel should be true. That everything in the whole world had been natural. He was the enemy of alchemy, not only in language but in science. One passage from him is enough to show his philosophy in this regard. He says, To transmute iron into gold two things are necessary. First the annihilation of the iron. Second the creation of gold. Voltaire was a man of humor, of good nature, of cheerfulness. He despised with all his heart the philosophy of Calvin, the creed of the somber of the severe of the unnatural. He pitied those who needed the aid of religion to be honest, to be cheerful. He had the courage to enjoy the present and the philosophy to bear what the future might bring. And yet for more than a hundred and fifty years the Christian world has fought this man and has maligned his memory. In every Christian pulpit his name has been pronounced with scorn, and every pulpit has been an arsenal of slander. He is one man of whom no Orthodox minister has ever told the truth. He has been denounced equally by Catholics and Protestants. Priests and ministers, bishops and exorters presiding elders and popes have filled the world with slanders with calm calm knees about Voltaire. I am amazed that ministers will not or cannot tell the truth about an enemy of the church. As a matter of fact for more than a thousand years almost every pulpit has been a mint in which slanders were coined. For many years this restless man filled Europe with the product of his brain. Essays, epigrams, epics, comedies, tragedies, histories, poems, novels, representing every phase and every faculty of the human mind.  At the same time alive to all the discoveries of science and the theories of philosophers and in this babel never forgetting for a moment to assail the monster of superstition. Sleeping and waking he hated the church. With the eyes of Argus he watched and with the arms of Briarius he struck. For sixty years he waged continuous and unrelenting war sometimes in the open field sometimes striking from the hedges of opportunity taking care during all this time to remain independent of all men. He was in the highest sense successful. He lived like a prince, became one of the powers of Europe and in him for the first time literature was crowned. Voltaire in spite of his surroundings in spite of almost universal tyranny and oppression was a believer in God and in what he was pleased to call the religion of nature. He attacked the creed of his time because it was dishonorable to his God. He thought of the deity as a father, as the fountain of justice, intelligence and mercy and the creed of the Catholic Church made him a monster of cruelty and stupidity. He attacked the Bible with all the weapons at his command. He assailed its geology, its astronomy, its idea of justice, its laws and customs, its absurd and useless miracles, its foolish wonders, its ignorance on all subjects, its insane prophecies, its cruel threats and its extravagant promises. At the same time he praised the God of nature, the God who gives us rain and light and food and flowers and health and happiness, he who fills the world with youth and beauty. In 1755 came the earthquake at Lisbon. This frightful disaster became an immense interrogation. The optimist was compelled to ask what was my God doing? Why did the universal father crush to shapelessness thousands of his poor children, even at the moment when they were upon their knees returning thanks to him? What could be done with this horror? If earthquake there must be, why did it not occur in some uninhabited desert on some wide waist of sea? This frightful fact changed the theology of Voltaire. He became convinced that this is not the best possible of all worlds. He became convinced that evil is evil here, now and forever. Who can establish the existence of an infinite being? It is beyond the conception, the reason, the imagination of man, probably or possibly where the zenith and nadir meet this God can be found. Voltaire attacked on every side, fought with every weapon that wit, logic, reason, scorn, contempt, laughter, pathos, and indignation could sharpen, form, devise, or use. He often apologized and the apology was an insult. He often recanted and the recantation was a thousand times worse than the thing recanted. He took it back by giving more. In the name of eulogy he flayed his victim. In his praise there was poison. He often advanced by retreating and asserted by retraction. He did not intend to give priests the satisfaction of seeing him burn or suffer. Upon this very point of recanting he wrote, they say I must retract. Very willingly I will declare the Pascal is always right. That if Saint Luke and Saint Mark contradict one another, it is only another proof of the truth of religion to those who know how to understand such things. And that another lovely proof of religion is that it is unintelligible. I will even avow that all priests are gentle and disinterested, that Jesuits are honest people, that monks are neither proud nor given to intrigue, and that their odor is agreeable, that the holy inquisition is the triumph of humanity and tolerance. In a word I will say all that may be desired of me, provided they leave me in repose and will not prosecute a man who has done harm to none. He gave the best years of his wondrous life to succor the oppressed, to shield the defenseless, to reverse infamous decrees, to rescue the innocent, to reform the laws of France, to do away with torture, to soften the hearts of priests, to enlighten judges, to instruct kings, to civilize the people, and to banish from the heart of man the love and lust of war. Voltaire was not a saint. He was educated by the Jesuits. He was never troubled about the salvation of his soul. All the theological disputes excited his laughter, the creeds his pity, and the conduct of bigots his contempt. He was much better than a saint. Most of the Christians in his day kept their religion not for everyday use, but for disaster, as ships carry lifeboats to be used only in the stress of storm. Voltaire believed in the religion of humanity, of good and generous deeds. For many centuries the church had painted virtue so ugly, sour, and cold that vice was regarded as beautiful. Voltaire taught the beauty of the useful, the hatefulness and hideousness of superstition. He was not the greatest of poets or of dramatists, but he was the greatest man of his time, the greatest friend of freedom, and the deadliest foe of superstition. He wrote the best French plays, but they were not wonderful. He wrote verses polished and perfect in their way. He filled the air with painted mods, but not with Shakespearean eagles. You may think that I have said too much, that I have placed this man too high. Let me tell you what Goethe, the great German, said of this man. If you wish, depth, genius, imagination, taste, reason, sensibility, philosophy, elevation, originality, nature, intellect, fancy, rectitude, facility, flexibility, precision, art, abundance, variety, fertility, warmth, magic, charm, grace, force, and eagle sweep of vision, vast understanding, instruction rich, tone excellent, urbanity, suavity, delicacy, correctness, purity, cleanness, eloquence, harmony, brilliancy, rapidity, gaiety, pathos, sublimity, and universality, perfection indeed, behold Voltaire. Even Carlisle, the old Scottish terrier with the growl of a grizzly bear, who attacked Shams as I have sometimes thought because he hated rivals, was forced to admit that Voltaire gave the death-stab to modern superstition. It was the hand of Voltaire that sowed the seeds of liberty in the heart and brain of Franklin, of Jefferson, and of Thomas Paine. Ingersoll's lecture on Voltaire Part 1. This has been a LibriVox recording read for you by Ted DeLorm in Fort Mill, South Carolina on July 22, 2009. Section 22, Voltaire Part 2. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Voltaire Part 2 of 2, from the book, Lectures of Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll, Vol. 2. Toulouse was a favored town. It was rich in relics. The people were as ignorant as wooden images, but they had in their possession the dried bodies of seven apostles, the bones of many of the infants slain by Herod, part of a dress of the Virgin Mary, and lots of skulls and skeletons of the infallible idiots known as saints. In this city the people celebrated every year with great joy two holy events, the expulsion of the Huguenots and the blessed massacre of Saint Bartholomew. The citizens of Toulouse had been educated and civilized by the church. A few Protestants, mild because in the minority, lived among these jackals and tigers. One of these Protestants was Jean Calat, a small dealer in dry goods. For forty years he had been in this business and his character was without a stain. He was honest, kind, and agreeable. He had a wife and six children, four sons and two daughters. One of the sons became a Catholic. The eldest son, Marc-Antoine, disliked the father's business and studied law. He could not be allowed to practice unless he became a Catholic. He tried to get his license by concealing that he was a Protestant. He was discovered, grew morose. Finally, he became discouraged and committed suicide by hanging himself one evening in his father's store. The bigots of Toulouse started the story that his parents had killed him to prevent his becoming a Catholic. On this frightful charge, the father, mother, one son, a servant, and one guest at their house were arrested. The dead son was considered a martyr, the church taking possession of the body. This happened in 1761. There was what was called a trial. There was no evidence, not the slightest, except hearsay. All the facts were in favor of the accused. The united strength of the defendants could not have done the deed. Chancelat was doomed to torture and to death upon the wheel. This was on the 9th of March, 1762, and the sentence was to be carried out the next day. On the morning of the 10th, the father was taken to the torture room. The executioner and his assistants were sworn on the cross to administer the torture according to the judgment of the court. They bound him by the wrists to an iron ring in the stone wall four feet from the ground and his feet to another ring in the floor. Then they shortened the ropes and chains until every joint in his arms and legs were dislocated. Then he was questioned. He declared that he was innocent. Then the ropes were again shortened until life fluttered in the torn body. But he remained firm. This was called the question ordinaire. Again the magistrate exhorted the victim to confess, and again he refused, saying that there was nothing to confess. Then came the question extraordinaire. Into the mouth of the victim was placed a horn holding three pints of water. In this way thirty pints of water were forced into the body of the sufferer. The pain was beyond description, and yet Chancelat remained firm. He was then carried to a scaffold in a tumbrel. He was bound to a wooden cross that lay on the scaffold. The executioner then took a bar of iron, broke each leg and arm in two places, striking eleven blows in all. He was then left to die if he could. He lived for two hours declaring his innocence to the last. He was slow to die, and so the executioner strangled him. Then his poor, lacerated, bleeding and broken body was chained to a stake and burned. All this was a spectacle, a festival for the savages of Toulouse. What would they have done if their hearts had not been softened by the glad tidings of great joy, peace on earth, and goodwill to men? But this was not all. The property of the family was confiscated, the son was released on condition that he become a Catholic, the servant if she would enter a convent. The two daughters were consigned to a convent, and the heart-broken widow was allowed to wander where she would. Voltaire heard of this case. In a moment his soul was on fire. He took one of the sons under his roof. He wrote a history of the case. He corresponded with kings and queens, with chancellors and lawyers. If money was needed he advanced it. For years he filled Europe with the echoes of the groans of Jean Calat. He succeeded. The horrible judgment was annulled, the poor victim declared innocent, and thousands of dollars raised to support the mother and family. This was the work of Voltaire. Sylvain, a Protestant, lived in Langodeau with his wife and three daughters. The housekeeper of the bishop wanted to make one of the daughters a Catholic. The law allowed the bishop to take the child of Protestants from its parents for the sake of its soul. The little girl was so taken and placed in a convent. She ran away and came back to her parents. Her poor little body was covered with the marks of the convent whip.  The child was out of her mind. Suddenly she disappeared and three days after her little body was found in a well three miles from home. The cry was raised that her folks had murdered her to keep her from becoming a Catholic. This happened only a little way from the Christian city of Toulouse while Jean Calat was still in prison. The Sylvains knew that a trial would end in conviction. They fled. In their absence they were convicted, their property confiscated. The parents sentenced to die by the hangman, the daughters to be under the gallows during the execution of their mother, and then to be exiled. The family fled in the midst of winter. The married daughter gave birth to a child in the snows of the Alps. The mother died, and at last the father, reaching Switzerland, found himself without the means of support. They went to Voltaire. He espoused their cause. He took care of them, gave them the means to live, and labored to annul the sentence that had been pronounced against them for nine long and weary years. He appealed to kings for money, to Catherine II of Russia, and to hundreds of others. He was successful. He said of this case, the Sylvains were tried and condemned in two hours in January 1762, and now in January 1772, after ten years of effort, they have been restored to their rights. This was the work of Voltaire. Why should the worshippers of God hate the lovers of men? Espinas was a Protestant of good estate. In 1740 he received into his house a Protestant clergyman to whom he gave supper and lodging. In a country where priests repeated the parable of the good Samaritan, this was a crime. For this crime Espinas was tried, convicted, and sentenced to the galleys for life. When he had been imprisoned for twenty-three years, his case came to the knowledge of Voltaire, and he was through the efforts of Voltaire released and restored to his family. This was the work of Voltaire. There is not time to tell of the case of General Lali, of the English General Bing, of the niece of Cornel, of the Jesuit Adam, of the writers, dramatists, actors, widows, and orphans, for whose benefit he gave his influence, his money, and his time. But I will tell another case. In 1765 at the town of Abbeville, an old wooden cross on a bridge had been mutilated, whittled with a knife, a terrible crime. Sticks when crossing each other were far more sacred than flesh and blood. Two young men were suspected, the Chevalier de la Barre and de Toulon. De Toulon fled to Prussia and enlisted as a common soldier. De La Barre remained and stood his trial. He was convicted without the slightest evidence, and he and de Toulon were both sentenced. First to endure the torture, ordinary and extraordinary. Second to have their tongues torn out by the roots with penchers of iron. Third to have their right hands cut off at the door of the church. And fourth to be bound to stakes by chains of iron and burned to death by a slow fire. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Remembering this, the judges mitigated the sentence by providing that their heads should be cut off before their bodies were given to the flames. The case was appealed to Paris, heard by a court composed of twenty-five judges learned in law, and the judgment was confirmed. The sentence was carried out on the first day of July, 1766. Voltaire had fought with every weapon that genius could devise or use. He was the greatest of all caricaturists, and he used this wonderful gift without mercy, for pure crystallized wit he had no equal. The art of flattery was carried by him to the height of an exact science. He knew and practiced every subterfuge. He fought the army of hypocrisy and pretense, the army of faith and falsehood. Voltaire was annoyed by the meaner and baser spirits of his time, by the cringers and crawlers, by the fawners and pretenders, by those who wished to gain the favors of priests, the patronage of nobles. Sometimes he allowed himself to be annoyed by these scorpions, sometimes he attacked them. And but for these attacks long ago they would have been forgotten. In the amber of his genius Voltaire preserved these insects, these tarantulas, these scorpions. It is fashionable to say that he was not profound.  In the presence of absurdity he laughed and was called irreverent.  This was regarded as blasphemy. He endeavored to prevent Christians from murdering each other and did what he could to civilize the disciples of Christ. Had he founded a sect, obtained control of some country, and burned a few heretics at slow fires, he would have won the admiration, respect and love of the Christian world. Had he only pretended to believe all the fables of antiquity, and had he mumbled Latin prayers, counted beads, crossed himself, devoured now and then the flesh of God, and carried faggots to the feet of philosophy in the name of Christ, he might have been in heaven this moment enjoying a sight of the damned. If he had only adopted the creed of his time, if he had asserted that a God of infinite power and mercy had created millions and billions of human beings to suffer eternal pain and all for the sake of his glorious justice, that he had given his power of attorney to a cunning and cruel Italian pope, authorizing him to save the soul of his mistress and send honest wives to hell, if he had given to the nostrils of this God the odor of burning flesh, the incense of the faggot, if he had filled his ears with the shrieks of the tortures, the music of the rack, he would now be known as Saint Voltaire. Instead of doing these things, he willfully closed his eyes to the light of the Gospel, examined the Bible for himself, advocated intellectual liberty, struck from the brain the fetters of an arrogant faith, assisted the weak, cried out against the torture of man, appealed to reason, endeavored to establish universal toleration, suckered the indigent and offended the oppressed. He demonstrated that the origin of all religions is the same, the same mysteries, the same miracles, the same impostures, the same temples and ceremonies, the same kind of founders, apostles and dupes, the same promises and threats, the same pretense of goodness and forgiveness and the practice of the same persecution and murder. He proved that religion made enemies, philosophy friends, and that above the rights of God were the rights of man. These were his crimes.  If allowed to meet death with a smile, others might follow his example until none would be left to light the holy fires of the Autodauphée. It would not do for so great, so successful an enemy of the church to die without leaving some shriek of fear, some shudder of remorse, some ghastly prayer of chattered horror, uttered by lips covered with blood and foam. For many centuries the theologians have taught that an unbeliever, an infidel, one who spoke or wrote against their creed, could not meet death with composure, that in his last moments God would fill his conscience with the serpents of remorse. For a thousand years the clergy have manufactured the facts to fit this theory, this infamous conception of the duty of man and the justice of God. The theologians have insisted that crimes against men were and are as nothing compared with crimes against God. That while kings and priests did nothing worse than to make their fellows wretched, that so long as they only butchered and burnt the innocent and helpless, God would maintain the strictest neutrality. But when some honest man, some great and tender soul, expressed a doubt as to the truth of the scriptures, or prayed to the wrong God, or to the right one by the wrong name, then the real God leaped like a wounded tiger upon his victim and from his quivering flesh tore the wretched soul. There is no recorded instance where the uplifted hand of murder has been paralyzed. No truthful account in all the literature of the world of the innocent child being shielded by God. Thousands of crimes are being committed every day. Men are at this moment lying in wait for their human prey. Wives are whipped and crushed, driven to insanity and death. Little children begging for mercy, lifting imploring tear-filled eyes to the brutal faces of fathers and mothers. Sweet girls are deceived, lured and outraged. But God has no time to prevent these things, no time to defend the good and protect the pure. He is too busy numbering hairs and watching sparrows. He listens for blasphemy, looks for persons who laugh at priests, examines baptismal registers, watches professors in college who begin to doubt the geology of Moses and the astronomy of Joshua. He does not particularly object to stealing if you don't swear. A great many persons have fallen dead in the act of taking God's name in vain.  But no one engaged in this infamy has ever been touched by the wrathful hand of God. All kinds of criminals except infidels meet death with reasonable serenity. As a rule there is nothing in the death of a pirate to cast any discredit on his profession. The murderer upon the scaffold with a priest on either side smilingly exhorts the multitude to meet him in heaven. The man who has succeeded in making his home a hell meets death without a quiver, provided he has never expressed any doubt as to the divinity of Christ or the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost. Now and then a man of genius, of sense, of intellectual honesty has appeared. Such men have denounced the superstition of their day. They have pitied the multitude. To see priests devour the substance of the people, priests who made begging one of the learned professions filled them with loathing and contempt. These men were honest enough to tell their thoughts, brave enough to speak the truth. Then they were denounced, tried, tortured, killed by rack or flame. But some escaped the fury of the fiends who loved their enemies and died naturally in their beds. It would not do for the church to admit that they died peacefully. That would show that religion was essential at the last moment. Superstition gets its power from the terror of death. It would not do to have the common people understand that a man could deny the Bible, refuse to kiss the cross, contend that humanity was greater than Christ, and then die as sweetly as Torquemada did after pouring molten lead into the ears of an honest man, or as calmly as Calvin after he had burned Servetus, or as peacefully as King David after advising with his last breath one son to assassinate another. The church has taken great pains to show that the last moments of all infidels that Christians did not succeed in burning were infinitely wretched and despairing. It was alleged that words could not paint the horrors that were endured by a dying infidel. Every good Christian was expected to and generally did believe these accounts. They have been told and retold in every pulpit of the world. Protestant ministers have repeated the lies invented by Catholic priests and Catholics by a kind of theological comedy have sworn to the lies told by the Protestants. Upon this point they have always stood together and will as long as the same falsehood can be used by both. Upon the deathbed subject the clergy grew eloquent. When describing the shudderings and shrieks of the dying unbeliever, their eyes glitter with delight. It is a festival. They are no longer men. They become hyenas. They dig open graves. They devour the dead. It is a banquet.  They gaze at the souls of the infidels writhing in the coils of the worm that never dies. They see them in flames, in oceans of fire, in gulfs of pain, in abysses of despair. They shout with joy. They applaud. It is an autodaffé presided over by God. But let us come back to Voltaire, to the dying philosopher. He was an old man of eighty-four. He had been surrounded with the comforts, the luxuries of life. He was a man of great wealth, the richest writer that the world had known. Among the literary men of the earth he stood first. He was an intellectual monarch, one who had built his own throne and had woven the purple of his own power. He was a man of genius. The comforts of the Catholic God had allowed him the appearance of success. His last years were filled with the intoxication of flattery, of almost worship. He stood at the summit of his age. The priests became anxious. They began to fear that God would forget in a multiplicity of business to make a terrible example of Voltaire. Toward the last of May, 1778, it was whispered in Paris that Voltaire was dying. Upon the fences of expectation gathered the unclean birds of superstition, impatiently waiting for their prey. Two days before his death, his nephew went to seek the cure of Saint Serpilus and the Abbe Gauthier and brought them to his uncle's sick chamber, who, being informed that they were there, said, Ah well, give them my compliments and my thanks. The Abbe spoke some words to him, exhorting him to patience. The cure of Saint Serpilus then came forward, having announced himself and asked of Voltaire elevating his voice if he acknowledged the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.  The cure seemingly considered his person soiled and his quaff dishonored by the touch of a philosopher. He made the nurse give him a little brushing and went out with the Abbe Gauthier. He expired, says Wognier, on the thirtieth of May, 1778, at about a quarter past eleven at night, with the most perfect tranquillity. A few moments before his last breath he took the hand of Moran, his valet de Chambre, who was watching by him, pressed it and said, Adieu, my dear Moran, I am gone. These were his last words. Like a peaceful river with green and shaded banks he flowed without a murmur into the waveless sea where life is rest. From this death so simple and serene, so kind, so philosophic and tender, so natural and peaceful, from these words so utterly destitute of cant or dramatic touch, all the frightful pictures, all the despairing utterances have been drawn and made. From these materials and from these alone, or rather, in spite of these facts, have been constructed by priests and clergymen and their dupes, all the shameless lies about the death of this great and wonderful man, a man compared with whom all of his columniators, dead and living, were and are but dust and vermin. Let us be honest, did all the priests of Rome increase the mental wealth of man as much as Bruno? Did all the priests of France do as great a work for the civilization of the world as Voltaire or Diderot? Did all the ministers of Scotland add as much to the such of human knowledge as David Hume? Have all the clergymen, monks, friars, ministers, priests, bishops, cardinals, and popes from the day of Pentecost to the last election done as much for human liberty as Thomas Paine? What would the world be if infidels had never been? The infidels have been the brave and thoughtful men, the flower of all the world, the pioneers and heralds of the blessed day of liberty and love, the generous spirits of the unworthy past, the seers and prophets of our race, the great chivalric souls, proud victors on the battlefields of thought, the creditors of all the years to be. In those days the philosophers, that is to say the thinkers, were not buried in holy ground. It was feared that their principles might contaminate the ashes of the just, and they also feared that on the morning of the resurrection they might in a moment of confusion slip into heaven. Some were burned and their ashes scattered, and the bodies of some were thrown naked to beasts, and others buried in unholy earth. Voltaire knew the history of Adrien Lecouveru, a beautiful actress, denied burial, after all we do feel an interest in what is to become of our bodies. There is a modesty that belongs to death. Upon this subject Voltaire was infinitely sensitive. It was that he might be buried, that he went through the farce of confession, of absolution, and of the last sacrament. The priests knew that he was not in earnest, and Voltaire knew that they would not allow him to be buried in any of the cemeteries of Paris. His death was kept a secret. The Abbe Mignot made arrangements for the burial at Romelie on the Seine, more than a hundred miles from Paris. Sunday evening, on the last day of May 1778, the body of Voltaire clad in a dressing gown, clothed to resemble an invalid, posed to simulate life, was placed in a carriage, at its side a servant whose business it was to keep it in position. To this carriage were attached six horses, so that people might think a great lord was going to his estates. Another carriage followed in which were a grand-nephew and two cousins of Voltaire. All night they travelled, and on the following day arrived at the courtyard of the Abbe. The necessary papers were shown, the mass was performed in the presence of the body, and Voltaire found burial. A few moments afterward the prior who for charity had given a little earth received from his bishop a menacing letter forbidding the burial of Voltaire. It was too late. He could not then be removed, and he was allowed to remain in peace until 1791. Voltaire was dead. The foundations of state and throne had been sapped. The people were becoming acquainted with the real kings and with the actual priests. Unknown men born in misery and want, men whose fathers and mothers had been pavement for the rich, were rising towards the light, and their shadowy faces were emerging from darkness. Labour and thought became friends. That is, the gutter and the attic, fratric. The monsters of the night and the angels of dawn, the first thinking of revenge and the others dreaming of equality, liberty and fraternity. For four hundred years the Bastille had been the outward symbol of oppression. Within its walls the noblest had perished. It was a perpetual threat. It was the last and often the first argument of king and priest. In dungeons damp and rayless its massive towers, its secret cells, its instruments of torture denied the existence of God. In 1789 on the 14th of July the people, the multitude frenzied by suffering, stormed and captured the Bastille. The battle cry was, Vive le Voltaire. In 1791 permission was given to place in the pantheon the ashes of Voltaire. He had been buried a hundred and ten miles from Paris. Buried by stealth he was to be removed by a nation. A funeral procession of a hundred miles, every village with its flags and arches in his honour. All the people anxious to honour the philosopher of France, the saviour of Cala, the destroyer of superstition. On reaching Paris the great procession moved along the rue Saint-Antoine. Here it paused and for one night upon the ruins of the Bastille rested the body of Voltaire, rested in triumph, in glory, rested on fallen wall and broken arch, on crumbling stone, still damp with tears, on rusting chain and dust, on the bar and useless bolt, above the dungeons dark and deep where light had faded from the lives of men and hope had died in breaking hearts. The conqueror resting upon the conquered. Throne upon the Bastille the fallen fortress of night the body of Voltaire from whose brain had issued the dawn. For a moment his ashes must have felt the Promethean fire and the old smile must have illumined once more the face of the dead. While the vast multitude were trembling with love and awe a priest was heard to cry, God shall be avenged. The grave of Voltaire was violated. The cry of the priest God shall be avenged had borne its fruit. Priests skulking in the shadows with faces sinister as night ghouls in the name of the Gospel desecrated the grave. They carried away the body of Voltaire. The tomb was empty. God was avenged. The tomb was empty, but the world is filled with Voltaire's fame. Man has conquered. What cardinal, what bishop, what priest raised his voice for the rights of men? What ecclesiastic, what noble man took the side of the oppressed, of the peasant? Who denounced the frightful criminal code, the torture of suspected persons? What priest pleaded for the liberty of the citizen? What bishop pitied the victim of the rack? Is there the grave of a priest in France on which a lover of liberty would now drop a flower or a tear? Is there a tomb holding the ashes of a saint from which emerges one ray of light? If there be another life, a day of judgment, no God can afford to torture in another world a man who abolished torture in his. If God be the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, he should not imprison there those who broke the chain of slavery here. He cannot afford to make eternal convicts of Franklin, of Jefferson, of Paine, of Voltaire. Voltaire was perfectly equipped for his work, a perfect master of the French language, knowing all its moods, tenses, and declarations, in fact and in feeling, playing upon it as skillfully as Paganini on his violin, finding expression for every thought and fancy, writing on the most serious subjects with the gaiety of a garliquin, plucking jests from the mouth of death, graceful as the waving of willows, dealing in double meanings that covered the asp with flowers and flattery, master of satire and compliment, mingling them often in the same line, always interested himself, therefore interesting others, handling thoughts, questions, subjects as a juggler does balls, keeping them in the air with perfect ease, dressing old words in new meanings, charming, grotesque, pathetic, mingling mirth with tears, wit with wisdom, and sometimes wickedness, logic and laughter. With a woman's instinct knowing the sensitive nerves just where to touch, hating arrogance of place, the stupidity of the solemn, snatching masks from priest and king, knowing the springs of action and ambitions ends, perfectly familiar with the great world, the intimate of kings and their favourites, sympathising with the oppressed and imprisoned with the unfortunate and poor, hating tyranny, despising superstition and loving liberty with all his heart. Such was Voltaire, writing Oedipus at 17, Irene at 83, and Paganini and crowding between these two tragedies the accomplishment of a thousand lives. End of Section 22, read for you by Ted DeLorm in Fort Mill, South Carolina on July 25, 2009. Section 23, Ingersoll's lecture on myth and miracles. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Ingersoll's lecture on myth and miracles from the book Lectures of Colonel Robert Green Ingersoll, Volume 2. Ladies and gentlemen, what, after all, is the object of life? What is the highest possible aim? The highest aim is to accomplish the only good. Happiness is the only good of which man by any possibility can conceive. The object of life is to increase human joy, and that means intellectual and physical development. The question then is, shall we rely upon superstition or upon growth? Is intellectual development the highway of progress, or must we depend on the pit of credulity? Must we rely on belief or credulity or upon manly virtues, courageous investigation, thought and intellectual development? For thousands of years, men have been talking about religious freedom. I am now contending for the freedom of religion, not religious freedom, for the freedom which is the only real religion.  Noticing the running river, the shining star, or the painted flower, they put a spirit in the river, a spirit in the star, and another in the flower. Something makes this river run, something makes this star shine, something paints the blossom of that flower. They were all spirits. That was the first religion of mankind, fetishism, and in everything that lived, everything that produced an effect upon them, they said, this is a spirit that lives within. That is called the lowest phase of religious thought, and yet it is quite the highest phase of religious thought. One by one these little spirits died. One by one non-entities took their places, and last of all we have one infinite fetish that takes the place of all others. Now, what makes the river run? We say the attraction of gravitation, and we know no more about that than we do about this fetish. What makes the tree grow? The principle of life, vital forces. These are simply phrases, simply names of ignorance. Nobody knows what makes the river run. What makes the trees grow? Why the flowers burst and bloom? Nobody knows why the stars shine, and probably nobody ever will know. There are two horizons that have never been passed by man, origin and destiny. All human knowledge is confined to the diameter of that circle. All religions rest on supposed facts beyond the circumference of the absolutely known. What next? The next thing that came in the world, the next man, was the myth-maker. He gave to these little spirits human passions. He clothed ghosts in flesh. He warmed that flesh with blood, and in that blood he put desire, motive, and the myths were born, and were only produced through the fact of the impressions that nature makes upon the brain of man. They were every one a natural production, and let me say here tonight that what men call monstrosities are only natural productions. Every religion has grown just as naturally as the grass. Everyone, as I said before, and it cannot be said too often, has been naturally produced. All the Christs, all the gods and goddesses, all the furies and fairies, all the mingling of the beastly and human, were all produced by the impressions of nature upon the brain of man. By the rise of the sun, the silver dawn, the golden sunset, the birth and death of day, the change of seasons, the lightning, the storm, the beautiful bow, all these produced within the brain of man, all myths, and they are all natural productions. There have been certain myths universal among men. Gardens of Eden have been absolutely universal. The golden age, which is absolutely the same thing. And what was the golden age born of? Any old man in Boston will tell you that fifty years ago all people were honest. Fifty years ago all people were sociable. There was no stuck-up aristocracy then. Neighbors were neighbors. Merchants gave full weight. Everything was full length. Everything was a yard wide and all wool. Now everybody swindles everybody else and calls it business. Go back fifty years and you will find an old man who will tell you that there was a time when all were honest.  Every man looks back to his youth, to the golden age, and what is true of the individual is true of the whole human race. It has its infancy, its manhood, and finally will have an old age. The Garden of Eden is not back of us. There are more honest men, good women, and obedient children in the world today than ever before. The myth of the Elysian fields, universally born of sunsets. When the golden clouds in the west turned to amethyst, sapphire, and purple, the poor savage thought it a vision of another land, a land without care or grief, a world of perpetual joy. This myth was born of the setting of the sun, a universal myth. All nations have believed in floods. Savages found everywhere, evidences of the sea having been above the earth, and saw in the shells souvenirs of the ocean's visit. It had left its cards on the tops of mountains. The savage knew nothing of the slow rise and sinking of the crust of the earth. He did not dream of it. We now know that where the mountains lift their granite forage to the sun, the billows once held sway, and that where the waves dash into white caps of joy, the mountains will stand once more. Everywhere the land is, the ocean will be, and where the ocean is, the land will be. The Hindus believed in the flood myth. Their hero, who lived almost entirely on water, went to the Ganges to perform his ablutions, and taking up a little water in his hand, he saw a small fish that prayed him to save it from the monster of the river, and it would save him in turn from his enemies. He did so, and put it into different receptacles until it grew so large that he let it loose in the sea. Then it was large enough to take care of itself. The fish told him that there was going to be an immense flood, and told him to gather all kinds of seed, and take two of each kind of animals of used man, and he would come along with an ark and take them all in. He told him to pick out seven saints, and the fish towed the ark along tied to its horns, and took them in, and carried them to the top of a mountain, where he hitched the ark to a tree. When the waters receded, they came out, and followed them down until they reached the plain. There were the same number, eight, in this ark, as there were with Noah. I find that the myth of the Virgin Mother is universal. The Virgin Mother is the earth. I find also in countries the idea of a trinity. In Egypt I find Isis, Osiris, and Horus. This idea prevailed in Central America among the Aztecs. We find the myth of the judgment almost universal. I imagine men have seen so much injustice here that they naturally expect that there must be some day of final judgment somewhere. Nearly every theist is driven to the necessity of having another world in which his God may correct the mistakes he has made in this. We find on the walls of Egyptian temples pictures of the judgment. The righteous all go on the right hand and those unworthy on the left. The myth of the Sun God was universal. Agni was the Sun God of the Hindus. He was called the most generous of all gods yet he ate his own father and mother. Baldur was another Sun God. He was a Sun myth. Hercules was a Sun God and so was Samson. Jonah too was a Sun God and was swallowed by a fish. So was Hercules and a wonderful thing is that they were swallowed in about the same place near Joppa. Where did the big fish go? When the Sun went down under the earth it was thought to be followed by the fish which was said to swallow it and carry it safely through the underworld. The Sun thus came to be represented as the body of a woman with the tail of a fish and so the mermaid was born. Another strange thing is that all the Sun Gods were born near Christmas. The myth of Red Riding Hood was known among the Aztecs. The myth of Eucharist came from the story of Ceres and Bacchus. When the cakes made by the product of the field were eaten it was the body of Ceres and when the wine was drank it was the blood of Bacchus. From this idea the Eucharist was born. There is nothing original in Christianity. Holy water, another myth. The Hindus imagined that the water had its source in the throne of God. The Egyptians thought the Nile sacred. Greece was settled by Egyptian colonies and they carried with them the water of the Nile and when anyone died the water was sprinkled on him. Finally Rome conquered Greece physically but Greece conquered Rome intellectually. This is the myth of holy water and with it grew up the idea of baptism and I presume that that is as old as water and dirt. The cross is another universal symbol. There was once an ancient people in Italy before the Romans, before the Etruscans. They faded from the world and history does not even know the name of that nation. We find where they buried the ashes of their dead and we find chiseled hundreds of years before Christ the cross, a symbol of a hope of another life. We find the cross in Egypt, in the cylinders from Babylon and more than that we find them in Central America. On the temples of the Aztecs we find the cross and on it a bleeding, dying God. Our cross was built in the Middle Ages. When Adam was very sick he sent Seth his son to the Garden of Eden. He told him he would have no trouble in finding it. All he had to do was to follow the tracks made by his mother and father when they left it. He wanted a little balsam from the tree of life that he might not die. Seth found there a cherub with flaming sword who would not let him pass the door. He removed his wings so that he could see in and he saw the tree of life with its roots running down to hell and among them Cain the murderer. The angel gave Seth three seeds and told him to put them in his father's mouth when he was buried and to watch the effect. The result was that these trees grew up one pine, one cedar and one cypress. Solomon cut down one of these trees to put in the temple but it grew through the roof and he threw it into the pool of Bethesda. When the soldiers went for a beam on which to crucify Christ they took this tree and made a cross of it. Helen, the mother of Constantine, went to Jerusalem to find this cross. She found the two crosses also that the thieves were crucified on. They could not tell which was which so they called a sick woman who touched them and when she touched the right one she was immediately made whole. Such is myth and fable. The history of one religion is substantially the history of all religions. In embryo man lives all lives. The man of genius knows within himself the history of the human race. He knows the history of all religions. The man of imagination, genius having seen a leaf and a drop of water can construct the forests, the rivers and the seas. In his presence all the cataracts fall and foam. The mists rise and the clouds form and float. To really know one fact is to know its kindred and its neighbors. Shakespeare looking at a coat of mail instantly imagined the society, the conditions that produced it and what it in its turn produced. He saw the castle, the moat, the drawbridge, the lady in the tower and the nightly lover spurring over the plane. He saw the bold baron and the rude retainer, the trampled serfs and all the glory and the grief of feudal life. The man of imagination has lived the life of all people, of all races. He has been a citizen of Athens in the days of Pericles. Listen to the eager eloquence of the great orator and has sat upon the cliff and with the tragic poet heard the multitudinous laughter of the sea. He has seen Socrates thrust the spear of question through the shield and heart of falsehood, was present when the great man drank himlock and met the night of death tranquil as a star meets morning. He has followed the peripatetic philosophers and has been puzzled by the Sophists. He has watched Phidias as he chiseled shapeless stone to forms of love and awe. He has lived by the slow Nile amid the vast and monstrous. He knows the very thought that wrought the form and features of the Sphinx. He has heard great Mimnon's morning song, has laid him down with the embalmed dead and felt within their dust the expectation of another life mingled with cold and suffocating doubts. The children born of long delay. He has walked the ways of mighty Rome, has seen the great Caesar with his legions in the field, has stood with vast and motley throngs and watched the triumphs given to victorious men, followed by uncrowned kings, the captured hosts and all the spoils of ruthless war. He has heard the shout that shook the Colosseum's ruthless walls when from the reeling gladiator's hand the short sword fell, while from his bosom gushed the stream of wasted life. He has lived the life of savagement, has trod the forest's silent depths, and in the desperate name of life or death has matched his thought against the instinct of the beast. He has sat beneath the bow tree's contemplative shade wrapped in Buddha's mighty thought, and he has dreamed all dreams that light the alchemist hath wrought from dust and dew and stored within the slumbrous poppy's subtle blood. He has knelt with awe and dread at every prayer, has felt the consolation and the shuddering fear, has seen all the devils, has mocked and worshiped all the gods, enjoyed all heavens, and felt the pangs of every hell. He has lived all lives, and through his blood and brain have crept the shadow and the chill of every death, and his soul, mozepalike, has been lashed naked to the wild horse of every fear and love and hate. The imagination hath a stage within the brain, whereon he sets all scenes that lie between the mourn of laughter and the night of tears, and where his players body forth the false and true, the joys and griefs, the careless shadows, and the tragic deeps of human life. Through with the myth-makers we now come to the wonder-worker. There is this difference between the miracle and the myth. A myth is an idealism of a fact, and a miracle is a counterfeit of a fact. There is some difference between a myth and a miracle. There is the difference that there is between fiction and falsehood and poetry and perjury. Miracles are probably only in the far past or the very remote future. The present is the property of the natural. You say to a man, the dead were raised four thousand years ago. He says, well, that's reasonable. You say to him, in four million years we shall all be raised. He says, that is what I believe. Say to him, a man was raised from the dead this morning, and he will say, what are you giving us? Miracles never convince at the time they were said to have been performed. John the Baptist was the forerunner of Christ. He was cast into prison. When Christ heard of it, he departed from that country. Afterward he returned and heard that John had been beheaded, and he again departed from that country. There is no possible relation between the miraculous and the moral. The miracles of the Middle Ages are the children of superstition. In the Middle Ages men told everything but the truth, and believed everything but the facts. The Middle Ages are trinity of ignorance, mendacity, and insanity. There is one thing about humanity. You see the faults of others, but not your own. A Catholic in India sees a Hindu bowing before an idol and thinks it absurd. Why does he not get him a plaster of Paris Virgin and some beads in holy water?  The idea is a souvenir of sun worship. It is the most natural worship in the world. Religious dogmas have become absurd. The doctrine of eternal torment today has become absurd. Low, groveling, ignorant, barbaric, savage, devilish, and no gentleman would preach it. Science thou art the great magician. Thou alone performed the true miracles. Thou alone workest the real wonders. Fire is thy servant lightning thy messenger. The waves obey thee and thou knowest the circuits of the wind. Thou art the great philanthropist. Thou has freed the slave and civilized the master. Thou has taught man to chain not his fellow man, but the forces of nature, forces that have no backs to be scarred, no limbs for chains to chill and eat, forces that never know fatigue, that shed no tears, forces that have no hearts to break. Thou gavest man the plough, the reaper and the loom.  Thou art the great physician. Thy touch hath given sight.  Thou hast given thy beloved sleep, a sleep that wraps in happy dreams the throbbing nerves of pain. Thou art the perpetual providence of man, preserver of life and love. Thou art the teacher of every virtue and the enemy of every vice. Thou has discovered the true basics of morals, the origin and office of conscience and has revealed the nature and measure of obligation. Thou has taught that love is justice in its highest form and that even self-love guided by wisdom embraces with loving arms the human race. Thou hast slain the monsters of the past. Thou hast discovered the one inspired book. Thou hast read the records of the rocks written by wind and wave by frost and flame, records that even priestcraft cannot change. And in thy wondrous scales Thou has laid the atoms and the stars. Thou art the founder of the only true religion. Thou art the very Christ, the only saviour of mankind. Theology has always been in the way of the advance of the human race. There is this difference between science and theology. Science is just and merciful while theology is arrogant and cruel. The hope of science is the perfection of the human race. The hope of theology is the salvation of a few and the damnation of almost everybody. As I told you in the first place, I believe in the religion of freedom. Oh Liberty, Thou art the god of my idolatry. Thou art the only deity that hates the bended knee. In thy vast and unwalled temple beneath the ruthless dome star-jimmed and luminous with suns, thy worshipers stand erect. They do not bow or cringe or crawl or bend their forage to the earth. Thy dust hast never born the impress of lips. Upon thy sacred altars mothers do not sacrifice their babes. Nor men their rights. Thou askest not from man except the things that good men hate, the whip, the chain, the dungeon key. Thou hast no kings, no popes, no priests to stand between their fellow men and thee. Thou hast no monks, who in the name of duty murder joy. Thou carest not for forms nor mumbled prayers. At thy sacred shrine hypocrisy does not bow. Fear does not crouch. Virtue does not tremble. Superstitions feeble tapers do not burn. But reason holds aloft her inextinguishable torch. While on the ever broadening brow of science falls the ever coming mourning of the ever better day. End of section 23. This is a LibriVox recording read for you by Ted DeLorm in Fort Mill, South Carolina on July 29th, 2009.


This study found that nitric oxide, NO, a molecule produced naturally in plants, can protect them from chromium, CR, toxicity. When combined with sulfur, SNO can enhance the plant's ability to produce energy and reduce RS production, which leads to improved photosynthesis and better expression of Calvin cycle genes. This suggests that NO may be able to mitigate the negative effects of CR toxicity on plants. This article was authored by MIRFATMA, ZBCHA, Nushina Iqbal, and others.


Hi there, I'm here to recommend some material for our MOOC. My name is Jan Düsselmeier and to prevent an endless and probably boring lecture on all the books, films and games that has been important to me, I concentrate here on some basics, maybe just five minutes concerning first film and second digital media. And I try to offer just six basic works that I can recommend here as starting points. The first book, the classical Hollywood cinema, film style and mode of production to 1960. It is written by David Baldwin, Janet Steig and Kirsten Thompson in 1985, a very influential and important book to understand how film stories has been told in a classical way. So about the narrational and technical developments in Hollywood from 1917 to 1960. This is a classic itself and although I have some doubts about the neophonistic approach that links certain narrational devices to certain effects on the audience, I recommend it here as a fundamental work to understand how stories has been told in a way that we used to call classical today. The second book has been written by André Bazin, one of the most important film critiques and theorists of the 1940s and 50s in Europe. It has been published first in 1975, Cascade du Cinema in French. The English version, the newest English version was edited by Dudley Andrew and it's called What Cinema Is. I think it was published in 2010. This is the German version, Wasst Film, published in 2004 by my colleague Robert Fischer. It is a wonderful book and an important source to understand film as an art form in its own right and I recommend it here especially because Bazin shows the connections and differences between film and other art forms like for instance photography, theater and painting. A movie, if you want to see a movie that explores at an early stage of film history all the aesthetical and narrational options film has to offer, you have in fact to see Giga Vertov's The Man with a Moving Camera produced in 1929, a marvelous film and one of the early efforts of artistic research and theory as practice. The next book I would like to recommend here is Lef Mamovich's Language of New Media, a groundbreaking study from 2002 on principles, policies and aesthetics of digital media. I think very helpful for questions of trans media storytelling is Malovich's concept of trans coding which describes the interdependency between digital media and pre or non-digital culture and especially the notion and the idea of a database aesthetics seems to me quite interesting for trans media storytelling projects. The next two books give important insights in the field of computer games and game studies. First of video game theory, Reader published by Mark JP Wolff and Bernard Perron in I think 2003 and this is screenplay cinema video games interfaces published by Jeff King and Tania Chewinska in 2002. The video game theory Reader is an instructive overview about concepts of game studies and of the computer game as a new medium with special opportunities of developing stories worlds, building worlds and involving audiences so users. Bernard Perron's chapter of the example of interactive movies could be of special interest for you. And last but not least screenplay cinema video games interfaces offer studies of the trans media exchange between film and computer games so from principal ideas to case studies. That is all for me for the moment and I hope these recommendations will help you developing your own research projects in the field of trans media storytelling. Thank you, bye bye.


So this is basically a demonstration of the arterial supply inside the pelvis So this is the male pelvis will demonstrate the vessels on the right side This is the termination of the sigmoic colon and continue as a rectum and in front of this is the bladder So this is the rectum a cycle septum and the rectum a cycle pouch is the male We have retracted the urethra and everything so let's start off with the bifurcation of the abdominal aorta bifurcation the level of l4 This is the left common alia right common alia We'll focus on the right side the right common alia intern divides into an external alia Which comes out under the inguinal ligament and it becomes known as the femoral arch So we are standing on the left side of the cadaver, but we are showing the vessels on the Right side Let's focus on the internal alia with its accompanying way So this is the right side internal alia Let us look at the distribution of the right side internal alia The internal alia divides into two principal divisions The first one that we see here is this one here This is the posterior division of the internal alia The posterior division of the internal alia The posterior division has got the following branches and we can see them one by one The first one that we see here is this artery here This is the ilio lumber artery Which goes up and posteriorly it's the smallest branch and it's an astromosis with the l5 lumber artery and It also an astromosis indirectly with the Deep circumflex ilio artery that is the first branch of the posterior division The second branch of the posterior division is this one here This is the lateral sacral artery which runs medially It an astromosis with the medial sacral artery and an astromosis with the lateral sacral artery of the opposite side and forms an Anastomotic circle around the front of the sacral The accompanying vein of the lateral sacral artery the lateral sacral veins They are the sides of drainage of cancer from the pelvic organs to the vertebra and to the brain The third branch of the posterior division is This one here This is the superior gluteal artery which exits the pelvis to the Greater sciatic foramen About the piriformis. This is the superior gluteal artery. So we have the ilio lumber lateral sacral and the superior gluteal In this case the posterior division of the internal iliac is also giving rise to the inferior gluteal Though strictly speaking it should come out from the Anteater division and the inferior gluteal artery comes out from the greater sciatic foramen below the piriformis And it supplies the gluteal region and it participates in various types of anastomosis Now let us come to the anterior division. This is the anterior division of the internal iliac The first branch that we see here is the umbilical artery The proximal part of the umbilical artery is patent and it supplies the bladder and it gives a branch Which is known as the superior vesicle artery and we can see that here superior vesicle artery. This is the bladder the rest of the umbilical artery then becomes known as the umbilical ligament and it continues as the medial umbilical fold towards the umbilicus The next set of branches that we see here are Inferior vesicle artery. Inferior vesicle arteries are present only in the males in the females They are absent and they're replaced by vaginal arteries The third branch that we see here is this one This is the Optorator artery and we can see the operator artery with its accompanying operator vein and the operator nerve Exiting the pelvis through the operator canal in the operator foramen. So this is the operator artery The next branch that we see here is the middle rectal artery The middle rectal artery runs in the lateral ligament of the rectum and this is a branch from the middle rectal artery Incidentally, this is the superior rectal artery which is the downward continuation of the inferior miscentric artery Next we have this branch here from the anterior division This is the internal pudendal artery which also exits the pelvis through the greater sciatic foramen below the piriformis and Then it enters through the lesser sciatic foramen and enters the pudendal canal and it supplies the perineum and as I told you The last branch ideally should have been the inferior gluteal artery But in this case the inferior gluteal artery is arising from the posterior division The inferior gluteal artery is the last branch which also exits the pelvis through the greater sciatic foramen below the piriformis And it supplies the gluteal region. So these are the various branches that we can see arising from the internal idea I need to mention two other things Again on the right side This is the location of the internal Inguinal ring which is an opening in the fascia transversalis and we can see Emerging from the internal inguinal ring is this vascular structure here. This is the Testicular vein coming from the inferior vena keva and this is the testicular artery and both of them are emerging from the internal ring They're entering the problem and moving laterally Also entering is this structure here This is the doctor's difference which is moving immediately and Just below these two we have the external aliaic artery and the external aliaic vein So this triangular region that we saw here This is referred to as the triangle of doom During laparoscopic hernia surgery when the laparoscopic surgeon is operating from inside the abdomen This is the region that he has to operate in to remove the indirect inguinal hernia sac And in the process he is likely to injure the external aliaic vessels That is why this triangular region is referred to as the triangle of doom The next point which I want to mention was this artery that we see here and the accompanying vein This is the continuation of the inferior miscentric artery and we can see the other branches here The inferior miscentric artery continues into the pelvis and here it is known as the superior rectal artery And the accompanying vein is the superior rectal vein This is also an artery of the pelvis. The important point to be remembered is that the superior rectal vein Continuous as the Inferior miscentric vein which has been removed. So therefore the superior rectal vein belongs to the portal circulation The middle rectal vein which accompanies the middle rectal artery drains into the internal aliaic vein and The inferior rectal vein opens into the internal pudendal vein which also belongs to the systemic circulation So therefore the alorectal junction is an important site of portasystemic anastromosis Upper part being portal the lower part being systemic and that is the site of internal hemorrhoids So that is the other point which I wanted to show you regarding the vascular system Incidentally we can see this is The inferior epigastric artery which is a branch of the External aliaic and we can see it is coming out from the external aliaic As it is running on the posterior surface of the right rectus abdominis It is giving rise to one small accessory artery which is curving around and it is entering through the operative foramen This is referred to as the corona mortis artery which can be injured in surgery For the femoral hernia in females. So that is all for now. Thank you very much for watching Have a nice day. Dr. Sanjay Sanyal