Page 471

Page 471

471 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA

provides the only known adequate remedy. This argument is sound, and is by itself sufficient. It appeals to common experience. Its

r. Argu- facts are facts which all intelligent perment from sons know. But many advocates of the Evils of temperance are not satisfied with this

Drunken- commonsense presentation. They are ness. fascinated with the idea of making the argument scientific, and so they rein force it with statistics, and with theories of social science. This is admirable provided they use sound theories and correct statistics; but when men advocate temperance on the basis of crude social theories and fake statistics, intelligent persons hear and disbelieve and become apathetic.

The experience of some generations of total abstainers proves that alcohol is not necessary as food. Total abstainers live longer than moderate drinkers. It is an established fact that intoxicants injure one who uses them habitually, even if 2. From the he never gets drunk. This is in itself

Evils of a valid and sufficient argument for Moderate total abstinence; but the temperance Use. advocate misuses it if, in his laudable ambition to be scientific, he deals in facts which he only half understands, and which he fails to state correctly. If one makes his fight against the chemical agent called alcohol rather than against intoxicants as such; if instead of using incontrovertible facts he insists mainly on propo sitions that are in dispute, for example, the proposi tion that alcohol has no food value, or the propo sition that the character of alcohol as a poison is unaffected by dilution, he injures the cause which he is advocating. Such false reasonings are none the less weak for the fact that persons are some times convinced by them; when persons so con vinced discover their error they become either luke warm or hostile. Another misuse of this argument consists in putting it into the principal place. To do this is to treat the drink problem as if it.were on the same footing as the question of a pork diet, or of ill-cooked food; and this involves a disastrous belittling of the moral and social issues.

The ethical principle in the case is that a person has no right to degrade himself, to injure others or the community, or to run undue risks of injuring himself or others. And there is always

3. The a double reply to the person who thinks Ethical that he is so strong that there are for Argument. him no risks in moderate drinking. First, no one knows oeforehand what risks the drink-habit may have for him; second, even if he knew, he might still be under the obligation which rests upon the strong to deny themselves for the sake of the weak. Probably all advocates of total abstinence agree as to the existence of these obligations, and regard them as sufficient to cover the whole case. They should never be left in the background while weak though specious substitutes are pushed to the front.

From the beginning the total-abstinence movement has been deeply religious. This is true notwithstanding the fact that some of its advocates have been irreligious, and have even used temperance doctrines for venting their dislike to the Bible

Total Abstinence

and the churches. Such instances attract atten

tion mainly because they are exceptional. The

movement being religious, both its ad

o. Argu- vocates and its opposers appeal to the

meats from Scriptures. In relatively few passages

the the Scriptures speak of wine and

Scriptures. strong drink as being good, and of

their strength as being a good quality

in them. They commend them for medicinal and

for sacrificial uses. Very likely the writers of Scrip

ture thought of them as being, in forms too diluted

to be intoxicating, the natural drink of all who

could afford them. Different from this is the ques

tion of the moderate drinking of liquids of intoxica

ting strength; whether the Scriptures.for their own

times approve this is a matter of uncertain inference,

and is an academic question. In interpreting these

utterances of the Scriptures the facts adduced in

the earlier part of this article are important. One

who approved the use of the light fermented bever

ages in the ancient world might now disapprove

them, substituting such drinks as tea or coffee.

Before intoxicants were made cheap by the art of

distillation the evils and risks from them were im

mensely less than now. Most of the hundreds of

passages in which the Scriptures mention or imply

wine or strong drink are unsparing condemnations

of the social drinking usages which then prevailed

(e.g., Matt. xxiv. 49; Rom. xiii. 13; Gal. v. 21;

I Cor. vi. 10; Isa. v.11,12, 22, xxviii. 7; Amos. iv.

1; Prov. xx. 1, xxiii. 30, 31). As a remedy they

sometimes prescribe total abstinence, but never

moderation in drinking. In their avoidance of any

explicit approval of moderate drinking they are in

significant contrast with such ancient literature as

Ecclesiasticus or the writings of Philo. One should

read these passages and observe that they contem

plate habitual drunkenness as exclusively the vice

of the rich and the aristocratic. They especially

scathe the men and women who are the natural

leaders of the people, and who through drink are

ineffective in their public duties. In contrast with

this the drunkenness of the twentieth century is

especially prevalent among the poor. It is not now

a question of relatively a few aristocrats drinking

themselves to death, but of a drink curse affecting

the millions of the common people, and bringing

with it starvation and squalor and crime and whole

sale race deterioration. The modern problem differs

from the ancient. Supposably the teaching of the

prophets and apostles may be that total abstinence

is a duty for our time and environment, even though

it could be proved not to be a universal duty for all

times and environments. It can not be proved that

Jesus drank beverages that would intoxicate, nor

that the apostles and prophets approved even the

limited common drinking of such beverages; but

if this could be proved for the conditions then exist

ent, the proof would not apply in the different

conditions that now exist. The Scriptures either pre

scribe or commend total abstinence from intoxi

cants as a practise that should be followed in a good

many cases (e.g., Num. vi.; Lev. x. 9; Jer. xxxv.;

Dan. i.; Prov. xxiii. 31; Luke i. 15; I Tim. v. 23).

They thus by implication prescribe total abstinence

in all cases that are parallel to these. Are there now