#notallMasons: Proofs of a Conspiracy pp. 26-28

 One of the constant arguments against atheism/rationalism is to argue that religion serves some kind of need beyond the spiritual. If there is no religion: what then will restrain the masses? The first reply is the law, but that is not good enough for these people. They think that you need something else on top of it: fear of divine retribution. The underlying point is to put the non-religious, (in Robison's words) the free-thinkers on the defensive. You aren't good people because here are two examples of people that committed crimes once. Robison is going to apply this gambit in order to besmirch this new movement in the Masonry. 

The first example he trots out is Voltaire. It begins with a sort of pretentious rhetoric that I'm way too used to hearing, "What man is there who seems better to know his Master's will? No man expresses more propriety, with more exactness, the feelings of a good mind. No man seems more sensible of the immutable obligations of justice and truth." 

This is followed by the details of how Voltaire would sell his works for an enormous price to booksellers. Now, I don't see how this is a scandal or even a besmirchment upon Voltaire's character. The problem seems to be that Voltaire sold a book to his friend Cramer while at the same time sending the same book to a book-seller in Holland. Ok...hang him I guess? "Book-seller" in this context does not mean the store where you buy books, it means the publisher. So Voltaire had two people simultaneously publishing his works for whom he was paid twice. The only crime I can think of that is being committed is whether he had an exclusive contract with either individual. Voltaire, according to Robison, remarked, "he may take a share--he will not give me a livre less for the first piece I offer him." In other words, Cramer can take a cut of the sales but he's going to pay me for the work at the agreed price. I don't understand the problem here.

The next man on the chopping block is another French atheist Denis Diderot. This story is even sillier because it seems that Robison was either misinformed or is repeating a rumor and it concerns, again, the Czarina Catherine the Great. In Robison's telling Diderot was paid to create a library by the Russian Empire, and instead, Diderot did not do that. He took the money though. When the Russian ambassador came to inspect the library, Diderot had to quickly buy all the books in Germany (for some reason). Then Diderot takes to the Russian court where the Czarina sees through his various ruses claiming that "sont beaux, vus de loin; mais de plus pres, le diamant pardit crystal."

Or, it was beautiful from afar but up close the diamond becomes a crystal. (My French got me halfway there, Bing--yeah I use Bing--got me the rest)

The true story is that Catherine was an adoring fan of Diderot tossing him money whenever he needed it. The Empress did not pay him to create a library she paid him to keep his own library. This means that it wouldn't matter if he had a thousand books or ten thousand or a hundred, it was his library. When Diderot died, Catherine took the library back placing it within the Imperial Library of Russia. Again, there's not a scam here. The two seem to have been friends, and to the Empress of Russia, the money that she spent was nothing to her. If we are keeping track, that's two stories concerning Catherine the Great. 

When we see the inefficacy of this refined humanity on these two apostles of philosophical virtue, we see ground for doubting of the propriety and expediency of trusting entirely to it for the peace and happiness of a state,...

Robison has two examples of men who wanted to separate morality and the state from religious belief, committing actions that are only wrong if we make certain assumptions, like the case of Voltaire--that he promised his book exclusively to two publishers. So as long we avoid sticking to the facts of the matter, these are people that betray their own moral claims that exist without superstition. 

The fallacy of composition must be something that Robison gets accused of a lot because immediately following these two stories he has to backtrack by saying that not all Masons are like this. It's not even all French Masons, it's just that French Masonry provides fertile soil for people like Voltaire and Diderot to grow their ideas. That's the problem: the new blood in Masonry just doesn't have the same values as the old blood. Which is, I've been predicting, the actual theme of this book. 

Robison goes on a two-page explanation of why morality is important for the state. Religion fosters morality (a dubious claim), so therefore all of this non-religious talk is bad. What will happen to the state if there is no religion? Robison then argues for national education, which I agree with, but he wants religious indoctrination with it for moral principles. That's a step too far, but it's at least a position that is reasonable to debate, even if it's wrong. 

What puzzles me, is that I've yet to see the hand of conspiracy in the book. The writers that follow in Robison's footsteps will lay it out very obviously and establish such claims early on. Robison's neophobia is, thus far, not a conspiracy theory, but just a complaint about the culture-changing. So far, I'm failing to see what Jefferson called "the ravings of Bedlamite." This better step it up or I'm abandoning the book and switching over to Cooper.