I have the good fortune to have as friends many excellent men who are not of my religion. We love and respect one another even though we assume and expect that we have quite different opinions in matters of religion. I enjoy the pleasure of their company which improves and delights me. Never has my heart secretly said to me: “What a shame about their beautiful souls!” Only he who believes that blessedness cannot be found outside his own church must often feel such sighs rising in his bosom.

Certainly, it is a natural obligation for all mortals to spread knowledge and virtue among their fellow men and at the same time to extirpate prejudices and errors among them when possible. In this regard, some believe it is the responsibility of such mortals to publicly contest the religious beliefs they find erroneous. But not all prejudices are equally harmful, and therefore all the prejudices which we think we perceive among our fellow men ought not to be treated in the same way. A few of them are directly contrary to the happiness of the human race. Their influence on the morals of mankind is obviously corrupting and there is no reason to expect even an unintended benefit from them. These must be immediately attacked by every friend of mankind. Doubtless, it is best to attack them directly; every hesitation resulting from circumlocutions is irresponsible. Of this sort are all the errors and prejudices of people that disturb their own peace of mind and that of their fellow man and that serve to nip in the bud every seed of truth and goodness among men. On the one side, fanaticism, misanthropy, and the spirit of persecution, on the other, frivolity, hedonism, and licentious thinking.

Occasionally, the opinions of my fellow man, which I consider to be in error, are too far removed from the practical world, too much a matter of higher theoretical principles, to be considered directly harmful. Yet, precisely because of their universality, they constitute, among the people who adhere to them, the basis of moral and social systems and for this reason have become extremely important to this part of the human race. Contesting such doctrines publicly, because they seem prejudicial to us, is like digging up a building’s foundation to see if it is safe and secure without first supporting the structure. He who cares more for the welfare of man than for his own fame will refrain from expressing his opinion about such prejudices, and will take the utmost care not to overturn the suspect principle of morality before his fellow men are ready to accept a true one in its place.

Thus, I can believe that I recognize national prejudices and religious errors among my fellow citizens and still feel obliged to remain silent, as long as these errors do no direct harm to either natural religion or natural law and instead are unintentionally connected to the advancement of the good. True, the morality of our acts scarcely deserves that name when it is based on error, and the advancement of the good is always far better and more securely served by the truth, when it is known, than by prejudice. Yet, until it is known, and until it has become national, and can affect the great masses as mightily as deeply rooted prejudice, the latter must be held almost sacred by every friend of virtue.

Such reticence is all the more called for when the nation we believe fosters such errors has otherwise distinguished itself through wisdom and virtue and includes a number of great men who deserve to be called benefactors of the human race. Such a noble part of humanity must be treated with respect, even when it exhibits human failings. Who would dare to disregard the qualities of so sublime a nation and attack where he believes he has espied a weakness?