H.L. Mencken

Guide Rating -

People today tend to be too polite to criticize religion. Even gentle and mild criticisms of religion are considered "off-limits," especially in the popular media, lest one be considered bigoted. That is, after all, just the sort of reaction we have seen to criticisms of how the Roman Catholic Church has handled its problems with abusive priests. It seems unlikely then that H.L. Mencken would fit in with today's society.

Of course, that politeness expected of people really only extends to mainstream religions. We can still see news anchors joking about fringe religious groups like the Raelians - for example, poking fun at Paul Vorilhon's robes or asking one another if they really take Raelian beliefs seriously. We would never see such commentary about a Catholic priest or the pope, thus revealing a serious double standard when it comes to this so-called "politeness" towards religion.

As S.T. Joshi demonstrates in his recent book, "H.L. Mencken on Religion," Mencken made no such discriminations when it came to his commentaries about religion and religious organizations. He was an equal-opportunity satirist, lampooning religion at every turn. He didn't care if the religion was "mainstream" or "minority": if he found it absurd, he wouldn't hesitate to say so.

This is not to say, however, that Mencken was militantly atheist or anti-religious. Indeed, he wrote that he had no objection at all to church-going, "so long as it is honest." Even the Bible itself was something he considered a worthwhile and honest book:

[T]he Bible, despite all its contradictions and absurdities, its barbarisms and obscenities, remains grand and gaudy stuff, and so it deserves careful study and enlightened exposition. It is not only lovely in phrase; it is also rich in ideas, many of them far from foolish. One somehow gathers the notion that it was written from end to end by honest men - inspired, perhaps, but nevertheless honest. When they had anything to say they said it plainly, whether it was counsel that enemies be slain or counsel that enemies be kissed. They knew how to tell a story, how to sing a song, and how to swathe a dubious argument in specious and disarming words. ...Seeking to save the world from Hell, they failed; but they at least gave it a superb literature.

What he objected to was how the implausible beliefs of religion are used to manipulate people. Of course, he also objected to the gullibility of people who let themselves be manipulated in the first place. As Joshi explains in his introduction:

Mencken's views on religion are intimately tied to his political philosophy. Throughout his career...he reiterated the opinion that ordinary people are incapable of grasping the complexities of the world around them. To be blunt, they are too stupid to have an intelligent opinion on religion, science, society, or even politics, so that the every principle of democracy (by which Mencken really meant universal suffrage) is a farce and a tragedy.

If Mencken were alive today, what might he have to say about modern fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell or the Taliban? What might he write about the progress of creationism in America? We'll never know, and it is sadly ironic that extremism like Mencken's may be part of the reason that satirical and impolite criticisms of religion are not seen in the popular media today. Then again, maybe it isn't possible to engage in such commentary without some measure of extremism - sometimes you have to take the bad with the good.

S.T. Joshi has brought together dozens of Mencken's articles on all manner of topics related to religion - his own beliefs, fundamentalism, the Scopes Trial, spiritualism, science, and much more. This is an excellent and well organized single-volume collection of Mencken's work on religious issues, accompanied by an informative introduction to his life and philosophy. Anyone who has read some of Mencken and would like to read more would probably enjoy this book.