{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

I tried first to show you why the rest of the world thinks that Americans have no religion, that they have abolished religion, and that the fact that people go to church here doesn't mean very much. That's a political measure, at this moment. You steer clear from the Fifth Amendment. But it's a fashion. Religion is obviously easily corrupted, and we said that certainly one thing was true of religion. Since it was the most frail and refined thing like the flower, the perfume of a flower, or the innocence of a woman, the corruption of a woman is worse than the corruption of a man, because always the corruption of the best is the worst. And in the whole scale of values, therefore, the best is more readily corrupted than the average thing, the ordinary thing.

So we came to see that the appearance of religion, which always goes with religion -- hypocrisy, heresies -- is, of course, always a part of the fact that it is so very difficult to have genuine religion. It is not very difficult to have a bathing suit, at least a bikini, but it is very difficult to be innocent. And religion is innocence restored and therefore people always pretend -- they run around innocently looking, but inside, as the religion says, they are like wolves in sheep's clothes.

You know the story of Atlee and Churchill, probably, about this famous saying. Winston said -- they said -- they said of Atlee, "He looks like a" -- they said to Atlee, "But he looks like a sheep. A wolf in sheep's clothes."

"No," said Winston Churchill. "Atlee -- not just -- is in sheep's clothes, he is a sheep in sheep's clothes."

Now that would be all right, but very few people are. Most people who pretend to be religious are sheep in -- you see, outside and wolf inside.

This is quite serious, gentlemen. We are warned then not to mistake the form for reality. To have a religion or to be religious can never be judged by external appearances. Even the priest in the Catholic church has no idea whether the man to whom he gives communion is a Christian and -- or is not eating this as poison and drinking it as poison to himself.

I just was told a story that a priest is obliged to give communion, under Roman rule, even though he is convinced that the man who kneels there before him may do it for a mockery. Perhaps he has taken out a bet that he will show his hardiness. I was told a story that happened in Vienna 30 years ago, when a young school girl, who was the leader of the atheistic set in the school, suddenly

one day was taken conscious-stricken by the event of the Easter Mass and walked all by herself up in front to the altar and received communion. And the priest there, who had not been notified of her change of heart, twice tried to avoid coming forward to give her communion. She was the only one of this whole, big school system, which was then run on more or less atheistic lines, but still had the old -- the old rule that once a year, they had to go to Easter service in old Catholic Vienna, you see. But the rest of the school had rebelled against it and under her very leadership. She told me the story herself, a few days ago. And she's now in this country, and a very leading Catholic indeed, very famous. You would be surprised if I gave her name. And she told us, my wife and myself, in our house the other day, that the priest felt that there was something wrong, but that under Canon Law, he was obliged to give her the wafer, because he could not know. He cannot look into another person's conscience, you see.

So we gather from this, gentlemen, that nothing is more easily deceived than our opinion about the religion of another person. We don't know that. And because it is the frailest, the thinnest thread, or the finest perfume, perhaps -- that's perhaps a better expression -- we can very rarely distinguish the stench of superstition and the perfume of true belief.

You never must forget this, gentlemen, because as you well know, all the criticism of religion always centers around its abuses. Anybody who is an atheist says, "Shall I go to this dead church? Shall I go to this -- to this church parade? Shall I do" so-and-so? And his criticism is always with the appearances of religion and he always -- I mean, safeguards himself by attacking the pseudo-religion of others, or the wrong religion. Well, gentlemen, because it is so precious, it must be abused. It must be corrupted.

Now we come back. Then, I said "Well," -- we went on, and said, "let us try to define religion in such a way that we see the whole area which it bestrides." I'm now repeating the whole course, so to speak, to give you a place for my -- this, what I have to say today once more quite simply. The second step we took was then that we said religion is not philosophy. It is not theology. It is not psychology. But it is -- are two commands: one to command; and one to obey. Man is on this earth to obey and to command. And that is his very ambiguous position. He must command the dead things. And he must obey the living God. Therefore, we formulated this one imperative, that man is between command and obedience all the time, and you are at all your life, you see -- and I am, everybody is -- in this simple way that we said that we must com-- obey God more than man, and we must command things more than men.

Now we left man in the middle, holding the bag, so to speak. Here were the dead things, and it is easy to say that we must use this chalk, because otherwise it

cannot be used. And it is easy to see that man cannot -- must command to murder, as you have it in the Nurnberg trials, against the Nazi leaders. But you all know that there is a middle ground in which your parents have the right to spank you and you have to obey them, because they are in God's place, and you cannot say one must God obey more than men, and say to your father, "I won't obey you." It won't work, you see. So there was a very doubtful area where the upper part of command -- commands received by us, and here the lower part, commands given to things, were in a penumbra, because some of the people around us were inspired and knew better than we what God's orders were for us. A child must be told by his father in God's place what to do. And on the other hand, there are -- is dead wood. There are dead people who have to be ordered around. A drunkard -- not only a drunkard, but also a greedy person, a criminal person, a seduced person -- they have to be not simply treated as brothers, but they have to be ordered. You need a prosecutor of crime and you need the police to prevent a man in smashing his neighbor on the street in his car, smashing him up or wounding him.

Therefore, the penumbra of all life is that: part of us has to be treated like things -- our inertia, our laziness, our dead wood, being dead wood. We all are at times dead wood and we have to therefore to be commanded as though we were a thing. And on the other hand, we have to honor everybody as a possible mouthpiece of a new authority and we are never quite sure who is the man who will speak to us. When Jesus appeared, nobody could recognize him to be anything more than a carpenter. You wouldn't listen to your carpenter, for suddenly being told that you shouldn't marry. You would marry just the same. And even though he was right, you would wait for the divorce to find out yourself.

So gentlemen, man is in this penumbra. If we reduce religion to this very simple situation, that man is between obedience and command, then we find that there is each moment an opportunity for failure. We can and we must sometimes be totally mistaken about what has to be obeyed and whom -- what has to be commanded. Or better, be now careful, who has to obeyed and what has to be ordered around. We come here to -- a step forward and that will be very important when we now analyze the American religion as of today -- we obey him -- a him, or a he -- a she -- that is, we can only obey persons. And we can only command things. So the real opposition is between a he, who has to be obeyed -- who in our tradition has been called God -- but you can also call Him the power who speaks. Who -- it must always be a who, a person. Whether you prefer to call Him God, or Trinity, or whatever you choose, it must be a person, because nobody can speak if he is not a person. He can -- nobody can give orders. The stone can't give you orders. And this is always -- the things are always its. The real discovery, gentlemen, that religion has made in the beginning of our race and that is still today something you cannot escape, that you must make the

distinction between: who is a person, able to give orders; and what is a dead thing, only able to receive orders? And you find in all your American literature no distinction between this. People will call of God -- speak of God in this shocking way -- you mean, you know the thing I'm speaking of, and so on, because they don't dare to take the name of God as a person into their mouths. Everything is something today. And you -- I am -- Americans are deprived of the distinction between thing and person very largely today, because if you hear yourself speak, which you rarely do, then you will find that you use the word "thing" as much in the sphere of personal life as in the sphere of factory life, of production.

But gentlemen, you can never go wrong about what religion is when you kindly now translate my statement. It's two commands: to obey and to give orders. If you translate them once more and say, "Religion is man's power to distinguish between persons and things." And the line runs right between your neighbors and yourself. In part you are a person, in part you are just a quite useless thing. All the people who say, "Man is totally a person," forget that he must die and that his whole body is put first in the hospital and then later in a grave. And that is certainly just a thing, a corpse. And this corpse is, for example now, seated very conveniently on this chair, because it is quantitative. You are, sir, just a certain quantity, a certain dead weight. And therefore the line, gentlemen, between the person and the thing runs right through us. We are as much connected with the world of things as we are connected with the world of persons. Or put it still more carefully, we call the world of things "the world." And we call the unity of persons "God." That is, we should never speak of a "world of persons," and yet it is done today and it adds to our confusion, gentlemen. The word "worlds" -- "world" -- is always the sum of things. If you say that you are men of the world, then you can be figured out. A man of the world reacts to certain temptations and to certain blandishments, you see, and to certain amenities. I invite him to a cocktail party and he says, "Since I am a man of the world, I have to go." If you find, however, an independent, real person, he says, "I go to one cocktail party. I don't go to 20 others." That is, he is not a man of the -- of the world, you see, but he moves freely through the world, and it wouldn't be good to call him a "man of the world" because he has recovered his freedom to enter the world at times, which is embodied very much in our modern cocktail parties, and he leaves it, again.

And obviously, gentlemen, your whole problem is to call the world of forces not the world, but to call it -- call it "humanity." You may call it "the Church." You may call it the "divine life." You can call it "Heaven."

But would you kindly put down this. We have now three things to distinguish. We have first the world of command and obedience -- the realm, I should

perhaps better say, of command and obedience. The realm of persons and of things, which is the same once more. And now, the third: the world of things, or things composing a world. And men, persons, people able to command, whoever this is, we find out -- not just you and I are commands, but science is commanding, freedom is commanding, youth is commanding. That is, there are higher chiefs who can give commands, you see. Spirits. And all these, you must see, because they can speak and impress us as personifications, they must not be made part of the world.

The whole trouble today stems from this very fact, I think, in this country, in America. America is a country of natural religion, because even the people in it are called to be "world." This then you get nowhere. If you do not say that the sum of all things is the world, but the sum of all persons must not be called the world, because the sum of all persons, or the unity of all persons, or the fraternity -- the brotherhood of all people, you see, is able to handle the things of the world. As you well know, a person is able to distinguish that which can be manipulated or managed or produced or manufactured or bought or sold from people who are to be listened to, because they are in authority. They have something to tell us. They can lead us. They can give us direction. All these people who can give direction to you and me -- and we gladly accept it, because otherwise we are lost in the wilderness -- if there is no sage to give us direction, no scientist, no scholar, no leader -- all these people who lead you and me through the thicket of time and history -- Abraham Lincoln, for example, a very simple example -- to whom you go to know what American democracy really is or whom you -- which you talk so much and which you do not know what it really is -- well, such a man like Lincoln is not world. You can only say with him that he belongs to the ages. But you cannot say it of Abraham Lincoln that he belongs to the world. As soon as you say so, he's just buried, because the world is dust, is things.

You do it just all the time, and you deprive yourself therefore of all orientation. This country is running in vicious circles all the time, because even its saints, even its leaders, even its great men and great thoughts are considered by you as part of nature. Obviously Lincoln, gentlemen, Lincoln when he was murdered by Booth in the theater, belonged to the ages, but ceased to be -- to belong just to this earthly world. But everybody knows a little bit about this secret, but everybody is ashamed in this country to admit it. With Lincoln, it's a very fine case. He never was a member of a church, so here you can discover the truth about personal life without any ecclesiastical prejudice. Lincoln is not now a part of this world, of things. He is not natural. He is an historical leader, an historical gift to this country. You can say he is an inspiration, as they -- people usually say when they don't know anything else anymore. It's the same in this country. That's why I'm -- the word "inspiration" is used too often. I mean, even

Hood's ice cream sometimes is called an inspiration.

But the people are on the right track. They make this distinction that Lincoln has something to say to us. As long as he has something to say to us, he is getting into the way of things, as we would handle them under the impact of mere nature, of mere worldliness. And he warns you and me that it isn't enough to be a part of the world, or a man of the world, you see, or a child of the world; that you are the child of some other leadership, some other spirit.

I only want to raise this great question today: Will you ever recover during your life the power to admit that only part of you belongs to the world? The problem of religion, gentlemen, in your -- is this course --is to convince you that religion cannot exist unless it divides reality between the world and God. The essence of religion is to make this division. Otherwise there is no such thing as religion. And that is why the men looking at America from Europe say there is no religion in America.

To give you an example, gentlemen. Last Sunday, we had a visitor in our house, a successful Irish businessman. Probably American-Irish. He went to Fordham, and you know Fordham is a very strict Catholic college. It had a very wonderful Jesuit president, Mr. {Gannon,} in his days. He took four years of Catholic philosophy. He is a strong Thomist, he thinks he is. He brings up his children in the Catholic faith. His wife is of the same -- the same conviction, and they spent the Sunday at our house. And as we get talking, he said, "After all, you must admit that people only act for economic reasons." Now here you have a very clear case of the typical American situation. If you meet this man and you know that he goes to church, and is Irish, and went to Fordham, you will say he is a good Catholic, and his religion therefore is Catholic. But when he came to speak, opened his own mouth, his religion was American. That's not Catholic. It's the opposite from Catholic. It's the Devil, because if a man asks -- only acts for economic reasons, he only acts as a particle in the world, because economy means the disposal of our material environment and our own self as a material. Economically speaking, you can sell your corpse to the hospital for $40, which your widow will then receive. And if you are a very greedy man, you will make sure that she gets the $40. I don't know what they pay for a corpse. If it is interesting, now maybe it would be $40. I think it's less, usually. Does anybody know what you can get for your corpse?

($36.)

What?

($36.)

Now, I'm not so very far. Wonderful. Thank you, $36. Four times nine. Or -- ja. Wonderful.

Well, that is the economic theory of -- you know, of history in which the American businessman firmly believes. Mr. Charles Beard is the historian of this creed, who has written that George Washington became president of the United States because he was the biggest landowner of the -- America. Has anybody read Mr. Charles Beard's economic explanation of -- a friend of -- ja?

(Did he write that with his wife, Mary --)

Oh sure, she is just as bad. Well, he has -- later he has ruefully repented, but he's a very outstanding example. This happened, you know -- have heard of the great book issue, perhaps, of Mr. Hutchins from Chicago? Well, in his own city of Chicago, a friend of mine, from Winnetka, went to one of the Great Book courses where they explain great books. And one of the great books was the Declaration of Independence. And the man who was in the chair, and the people who spoke up -- in Chicago you have of course mostly businessmen taking part in this course -- all rose to prove that the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution were based on economic interest -- self-interest of the people who worded it. So she went to President Hutchins, who then was president of the University of Chicago, and said, "Well, Mr. Hutchins, this is a Great Book course, I understand."

"Oh yes," he said. "Of course."

"Now these people proved that the Declaration of Independence was not great. Therefore why do you put it on the map? Why do you have it?"

And he shrugged his shoulders and said, "But, what else can you do?"

So you see that even if you have great things in this country, you make them into mere things. The Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States, interpreted by the economic theory of history, is of course no longer anything great. It is simply natural. And I told you last time that the religion of America is that everything is natural, and that natural -- nature is one, all-embracing, that there are many religions. They are superfluous, because all nature is one. And now you see the -- the real meaning of this perhaps more clearly. If all nature is one, you and I are inside nature. And if we are inside nature, then the only interest that can be explained and admitted is that we act as elements in nature. Now, all elements in nature act by gravity. That's Mr. Newton's theory. And if we act by gravity, then we must act, of course, according to the -- more weight of money, of self-interest, or of hunger, or of all these

material causes, because they have weight. You can weigh on the scale the fact that hundred dollars weigh more than one dollar. Even in paper money they would, let alone in silver dollars. And it is very simple. The economic explanation of history means, gentlemen, that man is inside nature only, that Lincoln doesn't belong to the ages, but that he belongs to nature.

Can you see the logic of this? I would like to dis-- { } this further if there are any doubt about the logic of this conclusion. And we discover one more thing, gentlemen. "Great" is a term that is inapplicable to nature. Nature is big, but it is not great. The term "great" is inapplicable to anything natural. Lincoln cannot be great if it is just natural. And Washington certainly, or the Declaration of Independence, cannot be a great document if it simply expresses the natural, material interests of the people who wrote it. How can this be a great document? To be great, gentlemen -- no, let me just finish this thought, gentlemen -- to be great means to be recognized by you and me as not being natural. To be big means to be recognized as being natural. Jesus, the baby in the cradle, is small, but great. An elephant is big, but not great. In America, all big men are mistaken for great men, and all great men are treated as elephants.

You know very well that Helen Keller is great. Why is she great? Because she has conquered nature, with an undaunted spirit. Everybody admits that. But whatever that is, they say it's in nature still, this spirit. Gentlemen, it isn't. By the nature of things, she should have gone to bed and died an early death as a hopeless creature. I have a friend who is very famous in Judaism, and who was an invalid for nine years. He's -- all his muscles dissolved. There was no recorded case in the medical history -- in medical books where any of -- man with this special illness had lasted for more than two years, because all the patients had gone to bed when they were told that now they couldn't move, they couldn't eat, they couldn't walk, they couldn't sit. The muscles, you see, all disappearing. And so they had given up and had been fed, and had gotten pneumonia, and died, latest after two years. He lived nine years, from 1920 to 1929, with this disease. He sat upright every day and in the year of the Lord 1922, when he was -- had this illness for two years, he began to translate the Bible, from the Hebrew, in a new way together with Martin Buber into German. And it is the most outstanding translation of the Bible exists, the first Jewish translation of the Bible since the Septuagint. That is, with the old, earthly -- earthly taste of Hebrew and not with these unreadable King James version, and -- or Luther Bible texts, which nobody understands anymore.

He finished this, not quite. But he did so much that the thing is now -- has then been carried on by his associate Buber, and these nine years of this man's life, gentlemen, everybody who met him realized, were utterly unnatural, because it was against all and everybody's, so to speak, natural instinct and inter-

est. And that's -- was like Helen Keller.

This is then your -- the handicap, gentlemen, of natural religion. Since the supernatural had to be abolished, there could be nothing non-natural. And your great fear, as you know, is to be unnatural. And that's, so to speak, is -- is the most severest verdict today against any American: He is not natural. So you all pose as naturals.

If nature is all-embracing, then it is the greatest vice of a man to be non-natural.

My friend, this businessman, has then two religions, gentlemen. One which he practices, and one which he expresses or propagates. And here you come then to the greatest handicap of knowing what religion today is in a man's life. People who are practicing Catholics very often therefore, for this very reason, are no Christians, because they think that practicing Christianity -- Catholicism is enough to make them into religious people. But practice is very little, gentlemen. You all want to be practical. I don't want to be practical. I want just to live. And whether it has to be theoretical, or practical, or inspired, or unnatural, or natural, I don't know. Every day something different comes up. Certainly sometimes I wish to behave in a cocktail party -- by not going there -- I behave quite unnaturally. I stay at home. I don't go to movies, you see. But if there are players, it's very natural for me to go to the -- to the players. I love dramatics. I hate movies, because I think movies are so unnatural, and so fantastically cruel and criminal that I don't wish to contribute to their existence. I think -- they prevent you from ever living a natural life. But you think movies are natural, don't you? Well, they aren't natural, because 30 years ago, there were no movies. They came into being at one time in history. Now you say they are natural, gentlemen. Have you ever thought that by going into this dark room there for 35 -- I don't know how much it is, now. Is it still 35? What? Well, you see, I still live in the good days of the past. For 50 cents, in this dark room, with this screen before you -- that is a natural state of men. Obviously it is so unnatural, but since you call this "natural" to go to the movies, I have to incur your criticism that I am unnatural. So that's just a debate: Who is unnatural?

I only hold that as long as you mistake an accidental phase of life to be natural, there have to be people who say, "Then I prefer to be unnatural." And you cannot discover this, gentlemen. You have lost the power to call a part of the American scene "unnatural," because you are only bent on having the natural religion, that there is only nature.

You remember now -- and now comes what I have to tell you -- try to tell you today -- because we compare now the first religion, the American religion. I think

the usual course goes to the -- to the poor primitives -- the Pygmies in Africa or the Negro in the Congo or to the Austro-- in Australian primitives, and that's the first religion in Comparative Religion. I think we should reverse the order, and should begin with our own religion. The religion which the people of the world ascribe to America is just as fantastically wrong as the religion which our anthropological textbooks ascribe to the Australian primitives. I assure you that no Australian primitive has been less wronged than you are when I tell you that you all believe in natural religion, like my Irish friend. You now may feel that I insult you, gentlemen, but I assure you that Mr. Malinowsky or any one of these anthropologists certainly insults all our brethren in the rest of the world much more -- for example, Miss Margaret Meade and how all these ladies are called -- because they take the liberty of never telling us what their own religion is, and yet they describe the religion of the others. Do you think that can work? I want to know what kind of government you want, before I compare the government of Russia with ours. And if I think that spoil system and Tammany Hall is the American system, I'll say that the Soviet system at this moment is better. But if I say it is fair justice, and free speech, and it is, you see, elections, then I say the American system is better. But I first have to know who is talking, and who is upholding what in this country as government, before I can speak about other people's government.

Now I therefore invite you to consider that this debate on the natural religion in America, is the first chapter on the first religion to be compared. In the process, I think, of this analysis, we might be able to discover about what religion is reaching, or what it is after in a much more clear sense. That is, I'll show you, that these two { } commands of obey and command in one, this knowledge: where we are superior and where we are inferior; where we have to take orders and where we must stand up and give orders, you see; that this strange line includes a very wonderful, rich world of gradations of our sense of timing. {But} I'll give you away the secret right away. When to obey "when," and to command "when." That is the problem of religion.

And it means -- once you ask "when," gentlemen, you have a very great progress made over this silly question of "why," which you always ask. "Why is God doing this?" "Why did I flunk the exam?" Never ask "why." That is for these poor people who deal with dead things. For physicists, ask "why." A religious person, never asks "why." When Job did -- was asked by his friends to do this, he got into trouble. Job could -- ended up by knowing that he could not ask why God had done this. You have not to ask any questions why you are in this world. You never know. You have a -- are in a terrible hurry to find out when you must obey and when you {have} lived and you have no other time left. All the rest of the time is wasted. You see, a physicist has to ask when to be a physicist and when to be interested in his wife. If he doesn't ask this question, she will divorce

him. And that's his religious question. If he once has found out when to be a physicist, he can be a physicist all the time and do this stuff. Who cares? Only idiots care. Only idiot thinks that to be a physicist is very important. That's like plumber. I mean, it's the same as -- somebody shines my shoes and somebody makes my atom bombs. What do I care? They are not important people, gentlemen. They don't know anything about life. They only know any -- something about death. And why not?

We have said from the very beginning that they deal with things. Things are the element of death in our -- in our world, in our reality. Nature is that which is bound to die, which goes to pieces all the time, which loses energy, which goes cold, which is bound to perish. So the physicist, gentlemen, why do you exaggerate his importance? -- is the man who deals with things that make die. And that is his only triumph, now that he has discovered things that make die, before he dealt with things that were dead. Now he can even add to the deadness of the world by working destruction. You -- physicists -- we have a super-nature today, because the super-nature of the natural scientist is his power not only to wade in dead things and to make them moving machines, but to destroy. That's his super-nature. To destroy, gentlemen, is nature to the square.

Now, in the question "when," there is the inexorable, because "when" means that there is to be made a decision any minute. Because we have to ask "when," we can never ask "why," really, because we have to ask ourselves, "Is there time for why?" The man who says -- sits down why -- the philosopher in his brown study, like myself -- must be -- first have this certificate from society that it is a useful purpose he is pursuing. Because otherwise my whole life might be wasted. A man who sits down for "why" omits living, doesn't he? He will -- retires and look at the thing from the outside. But then he comes back, and it may be too late. He has wasted his time. He now -- finally will find out why, but then the others have lived, and he is going to die before he has lived. That's what people feel about philosophers. Perfectly useless. After you know why, your time of life is gone. It's all over.

So gentlemen, religion defies the question "why." And it is always a piece of irreligion when a person asks "why." They always argue with God. They haggle with the people who are in command. You can ask why Pres. Eisenhower does this and this, but if you are an American citizen, under our form of government as commander-in-chief, he has the right to give you orders. And it's the same with the legislation. They may be wrong in passing the law and you may say, "Well, I know very well why Mr. -- Mr. Watkins did such-and-such in his vote in Congress." But you have to obey the law that is passed on Mr. Watkins' vote, as a senator. And you have no time to ask why, before you have to pay your taxes, you see, doesn't help you to ask why you pay these taxes. You'd better pay them.

Wherever the real authority, gentlemen, of life, enters the room, no time to ask "why." But of course you say there is no authority. Here in school, there is no authority. We are just to you means to an end. It's the -- your terrible relation to your teachers. You don't think I'm an authority here, do you? You just feel that I have to deliver the goods, that I'm -- as one president of a college inimitably once expressed the cynicism of American irreligion, that teachers are facilities of which you have to take advantage. And a minister in my presence said that my students should pray, prick up my brain and get what there was in it and then throw the skull away. Piece of nature, you see. The spirit, a piece of nature. The loyalty between teacher and student, just an act of eating and drinking.

That's by and large natural religion in America. There is no other country, you see, where the spirit is so despised. As you know, we are all the -- there are 200 people in this country who have got to live by their pen. All the others have to have permanent jobs, because you despise people who write. You underpay your ministers, much less they are paid, of course, even than teachers. You underpay your teachers, too. You let all your artists starve. I have a young friend who's a painter, a Dartmouth boy. He came to me the other day and said, "The average painter in America, of quality, earns $700 a year. Can I do this to my family, that I become a painter?" And he's a man of outstanding gifts. Because you treat painting as a natural thing. And in nature, you see, the janitor of our school system over in -- I told you all this, I think already -- in Norwich, receives a higher salary than the head of the school system, the principal, because he is unionized and as a piece of nature, he can be quantitatively measured. He works eight hours a day and she doesn't give 48 hours' classes a week, so she has to be paid less than the janitor.

This comes all from the treatment of nature as the only situation in which you and I move. If we are part of one nature, gentlemen, the only -- will you kindly take this down -- the only treatment that man can receive is by quantity. For example, by the number of hours that he works. Or by the number of ways -- of commodities which he turns out. Or by the number of books which he writes. These poor bestseller people who have a contract with a publisher, they must write a book every year. They all go to Hell. They abuse their pen. Nobody is allowed to write a book a year, or two columns a week, like poor Mr. Walter Lippmann. That's forbidden. Why is it forbidden, gentlemen? Because only in nature can you predict measurement and quantity. In the process of nature, you can say, "I put 10,000 holes in and I get 10,000 holes out." Or watts, or whatever -- your kilowatt-hours, you see. You can produce and predict in nature. Create, gentlemen, you cannot. That is, you cannot say to a creative writer, you write a book a year, because it's by free grace that next year he may still have a { }. And he may have to stop for five years, go into a monastery or a retreat to recover from the experiences of Broadway. But you think that you can predict man, so

we come to the second statement about natural -- nature, the nature of man. If man is in nature, he is predictable as to quantity, how {good} books what he can achieve in life, how many millions he can make, at least $1 million every American should make.

The second thing is -- what was it, what I said? -- that you can command his spirit. You can command his spirit. He's -- will still be able in two years to write a poem, because the Saturday Evening Post has promised him a place for this poem in the paper. I have a friend who had a contract with a publisher for three books. He was broke. He had six children, so he decided he would sell anything, of course, just to get money. So they paid him some advance payment on the contract of three books. He's the most miserable of mortals, because he -- of course he has no appetite now to write these three books. And the fact that he already is paid for it, one-half of it, is paralyzing him, because he knows he must now write, but he doesn't want to. That's slavery, spiritual slavery. Treating a man -- treating himself in this case -- as a piece of nature.

Nature is the same tomorrow as yesterday, gentlemen. And nature has the same expanse, the same quantity for everybody.

Also, the third thing which is so soul-killing, or life-killing about nature is that every moment of time has the same significance. Five minutes with your sweetheart, and five minutes of a ball game, and five minutes of a class figure on the same dial as five minutes. Now you know very well that I can hardly achieve in one course what a good woman can achieve in one hour with you. Transform you. How do you work in this, in nature? You cannot, because nature has only one time.

As you know, this goes so far that in our modern natural world of American religion, you speak of a space-time continuum. That's blasphemy. It is blasphemy, because there are three dimensions of space then, and time is then considered the fourth dimension of space. You have heard of this space-time continuum, have you not? That is, man as part of nature. Of course, it isn't so very serious for the physicist, but for you poor people, it's very serious. The American natural religion says that what we know of time is that it is one dimension of space. Now fortunately Mr. Einstein himself and Mr. Oppenheimer and how all these gentlemen in Los Alamos are called, Mr. {Bethge,} they think of course that their own time of science is not in the continuum. We can't make progress in science if it was just a continuum of 24 hours a day. Any progress in time -- in science is a high moment. Even an historical moment. They call it an epochmaking event sometimes, you see. The letter that Mr. Einstein wrote to Pres. Roosevelt about the atom bomb broke the time and changed the march of events. And it cannot be figured in terms of expanse of time.

We'll come to this later, but I want to draw your attention to the fact that the natural scientists are selling us one kind of time and they themselves are living in the opposite kind of time. They are living between an obsolete past, physical science of the past, and in a -- of a -- in a future in which everything will be different, because some genius stepped in between and said, "From now on, we will look at nature with a new eye, a new vision." And they feel this, and they live their great holiday as creative thinkers. And they sell you the dregs of their own time experience, what they see outside, the time continuum. Gentlemen, you and I don't live in the fourth dimension of space. This is all nonsense. Have you ever thought to apply this to your own life? You couldn't breathe for one minute if time was one-dimensional, because at that very moment, gentlemen, the future would only be composed of the elements of the past. Once you say that time is a continuum, the space-time continuum, you see, that's -- time is just a stream, a forward-moving stream, then the future can never have any element that isn't contained in the past.

Now gentlemen, the idea of relativity, or the idea of the atom bomb, was not in the making of the natural scientists for the last 300 years. It came into it, as a new spirit, as a new idea. If you deny the discovery of America as a new event, and if you say it was caused by the cowardice of Isabel and not by the courage of Columbus, then you can say that the discovery of America was caused by the previous ages. But you know very well that isn't so. You know very well that when you propose to a girl that you set a new time, that you begin a new era, that it is an epoch-making event in your life, and that something happens that hasn't happened before and cannot happen again. This is the decisive, gentlemen, indictment against the religion of nature, of my friend the businessman. This businessman, to give you the very simple explanation -- or unfolding of his heresy -- here he was; he has a family of three children. He has built himself a house on a lonely hill outside the city, in which he lives, far away from all the associations of, as I said, of Rotaries and Elks and cocktail parties. Very decent family life. And I asked him, "Well, my sir, if you really believe that you all do for economic purposes, you shouldn't have children in the first place. Very expensive."

He said, "Oh, that gives me pleasure."

And I said, "Always?"

And he smiled of course, and had to admit that sometimes it was very gruesome to have three brats around and he didn't know what to do with them. Gentlemen, do you have children for pleasure or do you have children for economic purposes? You have children because your destiny beckons you. You know very well that you have to have children if you are able to have. You know

this. You just shouldn't deny it. It is a scandal that a good Catholic and a successful businessman can sit in my room in this modern year, 1954, and really try to make himself believe -- I didn't believe it, but he thought he should believe it -- that he acted for economic reasons when he raised a family. Then I asked him, did he think that Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Lenin or Mr. Stalin acted for economic reasons when they plunged Russia into this revolution? Or that Winston Churchill thought of the economic future of England when he resisted Hitler, instead of selling out to him, which the American people have forgotten -- that the English could have done that, and that we then would be holding the bag. You show no gratitude to the French and the English today. You think, "We are superior." Gentlemen, we let them bleed white, as you well know, in '40 and '41 until we finally condescended to help them, when it was too late, when they were all ruined and destroyed. The cowardice of this country was terrible, because you just wouldn't -- we wouldn't do anything, although everybody in politics knew that we had to, but they couldn't be -- the children couldn't be told, because we had to live here on ice cream and refrigerators.

So it took Pearl Harbor to make us -- allow these statesmen to tell people the truth, that it wasn't good to live for economic purposes, but that there were points of honor and of free future, where you have to destroy your refrigerators and to give up your standard of living and that you couldn't live for a standard of living, because living comes first and the standard comes later.

But in this country, natural religion has allowed us to make this incredible idea, irreligion, the religion of this country. You live for the standard of living. That is, you live to live longer, for example. Longevity is a great thing here. It's better to live 100 years than 90. Gentlemen, it is not! It is better to die as a hero at 20 than to live up to the hundredth year as a coward, and a bastard! It's terrible to become that old! It's a punishment!

Natural religion cannot say so. Natural religion has the only quantity of longlived is better than short-lived. Do you really believe that Mozart or Schubert -- one dying at 27 and the other at 36 -- had a less life than you will have if you live up to the 102nd birthday? It's ridiculous. How do you know how long your life should be as a good life? I know so many of you, gentlemen, of older classes, who are dead for 50 years already, for the rest to come. That is, they died at their thirties, here. You can see, all of you have the temptation to die when you get married, or to die when you have a job that pays well, or to die when you enter politics. Many people die long before they're dead, because they die -- live then only for the standard of living. That is, they live only for the length of life.

This is, I think -- is the greatest sell-out that has happened in this country, gentlemen. That if a man says, like my friend the businessman, that he lives for

economic reasons, he really says in so many words that he lives for the standard of living. That's the same thing. Can you see the identity of this? Would you agree? If you live for economic reasons, then 10 dollars are always better than one dollar; then a hundred years are always better than 70 years. But they are not, gentlemen. It is not better to live from 74 to 100 as a senile rat. It is much better to die honorably at 74. That's the blessed life. And any religious person will say, "God, give me that length of life during which I am able to be alive." But that's the great American heresy. You think that to prolong life, extend life, keep people going to the -- more than they should is in itself good. It is not. It is bad. It is perfectly irreligious.

Quantity and expanse of the past into the future, gentlemen, is inherent to a belief that we are parts of nature. And that's the American religion in the first place. Man is a part of nature. Beside, there are two other tenets, as we said last time, which try to smooth over this gruesome situation that we live for our own standard of living. If we live for our standard of living -- let me repeat this, gentlemen -- we live for a man-made standard. The standard of living is something you and I or the Chamber of Commerce develops. Now gentlemen, you and I must always, for any religious person, be bigger than everything our mind tells us. My mind is less than my creature existence. I am much more than any of my thoughts, because I cannot make myself, but I can think my own thoughts. Therefore, it is obvious, gentlemen, that anything man-made is less important than a man, because you can't make a man, fortunately. And you'll never be able to do so. Man is a creature of God. My thoughts are man-made, man-controlled, man-corrupted, man -- but you think the standard of living, which is purely a human idea, which means more things are better than a few things, who think that because the Japanese has no bed in his room, he is less well-furnished than you and I. Of course he's better furnished. He has no furniture, as you know, in his room. So he has a real room. You have furniture, but you have no room.

Now, that's a very simple suggestion, by the way. Think this through. Obviously the Japanese house that was shown in the Museum of Modern Arts in New York during this whole -- some of you seen it? -- Isn't that beautiful? But no standard of living whatsoever. See? It's just the question doesn't arise. You wouldn't ask there for a standard of living, because you wouldn't compare the icebox or whatever it is, you see, with the latest mod, you see. You have to have modern '54 the icebox, compared to the modern of '40, you see. The standard of living means that you know what is better by quantity and price and efficiency, and output. But anything important, gentlemen, in life has just nothing to do with quantity. Absolutely nothing. Your wife is not more beautiful because she is 8 foot tall. You can be too big.

Now, the "brotherhood of man." I already said to you that the brotherhood of

man omits the great, divine privilege of man to be a son, and a father, and a lover. That's why D.H. Lawrence had to write this famous book, Sons and Lovers, into a -- into a liberal world which the highest was the brotherhood of man. It's the poorest. Women can never get satisfaction when they are married by brothers. The brotherhood of man, gentlemen, reduces -- reduces the world of persons or the realm of persons -- I should better say, the realm of persons, or the kingdom of persons --to a world of atoms. It is only that the atoms are supposed to shake hands with each other and to smile at each other or grin at each other that you keep still for these atoms the brotherhood. But you forbid the brother -- in the "brotherhood of man" concept -- you forbid the kingdom of Heaven ever to contain bodies of men. It is the great accusation of the body of Christ, which is a voice in this brotherhood of man, because the body of Christ only knows limbs, or members. The brotherhood of man omits the growth, and the first thing of course which strikes one -- when one analyzes this terrible notion of the "brotherhood of man" is that this fraternity cannot deal with the dead or with the unborn. The brotherhood of man is -- because it is sexless, it is fruitless.

It doesn't dominate time, and we come to the second great mystery of natural religion: it doesn't understand time. It doesn't understand the secret of time. A father and son can tell you something about the secret of time. A problem of a daughter and a father is always that the daughter lives in her generation physically what the father has hoped for mentally. Daughter and father are one life. And perhaps nothing helps you better to understand the deep meaning of religion than to forget this whole sentimentality about mother and son, which I just can't hear anymore, and once think of the much more hidden relation between a father and his daughter.

If you go to Mr. Roosevelt -- Theodore Roosevelt and his daughter Alice Roosevelt Longworth, you can see something of this mystery. Or Harriet Beecher Stowe and her father. But that's -- are just of course, accidental examples. Perhaps the only way in which you may be able to rediscover religion today, gentlemen -- and I think every century has a different approach -- is by studying the relation of daughter and father. There is something still rather relatively unspoiled, because there is no sentimental literature about this. And there are no daughters. There are -- oh yes, there are the Daughters of the American Revolution, ja.

The divine life of people, gentlemen, where they are able to obey and to give orders, is today perhaps to be found or rediscovered in the relation of a father and a -- his daughter. If you can solve, for example in your own life, the profound religious problem of your own daughter and yourself, then you are very well on the way of discovering what time is.

It seems clear to me that natural religion, gentlemen, makes it a premium to live longer, because it has no understanding of time. A person who thinks it is better to live 150 years than 70, to my mind, is insane, because he injects into the time relation of free persons, the notions of mileage, of external expanse in space. But even at 150, you have to die. The real problem of time is that your lifetime and the lifetime of others belong to one unity. Whether this is 150 years of your life and 150 years of another person's life that follows -- who follows after you, or whether it's 70 years now, and 70 years in the other person's life, the riddle of time is always that you and I live only a part of the whole time. That's the only agony we have, that before us there has been time and after us. You know the psychoanalysts, who also have a natural religion, express this question very simply by saying that every child wants to be -- go back to his mother's womb, even, and to be analyzed about his experiences as an embryo. And I don't know if before, too.

It shows you just the modern insanity. Instead of seeing the problem that a father and a daughter live in their own generation the same life, it tries mechanically to elongate, to extend this little bit of time which any individual lives, nine months more, backward. It's typical of all modern misunderstandings of time that the psychoanalyst comes forward with this idea that he should analyze the embryo. Then he analyzes the first year, as you know, and the second year of the baby. They should analyze their own greed, why they want to have the bank account of their patients first, the analysts.

The first problem of the -- gentlemen, of the -- the first criticism then of the natural religion of man is that it doesn't ask that which haunts all men all over the globe all the time, that they only live part of the time, of the life of the universe, of the life of God, of the life of mankind on this earth. You must die. And you know it. And therefore you ask all the time "when," because you ask: it may be too late. "When shall I go to Rome to see the Pope?" "When shall I go to the North Pole?" "When shall I climb Mount Everest?" Certainly not after your 45th year. I have to give up mountain climbing, my dear people, because I have white hair. Terrible. It's all over. There are certain things for you which you cannot do because you are -- you are too young now. And there are certain things which I cannot do, because I am too old now. So we are both in the same melodramatic situation of our time, gentlemen. Real time is indifferent to whether something is new or old. And your and my natural time is completely dependent on whether we are young or old.

So every human being, gentlemen, cannot live by the brotherhood of man. He cannot. And she cannot. She must live and he must live by this problem, which my Catholic businessman shelved, why has he children? For pleasure? For arbitrary reasons? Just because he decides to have children? Nobody believes this;

that was the gospel 10 years ago, as you know, when people could tell, "On March 17th, we begot our son Magnus." Horrible, I mean, this Planned Parenthood, as you know. And they did it, and the poor child of course looked accordingly. Very pale. No pep. Gentlemen, a child of love just looks differently from a child of planning. All the problems of heredity have very much to do with the passion between the people who marry, not between the planning or the genes. Fortunately all marriage wipes out all the deficiencies of one of the two stems, in a miraculous way, if they really are in love and have really melted down their armament, their structures. Because that is procreation, gentlemen, to get rid of your individuality. But these modern people, the way they marry. Of course, nothing happens. It's a mechanical procreation. You can always distinguish a child of love from a child of reason. A child of reason -- of reasonable parents looks older. At birth, it has already its character. And the real baby has such soft features that anything can come of it, because it has been -- comes from two melted bodies who in their passion have melted down their own structure and the child is free, free to go into any new form. You can always see -- you have two babies. You can always see which is the real baby. You see, the bebe‚ normale. That's the baby that can become anything. And the other baby looks very noble, very old, very -- very decadent. And it has already all its character written over his face. Have you seen such babies? Have you? Yes. You can find it in the two sisters. One marrying a stolid idiot -- oh no, not an idiot, that's -- perhaps a very smart businessman, but very stolid and very hard-boiled; and the other a freelance writer, you see a great difference between the two. One is -- has been able to give to his child eternal youth and the other has only -- has been only able to give his child a character. That is, an already -- a ready-made form and shape.

Well, this is neither here nor there. At this moment, I want to suggest to you, gentlemen, that the problem of religion, with regard to human relations -- to know who is my brother, and who is my father, and who is my daughter -- comes only if you can see man as a break in life. He is at the same time seed and fruit, or fruit and seed -- perhaps is the better order. Heir and ancestor. The daughter and the father I only mention to you because they bring out this fact that the father once was a son and the daughter once will be a mother. And I only turn it around and say the father and daughter, because you have overdone this expression of mother and son, as you know. The Christians have done it with Mary and her son, and { } has done it with all these -- the mothers of America, who can't take their boys to war. In mother -- in father and daughter, you have exactly the same rhythm. Whenever a father has a daughter, he must look through the fact that he is old and she is young. He must recover his youth, she must recover how much he will { } responsibility and it is more difficult, she must overcome his sex, too, the sex difference, you see. It is so provoking, mother and son and father and daughter relationship, because it doesn't help

him to remember the need of the boy. He must just remember when he was young. The daughter must remember what she will be when she is old. It doesn't help her to think, "I will be a mother," because her father is not a mother. He's just her father. But if they love each other, they can substitute a spirit just the same.

Gentlemen, you discover in immense relation through time what is meant by spirit. The spirit is a unity, despite difference of time and sex, identity despite difference of sex and time. Spirit is always between more than two people. Always. Before you have not -- no right or no reason to speak of spirit. But "spirit" means that there is a unity that is stronger than the distinction of the age and the distinction of the sex. Father and daughter, therefore I offer you, as the greatest antidote against the natural religion. You will admit that father and daughter seem to you something natural. I tell you that they are super-- unnatural. Anti-natural. A father has nothing to do with his daughter physically. Any man who is honest doesn't think of having children when he goes to bed with a woman, doesn't care for it in the least. And for the first 12 years of a child's life, the father may be the maid, or he may be -- push the perambulator, but there's no place for fatherhood. He's just a vicarious mother, as you all are. I mean, you wash the dishes, and you push the perambulator, and so you think you have a relation to your child. But, that's not important. That's not fatherhood. That's general femininity. Most American fathers are women with regard to their children. Then they are playmates. They play baseball with the boy. Again, you don't have to be a father to play with your boy. If you want to have the specific quality which only a father can give to his children, gentlemen, you will have to look elsewhere. It just doesn't mean that he has to take up the diapers. And it doesn't mean that he has to cook the -- warm the milk. And that doesn't mean that he has to play with his children. Other people can do that.

But everybody in this country, because he's hipped on natural religion, has abolished fatherhood by giving to the father tasks who have nothing to do with fatherhood. They have to with motherhood, with sisterhood, with brotherhood, with everything else. But they have nothing to do with the specific quality of a father with regard to his daughter. That's why I say "daughter," you see, because the daughter and the father don't have to play baseball together to be really father and daughter. That should be obvious, you see.

There is a deep secret in this. And we cannot solve it at this moment. But I wanted to point out, gentlemen, that in the relation of father and daughter, we have declared war on the American religion of the businessman. In this sense that we have said -- or I say now, that every American has a non-natural religion with regard to his daughters. That is, what he knows of his own religion, what my friend the businessman believed -- thought he knew about his religion, you

see, is overcome, put in the shade, is destroyed or conquered, by his one relation which he leaves unspoken, unexplored. That's the relation to his daughter.

And so I am happy to say, gentlemen, that true religion of America is two-fold. One is the conscious religion of a natural unity of the universe into which we fall, patterned by bigness and size, and quantity of dollars, or standard of living, or whatnot. And the other, the mystical religion of America -- and it is a deep mysticism in any rationalist -- is that the greatest love of any American is to his country and to the next generation as though they were his daughter. As you know, America's great ambition is to endow. And that is taken from the "dowry." And the relation between the American male, which you can observe from the outside, and which far, far, as they say "transcends" -- not a good word -- how would you say? -- far excels his conscious philosophy as a -- what he says, he has as a philosophy, you see, is the sacrifices any American will make for treating his country as his daughter. America is for a good American a daughterland. As you know in the old country, they call their home country fatherland. The French call it patrie. That is, they treat the country as older, and the people in the country as younger. Now, the history of America has brought it about that in this country, the American citizen feels that he is older than the country. And the country is still to come. And America is beautiful. And you say only "beautiful" of a bride. And you say only "beautiful" of the daughter. And you say it only of some quality which is younger than your own life. And that's why we have now, you see, justified -- so to speak -- America as having a dualistic religion. With regard to oneself, the American is very humble and says, "I only expect brotherhood." But with regard to his family and his country, he says, "They need a father," and "I'm going to be at best Uncle Sam." But even more, Father Abe Lincoln, or somebody like that. And "I'm going to endow these people." And many of you will be here because some good American citizen has endowed you, and given you a scholarship. Is that not true? And that's a strange passion in this country, you see, to endow.

It's a great word, and don't take it lightly. It is a wonderful quality which has kept the American soul alive, because, gentlemen, it means that the miracle of conquering death or of overcoming the time limit set in one's own life span, you see, that the miracle happens in a man's heart, who parts with his money like Mr. Rockefeller, in good time, you see, and endows other lives. And all of a sudden, you see how silly the expressed philosophy of these businessmen is. Their religion is much larger. Religion only begins when what you philosophize, or what you can know, and what you enact cannot be brought on a common denominator, but is quite contradictory. All religion, gentlemen, consists of a reconciliation of what I think of myself in my own time and what I think should be the cause of events over all time.

The real religious problem now we discover, gentlemen, is not to be found in natural religion. Benjamin Franklin cannot help you. He is the god of natural religion in this country, as you know. He knows nothing about the interaction of the generations and of the sexes. You have only to read his commandments of behavior or -- how are they called, this great, terrible -- Poor ...

(Poor Richard's Almanack.)

"Use venery in moderation" is one of the worst of them. Benjamin Franklin's son, William Franklin, was the last royal governor of New Jersey. That was the curse put on Benjamin Franklin's philosophy of life. He was unable, you see, to give his son the same religion as himself. His son was, so to speak, more obsolete than the old father. He could -- that comes from natural philosophy. Benjamin Franklin is the outspoken ghost which you have to lay if you want to rediscover religion. Benjamin Franklin has identified philosophy of nature with natural religion. That is, he has to say it is enough to know what I think about life. I do not have to observe my actions. I do not have to look upon the contradictions in my actions, before I know what I really believe. Most people think that what they think of themselves has any reality, has reality. Now gentlemen, what I think of myself is utterly stupid. And what you think of yourself is utterly stupid, because nobody can think right about himself. We either think too little of ourselves or too much. But we never can really know who we are.

It has been the haunting ambition of all of you, gentlemen, to know yourself, and that is the truly anti-religious attitude. Nobody can know himself, because the problem of you and me is not to know yourself, but only to know when to obey and when to command. And in the process of giving orders and receiving orders, gentlemen, we become who we shall be. In the beginning, the baby in the cradle is nobody, and if he tries then to know who he is, he can only find that he is so many pounds of flesh. What is a baby? A possibility. Now, you are possibilities. I'm a possibility. To my dying day, any human being is, as myself, a possibility. Only under orders do we become who we are. The man who -- who walked back into the airplane, you see -- you -- you heard the story of the lieutenant colonel, at the age of 48, who nearly fell out of his plane the other day. Well, from now on, he's the man who nearly fell out of the plane. And the day before, he wasn't. And if he had tried to know himself the day before, he wouldn't have gotten any result, because he was not going to be the man who did not fall, you see, but the man who did nearly fall. That is now his story.

So gentlemen, religion teaches us that what we think about ourselves is our philosophy, and not our religion. Natural religion obliterates the distinction between philosophy and religion. Would you take this down? Natural religion obliterates the distinction between philosophy and religion. That's why in this

country people think that Christianity is a philosophy. It's the opposite from a philosophy, because religion begins with the insight that what I think is quite indifferent to the fact, "who I am" and "who I am going to be." My mind is fickle. Myself is here at least for 50 years. My thought is only with me for a minute. And American -- American businessmen however have said that "My mind is" -- { } I beg your pardon -- "My mind is stable and the things in nature come and go."

I hope I have given you a warning example in the form of this businessman and in the form of the endowing generous philanthropist in this country to show you that even in natural religion, there is real religion, but it's omitted. That's quite interesting, you see. This country has a religion, but if you would think that it could be encompassed by, you see, the term "natural religion," what people give it, you would not be able to solve the one and only necessity for having a religion, that we can only ask "when," the time question. In the fatherdaughter relation, every American seems to know very well how the future should look after his death. And if he gives to a poor student a scholarship, he obviously suddenly thinks that it is better to be poor than to be rich. So he thinks that growth is a wonderful thing, and that new talent should be discovered. And he doesn't do it for any economic purpose. It's all anti-economical, you see. Very strange. And there you have the real religion of this country, fortunately. And we all -- this whole college as you know, lives by this very generous attitude of natural philosophers, who thought they had no religion, and had much more religion than they knew. Thank you.