The Bible itself might be proved an obscene book.
Then came eighteen illustrations, entitled "A New Life of Christ." All the chief miracles of his career were satirised, but not a single human incident was made the subject of ridicule.

Now, if _miracles_ are not objects of satire, I should like to know what are.

If they never happened, why should they enjoy more respect and protection than other delusions?
Why should one man be allowed to deny miracles, and another man imprisoned for laughing at them?
Must we regard long-faced scepticism as permissible heresy, and broad-faced scepticism as punishable blasphemy?
And if so, why not set up a similar distinction between long and broad faces in every other department of thought?
Why not let _Punch_ and _Fun_ be suppressed, political cartoons be Anathema, and social satire a felony?
Another illustration was called "A Back View." It represented Moses enjoying a panoramic view of Jahveh's "back parts." Judge North did his dirty worst to misrepresent this picture, and perhaps it was he who induced the Home Secretary to believe that our publication was "obscene." In reality the obscenity is in the Bible.

The writer of Exodus contemplated sheer nudity, but the _Freethinker_ dressed Jahveh in accordance with the more decent customs of the age of reason.

I would cite on this point the judgment of Mr.Moncure D.Conway, the famous minister of South Place Chapel.