Robert Heinlein - For Us, The Living

"For example, Brown must be stopped from peddling pornography, because, if he does, he will harm the purchaser, Smith. But note that Smith is to be Saved from harm for the good of Smith's soul, as defined by the churches. Sometimes the concatenation is very involved, but in every case you will find at the end the churches attempting to use the state to coerce the citizen into complying with a creed which the churches have been unsuccessful in persuading the citizen to accept without coercion. Wherever that occurs you have a condition which inevitably results in the breeding of a powerful underworld which will seize the local government, and frequently, through control of local political machines, seize state and national governments as well.

"One is always asked, 'What about the sweet innocent children? Are they to have no protection?' Certainly not, but many of the things which were believed to be bad for children were bad only in the unventilated minds of the religious moralists. For example, we now realize that it is not bad for children to be used to naked human bodies—on the contrary it is very unhealthy for them not to be. We know that knowledge of the objective fact of bisexual procreation is not harmful to children—on the contrary if we satisfy their natural curiosity by telling them lies, we are building trouble for the future. But we do know that nicotine and alcohol do more physical harm to children than to adults and we punish the adult who provides them with such. By the same token we look with disfavor on a church which fills children's minds with sadistic tales of a cruel vengeful tribe of barbarians under the guise of teaching them the revealed word of God. We disapprove of exhibiting pictures and statues of a man spiked to a wooden frame. I say we disapprove—but we do not forbid, for the damage, though probably greater than habit-forming drugs, is hard to prove, but we do insist on some years of instruction through the public development centers to clean their minds of the sadism, phobias, simple misstatements of fact, faulty identifications, and confusion of abstractions that their preachers and priests have labored to instill."

"Is the state actively fighting religion?"

"Of course not. To educate in opposition to particular dogmas of particular sects is not to fight religion. But if a church persists in teaching anti-social doctrine, the state reserves the right to combat those doctrines with argument in rebuttal. It is necessary to remember that head-hunting is a religious rite. Shall we tolerate it? The most popular sects of your day practiced a form of symbolic cannibalism. Is the state obligated to stand in awe of that rather nauseating myth? Our answer is simple. Any religion is free to preach and practice but the state and all individuals have an equal right to combat their doctrines by any peaceful means."

"Haven't some sects attempted to prevent any non-conformist instruction of their children?"

"Yes, some extreme cases have preferred to go to Coventry, whole sects. They seceded from us, so instead of fighting, we seceded from them. But we were talking about politics and here we are on religion. What was I saying? Oh yes, why we get better men into office than we used to. I think I've covered most of the reasons. The destruction of the political power of finance capitalism was a big factor, naturally. Required voting helps—only those can draw the dividend who vote, and the franchise calls for a rather stiff course in the details of the mechanics of government."

"Suppose one doesn't pass the examination, does he lose his vote?"

"There is no examination. If there were, the party in power might use it to disenfranchise the opposition, just as such laws were used to disenfranchise the negroes in the South in your day. We just make sure that the citizen has been thoroughly instructed in the machinery of government. All these things help to make a more intelligent electorate and bring out better candidates. In spite of everything we get a certain percentage of stupid, or unqualified, or small-souled men in office. This isn't Utopia, you know. This is just the United States of America in 2086.

Back in California, Diana paid a call on Master Hedrick. He received her at once and ushered her into his study, his face wreathed in a smile of welcome that managed to make him more birdlike than ever.

"Come in, come in, my dear. May I do you a service? I've missed you lately. But I did see some of your Chicago appearances by telecast. You were magnificent. Lovely! Lovely! Sit you down here by the fire. Something to eat? No? A cigarette? A little glass of wine? Ah, good. I saw your parents when I was up north this past week. Both well and hearty and full of the joy of living."

Diana shifted uneasily in her chair. "Master Hedrick, I'm troubled and need advice."

His face sobered. "I hope that I can help you. Tell me about it."

She drew circles with her toe on the floor, and considered her words. "I hardly know how to begin. You already know a lot about it. You know how Perry got into difficulties and why he was sent here. Well, I am very deeply attached to Perry. I thought and still hope and believe that our association will last throughout our lives and grow and deepen. But the trouble with my dancing partner, Bernard, got us off to a poor start. It worries me that it might happen again and I care so deeply that I find myself willing to do anything to avoid the possibility of anything like it happening again."

"How do you plan to avoid the possibility?"

"I don't know exactly. I could quit dancing with Bernard when this contract expires, and not see him anymore. But this last series we did together went so well that we have been offered a new contract at a considerably higher salary. I know that Bernard expects me to take it. He has even planned what he will do with his additional credit."

"You believe that you might be happier with Perry if you refused to work with Bernard?"

"Well—that is what I've been thinking about. In any case, although Bernard hasn't said anything and apparently the public hasn't noticed it, I know that my work with Bernard isn't as good as it used to be. I am distracted from it by the fear of Perry's opinion. Whenever a dance calls for a love scene, I can't get my mind off Perry. I wonder if he is tuned in, and if he thinks my acting too realistic."

"Do you intend to quit dancing with partners entirely?"

"I hadn't thought that far ahead. I don't know."

"Mightn't you have the same fear about any other partner?"

"I suppose so."

"Do you see that to spend your life guiding your actions by the possible opinions of a person suffering from delusions will become very complicated?"

"Yes, I see you're right. But I'd be willing to try it if I could keep Perry happy and loving me by doing it."

"That does your heart credit, but not your good sense. You are a normal healthy girl and your standards and desires are as sane as can be. But I think that I see the consequences of such a course more clearly than you do. In the first place you won't be helping Perry to get well. You'll make a permanent invalid out of him emotionally. Your whole life will become forced and unnatural. After re-molding yourself to suit his spurious standards, you will then undertake to change the world around you to prevent it from conflicting with his carefully nurtured delusions. Gradually your friends will drop away as they will be made restless by the restraints you will have imposed on their conduct and conversation. Eventually the day will arrive when you will be one of our patients. Tell me, how do you like our friend Olga?"

"Olga? Why, Olga is grand."

"Ever felt any uneasiness about Perry and her?"

"No, not really. Perhaps I have in a way. It sometimes seemed a little unfair to me that he should enjoy her company so much in my absence, when I've been so miserable with Bernard."