To all these criminogenous causes the Christian must oppose the moral sentiments which are drawn from his religion. His motto must be, “rather death than dishonor.” But for that he must have heroic courage, which most people lack. Perhaps before God these sinners will find grace.
But all this cannot be a reason for society to allow to exist these scandalous conditions, which, in a few words, are as follows: “Insufficiency of the means of subsistence; work too long continued, as measured by the exhaustion resulting from it; work demanded of mothers of families; excessive and unsuitable labor expected of children; improper conditions in certain industries.”[18]
This must be changed, and it is possible to do so. Not, however, with the aid of the state, for then industry would lose the elasticity so necessary to it. But the change must be brought about by association of the proletarians. “In the forced individualism of the laborers is to be found the cause of their ruin; the salvation must be found in association.” The author closes by referring to the encyclical, “Rerum novarum”, in which it is said that Christian workmen must band together, and by encouraging the rich to help their less privileged brothers.[19]
IV.
Criticism.
The authors of whom I have just been speaking, together with others, like von Oettingen and Stursberg, of whom I have spoken in Chap. II, have this idea in common, that the continually growing irreligion is a cause of the increase in criminality; in other words, that [[208]]irreligion is a powerful factor of crime and that the irreligious are predisposed to crime.
What proofs have been given by these authors in support of their thesis, their very serious accusation against those who are no longer religious? Most of them have not even tried to prove it. It is a dogma, with which, therefore, we have nothing to do. An increase of irreligion had been shown, also an increase in criminality, therefore there is a causal connection. Protest must be made against any such methods of reasoning. If there is a parallelism upon the chart between two curves that do not undulate, we must be very careful about drawing the conclusion that there is a connection, much more a causal one. That irreligion has increased is certain; is the same thing true of criminality? Certainly not. The trend of criminality as a whole is very rarely uniform, there is almost always a divergence; for example, economic criminality and violent criminality very rarely keep pace with each other. If we wish to give a general idea of the trend of criminality, we can only say that it is decreasing rather than increasing. The spiritualist authors often cite Germany in support of their thesis. This is no longer possible, for, after an increase in the total figures up to the end of the nineteenth century, there is now a fluctuating decrease.
In the Netherlands we can estimate the increase of irreligion;[20] according to the censuses of 1879 and 1909, the percentage of those who are not members of any church has increased enormously, from 0.31 to 4.97, an increase of 1500% in 30 years! What an increase of crime must we look for! The reality is very different. The curve of crime has fallen without any doubt.[21] The facts and the thesis do not agree.
Another way of examining the question is to be found in “criminal geography.” Since irreligion shows enormous differences in the different parts of a country, we ought to find considerable criminality in the provinces where the lack of religion is most in evidence. For the Netherlands, in my study already referred to, I have given detailed tables with the result that there is no connection between the phenomena in question. In general we have even the right to say that the provinces with the lowest figures for irreligion show a high criminality, and vice versa! [[209]]