The Limits Of Atheism; Or, Why should Sceptics be Outlaws? by George Jacob Holyoake

A Christian Apologist introduced me to George Holyoke's Essay "The Limits of Atheism". (He didn't mean to. He assumed from the title it was a criticism of atheism, but that's another story!)

Anyway, Holyoke was a fascinating man. He campaigned for secularism in the 19th century when it was possible to be jailed for being an atheist in England.  In fact he was the last person in England to be imprisoned on a charge of blasphemy, for saying at a public lecture in Cheltenham in 1842 (during a time of economic hardship): 

“If I could have my way, I would place the deity on half pay as the Government of this country did its subaltern officers.”

Holyoke invented the term "secularism" and became vice-president of the National Secular Society. He campaigned with Charles Bradlaugh for secular affirmations as well as the free press, women's rights and the liberation of oppressed nationalities.

The full text of Holyoake's essay can be found here (link kindly provided by the aforementioned Apologist) but here is a summary of the preface:  

Text by JG Holyoke	Observation
THE LIMITS OF ATHEISM Or, Why should Sceptics be Outlaws?	The title of the piece refers to limits in the sense of "scope". The essay explains the scope of atheism in Victorian England, misunderstandings regarding the world itself and the discrimination against atheists. He also provides guidelines for atheists using what he refers to as the "limits naturally prescribed to Affirmative Atheism" which he describes in four principles towards the end of the document. In the subtitle Holyoake asks... Why should sceptics be Outlaws? This is a reference to the way atheists were regarded in Victorian England (and before).
WRITTEN IN ARREST OF THE PARLIAMENTARY JUDGMENT WHICH PLACES THE WORD OF THE ATHEIST BELOW THAT OF THE FELON	A reference to the denial of atheists to a hearing in a court of law (more on this later)
The object of these pages is not to defend the intellectual accuracy of Atheism (which could not be attempted in this brief space), the object is to explain its case, to vindicate its moral rectitude, and the right of those who hold these views, to legal equality.	Holyoake wants to explain what atheism is to a hostile audience, explain why it is a moral position and why atheists should be entitled to equal rights. Atheists were subject to blasphemy laws in 19th century England. The author was himself charged with blasphemy. Plus it was difficult for atheists to get justice as we will see later.
There are two Atheisms in literature—the ancient one of mere negation; and the affirmative form, whose relevant name is Cosmism, and of which Humboldt, in his 'Cosmos,' is a great illustrator, and Comte, in his 'Positive Philosophy,' an expounder.	The word "Cosmism" is rarely used nowadays - it is a reference to the book "Kosmos" by the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt - who builds on the ancient Greek view of the orderliness of the universe and applies its laws to life on Earth. This view assumes the existence of nature without the concept of a "creator". Also Holyoake is introducing the concept of different types of atheism (more on this later)
The term Cosmism ought to supersede the misleading term Atheism; just as Secularism has superseded the libellous term Infidelity. Cosmism, as well as Secularism, expresses a new form of Freethought, and I use the term Atheism, as the subject of a Lecture, for the first time here.	Atheism has always been a misleading word and it is the limits of the word "atheism" (and related misunderstandings) that Holyoake is concerned with in this essay. Holyoake would prefer the word "Cosmism" to be used to "atheism". Obviously, it didn't catch on
It is a worn-out word, used by Theists in hateful senses.	Oh I'm sure that doesn't happen any more!
I employ it, as a title, to-day for political reasons, in order to show those who make it a ground of civil exclusion, that it is a thing of law and limits: that the reputed Atheism of English working men, so far as it prevails, is no longer the old Atheism of mere negation, but the Cosmism of modern science; neither dissolute, anarchical, nor impious—recognises that the universe is, without theorising why it is.	Holyoake is making a point about the discrimination of atheists (civil exclusion) and explaining that atheism has nothing to do with a lack of morals and nothing to do with a lack of respect for God.
"I do not say—there is no God; But this I say - I know not."	This is a quote from Thomas Cooper's book "Purgatory of Suicides". Cooper was a poet and a Chartist who was locked up for his beliefs (he wrote the book in jail)
Negative Atheism says there is nothing beyond the universe. Cosmism says it cannot explain anything beyond, and pauses where its knowledge ends.	Holyoake was ahead of his time in identifying different degrees of atheism. The concept of "Negative atheism" arose at this time with Holyoake (and others) This type of atheism does not attempt to prove there is no God as this is impossible. The burden of proof is put on those who affirm the existence of God. Holyoake regarded himself as an atheist only because he didn't believe what Christianity would have him believe. The approach of negative atheism is to show that Christian supernatural belief was meaningless, that its arguments were illogical, and that the mysteries of the universe, if they could be explained at all, could be explained in natural terms.
But as I stated in the York Debate, in 1858, at which the Reverend Canons Hey and Robinson presided, it is an act of self-defence in England to question the assumed infallibility of Theism—to prove that Atheists are entitled to civil recognition, as persons having legitimate, actual, and conscientious views, and who, therefore, ought not to be outlawed as they are now.	Holyoake defends the rights of atheists to question the "assumed infallibility" of theism and makes the point that they have conscientious and legitimate views. and as already mentioned, atheists views were outlawed you would be denied certain high profile jobs and be denied justice if you were openly atheist.
So long as sceptics of Theism are refused the right of affirmation in courts of law, and their lives and property consequently placed at the mercy of every ruffian and knave, so long will a Sceptical propaganda be a parliamentary necessity, to justify these opinions, and to spread them, that those who hold them may, like the Quakers, win by pertinacity what is denied to reason.	Part of the discrimination against atheists in Victorian Britain was the judicial system. Atheists unwilling to swear on the Bible in court were banned from giving evidence in court and therefore unable to obtain justice. Also, an interesting reference to Quakers here, who had been persecuted for their belief that discrimination was wrong - and discrimination against people because of class, race and gender was common. The Quakers also believed that you didn't need to go to church to find God. This was inflammatory at the time. The Quakers were tenacious in their passive protests (refusing to take oaths or bow to magistrates and so on). Holyoake sees a parallel in the Quaker's "pertinacity" and his approach to gain rights for atheists.
And while this state of things lasts, I confess that I listen to arguments of opponents with distrust, for I see in them, not so much the confutation of my opinions, as the limitation of my freedom, and the justification of my political exclusion. In the present state of theological liberty in England, for the alleged Atheist to be silent, is to be a slave consenting to his own degradation.	Holyoake is explaining that theists are not refuting his opinions, but actively discriminating. Atheists were also prevented from serving as members of parliament and holding academic jobs in top universities among other things. Holyoake is saying that it's easier for atheists to keep silent and pretend to have Christian beliefs. But this is equivalent to a slave simply silently putting up with his own degradation.