Last Friday, there was a letter to the editor published in response to my previous column, “Let the Revival Begin.” I am always interested in hearing both criticisms and praises of my columns, and I encourage them. This specific piece was interesting to me because it more or less proved some of the points in my column. The problem with some “progressive” thinkers is they would like to believe they can think out of the box and see beyond traditional prejudices. The issue here is they carry too much of their own prejudices. If my column was considered with reasonable thought, it would be apparent the point was to justify believing what you feel is right.
The letter made several outlandish and arbitrary claims. One that especially surprised me was the claim that religious fanatics and the other 99% who attempt to use the religious text as a way of defining moral guidelines are in fact interpreting the text in the same way. This brings me to my point once again. It is not the laws and guidelines that are necessarily wrong, but the individuals who interpret them. The author of the column is a political science major like me. If anyone has taken the time to look at the United States Constitution, it is not difficult to realize it can be interpreted in multiple ways. The Constitution protects my right to have freedom of speech. That being said, I do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater which could result in a rush to the doors that could cause injury or death to all those sitting in the theater. That would be immoral. Just like it would be immoral to use a religious text to discriminate, harm, or even kill others.
The letter suggested that accepting religion sacrifices human consciousness and rationale. This statement truly undermines the human spirit. He is assuming that just because one accepts religion they are giving up conscious reflective thought. I would suggest many people come to faith after quite a bit of searching. It is not easy to have faith, and anyone who truly has faith will probably agree with this claim. No matter how a person is brought up, there comes a point in all our lives when we have to make decisions for ourselves. The founders of this country dealt with these decisions just like every other person. As Zakk pointed out in his last column, skepticism was not uncommon in the founding of this country. However, there were those who accepted there was some sort of higher divine power beyond human control. It is problematic to suggest we can go through this life without some sort of authority controlling human action.
As I have pointed out and the critics of my column have written, there are human beings that can and do act immorally. The key point in that statement is human beings. We can all take something from the topics that have filled the paper the past couple of days. We need to learn as a people and a nation that there will be differences in beliefs and opinions. If these differences and opinions are respectfully seen and heard; the best policies will be provided for everyone. There is a need for humans to act morally. It is not appropriate to demean other’s views and opinions just because they are not like your own, whether they are religious or non-religious. If you want to complain about religion, you have to complain about people as a whole. Be responsible and be respectful, that is the basis of morality.
