To the Editor:? “It is not alright if even one person at this school feels uncomfortable practicing their religion, says Jane Thomas in her Commentary piece “If This Article Scares You, Ask Yourself Why.” This is, at best, an extraordinarily dangerous falsehood. Suppose “even one person at this school” were a Wahhabi extremist, in the vein of Osama bin Laden, or perhaps a biblical literalist who insisted on stoning to death those of their colleagues who committed the “sin” of doing homework on a Sunday (as ordered—twice—in Exodus 31). Of course, these examples are unlikely in the context of Andover, but they compellingly make this case: simply because a belief is religious in nature does not make it condonable, acceptable, or deserving of respect. As Daniel Dennett convincingly argues in his 2006 book Breaking the Spell, there are few conventions in our society today more dangerous and more unreasonable than the assumption that questions of faith are beyond criticism. This convention is not only an extraordinarily detestable display of anti-intellectualism, but is a dangerous legitimation of any belief held on religious grounds. “Part of diversity is religious diversity,” writes Thomas, and indeed, like diversity of views on economic policy or football, questions of faith do indeed constitute a form of diversity. Indeed, despite Thomas’ assertion of our “secular atmosphere,” our campus includes clubs devoted to countless religions, we have numerous Chaplains and other religious figures on staff, and the “Spiritual and Religious Life” tab on PAnet is regularly the most full of any. But just because we celebrate diversity does not mean we respect any and every belief. We celebrate and defend the right to have divergent beliefs, but that does not make every belief okay, and it certainly does not exempt any from criticism. Those who, in Thomas’ words, “champion diversity and then scoff at… prayer” are not, as Thomas claims, hypocrites, but instead advocates of the free exchange in the marketplace of opinion that diversity, at its best, creates. The right to practice your religion is held very highly on campus—Thomas’ anger is instead directed at “intolerance” of religious belief. Alas, she is mistaking skepticism for intolerance. Jude wrote that he “had to write and urge you to contend for the faith” (Jude 1:3) and it is this that Thomas must do if she wants to publicly engage in acts of faith: by going public with religious, as with any other, convictions, one opens them up to question. Thomas’ absurd imposition that the ubiquitous “you” thinks she is a “stupid lunatic” is both nonsensical and irrelevant: the anti-theists among us insist not that she is “stupid” but merely that her beliefs must be defended. There is no right to keep beliefs free from criticism: if your peers are criticizing your actions, than it is up to you to legitimize them. Diversity of thought does not mean that every thought is justified, but it does mean that every justifiable thought must be proven to be so. Jake Romanow P.S. I found Thomas’ description of an unaffiliated person having “a change of heart” as “a natural progression in her spirituality” to be profoundly distasteful and expect that upon further consideration she would agree.
