Becky & Veronica,

As you invited students to respond to your opinion piece regarding religious diversity in last week’s Pioneer, respond I shall. I’ll start as you did: This is not a politically correct letter. While you raised some good points in your article about the folly of categorizing religious groups (or any type of group) based on the actions of a few members, I take issue with some of your statements.

Mostly, I find your hypothetical situation involving students thinking up ways to offend black people by inserting swear words into Martin Luther King’s name (and how this scenario translates to offending Christians) to be dubious. There is a fundamental difference between skin color and religion: skin color is genetic. It has nothing to do with upbringing or personal beliefs; it is a fact of your heredity. Religious beliefs, on the other hand, have no basis in genetics. They are personal beliefs and should be treated as such. So, while I have an obligation to respect inherent qualities in individuals, I have no such obligation to respect anyone’s religious beliefs, any more than I have to respect someone’s belief that the moon is made of nougat or that the best Michael Jackson album is “Thriller.”

Religious belief is irrational. This is a fact. There is no rational reason to believe in the existence of a god. No evidence exists to support it. As many like to point out, that’s why it’s called “faith.” But for some reason, religion receives an elevated status above mere “belief” in our society.

If you learn someone believes that the death penalty is a just method of punishment and you disagree with them, you are free to debate the issue. If they were to say to you, in response to an argument against the death penalty, “Well, that’s just what I believe,” would you accept that? Absolutely not. You would think them stubborn and evasive. But in a similar circumstance for religious beliefs, this is acceptable.

Religion is, by and large, not subjected to the normal modes of logical criticism usually applied to any other worldview. And the reason it is not is because it would completely and utterly fall apart were it analyzed rationally. By this standard, then, religious beliefs are even less deserving of deference than a belief in the death penalty: one can supply rational arguments as to why the death penalty should exist. There are no such arguments for religion.

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not calling for an end to religion or supporting the ridicule or persecution of Christians or any other religious (or non-religious) group. What I am saying, however, is that religious belief is just like any other belief, and shouldn’t be off-limits to debate and criticism. Pushing for more acknowledgement of religious diversity is no different than pushing for political diversity or diversity in people’s views on “Superbad.” You can believe that god exists, but I don’t have to respect it any more than if you believed in the death penalty or that milk chocolate is better than dark.

-Ben Stevens
Whitman ’08