Jesus loved everyone. Did not. Did too. Homosexuals are condemned to hell. Are not. Are too. Religious values seem to be the only contentious issues in our idyllic university community.

Nothing generates a letter faster than a divine condemnation or a questioning of the Bible’s authority.

I’ve been here less than three years, and it’s already gotten quite old.

People on both sides fail to realize the opinion section’s most glorious debate has been going on for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, with very little progress.

While it’s true the bold type heading this page reads “opinion,” arguments consisting solely of such tend to go nowhere. Participants waste their breath — as well as a goodly amount of paper — when there’s little factual basis or philosophical underpinning.

Central to the problem of the modern religious debate is a lack of any visible coherence of thought necessary to make a conclusion convincing, though quoting Biblical passages seems to be regarded as such.

Unfortunately, quoting the Bible provides no more convincing evidence for a viewpoint than simply acknowledging said viewpoint as completely arbitrary opinion.

The Bible, agreed by most Christians to be our sole insight into the will of God, is open to many, many different interpretations. Some say Biblical passages must be contemplated on a stand-alone basis. Others argue valid interpretation rests only in an understanding of the Bible’s over-arching themes.

If a set of people reach a conclusion about how to properly interpret the word of God, then within that framework they can engage in productive, enlightening discourse where opinions all stem from an agreed upon foundation.

But unfortunately there is no widely-agreed upon way of reading the Bible.

On what basis, other than personal opinion, are interpretive techniques of religious texts developed?

There is nothing which suggests to us there is any other way of selecting a way to read the Bible than just picking whichever way you want.

More than likely, the way a Bible is beaten is the way the disputant was taught to do so as a small child.

Quote the Bible all you want, but be aware your opinion derives from no authority other than itself.

So why should we listen to your conclusions if we have no reason to believe there is any foundation for them?

The anti-Biblical viewpoints I’ve heard are similarly distanced from any persuasive origin. The typical response to a “God says so” letter or column is pretty much, “I don’t buy into the Bible as an authority. Hence, you have no authority. Hence, I do.” Which isn’t any more convincing.

Though I have seen informative religious discussion within these pages (such as last year’s exchange regarding the true meaning of what is now translated as “homosexuality”), by and large what I have observed is symptomatic of the general decline of public discourse in America.

No one’s hearing anyone else because everyone’s putting the cart before the horse. You’d think the student body at an institution with the agricultural emphasis we possess would be more skilled in horse placement, but unfortunately that doesn’t appear to be the case.

If you’re going to change a person’s mind on an issue as entrenched as religion, elaborating on conclusion’s details isn’t going to do much if you don’t first give a basis for having gotten there.

Words fall on empty ears when there’s no reason to think a viewpoint hasn’t simply been plucked from thin air.

If you’re going to tell me your conclusion is right because it is God’s Will, tell me why your technique for Biblical interpretation makes it more valid than the person reaching an entirely different conclusion.

If you’re going to tell me the Bible-beaters are wrong, tell me what invalidates the Bible? What validates your opinion? Is your conclusion any more convincing than the next person’s?

Natural resources are inherently scarce. The Daily’s funding is inherently scarce. While religious debate certainly can be constructive, what I’ve observed in this newspaper and other forums is simply going in circles. Which means we’re wasting an awful lot of paper.

As a group we can either choose to strengthen our rhetorical technique, or we can abandon this debate for greener pastures where facts are easier to come by. And by that I don’t mean the engineering vs. liberal arts debate.

Let’s talk about how the administration blackmails the student body with regard to Veishea. Let’s talk about how we can be one of the richest nations on earth and yet by some counts have one in six children going hungry.

Let’s talk about how until a recent Supreme Court decision the police had the right to search you if you were pulled over for having a headlight out. Let’s talk about how corporate profits have been increasing faster than wages.

Let’s talk about an issue where there are facts involved. Let’s argue over a subject where there’s resolution to be had. Nationwide, we have been plagued by counterproductive debate, and I’m tired of it.

---

Ben Byrne is a senior is graphic design from Edina, Minn., land of milk and honies.