My name is Christjahn Beck, and I am currently the President of the Atheist and Agnostic Society here at Iowa State.  I was compelled to write in after reading the piece that the Daily printed in the Friday, Jan. 30 edition titled, “Morality Through Religious Eyes,” by Zoe Woods.  

The author suggested in her article that while terrible things are done in the name of various faith traditions, we are not in a position to condemn these actions, as it would implicitly suggest a sense of moral superiority. She went on to say that it is through her understanding of Christianity that she rejects violence and feels compelled to “treat others as she wants to be treated.” In conclusion, Woods suggests that instead of being angry and searching for answers, that forgiveness is the appropriate response to strip religious violence of its power.  

Now, both of my parents and both of my grandfathers are/were protestant ministers.  As such, the sentiments expressed in this article are very familiar to me.  I understand the compulsion to offer high-minded platitudes about religious tolerance, while simultaneously trying to convey that ones own faith would never logically lead to violence. I understand this because when I was a Christian, I used to do it myself.   

Now that I have changed my mind on the religious question, however, this antithetical response to religious extremism frustrates me. Paradoxically, in the face of religious violence, the faithful of all stripes call for more religion.  Like a confused flooding victim crying out for more water.  

“Religious tolerance,” in this context, loses all of its genuine pluralistic charm and becomes an ideal that the faithful use to shelter themselves from criticism.  

What follows is an excerpt from the aforementioned article. This was printed in the Daily and it should offend all morally inclined people.

“The attack at Charlie Hebdo is one of many incidents in history that wield the banner of a God claiming to do its work. As a result of what our society has defined to be moral, we have deemed those actions purely wrong.

Yet who are we to confront and discredit the beliefs of others? How can we label our convictions superior above those around us? We can’t. What we can do, as humans, is believe whatever we want to and in whatever we want to.”

Excuse me?! 

Now I can talk until I am blue in the face about the difficult nature of describing what constitutes a morally correct or incorrect action. The moral question is something that philosophers have struggled with for centuries. However, if we can agree on anything, it is that cartoonists should not be murdered in their studios for drawing satirical comics. Surely we can acknowledge that even if the implicated cartoons were in poor taste, that their authors did not deserve death!  If morality is rooted in anything, then it is rooted in being able to distinguish right from wrong. Thus, morality at its most basic level must take into account avoidance of unnecessary human suffering. With that in mind, if an unverifiable ideology, based purely on the subjective interpretation of texts written 1500-3500 years ago leads to the murder of French cartoonists, then of course we can “confront and discredit” these actions! It is immoral to suggest otherwise. 

I think it is time that we stop allowing people of religious backgrounds to claim a monopoly on discussions of morality. Strict adherence to any Abrahamic religious text would lead one to be viewed by modern society as not only bizarre and immoral, but likely psychopathic.  

From the Bible alone we see bizarre orders not to mix fabrics in clothing (Leviticus 19:19), or get tattoos (Leviticus 19:28). In addition, there are strict instructions about how to acquire slaves (Exodus 21). Jesus and Paul reiterate acceptance of slavery in the New Testament, and instruct slaves to submit to their masters (Luke 12:47-48, Ephesians 6:4-6). In Timothy, there is an order for women to remain silent, not wear jewelry, not braid their hair and never to assert authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:9-12). Perhaps most importantly, there are explicit calls to kill non-believing friends and family by stoning them (Deuteronomy 13:6-10).  For those who think that Jesus solves the problem of violence, Matthew 10:34-35 says, “Do not think that I come to bring peace, I come not to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

I apologize for sounding harsh. For what it is worth, the tone of my argument is hard to convey via text. I do not intend to offend anyone. Instead, I want to make clear that I understand it is possible to cherry pick your way through any holy text and construct a seemingly acceptable moral code. The problem is that I can use the same process and paint Christianity as patently immoral! Can we all agree, at least, that if you have to disregard as much, or more, than what you accept from these texts, that any claim to being the one true source for all morality, or the “basis by which we live,” is a totally unfounded assertion? 

I agree with Ms. Woods that forgiveness is an important part of healing. Yet it is hard to forgive those who do not believe they have done anything wrong. Using outrageous statements like, “who are we to confront and discredit the beliefs of others” as a way of explaining away religious violence should be viewed as nothing more than a crass attempt to spread the guilt around so far that no one can be blamed. It is time that all morally inclined people stand up to beliefs like this and say, “no more.”