Well, I’m glad to see Chad has changed his mind.  His latest column is titled “To Each His Own.” Good: keep your religion to yourself and out of my government, and do not suggest that we as a nation “let the revival begin.”

He says that the problem with progressive thinkers is that they think they can go outside the box and beyond traditional prejudices. Well, yes, I can go beyond ancient superstition and see that humanism should guide our nation, rather than some nebulous concept of an all-seeing, all-knowing father figure in the sky. I will be the first to tell you that I am indeed prejudiced against religion.

Not only were all of my claims soundly based, but I failed, unlike Chad, to overgeneralize. I never said that fanatics and “everyday” theists interpret the text in the same way. I said they refer to the same texts. He misquoted me.

Yep, we are both in political science.  I am surprised he can’t see the distinction between a living legal document like the Constitution and an ancient text that claims to be hold the word of God.  The former can guide the country, the latter can’t.

It is in no way problematic to refute the existence of an authority (read: deity) controlling human action. It’s liberating! You’re a human being! You’re part of a magnificently, and poorly, evolved species! Pat yourself on the back, dude. It’s belittling to think that we owe all good conclusions, morality and common sense to a higher power’s word. The only thing that should ever “control” human action is critical thought and humanism. These are in no way corollary to religion; they never have been and never will be.

Thomas Anderson,

senior, political science