Letters in response to columnist Andrew Jenson’s column on Tuesday.Thank you
Dear Mr. Jenson,
Words cannot describe the glee we at Freethought Moscow felt upon discovering we were included in the latest of your beautifully written satires. You have a successful career path ahead of you as the next Stephen Colbert.
Thank you for thinking of us,
–Nicole Lichtenberg
President Freethought Moscow
Misrepresenting “secularism”
Andrew, I just noticed that in your article, you seem to generalize your argument against those who you deem are secularists.
This is an overwhelmingly broad opponent. By the Latin definition, “secular” refers to the term worldly, or non-religious. Literally anything or anyone not pertaining to or abiding by a religious doctrine is within this scope. For instance, as a graduate of ecology, conservation biology and evolutionary biology, I would be considered a secularist. However, I have never “outrageously or childishly” attacked Christianity as sexist.
Furthermore, the term Christian is very wide in scope as well. Mormons, or Latter-day Saints, define themselves under this same framework and have practiced polygamy (a fairly sexist social structure) from the 19th century until our modern times. But let me clarify and say that not all Mormons are polygamists — in fact there are exceptions and variations within cultures and subcultures.
Similarly, not all secularists relate sexism to Christianity. The irrationality of your article, first of all stating that you know what the secular belief is, is astounding to me. One unified secular belief on this topic is nonexistent–narrow your scope.
Second of all, if secularists by definition don’t abide by religious or theological frameworks, why do you prove your points by quoting passages from the bible? But seriously, I don’t understand how the phrase “Paul said women should not speak in church or usurp authority over men” actually pertains to the “godly role of women in society.” If a woman’s social role should reflect her “natural capability” in Christian terms, then your association is wrong. Women do have the natural capability to “speak in church,” therefore your argument in using “natural capabilities” as a justification for the above bible statement is illogical. Please fill me in.
You also say that these natural male and female roles serve to the glory of God and humanity and that embracing them is “the mark of a mature society.” The mark of a mature society is allowing, accepting and appreciating whatever role any single person decides upon and remaining concerned only with the well-being of someone’s own life and community. Classifying people by where you think they belong is the root of strife and discord in our society.
Furthermore, justifying your claims by quoting a book that has helped institute the most social oppression throughout history seems counter-intuitive.
Finally, “true equality” does not come “when we embrace God’s gifts to us as men and women,” it comes when we embrace each other, in whatever form we may appear.
–Casey Kristofferson
Senior, ecology & conservation biology
Thumbs up
Just a quick note to give you two thumbs up for your fair and accurate piece on gender equality and Christianity. Well done, Andrew. Keep up the good work, and don’t let anyone discourage you. Joshua 1:9.
–Judd A. Wilson