By Eric Jayne
(editor's note:
This article first appeared in the June 17th edition of the Star Tribune. It is a response to Katherine Kersten's article "Hostility to Religion Bodes Ill for Society," which appeared in the June 7th Star Tribune.
The premise of Kersten's article was that religion, Christianity in
particular, is necessary to keep scientific progress in check. She
argued that without Judeo-Christian beliefs, society would be morally
corrupt and incapable of compassion. )
I
am convinced that there is absolutely no value to the muddled ramblings
of Katherine Kersten. In her recent column, "Hostility to religion
bodes ill for society," she shamelessly blames secular freethought and
atheism for infanticide, the Holocaust and general draconian attitudes
toward social welfare while crediting Christianity for human
compassion. In making her assertion she conveniently ignores the
numerous Bible passages where the bloodthirsty Judeo-Christian God
condones war and ethnic cleansing. In Numbers 31: 17-18, for example,
God actively calls for the killing of male children and the raping of
female children. That's one of the many Bible passages Kersten is
forced to gloss over when she touts that Judeo-Christianity teaches us
"universal standards of right and wrong." Also, since she had brought
up Hitler, I would like to point out to Kersten, and her
atheist-bashing ilk, that the SS belt buckles Nazi soldiers wore during
the Holocaust bared the motto: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us).
Kersten ends her article by suggesting that Social Darwinism is a
legitimate science that promotes the notion of the survival of the
fittest. Therefore, Kersten argues, scientific progress needs to be
constrained by religion so that the poor and vulnerable citizens of
society are protected. Her position might have merit if Social
Darwinism were an actual science, but it's nothing more than
pseudo-science just like astrology and intelligent design. Darwin's
theory of evolution by natural selection is a biological science that
was never intended to be co-opted by the social sciences. In fact,
Charles Darwin wrote that human beings could not "check our sympathy
even at the urging of hard reason without deterioration in the noblest
part of our nature." If Kersten simply understood legitimate science
she probably wouldn't be so afraid of it, and she might even tone down
her spiteful and erroneous anti-secular rhetoric.