Conservative Student News

Today in class I was pleasantly surprised to see a gent over to my left wearing a t-shirt displaying a red circle “NO” sign imposed over a cross with the words “Bad Religion” above it.  When I mentioned it to a friend, he chuckled and mentioned that “Bad Religion” was a great band, and that the shirt was from their hit album, Suffer. 

My naïveté aside, the reason this shirt caught my attention was because it reminded me of a similar sign which had impressed me a few days earlier on the second floor of Ireland Hall titled “Organized Religion.”  Along the perimeter of the signboard were several quotes from famous persons such as Anne Frank, the French philosopher Voltaire, Einstein, and the British philosopher and activist, Bertrand Russell.

With the exception of the Anne Frank line and a fun quote from Psalms 16:33, none of the postings on this board took kindly to organized forms of religion.  In one corner, Russell is cited as saying, “Religion is a force of evil” (ouch!).  This was followed by a right jab which read, “The concept of sin which is bound up with Christian ethics is one that does an extraordinary amount of harm” (gut punch!). 

Lastly, on top of the right corner of the bulletin board is a quote where Einstein quips that he is “convinced that some political and social activities and practices of Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole.”  He is, funny enough, referring to the same topic of contraception a certain Mr. Santo Cruz addressed in his March 6, 2004 Aquin editorial. 

Unlike Einstein, Cruz argued that the Catholic ban on contraception facilitates proper growth and health of the individual and the community. And to throw a little more spice into this mix of differing beliefs, my fellow senior, John Bean and a few of my classmates have expressed what in “Minnesota Nice” language is called “concern” (in a Letter to the Editor in the March 12 issue of the Aquin) over the charged proposal for a (yeeeech!) crucifix as the senior gift of 2004.  I get the impression that if a parallel situation occurred on Jerry Springer, chairs would fly!

But heck, isn’t this sort of open dialogue on religion and other important matters what a university is all about?  That is, isn’t the academic environment meant to be one where students can freely express and discus their own views and opinions in a common search for the truth?  If Austin Powers were to paraphrase the British philosopher John Locke, he might say, “It’s all a free marketplace of ideas, baby!”  In other words, buy and sell, accept and opine as you will.  Or just look and don’t touch; whatever you want to believe, it’s your call.

I think that although many of us like this ideal of a “free market-place of ideas,” a monkey wrench is thrown into things when the filthy word, “religion” is brought out.  Why?  Because religion makes universal claims that are meant for everyone, and this makes people feel uncomfortable.  “See, that’s what I believe!” we hear from the Christian.  “Ha, ha, ha! You confused Christian!” we reply, and dismiss him/her as naïve and not really in touch with the complexities of the world.  We do this – I think in part because the alternative ain’t pretty.

Is there an alternative to this relativistic thinking?  Is there such a thing as a truth or standard when it comes to religion?  It’s sort of a hushed concept at St. Thomas, and ironically, as a graduating senior, I feel almost embarrassed for suggesting it.  For, the current trend in religious teaching in the U.S. is to teach religion or theology courses as a survey of different, yet equally sound religious perspectives. 

The alternative that Christians propose to this free-wheeling, everyone choose-their-own-idea approach to life is that the human person is made to work a certain way and therefore requires a specific kind of care and organization.  Christians claim that God really made man to act in a certain way, and they claim that this is reality, not a perspective. 

Just as a car won’t work if you pour orange juice down the pipe, and your body will not work if you pour motor oil down the hatch, so too the other part that makes you up, that funky little thing called a soul, is also made to work a certain way and can only function properly if it is given the right solution.

 The only difference between our soul and a car is that we can freely choose how to care for our soul, whereas a car is not in control of its own destiny.

Robert Hugh Benson, a fairly cool dude and a nineteenth century convert to Catholicism, once explained it this way: “The Church has entrusted to her (by God) … the rights and claims of God, which none but He can set aside.”  Fairly strong stuff! Sounds almost like a patent claim.  In other words, if God made us to work a certain way, and we are free to respond or not, then ultimately it’s our call.  But when God’s claims are taken as a mere perspective among many, the gloves are off and we are though with “Minnesota Nice.” 

God confidently trumps the “choose-your-own-idea” approach, not because God is a tyrant, but because he made us to live to the fullest.  This is a message of the people with names like Thomas Aquinas, John Paul II, Ratzinger, Lustinger, Dulles, and a certain little nun from Calcutta.

So what do we do with Dr. Braswell’s suggestion in her response to Santo Cruz’s recent Aquin editorial that contraception is good and healthy for the body?  Or Soapbox writer Resipaden Mutrasta’s call for the recognition of homosexual sex as a human right?  What do we do with abortion or pre-marital sex or the ordination of women?  Or how about claims from students like John Bean who say that a crucifix is not necessarily the proper way to represent the majority of students at St. Thomas?  Or even claims that not all religions are equal?  Do we laugh them off as narrow-minded fanaticism?

Again, consider Benson when he writes, “These are matters on which charity cannot yield.”  Translation: No negotiation – it’s not an opinion – it’s the way things are, baby! 

I think this is the most exasperating aspect of the Christian position.  They have a habit of holding onto these things even if you lock them up for “hate speech” or lop off their heads for saying that marriage is indissoluble or that Christ is truly God. 

Indeed, Christians even have a habit of calling people who are so “set” that there is an objective truth and order for things “saints,” whose assistance they invoke through prayer.  Well, the Christians aren’t going to quit speaking up for the way things are supposed to work.  Society can lock them up or start lopping their heads again, in which case I guess I’ll be first in line for the block.