Churches Debate Sex Agendas

Concerning your article “In Defense of Raw Religion,” by Robert Benne, Commentary, June 5:

Benne’s defense of fundamentalists neglected to mention an important consideration of any ideology or religion. Why ideas are held as true and valuable is just as important as what those ideas are. Many fundamentalists blindly accept what is written in the Bible without analyzing or rationalizing the arguments for themselves. Is it correct for these groups to “evangelize and civilize the rougher social strata of American life?” To me this sounds much like Marx’s portrayal of religion as the opiate of the people.

Shouldn’t we consider why their ideas may or may not be correct? Why does humankind even need a “god” in order to act in a morally correct way? Although it may be idealistic, I believe that education and strong family ties can prove to be more morally constructive than the blindly imposed ideas of any religion.

The fundamentalists’ role may be more constructive than destructive for maintaining control of segments of the population, but we must question if maintaining control is all that modern society is interested in. The blind acceptance and imposition of any ideology or religion should be looked down upon as inhibiting free will and analytical thought. There must be a better way to maintain a moral society.

MARKUS W. McMILLIN

Isla Vista