Atheist’s Treatise Raises Reactions

I ask Ruth Murray (“I’m an Atheist and Proud to be One,” May 5) and any other atheist one question--non-judgmental, just a simple question: Are you an atheist because of scientific, historical data, or are you an atheist because someone or something else is influencing your decision? You think for yourself. You decide. And, as young people are searching for the truth, I encourage them to not only search, but to research. God gave us the choice, free will, and the decision is yours to make.

KAREN CRARY

Capistrano Beach

*

The column by Ruth Murray advances a position that should be discredited, not on the grounds of theological doctrine nor denominational bent, which in capitulation to her beliefs I will not address, but because it is completely violative of the entirely secular laws of logic and reason.

Murray, by her own stated philosophy, implies that she is a moral relativist, a person who holds the opinion that, when it comes to morals, everyone, in her own words, “has a right to his or her own beliefs-- everyone . I do not belittle the beliefs of others, and I would never try to force my beliefs on another.”

No sooner does she state her view, however, than she begins to violate it by limiting the rights of others. She says, “I have no problem with anyone expressing his or her own religious beliefs in a private setting . . . “ a statement rendered all the more ironic and disingenuous by her pronouncement of it in the very public forum she affords her own opinion: The Los Angeles Times.

She then goes on, “All I ask is that the religious community keep its spiritual beliefs out of the classrooms of public schools, that it uphold the separation of church and state and condemn religious intolerance.” On its face, this constitutional limitation might appear reasonable enough, were it not for the fact that she soon reveals that her actual standard is not that a given classroom practice pass constitutional muster, but, instead, that it simply not embarrass her as an individual and an atheist: “I don’t need to be forced to recite words that mean nothing to me (a level of involuntariness impossible to imagine in the 20th Century) to be put on the spot or to feel embarrassed and isolated in a ‘moment of silence’ simply to satisfy the desires of those wishing to pressure the youths of this nation into religion.”

If, as she proudly asserts, “everyone has a right to his or her own beliefs-- everyone ,” then should not those who desire that there be some constitutional , voluntary and momentary classroom observance, enjoy the same rights as Murray? While championing tolerance, she is, herself, intolerant. In short, she engages in the same narrowness which she decries in others.

JILL ROBERTS

Irvine