Editor: Zak Graham’s rebuke (The Times, Sept. 25) holds considerable merit.
Christianity does not compel belief or conversion. It recognizes and accepts secular government as legitimate.
In fact, forcing Bibles on ‘impressionable” youth is a strategy that, at first blush, appears to be a rather uncharitable imposition and, given all the other media voices clamouring for our attention, it seems an ill-advised strategy from the outset.
I know I was never particularly enamoured with things forced on me in my youth. At the same time, religion is a means of examining, discussing, clarifying and developing moral frameworks and positions.
The secular mind has its moral ideas, too. Morality might be found in evolution, or take on a more utilitarian view, or lend itself to a pragmatism that fits comfortably in todays culture.
Sam Harris offers a foundation based on human flourishing.
These secular positions all have their strengths and weaknesses. Religious contributions are a big part of the moral conversation.
So, while Mr. Graham’s point is worth considering, it does not necessitate the more expansive position that ‘views on religion [be] best kept to self.” In fact, it is the editorial title that is somewhat misleading to the reader.
Rather, religion is a legitimate part of the public sphere and moral conversation.
There is big leap taken when an argument against forcing Bibles on our youth is transformed into a singular proposition that relegates all religious views to the personal thereby illegitimizing the religious voice in the public square.
This course diminishes intellectual debate and impairs the process of allowing ideas to, in a Darwinian sense, fight it out and let the best win.
And, of course, it is in the public square where argument and discourse should take place so that ideas, whether secular or religious, are refined and forced to take on hard questions.
Contrary to the editorial title, religion is not best hidden and kept silently to one’s self. Nor is it to be forced on those who do not wish it.
But it should remain a legitimate part of the public conversation as it adds colour and contrast to the moral landscape that makes up Canadian culture.
Last, it must also be mentioned that this paper plays an important role as a venue for just such public conversation and we are richer for it.
Ruben Sorge,
Langley
