Although I agree with the fundamental point in Alex Parrottís article last week about the Freethinkers Club ó it is essential that the voices of atheists, agnostics and humanists be added to the outspoken religious diversity of our campus. However, I think that many of the premises he used and facts he casually employed are suspicious if not downright false.
Parrot mentioned a ìtaboo” that ensured that ìup to this point, the discourse on religion on this campus has been severely limited.” This has simply not been my experience. The two religion-related classes I have taken at Wooster, Religious Thought and Action in the religious studies department and Philosophy of Religion in the Philosophy department, have both been not just accepting of, but downright overrun by atheists and discussion from a secular perspective.
In other philosophy classes Iíve taken, discussion from a religious perspective is shot down whereas secular discussion of religion is the norm. I donít mean to suggest that discrimination against atheists doesnít occur on a wide national scale, but the number of atheists and nonreligious people is actually on the rise in the United States, whereas the number of the Christians is declining. People aged 19 to 28 are the most likely age group to be non-believers.
Given these factors, I donít think itís a stretch to suggest that on a liberal college campus, the discrimination goes both ways. If you donít believe me, try telling a room full of college students that you canít party on Saturday night because you have church in the morning. Or walk the deserted campus on a Sunday morning. Or visit any local church or religious establishment and count the college students. Let me know if you find more than 10.
Despite being historically Presbyterian, Wooster is a secular educational institution.† Secular language is normative and students are not required or expected to be religious, or to attend or participate in religious groups or events.† At such a welcoming environment, if Parrott was surprised to find himself in good company as an atheist, I canít say I was.
But there is a good deal of animosity on both sides in response to the discrimination. The atheists in my Philosophy of Religion class, for instance, were not content to disbelieve personally, but felt the need to convince everyone present that their religion was a lie. My fear for the Freethinkers Club is that it will follow that model and become an organization to further the discrimination against adherents to a religion ó† and I have to admit that the name theyíve chosen for their club does not fill me with confidence. The suggestion is that atheists and agnostics are free-thinkers ó so where does that leave those belonging to a religious organization? Enslaved thinkers? Brainwashed thinkers?
Our country is at a stalemate when it comes to our national religious identity. On issues like the teaching of evolution, the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, abortion rights and homosexual marriage rights, rightwing conservative Christians push, and atheists, humanists and secularists push back.† What are sorely needed in the discussion on both sides are voices of tolerance and open-mindedness ó religious folks who affirm Americansí right to disbelief and non-religious people who can authentically discourse with those who hold religious views. My hope for the Freethinkers Club is that they will foster the right sort of discourse, to be non-religious without being anti-religious, just as I hope the campusís many religious groups are teaching their members to be religious without being anti-atheist.
Jonah Comstock is an editor-in-chief for the Voice. He can be reached for comment at JComstock10@wooster.edu.