Letter: Kirk’s Bible claims are completely irrational

Editor:

Wow. How does one even begin to react to the ridiculous claims in Andrew Kirk’s editorial (“No one is really educated if he or she hasn’t read the Bible,” Nov. 13)? I read the entire editorial twice, hoping that it was satirical and perhaps I missed it the first time. Such is not the case, apparently. While I agree that reading the Bible may benefit some and even help solidify one’s beliefs, be they atheistic or otherwise, Kirk needs to check his own facts before he starts writing inconsistent editorials.

For instance, stating that a person found religion to be “much more exciting than what that person’s rabbi was saying” is a glaring inconsistency. As Kirk may or may not be aware, those who have rabbis are typically of the Jewish faith and therefore don’t read the Bible, but another book, the Torah, which has things in common with the Bible, but alas, is different.

So, would Kirk suggest that Jews are bad Americans because they haven’t read the Bible, a book which has nothing to do with their own faith and would otherwise be a waste of one’s time? As for atheists, it’s very bold of Kirk to lump them together with a skewed or narrow understanding; however, I will cut him some slack, as maybe he just isn’t familiar with many atheists. I would argue it would be easier for one to claim a belief in religion than to proclaim atheism, and even go so far as to say that atheists are to be admired for standing up against something in which they believe, regardless of how the majority of America feels.

Kirk makesthe claim, “The more citizens of the world understand one another’s beliefs, the more tolerance and appreciation is possible.” Well, I don’t see him encouraging anyone to read the Quran, Torah or Vedas. I guess everyone else should conform to his beliefs and no one else’s.

Moral code guiding Western civilization for nearly 3,000 years? I don’t think so. Last time I checked, the Bible wasn’t written for nearly 200 years after the death of Christ, which would make the Bible approximately 1,800 years old. It would be much easier to trace “moral code” back to Hammurabi, who in fact had a code-of morals, no less. I have no intention of attacking Kirk, but I suggest that he not make such irrational claims without making a balanced argument, and maybe next time, leave politics out of it.

Matt Moore

Junior, Art History