- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Sadly, unlike certain others, I lack the ability to know precisely what Miss Armstrong would say if forced to reply to a question, to rearrange her words and then attempt to chastise her for what I've reported that she's said, and the drive to imply that opinions that I dislike because of my narrow mindset are 'dishonest'. It's my great sorrow to confess that when I read this, I took from it the words that were written, rather than merely imposing my own mental template of 'religion' over it and then attacking it. Because of that lack of imagination, I'm simply incapable of displaying the 'cleverness' that some others seem to be capable of by misconstruing what was said just to make it easy to retort to.
I have to agree with Miss Armstrong's point of view on the nature of divinity, the point of the afterlife, the vitriol inherent in secular fundamentalism (don't need to look far to find that, do you?), and pretty much everything else that she said. A wonderful article, all in all, with just the right questions to get some of the most interesting answers on religion that I've read in at least a decade. I'm sure that if I were violently secular, I could probably attack some of the things contained therein and pretend that a lack of acceptance of religion makes me inherently more intelligent than any relgious adherent (a mindset that seems common to fundamentalists of all stripes, and almost invariable horribly, horribly wrong). Really though, I could only do that if I intentionally misunderstood and distorted almost everything that she said first - but that would require a larger ego and a smaller IQ than I have access to. I'll leave that for someone else.
Oops, someone already did.
