- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
For all your "I know everything, I'm an undergraduate attitude", you can't even manage to get basic facts straight. First, I never suggested that pointing out that Biblical literalism is a flawed philosophy should be used to "attack" (your verb, not mine) Catholics. I said it should be used to discredit mysogonists and homophobes who continually cite Old Testament passages to support their repugnant views. Second, the Catholic church does not endorse Biblical literalism so issues about which texts where canonized and why, and the long history of alterations to the Bible would be not be particular concern to Catholic theology. Biblical literalism is completely incompatible with Catholic separtion of the laity and clergy.
This offense line rings hollow to me especially when it relies almost exclusively on the argument that you know better because its your faith. I expect then you have no objection to Islamic country discriminating against women because their faith under their interpretation tells them to so. Your reasoning would say their is nothing with the Saudis banning women from driving since they are exclusive arbiters of their faith. In fact, if members of one faith want to kill infidels, while there's no moral problem since they say their faith says they obligated to so.
I also have a challenge for you and your stellar undergraduate credentials. Explain to me why the Old Testament is in Bible. But to be credible, you need to explain why the New Testament says that some laws of the Old Testament (circumcision for example) can be ignored but others are still in force. How does faith tell you which Jewish laws to follow and which not to when Paul didn't bother (or maybe he did and it was lost to history) to enumerate which laws no longer applied? Do you eat exclusively kosher? If not, why not?
