Editor:
While Matthew E. Crow’s article (“”Christianity misunderstood by detractors and faithful alike,”” Oct. 25) insinuates that Christians and non-Christians alike are ignorant of one genuine interpretation of Christianity, the reality is that there are as many valid views as there are people.
Though I’m an atheist, I know better than to stereotype Christians. I was raised a Catholic, yet most of my family supports abortion, homosexuality and birth control. I have a firsthand understanding that not all Christians are bigoted, blind adherents to their denominations.
Crow says that people misunderstand Christianity because of the “”injustices”” it has inherited. I assume by this he means such acts as the Crusades, the Inquisition, European imperialism and the historical condemnation of progressives, from Galileo to homosexuals.
Crow suggests that Christianity should be judged on Jesus’ message and not on the hypocritical actions of some Christians. Yet how else are we to judge Christianity?
If we accept that religions exist for the purpose of social conditioning, then we must acknowledge that Christianity has largely failed at instilling into its followers the very morals that Crow claims Jesus supported. The negative actions of Christians reflect back on Christianity, and so its “”injustices”” aren’t inherited — they’re earned. A bumper sticker reads: “”God, save me from your followers!””
The Christian faith is not defined exclusively by the teachings of Jesus. If it were, there would be no Old Testament. The sad truth is that the Bible is so open to interpretation, anyone can find just about whatever message he seeks.
Economist Ludwig von Mises wrote that “”each epoch has found in the Gospels what it sought to find there, and has overlooked what it wished to overlook.”” Though Crow wishes to find in Christianity a spirit of love and compassion, he cannot nullify other views because they are contrary to his.
Jerry Falwell and the Westboro Baptist Church, with its slogan “”God hates fags,”” are biblically justified in their disdain. Leviticus 18:22 says in no uncertain terms that homosexuality is wrong. It is fine if Crow disagrees, but he must recognize that these Christians do not misunderstand their own religion.
The blame for this biblical dissent falls squarely on the Bible itself. If it were not so unorganized and poorly written, there would not be so much argument about its meaning.
The true paradox of modern Christianity is not that the leaders of mainstream denominations are intolerant, but that the god of the Old Testament is a vengeful, violent and selfish god, while the god of the New Testament is a loving father figure. Fundamentalist denominations tend to stress the “”fire and brimstone”” god of the Old Testament, while more liberal denominations focus on the New Testament.
Though things might be better off if Crow’s humanistic spin on Christianity were true, he is mistaken. Sadly, Christianity is just about whatever you want it to be.
— Jonathon Severdia
UCSD student
