Well, it’s finally happened, and I can’t say I’m surprised. Some anti-Christian organization has drawn first blood, presumably of the newly-formed Students for Freethought – or whatever they call themselves – the group recently responsible for littering campus with advertisements for their meetings. Apparently this either worked too well or not well enough; either they needed to up the ante by bringing in new people, or else finally have enough people to begin to act. Regardless, somebody has too much time on their hands, which is evidenced by the recent spate of sidewalk chalkings. Strangely, I find myself fascinated by the sidewalk chalk as a tool for communication, and often cast my eyes downward while strolling across campus. Anyway, the sidewalk chalk (always a sophisticated device for communicating profound political and social insights) has recently been put to use, with scrawling of anti-Christian messages all across campus. Now, I’m no lover of Christianity, and yet I’m enough of a student of history to know that these guys thrive on conflict. Thus, when you provoke them – and they’re certainly starved for provocation in this bland era of ours – they tend to react, and the payoff is never worth the trouble. Take Brother Jed for instance. Leave that guy completely alone for two or three visits, and we would never see him again. Of course this will never happen. If people were this smart, we would long ago have outgrown the idiocy of people like Jed. So, as expected, the Christians have retaliated. It was probably those Campus Crusaders for Christ (do these guys know that the crusades are a blemish on Western society) or some other such organization. Whoever it was, they chalked the sidewalk up a bit themselves, with quotes from such “great men” as honest Abe and Teddy Roosevelt. Their statements more or less express the necessity of God-loving for all who care to read the sidewalk to marvel at. What does all this mean to the rest of us who really don’t care about this issue one way or the other? Absolutely nothing. That’s right, no gain for either side, and if it continues, it’s only likely to please the manufacturers of chalk. What both of these groups have failed to understand is that the reason this whole “does God exist?” issue remains unsettled – in spite of many attempts to do so by people much more educated and intelligent than these regurgitators or rhetoric – is because it’s one of the unsolvable riddles of life. Nobody can prove it one way or the other and most of us are just happy to think what we choose and let others do the same. That this issue tends to come to the surface every once in a while makes one wonder. For one, what does the “Freethought” in Students for Freethought mean? I can only assume that it means you’re free to think as long as you think the way they do. It’s certainly nothing close to Voltaire’s, “I do not agree with a thing you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Of course, Voltaire lived in a time when free, rational thought and Christianity were not thought to be mutually exclusive, and he exemplified the synthesis of the two. Today I guess we’re too dogmatic to believe this is possible. The hard-line Christians think they’re right and everyone else is wrong. The so-called freethinkers are just as bound to their leftist dogma. It seems to me that such certainty is the only real prison of the mind, which reminds me of another Voltaire quote: ” … doubt is an uncomfortable condition, certainty an absurd one.” The absurdity part of Voltaire’s statement sure rings true with what I’ve witnessed on campus lately. If anything, we should be more ashamed than ever about expressing things in such dogmatic terms. And while I’m not arguing that everyone should just try to get along, I do think we could all benefit by having a little respect for the rights of others to think as they like. So the next time you’re arguing with someone, don’t just look at the time while they’re talking as a pause to organize your thoughts and prepare a rebuttal. Try to listen. It’s a much less expensive way to learn than a university education, and in many ways may be more rewarding.
Michael P. Tichy is in his fifth year as an undergraduate majoring in psychology, and fancies himself a bit of an agent provocateur.
