To the Editor:
Lucy Stonehill's article ("See You In Hell," Feb. 6) is provocative; I can only sympathize with her over what sounds like an unfortunate experience, however, since she provides no details as to what her classmate said to so anger her.
Indeed, there are times when a person reacts immaturely when presented with an alternative belief system. People can become dismissive, angry and unable to engage in reasoned discourse, merely relying on rote responses without even realizing it. Our growth in academic and religious knowledge is indeed inhibited when a person seeks to shut down or shut out a competitor with a differing perspective on such things as biblical texts, human origins or politics.
I must agree with Stonehill that we should not allow a particular view to hinder us in our academic pursuits, and that we should strive to put our own creeds and personal beliefs on the backburner when approaching any topic. However, we should recognize that full objectivity is impossible. We must be realistic -- and therefore gracious -- in our interactions with intellectual opponents, knowing that our personal views continue to color our perceptions to one degree or another. Stonehill proclaims that the blindness of her classmate "was an unfortunate reminder that the expression of religious zeal within the context of academic discipline is a severe problem."
I humbly suggest that this statement be amended, for surely "irreligious zeal" can be an equal problem in our academic pursuit. Has Stonehill taken into account her own personal creed and perspective, and that of the discipline of religious studies, or has she mistaken those perspectives for unbiased objectivity?
