Mark Harminson, Ames, Iowa:
I see in Brooks' essay a basic error of thought and understanding. He concludes that without religion, individuals must work out their own ethics, each for themselves. From what I can see, this is akin to saying that if you've never heard of Isaac Newton then you must work out your own theory of gravity or risk floating off the planet. The basic law of ethics (the Golden Rule) seems to be hardwired into us, regardless of what, if any, god we apprehend. If ethics are largely the same for Catholics, Hindus, Jews, bushmen, and atheists, then those ethics arise from a source that is common to all. Further, with each passing year we read about new discoveries of non-human animals behaving in ethical ways; demonstrating complex systems of reciprocity and altruism in creatures ranging from tiny fish to the great apes. If there is a god and it has given ethics to it's creatures, then it has done so without regard to their professed religion, and it would appear in rough proportion to how import working together is to their survival. Religion is used to articulate ethics and to provide a creation story for them. Most of us, independent of our religion or lack thereof, are born with and develop ethics that are largely consistent around the globe. It is not any harder for a secular person to divine what is right and wrong than it is for a religious person. I do agree with Brooks' other main point though, that secular people still need to have institutions that fulfill the important functions that religious institutions have fulfilled for much of our civilized existence: moral teamwork, charity, community, education, ritual, and care of our emotions. In this I consider myself a religious atheist: I have not reason or feeling to believe in the supernatural, but I belong to a church (a UU) that provides for me and my family those vital elements that are the true and right function of religion.
Velma Atkinson, Juneau, Alaska:
If I read you right, and despite the feminine pronoun, you are that secular person. But why wouldn't you believe in God? Not enough evidence? Not the stars, the sun, the moon? Not Earth, itself? I don't understand you people. I pity you.
Cynthia Chase, Laurel, Maryland:
To be concerned about one's "sanctification" is to be like a kid on a car trip, always asking "Are we there yet?" You'd probably need a mental checklist, and this would tip the balance more toward self-centeredness and away from self-transcendence, I would think.
John Bennison, Walnut Creek, California:
David Brooks is a smart guy who seems to quickly dumb things down whenever he periodically wades into the shallowest waters of what he likes to distinguish as "religious" matters. I take it to indicate his own personal longing for whatever may be unknown and beyond rational experience; albeit a rather stunted search by his own self-limiting proposition, where he draws hard and fast lines between belief and disbelief, instead of unbelief. In my younger days of formal education, I was introduced to Martin Buber's classic about "hallowing days" and the dance he did in an effort to draw the thinnest of lines between what one would consider secular or sacred. Henceforth, blurring any such distinction has proven helpful in avoiding the tempting need to pitch my tent in either camp; and instead remain open to wherever the open road may lead.
Raymond Cole, Normal, Illinois:
You carry a torch for rationality and a sword against belief. Why? If belief helps people get through a day, a week, a life, what's the matter with it. "Let not the hope of the poor be taken away."
Josephine Kelsey, Ann Arbor, Michigan:
Right on target. Well done.
Sally Lehman, Winnipeg, Manitoba:
Thank you for the portrait of a secular person. You painted me. I don't observe the rituals of my inherited religion, but I believe its ethical program is a gift to humanity.
Tracey Martin, Phoenix, Arizona:
"Secular" means to me this physical world and every physical thing in it. What we can test, measure and use. The anti-secularists, i e, the religionists, threaten to take it from us. By their belief in a deity they can neither test or measure, only use - nefariously. (Sanctification. Made sacred? Beyond testing or measuring. Or questioning?!)
Philip Masters, Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Your essay reminded me of the humanist chaplain at Harvard and his book "Good Without God." I think you guys are on the right track.
Harriett Cole, Madison, Wisconsin:
I have sent a copy of your essay to our impossible governor who is bent on the evangelization of our state government. He's the son of a Baptist minister and seems to have imbibed heavily into orthodoxy. He knows what he believes, no matter what the facts.
Marshall Grad, Sterling Heights, Michigan:
Recently, I had heard on TV someone talking about Voltaire and tolerance. I only caught the last part of the discussion. So out of curiosity, I had my local library order the book for me. I have since started reading it and so far have found it fascinating. Although I am far from finished, since there is a lot to digest, at this point I would recommend that everyone read it. The book is called Treatise on Tolerance. I'm also planning on rereading Candide.
Bev Shapiro, Shelby Township, Michigan:
I was so disheartened, and mad, at David Brooks for his article riddled with absolutist language; acting like he knew what he was talking about and putting words in my mouth, as an atheist. I don't know what his next pontificating statement will be, or about what subject. How can I now trust anything he writes?