The spring semester has brought much controversy about the free thought group, Individuals for Freethought, here at K-State. While healthy debate is something a democracy should value, claims that are not true should be refuted in order to maintain fair discussion.
As a non-theist, and president of Individuals for Freethought, I have seen my fair share of untrue claims about what non-theists believe and don't believe. For example, the idea that non-theists do not believe in anything or that we have no reason to have morals is simply unfounded. History has too many times regarded non-theists as immoral, infidels or heretics that should not have the same rights as those who believe in the popular religion at a certain time and place.
Individuals for Freethought was recently accused of relying on dogma to restrain group members into believing that one should come to conclusions by using logic and reason. This is a fallacy. To say that the rejection of dogma is itself a dogma stretches the word to meaninglessness.
Dogma is an established system of beliefs that are not to be disputed, in which dissent is discouraged. It is an authoritative top-down way of thinking that does not allow for logical revision and rational discussion. In fact, to refute dogmatic beliefs is to take away their power over the individual and come to conclusions about the universe that must necessarily change with new discoveries. At one time, dogma allowed people to actually believe that enslaving fellow humans was acceptable. Thanks to those who questioned this dogmatic belief, our society has abolished slavery. No matter the religion these people had, they rejected dogma and "thought it through," using reason and logic.
We are now at a time in this country when those who have been discriminated against because they do not adhere to religious dogmas are making their presence known. Many studies have shown that people with no religious affiliation are on the rise in the U.S, constituting a 15 percent of the population. If we are to have a good democratic system, then others who might disagree with our lack of religious belief should listen to what we have to say when we organize and ask for understanding.
Many religions claim to have the ultimate "truth", thereby regarding other beliefs as false. Non-theists who are agnostic about certain questions will not claim to have an ultimate truth. We request that this religious dogma be kept out of our government and out of our personal lives.
The First Amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
To say the premise of a freethinking group is "hopelessly illogical" is to undermine its importance in a democratic state, especially on a campus that has more than 30 religious groups. Individuals for Freethought is the only organized voice for non-theists on the K-State campus. I think students should value diversity and acceptance of new ideas that question dogma, and do not harm others. We should not have to live in fear of losing our free speech as we saw with the desecration of our chalking.
It is easy to dislike people one doesn't associate with. But once that ignorance is shed and something new is learned, people tend to open their minds to different ways of understanding and rethink their prejudices. In order to truly understand what Individuals for Freethought is as a group of students and friends, one cannot simply look at their Web site and come to their own conclusions. It requires observation, participation, and discussion with the group itself.
To truly be critical of what we are told, we must actually confront it, without fear of losing any dogmas or faith. After all, nothing is worth believing if it cannot be questioned.
Jessica Ice is a senior in anthropology and a guest columnist. Please send comments to opinion@spub.ksu.edu.
Graduate - B.A. Philosophy
Student - M.A. Divinity
University of Western Ontario