CHANCELLOR | Everyone is Religious

Every dog has its day, just as every religion has its rise. However, in modern times, especially in places like the university,  we claim this is no longer true. We claim that we have evolved past the primitive superstitions of millennia past. When we look up at the sky, we no longer see the stars as gods; we see nuclear fusion. As 19th-century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, “God is dead” and “we have killed him.”  

Modernity claims to have no religion. Is this true? Is this even possible? The answer to both questions is no. Everyone has a god, whether money or themselves, because everyone believes in something. Religion is “a cause, principle, or system or beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Everyone has a religion. 

While many will claim that we live in a pluralist society where all things are accepted, the better term for this is polytheism — the belief that there are many gods. That is the way we live. Pluralism tries to cover itself in the veneer of neutrality, but as we see with campus, that is a farce. Neutrality inherently rejects all things that make exclusive claims, which is in itself a claim about the subject matter. If someone says all speech is fine in the name of neutrality, that disregards those who say hate speech should be banned. Neutrality is an acceptable position, but it should be acknowledged that it is a position. While modern society claims pluralism, much like the ancient polytheists, they accept everyone’s gods, therefore rejecting all exclusive claims. Pluralists say if one wants to worship the gods of nature and stare up at the sun all day, that is equally valid as the Muslim fasting for Ramadan. If a cult wants to run a club at the local public school, that is the same as Christians running a prayer club at the school. While these statements are justifiable positions, they are not neutral. Calling the incantations of witches the same as recitations of psalms at Shabbat, does not treat Judaism with respect, it disparages the scriptures. 

A famous example showing the ills of neutrality is King Solomon and the two mothers. One of the children died, so the distraught mother took the other mother’s baby, which led to a dispute. Solomon then chooses the neutral option of splitting the baby, which the distraught mother readily agrees with. The true mother of the child agreed to give the baby up rather than split the baby, but Solomon understood, unlike people today, that splitting the baby was never a good option for settling the dispute, and therefore gave the child back to his real mother. 

But maybe the example should be more current. Our new president, Michael Kotlikoff, came in proclaiming neutrality. Last year, he even invited infamous alumna Ann Coulter ’84 to speak as proof. Now, he rescinds Kehlani’s Slope Day invitation because of her past comments. Kotlikoff tried to split the baby, but it did not work, because it cannot. Neutrality is a position — a bad one, but it is a position. 

Now you may ask why neutrality is a bad stance. Why not just have Ann Coulter and Kehlani both be on campus? Neutrality undermines the university. The purpose of the university is to discover truths about the world; contrary to popular belief, having values does not hinder this search, but neutrality does. Having values brings claims to the table, which can be evaluated and, if wrong, corrected; proclaiming neutrality has claims but obscures those claims from discussion and protects them from rejection. 

But what about the atheist? They do not have to believe in the joke that is neutrality, so how does the person who is defined by not having a religion have a religion? In a way the atheists exhibit an amount of faith that pastors wish their congregation had a fraction of. This can be seen in some of the reasoning people give for atheism, the first being that science proves there is no god. In the words of scientist Albert Einstein, “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” That is a miracle, but what is even more miraculous is a miracle without a miracle worker. The fact that science disproves the existence of God would also be news to many religious scientists who see it as evidence for God. 

So what? What is the point of saying that everyone has a religion, which says nothing about the correctness of any religion? Many use the guise of neutrality to impose their principles on others, whether on campus or in the White House. It is a symptom of a plague: putting politics over principles. Putting the outcome over order — a fault common to many progressives who think the only thing that matters is progress. It also applies to those who call themselves conservative but then torture the meaning of laws to fit their own purposes. 

There are many religions, and every man has one, but the real question is: What is yours? As the Bible says, “And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

The Cornell Daily Sun is interested in publishing a broad and diverse set of content from the Cornell and greater Ithaca community. We want to hear what you have to say about this topic or any of our pieces. Here are some guidelines on how to submit. And here’s our email: associate-editor@cornellsun.com.

Read More