Personal Choice in Religion

Re “The Do-It-Yourself Doctrine,” Opinion, May 23: Charlotte Allen would have us believe that there is some immutable version of Christianity to which we should all adhere without question.

The issue she fails to address, however, is that Christianity has been evolving ever since its inception. Which version would she have us observe? That of the 8th century? The 17th? The 19th?

When, as a society, we gain new knowledge, we have a moral obligation to examine how that knowledge affects our code of ethics.

For example, we now know that homosexuality is not freely chosen and is not a moral failing. Rather, it is a result of some combination of heredity and life experience. So, in the absence of free choice, we must question how it could possibly be a sin.

As humanity learns and grows, religion and spirituality evolve. It has always been so.

David Salahi

Laguna Niguel

We are all relativists -- there is no escape. Allen misleads us.

Even the most conservative or authority-dependent Christian or Muslim or other believer has chosen his or her authority somehow from among an enormous variety of options, and by that choice is precisely a relativist. There is no absolutely safe and reliable choice to be made, for all who claim that there is are subject to human failure. The best we can do is to use our heads intelligently and make the best judgments that our minds can make, in all aspects of life.

For those who wish to depend on an authority, I hope for the sake of the rest of us that they choose wisely and recognize that it is very difficult to follow an authority wisely. Our own arrogance and needs often get in the way.

Just because we may think we’ve made a wise choice, that does not give us the right to tell another how he or she must live or believe, without equal respect for the other’s judgments.

Allen has chosen her authorities and has used them to try to justify her biases. To differing degrees, we all do some of that.

Robert A. Willett

Manhattan Beach

The “cafeteria Christianity” that Allen bemoans is the logical result of the evangelical movement’s decision to market Christ as a “personal” savior and salvation as a “free gift,” as if Jesus were the loss leader at a department store makeup counter. You get what you pay for.

Teresa Piccolotti

Los Angeles

Allen doubts that a real Catholic could support abortion rights, as Sen. John F. Kerry does. She might reread the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, wherein the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah are destroyed for their heinous sins. The Lord is most angered by the worshiping of other gods, followed by dishonest business dealings and neglect of the poor. Though the Catholic Church is against the most deadly sin of paganism, few of its members actively oppose religious freedom. Kerry understands that opposition to abortion is a religious belief not to be imposed on people outside his family and his faith.

Would that Allen’s Republican religious fervor could be used to promote honesty and charity rather than intolerance.

Jonathan Goodman

Stanford

In support of religious leaders threatening politicians like Kerry for their “Christian Lite” beliefs about abortion, stem cell research, etc., Allen laments that “it’s a heresy nowadays to accuse someone of heresy.” No, but it is a hypocrisy.

When Allen and other right-wing cafeteria Christians can support withholding communion from politicians who supported the Iraq war, capital punishment, tax cuts for the rich and program cuts for the poor, then they will be consistent. Allen will still be dangerously misguided, however -- at least from the perspective of America’s democratic values.

Terrence M. O’Sullivan

Pasadena