Religion: source of good, bad
Dear Editor:With regards to Andrew Bisharat’s response (The Aspen Times, March 29) to Roger Marolt’s opinion column, I did not read into it what Andrew appears to be so upset about: you are either in organized religion or you are wicked. Rather, I read it to say that organized religion is good, but there are wicked people in the world, and sometimes they have used organized religion as a tool of destruction. Over time, this has been used as an argument that organized religion is bad. I know Roger very well, and rather than passing judgment on the non-religious, he was merely stating his opinion that he thinks organized religion is good. One can infer, as I believe Andrew has, that Roger could thus accept the nonreligious as not good, but again, that inference is not correct. I also did not read the column as a fire-and-brimstone, right-wing pulpit speech, nor does Roger judge people based on religion, from within or organized. Roger was not upset with people that don’t agree with him. Yes, he referred to wicked people, but I still cannot see the bridge between nonreligious and wicked from his writing (and definitely not by knowing him).It appears Andrew was looking for a venue to vent his feelings, and as was stated in Roger’s column, used the modern press to once again hold modern religion as the root of some of our society’s problems. And at times now and in history, this assumption is correct; this can be quantified. What you cannot quantify, and what I believe Roger was attempting to communicate, is all the good that has come from organized religion. This should not be inferred as a judgment of any kind for people that do not agree with organized religion, but by the same token, what can be quantified by anyone should not be used against what cannot.Mike MaroltAspen
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.