Rizkalla will attend UCLA’s Graduate School of Education
and Information Studies.
By David Rizkalla
I am responding to Igor Sapozhnikov’s submission,
“Growth
of conservatism jeopardizes freedom for everyone,” (Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, Feb. 7). I take issue with the profound blanket
statements Sapozhnikov made regarding the
“conservative” state of our nation.Â
As a history student, I am amazed at the
“revisionism” that Sapozhnikov is learning. The Great
Awakening is marked as one of the most materially prosperous and
morally stable times in all of history. Legislation against spousal
abuse and the forerunners of the abolitionist movement were a
direct by-product of that religious awakening. Sapozhnikov would
have us believe that “conservatives,” or religious
peoples, are the cause of all moral degradation. History proves
otherwise.
The influence of these religious orders has supposedly gotten to
the point where they are “now defining what is right or
wrong.” God forbid people think they are capable of declaring
a moral standard? Maybe society has begun learning from its
mistakes. If you were to remove right and wrong absolutes, then
everything is ruled by the next function of human nature ““
feelings.
And how often are our feelings right? Rarely. Ask the AIDS
victims in the hospital who regret that one-night stand. Ask the 13
year old who has dropped out of school to take care of her
unexpected newborn child.
Maybe it doesn’t amaze the average person that a Christian
nation could turn its back on religion and become personally
responsible for the virtual elimination of the entire Jewish race.
Is it possible that Hitler was wrong? Based on the theory of
Sapozhnikov, Hitler should be our hero. He trusted his feelings and
acted on those feelings. No one dared call him wrong. As a result,
we have catastrophic events like the Holocaust. Sapozhnikov
apparently hasn’t considered the logical conclusion of the
removal of moral standards. This brings me to the next issue at
hand.
Though our founding fathers may not have had it all together,
they did understand the value of human life enough to say
“all men were created equal under God.” This simple
principle has saved the lives of millions, yet Sapozhnikov argued
otherwise. He said, “Our nation plunged into a civil war
because of a potent religious awakening in the North, demanding
that the South conform to God’s will.” God’s will
for what? For men to be acknowledged as “created equal under
God.” Is that bad? Life is not an issue of feelings. There
are rules that govern this universe.
Sapozhnikov pointed out the Salem Witch Trials. He mentioned
that 20 people were hanged because of “sexual
repression” that came from the religious order of that time.
I will not make light of what happened, as it is a tragedy, but
what about the tragedies that are going on all around us everyday?
Seventeen million dead South Africans and thirty-six million people
worldwide would cry out in disagreement with putting the blame on
“sexual repression.” HIV and AIDS are real tangible
evidence of the results of sexual “freedom.” Again, if
that is freedom, most people won’t want any part of it. I
know I wouldn’t. Having no sexual boundaries is not
freedom.
Sapozhnikov also touched on the state of our nation’s
athletes who have taken the opportunity to acknowledge a superior
being. I don’t argue that their hard work played a part in
their success. But, you must remember, these people believe God
gave them their bodies. So, to thank God for those bodies makes
sense. By the way, I’m glad they are praying instead of
propagating the lifestyle of drugs, alcohol and promiscuity that is
stereotypical of big money games. That makes them slightly better
role models for children who practically worship them.Â
Lastly, I strongly disagree with the statement that Sapozhnikov
made regarding President George W. Bush. Sapozhnikov said that
Bush’s stating that Jesus Christ was his favorite
philosopher, he “disenfranchised the following groups of
people: Jews, Muslims, devout atheists and the list goes on.”
Maybe people in society want to have a religious role model.
Sapozhnikov seems to call that religious fanaticism, I call that
a moral right. Maybe the modern day hedonist feels as Charles
Darwin did after he had done something wrong. Darwin writes of
hating the feeling of having “sinned.” Many believe
this resulted in Darwin starting his theory on evolution, to rid
himself of the itch that told him he did something evil and that he
would one day answer to a higher power for his deeds.
It seems as though the question of freedom and feelings are the
incorrect question being asked. I believe the question we are not
asking is why are things the way they are? Why do people still
believe in a moral code? Why? I believe if we answer that question
honestly, we will find that it is for our own protection.
The conservative who says not to engage in premarital sex is
providing a way of escape from devastating diseases and
“inconvenient” pregnancies. The conservative who says
drugs are evil also knows that abuse of any substance causes
illness and sometimes death. Ask Elvis or Marilyn Monroe. The
conservative who says we must have a moral code to govern is aware
of the horrible consequences of an anarchical society.
If there are no absolute standards, whose right is right? It all
becomes subjective. I could say, “I felt best when I kill and
destroy. It is my religion.” Who is to say otherwise if there
is no moral bar to measure behavior by?
Now back to my question. Whose feelings are actually right?
Hitler or Augustine? Mother Teresa or Ted Bundy? Yours or mine?
Somebody has to make the rules, and I prefer it come from people
with a belief in a higher power. Because history has proven people
don’t do a very good job.