I assumed my critical thinking students would shy away from Elizabeth Anderson's "If God Is Dead, Is Everything Permitted?" However, my assumptions were proven wrong. One student supported Anderson's claim that religion is a facade for bullying behavior as she chronicled some religious neighbors who persistently knock on neighborhood doors to proselytize, to the annoyance of the neighborhood, their brand of religion.
One student, from Hungary, said to the class during the lecture day that her family was not religious but that her parents were very moral, and that her morality came from her family. She appeared to have no need for religion.
Most surprising was a student who hardly strikes me as a theology expert write in her essay that she finds the doctrine of the Crucifixion offensive, that such a doctrine evidences a God of rage who is driven by revenge. I've read such accounts of Christianity from Christian universalists such as Bradley Jersak and Sharon Baker who, like my student, are also offended by the convention interpretation of the Crucifixion.
I feared my writing option for the final would be shunned, but instead close to a dozen students wrote eloquently on a subject that I could tell means a lot to them. I stand surprised. I'm equally surprised I had no religious students who decided to take on Anderson.
With all the talk about how we are a soulless consumer culture, I find myself bearing witness to a lot of people who care about the matter of God, morality, and authenticity.
Comments