I disagree with Friday’s column which argued that a lack of flexibility renders organized religion irrelevant.
This argument paints religion as a commodity that should cater to the populace instead of as a common bond.
While I am not a Catholic, at the heart of any religion is a message that there is a way to live life to the fullest instead of just existing from one day to the next.
Any religion that changes its fundamental principles simply to stay current with the times lacks integrity. How is anyone supposed to attempt to live according to their chosen religious moral code if its leaders keep changing it? I agree that our society’s morals and values have changed drastically since our parents’ generation, but that doesn’t mean that religious doctrine must change with it to remain relevant.
Society’s claim that we no longer need religion “as a moral framework on how to live our lives” doesn’t render it irrelevant. What may be ‘irrelevant to’ one may be ‘fundamental’ to another.
WSU graduate student