Tuesday, October 15


Stop "religious propaganda"


I want to respond to Jeanene Harlick’s article (Oct. 3, "Sex
before marriage: why we should wait"). Do we have to be subjected
to a naïve parroting of various religious superstitions? This
is "moralistics," a superficial morality, that the author puts
forth. It does not approach the clarity of thought that morality
requires. Morality assumes some underlying principle in harmony
with ourselves as we come from nature.

The short social history we have does not approach the length of
time we have as the glorious animal that lives within and in
concert with the mind. There are so many intelligent and
well-founded arguments that are current and currently
understandable that I fail to see why the Daily Bruin should have
published someone who is arguing something as discreditable as the
flat earth theory.

Don’t ask me for references, that’s lazy. Go out and find them
yourself. It will be easy. Start in anthropology.

Harlick points out some problems which I do not say do not
exist, but the drivel that she espouses as the answer is not worthy
of publication. To point out just two inconsistencies: The author
seems to say that if one has sex before marriage, one can never
love again. That would be news to most of us. Heartbreak is one
thing, but the end of love is not found there ­ only the
further yearning to find it again and to learn from one’s past

Another thing she implies is that love is subordinate to sex:
that in order to love someone, one must wait until marriage and
then prove the love by having sex (a prescribed manner is also
implied). What this leads to is the wrong reason for marriage.

Creative writing is one thing, flowers and clouds and love, but
in the process of reasoning, one can only hope there would be more
thought put into Harlick’s column. Have the editors no sense of

Shall we return to the days of alchemy? Shall we refute all or
any scientific knowledge or theory because it is easier to mime
things we never thought of on our own? This is an opinion of
Harlick’s which is incredibly private and, in this case, so poorly
thought out that she ought to be embarrassed to try to foist it
upon others.

Promiscuity is not a curse. It is a part of our species’ history
and heritage. What needs to be learned is how to allow it to
constructively exist, and avoid that which damages. This learning
can neither blanket acceptance nor condemnation. And it certainly
cannot be the denial and abnegation of the underlying feeling that
bring about the supposed problem.

Can we not have someone address the issues from a currently
informed viewpoint? This is not a Sunday school newspaper and I
don’t expect such blatantly religious propaganda to be published
here. There are other forums. Harlick surely has the right to her
opinion and her voice. I think this newspaper is not the proper
place for these particular opinions to be found.

Dorn Yoder


Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someoneShare on Google+Share on Reddit

Comments are supposed to create a forum for thoughtful, respectful community discussion. Please be nice. View our full comments policy here.