Column against abortion condemnation flawed

In his Friday column titled “Bible not a viable source for condemnation of abortion,” Zach Holder wanted to prove that Christians can’t use the Bible to oppose abortion, but his mistakes, generalizations and ignorant claims ensued instead.

Holder used a double standard by demanding from Christians an explicit prohibition of abortion from the Biblical texts, but in supporting his position, he used the ambiguous example of God breathing life into Adam and suggested that life begins at birth.

His interpretation of Exodus 21:22 is simply incorrect; perhaps using a different translation and a scholarly commentary would have helped. The King James Bible refers to a man hurting a woman “so that her fruit depart…yet no mischief follow,” meaning she gives birth but the child is unhurt.

This text is not referencing a miscarriage but rather induced labor. It could be said to support the pro-life position: “If any mischief follow,” meaning the child dies, “then thou shalt give life for life.”

Holder implies that Christians who oppose abortion for religious reasons are following the ignorant lectures of priests, pastors or “colorful evangelicals.”

But the ethical teaching of the Christian church has historically opposed abortion, from the Didache (c. 70) and the Letter of Barnabas (c. 130), to the writings of Augustine (354-430CE).

Perhaps a better understanding of the relevant issues is in order before accusing Christians of “looking ignorant.”

Kyle Williams, History Sophomore

Column’s claims about New Atheists’ advocation false

Jelani Sims’ Friday column titled “When tolerance isn’t tolerance” bears false witness against the New Atheists, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Nowhere in their writings do any of them advocate that religion should be “eradicated” by any government action.

On the contrary, they are all supporters of freedom of conscience and the separation of church and state.

They do, indeed, argue that religions generally are both false and harmful, and should not receive any special respect; they hope that people generally, acting as individuals exercising their freedom of conscience, will decide to leave religion behind.

Religious tolerance, does not mean any belief should be off-limits to criticism or even off-limits to mockery and derision.

It means that holding any belief shall not be penalized by the law, and individuals advocating unpopular beliefs shall be protected from assault or other violence from those who disagree.

John B. Hodges, Reader, Blacksburg, Va.