Let me begin with a very brief story. In a Western country not long ago, a man walked into a police station and told an on-duty officer that he had a stalker. He said his stalker would watch him all day and all night, judging every move he made. If he did something the stalker didn't like, he'd be punished; if he did something the stalker really didn't like, he'd be buried in a pit.
The officer was taken aback. He had to sit down.
The man went on to explain that he had tried to telepathically talk to his stalker by closing his eyes and thinking about what he wanted to say. But, alas, the man said his stalker wouldn't reply, at least not in very specific terms. The officer asked the man if he could perhaps describe what the stalker looked like, so the police station could post a bulletin about him.
"Oh, no," the man responded. "You see, my stalker is invisible, but -- shhh -- he's in the room right now, I think."
In any particular sense, this story is, of course, made-up -- as far as I know. So, since we're dealing in hypotheticals, you might as well ask yourself what you think is wrong (if anything) with this man.
For my money, I'd say the man is one of two things: He could either be schizophrenic and/or delusional, which would explain the illogical paranoia and belief in something that isn't really there. Or, he might just be a relatively mainstream religious man.
The fact that we can legitimately define this man's actions with either of these explanations is, I think, incredibly telling. What I think is even more telling is that the above scenario would describe a very delusional, very mentally ill patient; yet, at the same time, it would also describe a basically moderate Christian.
Does this mean religious people are delusional? I certainly believe so, but that's not completely my point. The entirety of my point is that delusional beliefs like these are not simply accepted at Tufts; in many cases, the university directly facililitates and funds them. I think it's time we ask ourselves if it makes sense for a secular, humanistic school to be doing so.
By my count, there are six explicitly religious groups at Tufts, ranging from the Tufts Christian Fellowship to the Muslim Students' Association. [Editor's note: At press time, there were nine religious organizations registered with the Office of Student Activities.]
Though the particular beliefs of these groups are obviously quite varied, there are at least two traits which each of these groups share: One, they are all centered around completely unscientific, unprovable claims, and two, Tufts students pay for them.
I am, of course, not denying the unquestionable rights of these groups to believe and practice their faiths in a benevolent manner. But I fail to see why the school's money should be given to a collection of groups which, because they all extol varying beliefs, cannot all be right. If any of these groups actually does know the "right" and "true" structure of our religious lives, then every other group is necessarily wrong. If there were a GeoCentric Club at Tufts, arguing that the earth, not the sun, is the center of our solar system, would you want your money funding their meetings, bulletins and retreats?
From the standpoint of truth, the GeoCentric Club's claims are no more accurate than at least all but one of these religious groups.
I, of course, realize that cutting funding to religious groups may seem to be uninclusive and, well, fascist. But I think religious groups themselves -- with their arrogance and perceived superiority -- are essentially as discriminating toward outsiders as anything.
And I don't believe it's progressive or even consistent for a university to encourage the baseless and sometimes hateful claims of any of these groups.
If, for instance, you were to turn in a research paper in which you argued the earth is 3,500 years old, gays are going to hell, and women were created out of a man's rib, and if you made these claims with no biological or geological explanation, I'm not even sure your paper would be read in its entirety. Why, then, are the equally unsubstantiated claims of religious groups not only listened to, but celebrated and funded as well?
But I don't entirely mean to try to debunk religious beliefs. In fact, the more at-hand issue is how Tufts prioritizes these religious groups.
I find it odd that Tufts gives the financial needs of these groups priority over some of the other seriously under-funded parts of the university, like need-blind admission, better salaries for professors and more finanacial aid for students.
It strikes me as unreasonable that we'd let these goals go at least temporarily unrealized in the name of religion.
But perhaps, in all matters religious, reason isn't let in the front door.
Brian McLoone is a sophomore majoring in international relations.
