Dear Editor,
Regarding "The Primary Source of willful ignorance," which appeared in the Oct. 20 issue of the Daily: Despite its name, the Tufts Freethought Society seems only to promote the opposite, calling The Primary Source ignorant instead of addressing its points, and claiming that disagreement with the idea of a Humanist chaplain is also ignorant. "From the Elephant's Mouth" is a humor section, and our comments were structured accordingly. Still, there are many hollow arguments in this op−ed.
The Freethought Society tries to claim solidarity with other religious faiths ("Not only are we insulted, but the other chaplains should be outraged as well"). But the Source's main contention is that such a union is fallacious, as atheism is distinctly and self−consciously not a religion. Additionally, Goeman and Johnson quoted University President Lawrence Bacow as saying in 2007 that "a discrete minority within our community has been singled out for ridicule." The Source didn't ridicule atheism, it simply disagreed about the creation of a chaplaincy based on atheism.
As described in the op−ed, the only legitimate function of a humanist chaplain would be for "questions about ethics or morality." Ignoring the fact that counselors regularly deal with such issues, it seems as though a chaplain would only be equipped to tell a student struggling with Humanism and college life to take a d−−n philosophy class.
The entire op−ed, beginning with the title, reeks of self−promotion and relies on misconceptions about The Primary Source that have been clearly proven false. The fact that an entire half−page op−ed was dedicated to refuting a two−sentence joke illustrates this point well. We urge the Freethought Society to attempt to live up to its name instead of promoting its own beliefs as the only true "free thought," and to be more selective when calling other groups "ignorant."
Sincerely, Alison Meyer Editor−in−Chief of The Primary Source Class of 2011
