News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
To the editors:
I have only recently come across the June 1 dissent from the Crimson staff editorial on gay rights. The writers argue that the pro-gay argument is intolerant to religion.
I don't want to argue with the writers on the merits of the issue, just to ponder at their use of Marx's saying that democracy provides freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The writers use this saying to support their argument. But Marx said that as a critique of the human rights idea, as manifested in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Marx was concerned that the human rights idea did not provide "man" with "real" freedom: it provided freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion, which Marx thought desirable. It provided freedom of property, not the freedom from property, which Marx wanted.
In Marx's view, this human rights idea only protected the rights of egoistic man, not of man as "species-being." So Marx's saying was a critique, not a happy description. To invoke it so out of context is absurd. AEYAL GROSS Aug 13, 1998
The writer is on the law faculty of Tel-Aviv University.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.