Religious Identity Does Not Go Hand in Hand With Politics

To the editors:



I am not sure whether David Golding was being deliberately provocative or just asinine in his comment “A Defense of Prejudice” (Nov. 2). Evidently, he subscribes to some bizarre theory of psychology according to which belonging to a religious group is equivalent to renouncing independent thought. It should be fairly obvious that some people consider themselves Muslims, Mormons, Jews, Catholics, etc., even though they may not agree with certain tenets of theology espoused by their coreligionists. At the same time, many religions (like Islam and Judaism) incorporate several different streams and lack central religious authorities, so it is not even clear that these religions have a single orthodox theology to which one can object.

Unless Golding is really trying to say that he would never vote for a candidate that belongs to any religion at all, the kind of prejudice he is advocating amounts to a validation of guilt by association—in other words, you share a religious affiliation with some people who have beliefs that I find unacceptable, therefore you are unacceptable. According to that logic, Golding should never vote for a Democrat, because party affiliation is entirely a matter of choice, and some Democrats defended slavery and opposed civil rights.



KEVIN A. SHAPIRO ’00

Cambridge, Mass.

November 2, 2006



The writer is a graduate student in psychology and medicine.