If someone were to try to pigeonhole me into a specific political category, I think they would ultimately find I am part of the diminutive and rarely mentioned religious left. I am fiscally liberal and a social libertarian not in spite of my religious views but because I do not believe spiritual law can influence secular law. My ideal vision of the direction of my synagogue does not need to mirror the direction I’d like to see in my government, and my interpretations of religious law cannot influence my understanding of American law. If this is forgotten, the important distinction between the two will be erased.

One issue that seems to manifest this idea is my understanding of same-sex marriage. Religiously, I see no way to validate permitting a man to wed another man other than to completely disregard the scripture at the core of Abrahamic faiths for thousands of years. While that may be a fine outlet for some, my presuppositions about religion and religious doctrines do not allow me to do this. I hardly believe, however, the words of my scripture need to run parallel to the words of my constitution. A secular union of two people of the same sex does not infringe on our freedom of religion and should undoubtedly be allowed. Call it a union, call it marriage — the name does not really matter; what matters is the human and the rights of these couples be protected. I understand that all religions pose laws dictating actions of other religions (i.e., Noachide Laws), but if you chose to live in a religiously free democracy like our own you simply cannot attempt to enforce those laws. Enforcing them would be just as wrong as enforcing any other religious doctrine in secular court.

I wholeheartedly believe the 2006 ban on gay marriage should not have been passed, and to this extent I do in fact agree with Sam Clegg’s March 10 article. The agreement unfortunately ends there. Clegg’s analysis of religion was in itself bigoted, irrational and frankly untrue. To assert that the ban “was carried to victory on a tide of homophobic sentiment” is an awfully egregious sentiment. It was carried to victory on a false idea that religion should influence politics. While that is absolutely false, that is not homophobia. Clegg does touch on this; however, to call this mistake bigoted is wrong. The Bible certainly has some questionable passages, but to describe the entire book as if it is a manual of hatred is wrong as well. Being against same-sex marriage is understandable because marriage itself is a religious word. Being against same-sex unions is not right. What it is not is bigoted. It is a gross misinterpretation of the relationship between church and state.

Contrary to what Bill Maher would have you believe, religion is not the cause of all of the world’s problems, and belief in the power of prayer is not some weird superstition just as unfeasible as Santa. As a student planning on declaring a religious studies major, I have been fortunate enough to study many of the world’s religions, and I am yet to find one that does preach patience, tolerance and peace. While many have hijacked scripture and manipulated it to say whatever they want, the unyielding yearning for peace is the common denominator between all major religions. Religion may be an easy target, but it is not an accurate one.

Religion and state must remain separate if we are going to retain democracy. Blue laws must be revoked and judgments made clearly on the basis of religion should be overturned, but a diminishing number of self-identifying religious folk is a sad trend. While we should not confuse Washington with Jerusalem, we also mustn’t judge religion unless we truly understand the layers of meaning behind it.

Jordan Soffer ([email protected]) is a sophomore with an undecided major.