Beliefs don’t overrule laws of the state

To the editor:

I was recently directed to the Frontiersman website and specifically to the article published Monday, July 18 [published in the print edition Tuesday, July 19] titled “What the Bible says about a modern controversy.”

To begin, I would like to bring to your attention that I do not consider myself a Christian. I have attended many religious institutions in my life and consider them an excellent and vital resource for our community, but I do not personally choose to associate with the Christian faith. I would like you to understand that this message is by no means an attack against religion in any form, but instead a condemnation of the views that Ron Hamman expressed in the posted article.

To begin with, I would like to address the point referenced with a quote from Deuteronomy: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”

I have two very specific issues with the statements that accompanied that quote. First, the Bible and that quote reference “iniquity” and “sin.” These are vastly different concepts than the concept of “law.” The United States, and Alaska, are barred by our Constitution from creating a law “respecting an establishment of religion” or exercising the free exercise of the same. The very constitutional law that allows you to practice your religion prohibits the government from mixing the concepts of “sin” or “iniquity” with that of “law.” Your religious beliefs may require three witnesses to establish proof, but our law does not.

Instead, our law allows us to bring other methods of proof to bear, which brings me to my second point. We live in a world that is very different from the world in which the Bible was first introduced. A lack of eyewitnesses to an event no longer leaves the facts behind that event to be guessed at. We now have hundreds of years of proven technology that allows us to come to the truth of a matter. In today’s society, we may not even need a single eyewitness to establish the truth of an event.

For example, I present this scenario. If you were attacked as you left your home one day and beaten badly, would you discount the security footage of a nearby store? What about any DNA evidence that may lead to the identification of your attacker? Eyewitness testimony has long been considered flawed, and it is for those reasons that we have the courts of our state and our nation to prove that while they may not be perfect, they certainly are better than the alternative.

I would also like to consider your contention that sex is somehow a “right” in a marriage. Now, I understand and am willing to concede that in the Christian definition of marriage, that may be true. However, the laws of the nation and state that you choose to live in give both men and women a right to choose not to engage in sex, be it in or outside the bonds of legal marriage. It is my vehement opinion that any man who forces his sexual desires on any woman is the true definition of wickedness. Both men and women may choose to abstain from sex for a variety of perfectly legitimate reasons, both inside and outside of marriage. For any person to value their own base instincts more than they value the wellbeing of his or her partner is a true abomination.

Alaska has long been known for its heavily religious population. I was born and raised in Wasilla, and consider that a blessing. I would never choose to raise a family anywhere else. The moral code that most churches espouse makes for a community with some of the most kind, caring and loving people I have ever had the joy of encountering. However, it is a sad fact that it has been known for some people to hide behind those very same doctrines and use them to excuse acts and crimes that are offensive not just to the law under which we live, but to many of us personally. I believe it to be the basest offense against the ideals those churches stand for that you would consider a man forcing himself upon his wife to be acceptable, because of your own interpretation of a passage in the Bible that I believe supports the love of a couple. Instead, you use it to support the exploitation of that very ideal.

In closing, I would like you to understand that it is the belief of myself, and many others like me, that the ruination of America and its ideals has nothing to do with “false prophets,” or indeed any kind of religion or lack thereof. It stems from the utter and complete inability of people, both men and women, to take upon themselves the responsibly of their actions.

I have a Christian heritage myself. I sometimes go to men of God for advice when I feel that I don’t know what my course of action should be, and I value the input that they give me. However, no culture, nation, state or doctrine should ever give the right to force sexual acts onto a person who does not wish to engage in them, and I will personally oppose any who do.

You and the beliefs that you profess disgust me and are an offense against the many churches and systems of belief that attempt to make the world that we live in a better place. I will gladly defend your right to believe as you do, but I feel that it is not only my right, but my obligation as a human being of good character and self-respect, to lay before you the loathing that I feel for any man who uses the Bible, or anything else, to excuse rape.

Rape is the act of a selfish and worthless being, not the act of a man, religious or not.

I have included a copy of this to the Frontiersman as well in the hopes that they will understand that a true man of Faith uses the Bible and its teaching to support him in finding his path in life, not to excuse his behavior that he knows, in his heart, is wrong.

Eric J. Hendricks

Anchorage