Who's to judge whether I'm good, or not?

December 13, 2012 12:10 am

Consider this a response to Linda White's assertion, given in the headline ["No freedom from God's moral law," Viewpoints, Dec. 2]. A key point in her column is that no person is inherently good. I'm sorry, I just can't buy that.

I suspect that such an assertion is largely a function of the definition of "good." I found a definition ("that which is morally right; righteousness") that I think fits the spirit of the discussion here. It goes back to morality ("a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society"), which by this definition is set by society or a person. If you meet someone's morality standards, you are good.

The article implies that to be moral, and therefore good, you should subscribe to God's morality. What?

I am both an atheist and an agnostic, and I will tell you without reservation that I am both moral and good to the best of my ability. I also hate some people. I swear, I drink, and I think very little of the kinds of folks who use the parking places not for them, as mentioned in the column.

I also am kind, an animal-lover and protector, I donate to charities, and I harm no one through any overt action of my own or any inaction.

I am not to be judged by a set of arbitrary laws that men or women, with their own agendas, conceived of. I have worked hard all of my life, pay taxes, albeit grudgingly, follow the rules, and have opinions that are dictated by no one, including those of faith. My faith is in myself and those closest to me and that works for me.

There exists no "right" to judge me and my goodness by any preset rules, especially self-serving ones. White certainly has the right to express her opinions, but she does not have the right to call me "not good."

Jim Wilkins

Bumpass