Return to story
Consider this a response to Linda White's assertion, given in the headline ["No freedom from God's moral law," Viewpoints, Dec. 2].
I suspect that such an assertion is largely a function of the definition of "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."