To the Editor:
Re “Christianity Is a Dangerous Faith,” by David French (column, Dec. 23):
While reading Mr. French’s column, my thoughts went immediately to Soren Kierkegaard, a 19th-century philosopher whose life was itself a long meditation on Christian faith. As someone who has been walking alongside the Danish firebrand for more than 30 years, I have come to understand him as trying to make faith possible again by revealing that trusting in God is an arduous task rather than a cozy refuge.
There are scant few reflections on religious faith circulating today that Kierkegaard would have smiled upon, but Mr. French’s piece is certainly one of them.
My hunchbacked Christian Socrates, as I like to call Kierkegaard, believed that following Jesus was so perilous, so deeply against the grain, so quietly revolutionary, that anyone getting pinned with medals and slapped on the back by society should take it as proof positive that, Christianly speaking, they’d gone astray.
Mr. French’s penultimate paragraph captures this belief perfectly: “Christianity properly lived is dangerous to Christians. It’s dangerous to people who refuse to hate those they are told to hate.”
Amen to that, and many thanks for this artfully crafted reminder.
Gordon Marino Northfield, Minn. The writer is a professor emeritus of philosophy at St. Olaf College and a former director of the Hong Kierkegaard Library there.
To the Editor:
Reading David French’s column, I reflected on the fundamentalists I have known.
I spent my last two years of medical school in Grand Rapids, Mich., in the late 1970s. Many of my instructors were members of conservative Dutch Reformed churches. I took no pains to conceal my thoughts on religion, agnostic as I was. Yet I remember not being able to get a rise out of them when I expressed my views on their faith.
I discussed this with one of my supervising residents, wondering why our superiors did not react to my opinions more negatively. With a wan smile on his face, he replied, “Well, they assume you are damned in the hereafter, so they are trying to be nice to you now.”
I am not sure that being written off was any better than open condemnation, but it was easier to take.
Peter S. Greene Baltimore
To the Editor:
Here’s an alternative thought. In the spring of 1952 I asked a Christian fundamentalist college friend how he could befriend an atheist like me. His response stays in my mind after 73 years: “There are many roads to the top.”
Religion is not dangerous. Rather it is the fragile individual who cannot tolerate human differences, the community in fear of contamination, the sadistic practitioner of political violence, who will co-opt religious bigotry to serve his or her own purposes.
Nathaniel Donson East Marion, N.Y.
To the Editor:
All religious beliefs can be dangerous. The belief in an all-powerful and all-knowing entity has the potential to relieve people of personal responsibility for their conduct. We have all heard the maxim “It is God’s will.” We as human beings are responsible for the words we utter and the actions we take.
Larry Hoffner New York
Regulating A.I., or Not
To the Editor:
Re “Trump Moves to Undercut State A.I. Laws” (Business, Dec. 13):
The new White House executive order on artificial intelligence is a profound mistake that undermines democratic governance, consumer protection and the rule of law. Framed as a defense of innovation, the order instead deploys federal power in an effort to suppress state leadership and silence legitimate public concerns about the risks of A.I.
For decades, states have served as laboratories of democracy, advancing protections for civil rights, consumer safety and privacy. This order rejects that tradition. It directs the Justice Department to challenge state A.I. laws, threatens to withhold federal funding from states that enact safeguards and embraces sweeping pre-emption before Congress has even passed an A.I. law.
Equally troubling is the caricature of state laws as “ideological” or “onerous.” The laws seek accountability when automated systems affect jobs, housing, credit or access to essential services. The impact is widespread, which explains why a strong majority of Americans, across regions and political parties, favor stronger regulation for A.I. This month, New York’s governor signed legislation to regulate the development of advanced A.I. models.
The United States does need a national A.I. framework. And several thoughtful proposals are pending in Congress. The White House should be working with Congress to advance these measures, building on the successful state initiatives. This order moves us in the opposite direction.
Merve Hickok Marc Rotenberg Christabel Randolph Washington The writers are the president, founder and associate director of the Center for A.I. and Digital Policy.
The post The Risks and Rewards of Christian Faith appeared first on New York Times.
