I think I’ve finally found people who are more skeptical than I am, and they are the believers! Pinch me – the irony is numbing my cerebrum. After I wrote a column arguing that the idea of an all-powerful God exploits personal life and politics, I received e-mails and a lengthy response column (“Faith and Humanity,” Oct. 17) arguing that there is no morality without God. Without God and ancient texts, the world would swirl down like poop in a toilet, they said. Why, isn’t God the only thing keeping things together? Oh, ye of little faith.

It’s easy to point out how things could go horribly wrong when you rely on rational and practical thought. Nazi eugenics, for example. After all, they thought it was quite reasonable to purify the “superior” Germanic race. It made perfect sense to lots of people. Bad, bad Nazis! On the other end of the spectrum, we have the Spanish Inquisition and the legacy of Mother Teresa, both of which relied on dogmatic beliefs and horrible contradictions. (When the Republic of Ireland issued a referendum over whether to overturn the prevailing ban on divorce, Mother Teresa lobbied hard against the change. Later, she discussed the divorce of her longtime friend, Princess Diana: “It is a good thing that it is over. Nobody was happy anyhow.” About this, writer Christopher Hitchens quips: “from Mother Teresa it was sermons for the poor about morality and obedience, but forgiveness and indulgence for princesses.”)

So now that we’ve given mention to the superlatives, shall we move on? What those examples prove is that humanity, whether ultra-religious or hyperrational, is capable of atrocity and hypocrisy. Things can go horribly wrong either way. So why should the “measuring stick” automatically default to religion? In fact, the Ten Commandments are an eerily practical set of rules with earthly consequences, rather than religious edict. It makes perfect sense not to kill your neighbor, sleep with your neighbor’s wife or steal their stuff. Stuff goes down when that happens – just watch Desperate Housewives. I suggest that humans are smarter than we give ourselves credit for. It wouldn’t lead to a perfect society, but there would be fewer shackles.

I can hardly come up with the blueprint to my imaginary world. I do want to point out, though, that there is not a single reasonable reason that homosexuality should be condemned by the government and why civil unions should not be upgraded to a much more beneficial marriage. I imagine the members of Alpha Nu Omega, who publicly denounced homosexuality last month, were perversely using religion to disguise their true feelings, which are, I think: “Ew, that’s icky!” Behind all that booming, self-righteous rhetoric, those guys happen to think homosexuality is weird. It’s a fair instinct – they may have been taught that sort of revulsion by their parents, church or other fraternity members. But it is cowardly to hide behind a fortress of Bibles and throw rocks.

If any of these young men are reasonable human beings, they will figure this out about themselves soon (if not already) and realize that while they were preaching the word of God, they were spewing insupportable hate. It’s easier to create understanding with an honest ignoramus than a zealot.

It’s been questioned if this conversation is even worth it. Can’t all sides meet halfway and work together in harmony? Not at all. There are deep-seated resentments lying in the pits of religious as well as atheist stomachs. Some of the biggest religions out there preach that the nonbelievers are misguided, leading empty lives, and right there you realize they are not committed to the human race, but to something of their own. And this is what makes atheist blood curdle.

I will end, then, with a challenge posed by the humanist community: Name one good thing a believer can do that a nonbeliever can’t.

Nandini Jammi is a sophomore English major. She can be reached at jammin@umd.edu.