I’m writing in response to the staff editorial “good vs. evil”.

“Whether we like it or not, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are subjective.”

That’s a pretty non-subjective (i.e., objective) statement to make. For a qualification about how non-“black-and- white” statement, there’s not a whole lot of grey room in there. But let’s take it at face value for a moment. This sort of statement trivializes the atrocities of history are just, to quote Jeff Lebowski, “like, your opinion, man”. The National Socialists? They weren’t evil (at least, not until history had its say). I wonder if the editorial staff think that people like Churchill and De Gaulle were merely “currying support for a war”. Perhaps the Chamberlains and Vichys of the world would be more palatable. The holocaust? The editorial implies that (appropriately) naming such a horror “evil” would somehow denigrate aryan culture.

Of course, these are extreme examples, but they simply illustrate a point the editorial attempts to obscure. Yes, calling a particular government, culture or idea “evil” is extreme, and certainly the editorial is right in suggesting it be used sparingly. But calling one’s government or culture superior to another’s is no such extreme notion; in fact, all people in a free world have the choice to decide which culture they find superior.

But isn’t a culture where free inquiry, debate and discussion are prized values, superior to a culture of repression, misogyny, and cruel and unusual punishment? Why do we fret over the possibility of “inhumane” treatment of Camp X-Ray prisoners, but dare not question the nation whose judicial system sentences a rape victim to death by stoning for “adultery”?

It isn’t a condemnation of the Islamic faith, or those who practice it. Rather, it’s the rightful moral indignation at people who believe in the repression of human rights, denial of free speech, and genocide of all those who d