I am stunned by the one-sided nature of “Preacher’s...” The article, which recognizes Mr. Lewis’ rights, shouldn’t at the same time ignore the identical rights that students who disagree with him also enjoy.    

Miles engaged us in an almost constructive debate on his faith. We listened, argued, and yelled. As an atheist, it was eye-opening to be able to interact with a man of such intense faith. He believes in an angry god and a literal interpretation of the bible; I think that it’s all a bunch of crap. And that’s okay!

Over the course of his time on campus we heckled, taunted and debated respectfully with Mr. Lewis. Every one of our actions were covered by our First Amendment rights. Conversely, Mr. Lewis’ philosophical lecture as well as his sexist/anti-gay speech were also protected.

If I wrote an article about last week’s events, it would not vilify my fellow students as rude, close-minded pigs. It would probably read “Campus Preacher’s Rhetoric Met With Skepticism.” I would appreciate an article that did not sensationalize or generalize our response to Mr. Lewis.

I didn’t enjoy being told I was going to hell while I was trying to nap, but I was able to take his speech at face value. Miles was a soft-spoken, passionate man of god, but this doesn’t mean he didn’t come to campus expecting to piss some people off. I shouldn’t be expected to respectfully hold my tongue for a guy who tells me that I’m going to hell for being gay.

Connor Franklin ’10