Letters to the Editor (Editorial Policies)
Posted on January 22, 2007

Silence is golden, but ineffective in countering preacher’s hate speech

I can certainly agree that Matt Bourgault, the “infamous campus preacher” has the same rights to spread his message as any other citizen; the First Amendment extends even to his ilk. I can also agree that violent and profane responses to his message only serve to bring more attention to this man than he is worth and to further justify him. However, I must humbly disagree with the contention that the best response is simply to ignore him.

As a Christian, I cannot stand while someone makes a mockery of my faith while claiming to be in that faith’s service. If messages like his are allowed to stand unchallenged, then the image of the narrow-minded, bigoted, superior Christian will be perpetuated rather than the image of the loving and humble Christian that the tenets of the faith truly represents. I cannot walk by and let falsehood, hate and hypocrisy stand unchallenged and let the name of Christianity serve as a byword for bigotry. If it is his constitutional right to speak, it is my moral right to refute.

Edward Savoy, English graduate student

University favors business over environment and community yet again

I am addressing those who care about our city’s fast-disappearing natural and historic areas. This is the “Friendly City,” though mostly to business, and it is owned and operated by those closest to power. I am again alarmed that more of what I value in this town is going fast, despite my efforts to be “up” on the news.

This time it is more of the Arboretum that will be gone. There is a new reception center to be built right in the center of the mature wooded forest. By definition, an arboretum is a public place for trees, and removing the trees for a reception center is counter to the public’s interest.

And this follows the loss of 40 acres of arboretum five years ago to Stone Gate student housing (true, it was private property, but raises the question of how much of the remaining arboretum is owned by JMU). Before that it was the loss of public parkland to the Heritage Golf Course. And yes, it was I who wrote to protest the demolition of the 500-year-old houses on Main Street to make way for the arts center.

In all these cases the decision was made with little public input. This latest incident involves only JMU and a private architectural firm, as it was with the arts center. To me, it says that the system is an “old boys” power network; my civics lesson is to spend more time (much more time) at your city council hearings. By the time you “hear” about it; it’s a done deal. And alas, the golf course went ahead despite overwhelming public outcry. Groundbreaking for the Arboretum Reception Center begins in February 2007.

Fred Copithorn, ISAT staff