New tactics needed with preachers
Pastiche
Benjamin Baxter |
IF YOU’LL ALLOW me the extravagance, I believe that the dead horse that is the preacher man’s tenure on the Free Speech Area warrants yet another look. When I’ve crossed through the center of campus while he’s around, I’ve consistently been surprised by his opposition.
I’m not surprised that many students are opposed to the preacher. The stereotype for our demographic clearly stipulates we must be anti-establishment and in blind support of those wacky liberal schemes.
It’s the law and we are in no place to disagree with it.
 Instead, I’m surprised at the manner of their protests. While there are people who hate God or who are violently opposed to the idea of a differing ideology of tolerance from their own, it really seemed that there were also many Christians who were talking back to Munoz.
Those with whom I’ve corresponded have nothing against with his message. Their opposition is related to the madness of his method. For some reason, they instead seem to be opposed towards how he wrathfully presents his message of sinless peace.
I am inclined to agree. I don’t pretend to argue with his basic message. Though I’ll apparently be going to Hell four times over for the sake of being a Catholic male college student who is tolerant of homosexuality, I can’t say I hate him.
Crudely-translated Leviticus just doesn’t do it for me.
I couldn’t care whether he is motivated by infinite faith or divine delusion. Simply put, he has certainly become a fixture on campus and would be a shame to lose. I, for one, feel it is important to recognize that he is not merely some soulless automaton who screeches invective with the blessing of holy authority, as fun as it has been to dismiss him as such.
Believe me or not: there might just be a solution suitable for both sides.
In previous semesters, most students ignored him or just pointed and laughed, like the whoremongers he says they are.
Perhaps spurred on by abject failure, he had stepped up his attendance to daily visits during the week.
This is when the organized protests and polarized opposition got started.
But few people have listened to him beyond when he is yelling at passersby to get attention. Few people have the inclination to speak to him civilly. Few people try either for long, out of sheer frustration, but the reason ceasefires fail is from that they need be mutual.
Mutual failures are from mutual faults. Come to him without predetermined aggression. Offer him legitimate questions. He will respond better to either and both than some back-and-forth shouting match.
But, if I am wrong about this, his presence nonetheless benefits the campus. Either we are becoming unified towards a cause or we are unified against one.
I don’t like the latter route, but I guess I’m not much of a fan of consistently needless conflict.
The Christians who protest him in his manner may be fighting hellfire with lovefire, but both will continue to burn until both sides smolder out their embers.
Though I think mutual unending damnnation appeals to us all on some level, I’ll wait for judgement that is not directed toward or borne from Munoz.
After all, isn’t tolerance too beautiful of a message to be demonstrated without screaming and the flailing of limbs? I think so.
Comment on this story in the Opinion forum >>
|
