I read your two articles published in the opinions sectionregarding the protest of Keith Darrell’s preaching on campus,and I have to voice my concerns.The protest against the Evangelist preacher was sparkedby the negative opinions he spewed on Jews, Muslims andgays.Unfortunately, Jake Templeton didn’t know this. He argues,”Freedom of religion should be allowed.” He states inhis article, “insofar as I can tell, the man did not spew hateas purported by those who mounted the counter-protest.”He also goes on to say that the protest “seems to be a schemeby some students to gain attention for themselves and nothingmore.” The Preacher’s appearance at UMB was an unannouncedsurprise to UMB students, so there was not anytime for any ‘scheming’. Templeton goes on to say, “Beinga preacher may be offensive to some, but it’s also pretty offensiveto use his actions as a pretext for your agenda.” ThePreacher wasn’t protested because he was a preacher. Letme explain the reason why we protested and to explain our’agenda’.First of all, we were not protesting ‘Freedom of Religion’because the preacher was not promoting ‘Freedom of Religion’in his speech. In fact, he made it clear that he feltthat Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and all other non-Christianreligious groups worshiped a false god and were going toHell. The preacher also mentioned that he didn’t believe incivil rights for the LGBTQ community and that they wouldalso go to Hell. Because of these comments, the LGBTQcommunity and their supporters went out to protest him.The students of the counter-protest included people fromthe very faiths and orientation that the preacher believedto be wrong and were going to Hell. They were standing topreserve the dignity of all of the groups that the preachercriticized, not just LGBTQ community.Secondly, there is still a misconception that all gay people,or gay-friendly people, are agnostic or atheist. This isuntrue. Gay people are represented completely one-dimensionallyin this paper’s reports of this incident. Most of theLGBTQ people at UMB are religious. Many gay studentsalso believe in Hell, and they don’t take it lightly when theyare going there.Our protest against the Evangelist, Keith Darrell, is representedas an attack on freedom of religion by Templeton,because he views the protesters as a secular ‘gay group’. Thisarticle seems to project the assumption that a group of gayUMB students was simply attacking a religious figure. WhatDarrell was saying is wrong. Just because someone is referencingdiscriminatory speech from a religious text does notexempt them from criticism or a counter-protest.Additionally, just because someone is respectful in toneand passively denouncing other cultures, religions, and orientationsdoesn’t mean that their message isn’t harmful. Itdoesn’t mean that they don’t come across as threatening tothe groups they are criticizing. Why should these peoplebe treated with more respect than those who convey thesame messages, just with a harsher and more intimidatingdelivery?UMB is a diverse and vibrant campus and it is supposedto be a safe place. This campus is filled with many impressionableyoung students, who were genuinely hurt, shockedand intimidated by someone telling them that who they areand what they believe in is wrong. This article is a glaringexample of how Mass Media does not reflect the diversity oftheologies of its campus.Lastly, it’s strange that Templeton titled his opinion supportingDarrell’s appearance as a side supporting “Freedomof Religion”, despite Darrell’s main message being that allother theologies that weren’t Christian are incorrect. Darrellwas promoting the exact opposite of Freedom of Religionby sending out the message that this campus’ minorityreligions were false theologies and hell-bound. These, andhis comments towards LGBTQ students, were why he wasprotested. It was not because he was religious.The fact that the Mass Media published an article defendingthe Evangelist Preacher’s intolerance is extremely disrespectfulto all students attending this school. If Mass Mediawanted to publish an opinion on the speech aspect, perhapsthey should have asked students who come from one ofthese groups that were being criticized by the Preacher.What is going on? Why is this opinion coming fromsomeone who was not at the protest, or a part of it?People reading my argument for free speech in lastweek’s issue are probably going to interpret things theway they want to interpret them, regardless of what I’vestated, and that is fine.But, I see no contextual evidence for slapping the hatespeech to anything the Evangelist Preacher said duringhis time at UMB. The Preacher seemed primarly concernedwith spreading one message: Faith in God andJesus Christ will improve your life. That is all he was tryingto say in my firm belief, which I can say because I wasthere for several hours.The other issues that came up, including gay rights,were prompted from the crowd – which included severaloutright hostile individuals who enjoyed engaging peoplethey don’t approve of in one-sided shouting matches.Why? Simply because the Preacher has a set of beliefsthat leads him to say that gays are morally flawed doesnot equate to hate speech. Many members of the LGBTand supporters may not like the fact that most Christiansthink they are going to suffer for their lifestyle, but it isnot as if the Preacher was out there targeting gays andshouting, “You’re going to hell for your sins!”Also, don’t all religions belittle each other and thevariations of each institution due to the fact that they believethey are the one true religion of mankind? Catholicsand Protestants denounce one another up to this day.Shi’ites and Sunnis do the same thing. So do the variousversions of Judaism. It’s not the first time it’s been doneand the Preacher’s words do not go beyond the usualevangelical rhetoric.I’d like to share what I witnessed personally. He engagedseveral members of the LGBT community in anintelligent discussion. He physically embraced membersof the gay community. He was not being exclusionaryor hateful. People simply acted on stereotypes of whatthey believe about devout Christians who preach theirfaith. They probably think, “A man with a Bible must bea gay-hating bigot. He definitely doesn’t agree with mylifestyle and he must want to eradicate my group. I don’tcare to engage him in intellectual debate. I’ll just whip upa counterprotest and shout him down!”But these things were far from the point of the preacher’spresence. If no one had instigated a discussion abouthomosexuality, he probably wouldn’t have said anythingabout it, but we’ll never know because some believed itwise to confront and attack elusive stereotypical Christians.It also goes to my point about free speech: you can’thave free speech when others who dislike your point ofview silence you through intimidation.Freedom of speech, as embodied in the 1st Amendment,allows for people to make their political viewsheard regardless of how many people may find it distasteful.Freedom of Religion doesn’t mean that all religionsmustn’t disparage one another or express forceful messagesabout social groups in society at large. It means thatall religions are allowed to follow their practices withoutbeing infringed upon. This doesn’t imply that Freedom ofSpeech will be abridged when someone finds the practiceof one religion to be unpalatable.