Editor’s Note: Views expressed in guest columns and letters to the editor reflect the views of the author, not the views of The State News.
In response to the guest column, “Nurturing sidewalk tolerance,” (SN 4/19) author Nathaniel Fedorchak seems to miss the point of both tolerance and free speech in this country.
With one hand, he states that those who respond to Bible sidewalk chalk verses are practicing their free speech rights, and then with the other hand, he brands them as intolerant for expressing that speech. Mr. Fedorchak seems to feel that it is, by default, intolerance to reply to expressions of religious belief that are, in his opinion, inoffensive.
As an atheist, I do find the Bible verse he quoted as offensive, for I feel it neglects the responsibility we have to each other as human beings here and now, and encourages people to seek imaginary rewards in the afterlife. That is my opinion.
The point is that the response to speech, whether tolerant or intolerant, is more speech, not less of it. Civil discourse should discourage name calling and hate, but not debate or expression of divergent views. Disagreement is not intolerance.
Brian Fairman, epidemiology graduate student
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
