To the Editor:

It always amuses me that the same people who benefit so greatly from our constitutional right to freedom of speech are so quick to attempt to deny that right to others with whom they disagree. Anne Mills took advantage of that right in her Sept. 29 column, "Not For Public Consumption," a scathing criticism of a Christian a cappella group's utilization of the same right.

For starters, One Accord's explanation of their purpose lasted no more than a minute and a half -- just more than the amount of time one might spend brushing teeth each morning.

In addition, it was hardly worthy to earn the whole concert the title of "William and Mary Stuffs Its Religious Sensibilities Down Your Throat."

Even in that couple of minutes, the speaker did not yell, scream or intimidate. He simply explained how much the love of God meant in his life and his desire for each member of the audience to experience the same thing.

Apparently, however, that brief monologue made more of an impression on the columnist than the whole rest of the concert did. Her own discomfort gives away the fact that, somewhere inside of her, something understands that this "offensive" message is the truth, and it threatens her current way of life.

Regarding the author's conclusion that the members of One Accord did not believe they were offending anyone -- I can almost guarantee that there was little doubt in their hearts that they would offend quite a large portion of the audience members. Taking a stand for Jesus Christ and his truth can hardly be called "status quo," as the columnist deemed.

Christians know that the message at the heart of Christianity is offensive to the ears of those living for their own pleasure without regard for consequences. Paul himself warned early Christians that this would be the case, saying, "For the message of the cross is foolishness to the perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God" (I Corinthians 1:18).

However, we Christians are not here on earth to sit idly by and let people continue on in a life of blindness to the love of our Lord. Though it may not be the most popular message, it is the most important one you'll ever hear, and it is the responsibility of Christians to share that message.

Finally, returning to the issue of free speech, there have been plenty of instances at William and Mary Sings, as well as other college-sponsored events, when I have been offended by messages of sexual innuendos, foul language or statements against Christianity.

I have not found it necessary, however, to demand that the college begin separating its events into Christian and secular categories. I simply dismiss those instances and never call them back to mind. I understand that each citizen of the United States has the right to free speech. And although I do have the right to disagree with them, I do not have the right to demand their silence.

I challenge the columnist to take another look at her discomfort with One Accord's brief message. Is that discomfort their fault, or yours?

-- Lark Patterson,
Class of '00