Unfortunate as it is, that is the case with this "Quad-chalking" drama that is unfolding across the editorial pages of the Old Gold and Black. First off, I must say that I had nothing to do with the Quad-chalking incident, nor do I know anyone who did. I am a Christian, but am not associated with any Christian campus organization. As a concerned member of the student body, I felt I must respond to last week's angry columns in an effort to spur some degree of reconciliation.

Should the students have done more research on appropriate methods of expression sanctioned by the university? Absolutely. Are they guilty of breaking university regulations? Yes. Should the same action be taken against them that has been taken against other groups who committed the same act in the past? Yes.

On these points I am in complete agreement with the columnists from last week's issue. Where I differ is in viewing the motivations for the group's actions and their right to those motivations. I do not believe that these students were seeking to offend, belittle or berate anyone else by chalking "God Loves You" on our main Quad.

What seems to have taken place here is simply a desire to express beliefs via a public forum, to acknowledge their faith and fulfill what they see as a biblical direction to share that faith with others. This was not a method to coerce anyone's conscience. It is not shameful that some Christians feel called or moved in this way.

What is shameful is the way that the columnists responded. In what way does a Christian's right to freedom of speech or freedom of religion go against any ideals held by our university community? The fact that people, myself included, disagree with some of their statements, particularly the "anti-intellectual" chalked messages, is merely a sign that the system is working.

Free speech! Freedom of religion! People being free to express their own views and be disagreed with! Hooray!

Students are free to ignore signs for religious groups, much the same way they are free to ignore any other signs. Students are free to attend religious meetings. Students are free to start their own group. Students are free not to care. Students are free to be offended. Students are free to be angered.

What students should not be free to do is censor and mock others' beliefs hiding behind the catch phrase of "freedom." And if they attempt to do so, then others are free to point it out.

The fact that the Christian community on our campus is the largest represented religion means that it has a special responsibility in promoting these freedoms, and these chalkers should have been more sensitive to that. But simply because not all students here are Christian doesn't mean it's acceptable to censor, ridicule and belittle these Christians, generalizing them into some sort of "oppressor" group.

We need to ask ourselves where all this anger from these offended students was coming from. The columns seemed at times to drift from the chalking incident and centered on personal religious conflicts and difficulties with "conservative" Christians. It's fine that students have personal issues with religion, because frankly everyone has them, and no one has it all figured out.

We wander into dangerous territory, however, when we slander people who hold beliefs that are not our own. To a certain extent, we allow ourselves to feel attacked by not finding peace within ourselves about who we are to begin with. We wander into more dangerous territory when we advocate censorship as a method of dealing with beliefs that oppose our own.