Letters to the Editor

The importance of a constructive campus debate

The Tory supports free speech. Especially on this "diverse" Princeton campus.

In Wednesday's 'Prince,' Arthur Dudney '05 described his attempts to end all University funding for the Tory. As editors of the publication in question, we can tell you that the Tory receives zero funding from the University. Not a dime. We are entirely supported by Friends of the Publication, nonprofit organizations, and conservative institutions. Didn't Mr. Dudney "rant" about needing to "check rigorously" the facts surrounding any stories going to print and that there is "no excuse" for failing to conduct this type of due diligence?

Mr. Dudney clearly does not agree with some or all of what is written in the pages of the Tory, and because of this, he actively sought a way to shut the publication down. We're sure that Mr. Dudney enjoys his right to print a condemnation of our publication, as he has every right to. Yet, he clearly pursued an avenue to remove our right to publish our thoughts on any issues that we deem relevant. Double standard?

Next, he attacks the Rant as "cowardly in its anonymity," but he clearly misses the point. The Rant serves as a section of our publication that puts forth a unified conservative opinion of the members of our organization. We feel that the Rant is more effective in its current form because it presents the notion of a determined set of opinions of a group of people, rather than just one individual. So, the Rant, then, is not at all anonymous. In fact, it is very clear who wrote the Rant: We did. Any statements found in its pages can be attributed to US, and not to HIM or HER. So, Mr. Dudney, if you are interested in locating with whom you are debating, you are debating US.

Mr. Dudney speaks of our inability to "construct a logical argument," when, in fact, we've been invaluable members of campus debate. Any emails directed toward members of the Tory staff invariably receive a quick, and thorough response. Further, both of us have actively participated in Sustained Dialogues with the homosexual community pertaining to issues like homophobia and the current campus environment. If it wasn't for the Tory, Princeton would be a one-sided, liberal bubble, lacking a substantive campus debate at all. So, Mr. Dudney, do you want a debate, or would you prefer a unified leftist opinion on every issue pertinent to your life? It seems to us that your actions indicate a preference away from free speech and our right to think for ourselves.

Even President Tilghman agrees with us on that. She recognized you as an "enemy of free speech." So do we. Pete Hegseth '03 Publisher, Princeton Tory Ryan Feeney, '03 Treasurer, Princeton Tory

Christians can both evangelize and work for social good

Recently, in a Nassau Weekly article entitled "White Affluent Christians Ask: Where Was God?" Elliot Ratzman strongly critiqued Christians for their "otherworldly" nature, which he believed led to a lack of social involvement. We do not wish to argue with Ratzman, but simply to clarify his position. In his attack on the "otherworldly" nature of Christians, he claimed Christians were primarily concerned with "selfish soul saving." In doing so, he unfairly judged the priorities of Christians against his own non-Christian ideology. If Ratzman's point was to contest the truthfulness of Christianity or question its philosophical foundations, then we openly invite him to do so. However, this was not the point of the article. Rather, Ratzman argued from a non-Christian presupposition to condemn Christians for how they inconsistently live out what he thinks should be the Christian life.

Ratzman did a fair job of relating the good news of Jesus Christ. He implied that Christianity is characterized by "safety" and "unconditional love." To these broad ideas we would add the following specifics. Christians believe that Jesus Christ, fully God, died on a cross in our place for every sin ever committed — past, present and future. Christ paid the price that each person deserves, so that we might live in an intimate relationship with Him for eternity. Christians believe the resurrection to be a fact, attested to by history, by the Church and by the inner workings of God.

Attempt to detach yourself, for a moment, from whatever beliefs you hold, and imagine what it would be like to be utterly convinced that God Himself paid the price for your wrongs . . . so convinced that you would die for it without blinking an eye. Imagine that Jesus Christ were risen in the flesh and standing before you. He is so real and so close to you that you can touch Him. Now, hear these words from him: "When you seek me with all your heart, you will find me . . . " and "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." This is the experience of Christianity, and these are the promises that make our first priority sharing this intimate personal relationship with everyone around us.

Elliot Ratzman may not hold our beliefs, and neither may others, but our actions are consistent with our beliefs. The "otherworldly" issues of God, Christ, the resurrection, salvation and eternal life should indeed be priorities if we truly believe in Christ and the Bible. Certainly, we would agree with Ratzman that a compassionate and loving social consciousness should follow from these other priorities. In fact, we could write much about the many community service projects and social service works that Christians undertake on this campus. Either Ratzman is unaware of what we do or wants us to adopt the particular agenda he has set for what constitutes proper social service. In either case, we still respectfully recognize the ever present need for us as Christians to continue to share the love of Christ in practical means.

Yet, it remains clear that the question of our "otherworldly" commitments in light of our Biblical faith in Christ is not one of consistency, but of truth. The question is whether our beliefs comprise a 'blinded story of comfort,' having no value at all, or whether they are true, having infinite value. Let this be the arena for honest dialogue to take place. The claims of Christ are too great to be left unexamined and untried. Vince Vitale '04 Ryan Bonfiglio '01