To the editor:

Did the Journal-World really listen? The very issue that Os Guinness addressed with great concern was the very thing the Journal-World violated in the Oct. 4 article, “Theologian touts ‘robust debate.'” Why does the Journal-World give the lecture its secularist screening? The student quoted missed the point.

Guinness’ central point was there are critical differences, all based in reason and faith, whether it be the secularist, Christian, Muslim or any world view. Though people have the right to believe what they want, it does not make their belief accurate. He emphasized the “myth” that all views, including religious views, can be meshed together in some relativistic bog. Further, it is unrealistic and “inhumane” to think that the deepest understandings of human conscience can be dismissed from public discussion. While all views cannot be true, all views do have the human right to debate and persuade. All should play by the same rules at the public square.

It seemed clear that a civil society, including academia, serves itself best if it allows all world views “vigorous and robust debate” on public issues. In the end, truth will prevail, not because of power or coercion, but due to honest appraisal. This was the “risk” the founders accepted to promote public discourse on issues of knowledge and conscience.

Frankly, it is both civil and good education to allow varied views and controversies to have a hearing. It would serve us all well if the Journal-World would lead the way by ceasing with the propaganda.

Dan Rudman,

Baldwin