The traveling minister Tom Short was on campus again last Wednesday and Thursday. He comes by a couple of times a year, preaching in front of the Hub and getting into religious debates and discussions with anyone interested. Regardless of how one views his beliefs and tactics, his visits are worthy of examination. There is something unique about an individual facing so much criticism who returns for more.

It is easy to dismiss Tom. For example, last semester he claimed to be Jewish while at the same time claiming to be a Christian minister. On Wednesday, he casually told someone that she was like Adolf Hitler. Another person responded, “Only Hitler is like Hitler.” That sentiment is captured in the debate principle Godwin’s Law. It holds that comparing one’s opponent to Hitler signals automatic forfeiture, given the implication that no further substantive debate can occur in an environment that characterizes ordinary people as genocidal butchers. People deserve better.

All in all, though, Tom is the most respectable person who comes to campus to preach by the Hub. Compared to the “OBEY JESUS OR PERISH” dude from last semester and the anti-abortion group from a couple of weeks ago, Tom’s tactics aren’t that bad. Participants on Thursday referred to him informally — by his first name. And although it was strained and unproductive at times, at least there was a dialogue between Tom and everyone else.

It is easy to dismiss Tom, but such an action robs those who do so of a valuable opportunity to enhance their own understanding. In watching both Tom and the collective composition of the crowd Thursday, it became evident that one side fed off of and was connected to the other. One’s hypocritical statements matched nicely with that of the other, and their hostilities oscillated together in an organically produced dance. As one became more belligerent, so, too the other followed. Conversely, hostilities subsided in tandem.

In other words, Tom’s presence provided a mirror with which participants could see themselves. Only by looking into the mirror could participants see their own passive-aggressive tendencies, poor listening skills and otherwise antisocial behavior. With a conscious blink, one could take another, more relaxed look, and correspondingly see integrity despite difference of opinion.

A common perception among those opposing Tom’s tactics — including Christians and non-Christians — is that his efforts probably push more people away than he pulls in. Although that is not an unreasonable conclusion to make, one should still consider the other face in the mirror.

For the fence sitters — the genuinely “searching” people — one must ask not only how they were swayed by Tom, but also how they were swayed by his detractors. After all, they were there, too. Just as some participants were unaware of their own messages, so too will some “searchers” selectively choose what they wish to see.

And what they might have seen was a group of atheists and agnostics berating a Christian. The ironic thing is that by arguing with Tom in a juvenile manner, as some but not all did, said participants may have been sowing their own seeds of destruction. The question is which “side” was able to maintain and express itself with more clarity to the intended audience, which did not include atheists or Christians.

Neither Tom nor some of the other participants have learned they cannot denounce each other with such finality and vitriol. Such a reactionary environment does not provide the basis for a society founded on compassion, trust and respect that most people would like to see.