Who's infringing on whom?
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, July 12, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
Concerning Steve Chapman's column “Nobody has a license to limit liberty” (July 6 and TribLIVE.com): Mr. Chapman has missed a big point on the idea of liberty. It seems that the group he refers to as being against homosexual marriage is the Christian church.
I believe that most Christians are all for free will, and that they don't believe in passing laws to make the gay/lesbian lifestyle illegal. Christians simply don't want liberals changing the long-held definition of marriage or to be forced to condone what Christians believe is a sinful lifestyle.
Christians have paid their taxes, and they give some of their post-tax earnings to their churches. The government so far does not do a second taxing on this money. But if Christians do not go along with the homosexual agenda, some would like to penalize them with a second taxing.
As Mr. Chapman cited, Methodists in New Jersey lost a tax exemption on their property, and Catholic Charities was forced out of its adoption program in Illinois because this organization adhered to its religious values concerning marriage and homosexuality.
To use Mr. Chapman's terms, it's a bit rich of homosexuals to complain that Christians are infringing on their freedom to infringe on people's religious freedom.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Bloomberg & coal
- Knives vs. guns II
- Knives vs. guns I
- Resurrection? Yes, really
- The Obama Doctrine I wonder …
- Consequences in space
- Valley musical superb
- In tragedy’s wake II
- Resurrection? Really?