They both read the Bible
Published: Monday, Sept. 2, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
I read Joseph Mistick's column “Francis vs. Daryl” (VND, Aug. 11). I don't usually read anything written by Mistick but wondered what Francis and Daryl he was referring to. I finally figured out he was talking about the pope and state Rep. Metcalfe, one of my favorite politicians.
I hate to be the one to burst Joe's bubble but there is no direct conflict between Pope Francis and Rep. Metcalfe. Both of these men know that homosexuality and abortion are sins against God.
The pope has no need to judge what God has already judged many times in the Bible. Don't look for same-sex marriage in the Catholic church anytime soon.
Did Attorney General Kathleen Kane take an oath to defend the laws of Pennsylvania? If so, what gives her the right to pick and choose what laws to defend? That right is reserved for Attorney General Eric Holder.
What authority does the Montgomery County register of wills have to issue a marriage license to whomever he pleases? He and Kane are incompetent and should be removed from office.
One final word to professor Mistick: In Colonial America, homosexuality was a crime punishable by death, as it is in some Arab countries today. Does that sound like the freedoms envisioned by the Founders?
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.
- ‘Navigators’ for ID?
- Issue: Facility’s use
- Preaching vs. practice
- One true almighty
- PAMS late fees outrageous
- Trail & hunters
- Peace undeserved
- Prison would be too much
- Antiquated criterion
- Don’t hold your breath
- Best to not regulate