It was beyond disappointing that letter writer Rudy Gagliardi, (“It's my God,” Oct. 4) completely misconstrued my previous letter (“Whose God?,” Sept. 11).
My simple point was intolerance has no place in 21st-century society. He used the historic examples I raised, such as the Inquisition, the great witch hunt and the institution of slavery — all acts involving self-described Christians — to infer that I was mocking God. That is illegitimate nonsense.
As a Baptist, I choose to believe that the precepts Jesus practiced, such as compassion, acceptance, brotherhood and forgiveness, should hold greater sway than anyone's self-serving prejudice and condemnation of others. Since we're all deeply flawed, how can anyone attest that someone else is a greater sinner?
Mr. Gagliardi's ongoing homophobic crusade may also have hidden consequences. Will he hold himself responsible?
In “Constantine's Sword,” a National Book Award winner penned by a former Catholic priest, there is a passage that directly applies: “In 1998, a young gay man, Matthew Shepard, was murdered in Wyoming. His killers had tortured him and, in effect, crucified him by hanging him on a fence.”
The question poses itself: What is the relationship between violent attacks on homosexuals and open contempt for gays expressed by respectable people and organizations? New Your Times columnist Frank Rich offers one answer: “It's a story as old as history. Once any group is successfully scapegoated as a subhuman threat to ‘normal' values by a propaganda machine, emboldened thugs take over.”
My sole, unadulterated message is that understanding and living in harmony with others deserve a revered abode in even the most hardened heart.
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.