Getting the definition of “attack” right

Re: “Religious freedom is under attack from the left,” Nov. 20 commentary

There’s a certain, but very sad, irony in the fact The Denver Post ran a Kristin Kafer column in Sunday’s paper claiming religious freedom is under attack by the left the morning after a mass shooting in Colorado Springs at an LGBTQ nightclub killed five and wounded 18. There may be a legitimate question about Catholic schools and their right to discriminate against students who identify as the gender opposite their biological gender. However, that’s not an attack; that’s an issue.

An attack is what happened in Colorado Springs early Sunday morning that denied everybody at the club their fundamental constitutional rights. Murder as a hate crime, murder with an assault rifle, is murder, pure and simple. It’s a violent attack on all Americans and all of our rights. I, for one, hope readers of The Denver Post and all Coloradans understand and recognize the difference.— Douglas Hartman, Loveland

Krista Kafer wants you to believe that religious freedom is under attack from the left. That is not the case. No one is stopping religious entities from practicing their religion. Let’s make it clear. What is under attack from the left is outright homophobic discrimination of same- sex marriage by religious entities.

Religions and their doctrines are based solely on a belief with absolutely no proof that their beliefs have any validity. You can believe anything you want, such as Donald Trump is the second coming of the messiah or that he won the 2020 election, but your belief does not make it so. A belief that same- sex marriage is wrong is just a belief. But to those of us who are not religious or who are religious but don’t blindly believe church doctrine, this belief is rightly called discrimination. It’s an excuse to discriminate simply because you are uncomfortable with same- sex marriage.

— Jim Ciha, Grand Junction

Krista Kafer decries possible government intervention in churches and religious schools, fearing that such intervention would prohibit discriminatory conduct that would be illegal in a nonreligious setting. She cites the Denver Archdiocese and Valor Christian High School as examples. I agree that government shouldn’t be involved in religion. Let’s start by eliminating the property tax exemption for churches, which amounts to a government ( taxpayer) subsidy.

Many of these mega- churches sit on enormous and expensive properties yet do not pay the property taxes that their neighbors do. They also pay no income taxes. Yet they enjoy the government benefits that others’ taxes pay for, such as police and fire protection, road maintenance, etc.

As for Valor Christian High School, I see it received more than $ 2 million from the U. S. government in PPP loans during the pandemic. By all means, let’s keep the government out of religious organizations. But if they don’t want to follow the same laws as the rest of us, I don’t want to pay taxes to support them.

— Jim Dieterich, Denver

Even when I agree with Krista Kafer, I feel the need to keep my distance. Her argument that we, the people, cannot force our value of inclusivity and equality on religious institutions is valid. Certainly, it is pretty naive for an LGBT individual to choose to attend or work for a church or school that doesn’t value him or her beyond the money he or she contributes. As long as an institution is transparent about whom they allow to be full members and, if not all are welcome, they don’t ask for the taxpayers to fund them, or give them a tax exemption, it is really up to the consumer to “caveat emptor.”

The law cannot force a private club to accept you or value you or your children. Just because they accept your dues doesn’t mean they want you there. I would appreciate it if places of business would just post a list of those they refuse to serve. Those who are offended by the list don’t need to protest or file a costly lawsuit. They can simply spend their money at places that value their business. In the U. S., the separation of church and state is often about where you spend your money.

Pretending that you can buy yourself into acceptance is folly. Pretending that your institution is one of loving acceptance and inclusivity is false advertising.

— Lynn Buschhoff, Denver

With all the whining from the pseudo- persecuted, the worship of God is getting lost in translation.

Criticism comes from individuals, and not all of them are liberals. In this country we use our voices loudly and with great enthusiasm. Buckle up: That won’t change unless we descend into dictatorship.

Religious edicts coming from fallible mortals should be met with the same debate as any other topic.

Our government is not now, nor will ever, impinge on religious freedom as long as we stick to our democratic principles.

If faith- based organizations want government grants, then the government has a duty to see that those monies are dispersed for equitable, non- discriminatory purposes.

If a for- profit business is licensed, then personal prejudice can not hide behind sanctimonious posturing. I have yet to see a business person fined or arrested for praising the deity in their own shop in front of customers.

The Bill of Rights protects religion from government. Who is going to protect the government from religion? If not this Supreme Court, or apparently Krista Kafer, the duty falls to those who respect the separation of church and state.

— Helen Kern, Aurora