EDITOR: Given legislation in Arizona and elsewhere seeking to legitimize discrimination against homosexuals based on religious views, I recall a letter by Dave Geoffrion ("Uneven praise," Feb. 19). He felt stigmatized by sports columnist Lowell Cohn for following his particular religious faith. Yet Geoffrion has no problem stigmatizing homosexuals such as football player Michael Sam as "immoral."
There is no war on religion. Fundamentalist Christians aren't denied civil rights in this country simply for being themselves. No politician proposes legislation legalizing discrimination and quasi-segregation of Christians. They rightfully live, work, worship, love and marry in this country without legal or moral sanction. Gays? Not so much.
Geoffrion is free to publicly express his views concerning homosexuality, but selectively choosing which Old Testament verse to follow is hypocritical. Can we sell our daughters into slavery? Kill those who work on Sunday? Which "unchanging truths of the Bible" apply in the 21st century?
Christ requested we not judge others. Unfortunately, social conservatives not only pass judgment but seek to force others, via law, to suffer their particular beliefs. Why such fear and un-Christlike intolerance? In America, religious faith doesn't supersede the constitutional and human rights guaranteed all citizens. Homosexuals deserve liberty and equal protection under the law. Live and let live.
EDITOR: For the second time in a month, Charles Krauthammer cherry-picked and misrepresented scientific evidence, this time to support the idea that "science is rarely settled" ("The myth of settled climate science," Feb. 22).
This time, he cited a study that he claimed shows that mammograms don't help in reducing deaths from breast cancer, contrary to "settled science." What he didn't say was that this was one study out of many and that the authors readily admitted that their findings are contradicted by another study in Sweden. One outlier study out of many does not unsettle the science. What such a study does is prompt us to look closely at the methodology to see whether it's sound. And this one study cited by Krauthammer has indeed been criticized for its use of invalid methodology.