Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer
In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus neglected to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn’t stopped a handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session" last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they said, "could put Bush’s entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."
According to the Times’ report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman defended himself by saying, "You people don’t want me to meet with other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary Bauer retorted, "That can’t be true because you surely would not meet with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."
Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.
This demand to quarantine a political enemy might have had more credibility if the target – the Campaign for Human Rights -- were busily burning crosses on social conservatives’ lawns. But they aren’t. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of Christians addressing these issues. Just before the launching of the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was asked about similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response was that politicians like him weren’t elected to pontificate about other people’s morals and that his own faith admonished him to take the beam out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in someone else’s.
The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.
I say this as someone who is well aware that Christians are themselves a persecuted community in liberal America, and as one who has stood up for the rights of Christians like Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have their views, even when I have not agreed with some of their agendas. Not long ago, I went out on a public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when he was under attack by the Washington Post and other predictable sources for a remark he had made that was (reasonably) construed as anti-Semitic. I defended Weyrich because I have known him to be a decent man without malice towards Jews and I did not want to see him condemned for a careless remark. I defended him in order to protest the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited culture than we were.
I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is out there that the party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the leaders of the pro-family community will be unable to help turn out the pro-family voters. It won’t matter what we say; people will leave in droves."
This is disingenuous, since you are a community leader and share the attitude you describe. In other words, what you are really saying is that if the mere perception is that the Republican Party has accepted the "homosexual agenda," you will tell your followers to defect with the disastrous consequences that may follow. As a fellow conservative, I do not understand how in good conscience you can do this. Are you prepared to have President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside over our nation’s security? Do you think a liberal in the White House is going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you be thinking?
In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?
In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn’t it the heart of the conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it, leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian males?
If the President’s party – or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans and seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values that forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you nor anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what those values are.
So what is that little spark I get when I see the twins on the Coors ads??
Ummm.... I wonder what Bible this guy is reading?
For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.' " Matt 15:19-20
"He went on: "What comes out of a man is what makes him 'unclean.' For from within, out of men's hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and make a man 'unclean.' " Mark 7:20-23
Since the Republican party decided to put a lot more effort into courting the gays than into their core base of social conservatives. This was just one more incident in a long developing pattern. The real point of the meeting was the lack of White House support for Sen. Rick Santorum. The RNC has no time to defend one of their own, but plenty of time to meet with the sodomite PAC.
So what is that little spark I get when I see the twins on the Coors ads??Hedonism.
Are you trying to tell me that Racicot was meeting with the gays in order to "witness" to them? I don't think so. In fact, in an earlier story he specifically denied that he was doing anything of the sort. And his questions to the Bauer, Weyrich, etc. group indicated that he had not even the faintest grasp of the reasons for their objections. It just wasn't on his radar screen.
David Horowitz should obviously become a chr*stian.
I don't give a hoot what the Nazarene said about anything. G-D A-MIGHTY in the Seven Noachide Laws, given to 'Adam, to Noach, and finally to all mankind in the Sinai revelation, makes homosexuality a capital offense.
But you know what'll happen. Those Israel-hating "palaeos" will take this endorsement of their beloved J*sus by Horowitz and cite this as evidence of the alleged "promotion" of homosexuality by Torah Judaism. Oh well.
I used to respect David Horowitz. Not any more.
I (and I believe most Christians) care about many things in the New Testament far more than the teaching on homosexuality, and would love to spend more time concentrating on those issues. Nevertheless, the homosexual lobby has made acceptence of thier particular perversity into the litmus test for social tolerance in America today, and as such have set themselves up in direct conflict with Christian morals. It is an attack that demands a response
In other words, when they shut up, we'll shut up.
I was wondering about that myself.
If you don't mind, I believe I'll take YOUR characterization of Horowitz as fact; I value YOUR opinion in these matters more than his.
Obviously. Apparently, Horowitz is one of them.
So how do you reconcile using the bible as the basis for political ideology?
I hope to make it the singular basis for my ideologies, political and all others.
Regardless, my only and very specific objective was to point out the error in giving the four Gospels and/or the words attributed to Christ more weight than any other part of the bible, as Horowitz does.
It's a new disease: Acquired Gary Bauer Syndrome.
Newsflash for you: one cannot advocate the violation of basic principles of morality and be considered a "good conservative."
Second newsflash: Jews have always detested homosexuality even more than Christians. Ask any Orthodox Jews what is G-d's teaching about homosexuality. You'll soon find out whether one has to "believe Christian theology" in order to oppose the agenda of the militant homosexuals.
You could turn the other cheek ;)
Seriously though... I know many mainline people who are not pro-homosexuality, and they don't let it consume their days. They do good works, they love their fellow man, and they lead not through violence of word, but through joy at being touched by the word.
If I was a homosexual, being yelled at by somebody frothing at the mouth, would not be a good selling point to see the errors of my ways. On the other hand, if I saw a happy, compassionate man, with a family, overcome by love for their fellow man, their family, their savior, their God... that is the person I would listen to if I wanted to change my ways.
The homosexual hating crowd, in my mind, does fall into the trap of hating the sinner, and not just the sin. They are filled with hatred, spewing from the depths of their hearts. It is why they are so unsucessful at affecting real change. But yelling epithats on street corners feels better, than compassionately teaching somebody the errors in their ways, with love and goodness in their hearts.
43 - 28 - 76 - Hut Hut Hike! LOL!
I honestly don't know why you even show up for these threads if all you ever do is cut-n-paste the same tired links that no one is going to read. It's almost amuzing.
I agree that Christian and Jewish scripture calls on believers not to engage in gay sex. But many secularists (including practicing Christians and Jews of the liberal persuasion) believe those passages are not binding on the faithful. It is not for the Republican Party to resolve the religious war between libs and fundy's, but to put out a clear conservative message and if gays like the message and vote Republican, its just fine with me. Apparently about a third do.
I disagree with Horowitz about a "gay agenda." Its a bad term because it labels all gays, but there is an agenda by the radical gay public interest groups to extend Civil Rights Act protection to gays, allow gay marriage and to use this special status to impose acceptance and secularism, to run practicing Christians from out of the schools, government and public life. Not all gays agree with this agenda.
This is good advice which I would be wise to heed. My point was the hypocrisy of those who try to use the Bible for their own purposes when they themselves don't believe. That applies to Horowitz for one, and the poster for another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.