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.
The political reality is that homosexuality exists and homosexuals, even if an extreme minority, are in fact a part of our society. Seeking to find common ground on political issues with someone whom we may disagree with on religious/moral issues would seem to be prudent and reasonable. However there will always be those with the 'my way or the highway' approach to morality, religion, and politics - which they seem to see as one issue.
I can certainly understand how this appeals to them politically ... its a proven winner .... just look at how well Buchanen fared in the last election...
Thankfully, some things go with out saying. Homos are all about hate. They hate their neighbors. They manifest their hatred with their obscene sexual effrontery even to the extent of sodomy which is torture, plain and simple, one of the most hateful acts which one human can inflict upon another or upon themselves. I rather have 10,000 crosses burn in my front lawn than the have one of my children raped (mentally or physically) by a pervert. Christians cannot be expected to make sin v. sinner distinctions with a class of repropates who insist upon characterizing themselves by their reprobation. You can't peacfully disagree with a pervert about perversion because to win is to destroy. A pervert reformed is a pervert no more. Jesus said: "Go and sin no more". He never said: "I luuuuuuv you jest the way ya are..." ...that would have been truely hateful!?!?!?
What does abortion have to do with homosexuality? There are more female FReepers who have had abortions than gay men in the entire US.
BTW, since when do gays not have the same civil rights as everyone else? What civil right are they lacking? Also, are you talking about decriminalization on a state or a federal-constitutional level?
And yet we sit and wonder why conservatives are accused of 'hate speech' and intolerance. I am literally shocked and stunned. Domestic politics is not a war, it is a struggle amongst our own, with sides shifting and new balances arising. Politics and religion are not about destroying those with whom you disagree. Your statement is truly one of the most disturbing things I have ever read on this site.
Also, see Mark 7, where Jesus Himself tells us: "Hear me, all of you, and understand. Nothing that enters one from outside can defile that person; but the things that come out from within are what defile."
Of course, people are going to interpret things different ways, but it's not fair to characterize Christians as hypocritical when there is certainly a plausible interpretation that allows the eating of pork.
Furthermore, the Boy Scouts have a First Amendment "right of association" to make those kinds of practical judgments to protect children in their programs. So says the US Supreme Court. So, it is not the protection of "homosexual rights," but the protection of the recognized Constitutional rights of groups that are under attack.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, now up FR, "The Knight of Draper's Liquor Store."
I asked you a question. I didn't say you said anything. Now this is my quote: "Reality? Are you saying that all artists are gay or that all gays are artists?" Instead of answering my question, you ask a question. Nice attempt at diversion.
If the purpose of this meeting is to gather information about their real goals, and if the GOP will indeed reject those goals to the extent that they include special treatment, then the meeting is okay. But social conservatives are concerned that the GOP may have an interest in compromising with such goals rather than rejecting them. There is no certainty that this will be the case, but social conservatives perceive that the risk exists, and this makes them uncomfortable with the meeting. This doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Your apology is most graciously and humbly accepted.
I am sorry that I reacted emotionally, but as an observant Noachide I am so sensitive to (and unfortunately accustomed to) the stereotype that chr*stians are "Bible-believers" and defenders of morality while Jews are liberal non-believers.
Unfortunately, Reform (Liberal) Judaism is the primary form of Judaism practiced in the USA. As long as they misinterprate Tikkun Olam as working to give more people the opportunity to get abortions, engage in homosexual propaganda in schools and elect democrats to positions of power, that misconception will continue.
I am furious at Horowitz for publicly condemning the Torah's anti-homosexual attitude, a position for which his Jewishness will be blamed, you may be sure. Yet he had to invoke J*sus to make his liberal point! (This is not the first case of a Jewish liberal having to invoke the "arch-conservative" J*sus to justify his position.)
Well, I don't know that his position on homosexuality is will be blamed on Jews in general but his quoting J-sus seems silly for a non J-sus believer. If you don't belive J-sus is the messiah, you need to be careful about quoting him to back up other arguments.
I saw your initial post to joesnuffy and, instead of first checking your other posts or your posting history, reacted emotionally.
You actually looked at my past posting history? I'm touched.
I certainly do not consider belief in the "new testament" to be necessary for one to be a "true conservative" (in fact, no believer in a "new testament" can truly be a conservative).
Well, I don't know about that, like you said in your earlier comment hints at, the fact of the matter is, the republican party is filled (mostly) with x-ians. Orthodox Jews are just starting to gain any kind of inroads into republican political life. Also the NT does reiterate most of the 10 commandments and actually strengthens their reach.
However, Horowitz has done real damage and this cannot be brushed under the rug. However hypocritical his chr*stian critics, he deserves only condemnation and no defense. Biblical morality has again been identified with chr*stianity, and opposition to Biblical law again identified with Judaism. G-d help us.
I don't know about that. Although I think that a Jew quoting J-sus is a bit disingenuous, I feel he was simply trying to reach his audience (Bauer and the like) on their own (NT) turf.
As for myself, I am an observant Noachide, which means that although not Jewish I acknowledge the Torah as G-d's Ultimate Truth. I utterly reject chr*stianity and every other false religion.
I am glad you took the time to clear that up, I was confused when you were making reference to Netzrim, which are basically Messianic Jews.
However, while your consternation at the chr*stians is understandable, you are wrong to demand that they first observe the entire Torah before having the right to condemn homosexuality. As a matter of fact, non-Jews are explicitly not supposed to observe the Shabbat or Yamim Tovim as Jews do (though life is to revolve around the Jewish calendar), and there are other Jewish laws which are explicitly forbidden to non-Jews as well.
I would respectully disagree with you on the sabbath issue. The first sabbath was not celebrated during the exodus but at creation, when G-d rested and called on Adam and Eve to rest with Him in the garden. As for oberving them "as the Jews do," I am not asking them to start wearing kippahs and speaking in transliterated hebrew, but I am asking them to take a deeper look into the marvelous jewel of Torah.
As for others (such as eating pork), while they may be voluntarily adopted by non-Jews, they are not and cannot be considered absolute requirements. Non-Jews are forbidden only to eat meat or drink blood taken from an animal while it was still alive. Therefore you are mistaken to imply that non-Jews are not supposed to eat pork and are "picking and choosing" if they do otherwise. (In fact, non-Jews are permitted to bring as whole burnt offerings any clean beast, as Noach did, and are not restricted to those animals permitted as sacrifices to Jews.)
Well pork would still not be considered a worthy sacrificial animal. If Noah had been given the right to eat pork, pigs would have gone extinct pretty quickly, as G-d told Noah to only bring one pair of pigs onto the ark. So I can't see G-d giving Noah and his son's permission (or his descendents by extension) to eat ham and cheese sandwiches.
Another interesting note (that you probably know already) is that the NT actually calls on X-ians to live on a "noachide" path. Acts 15: 19-21 calls on the gentile believers to abstain from idols, fornication, from strangled meat and from blood. They presumed that the gentiles would learn the rest of Torah and gradually apply to their lives as they went to the synogogue every sabbath and heard the Torah read. They never would have condoned gentile x-ians continuing to eat pork for the rest of their lives.
While I was wrong, I nevertheless urge you to be extremely cautious so as to avoid giving false impressions of Judaism. I realize that considering my own impetuosity this is somewhat hypocritical, but at least my idiosyncracies aren't likely to be applied to the entire Jewish people.
Note well taken. I will be more careful to make note of when I am making a "jewish" statement versus a "tamar" statement.
May G-d's peace be with you.
Yet more proof that neoconservatives are not real conservatives.The neoconservatives are purse-proud libertarians who have temporarily allied with conservatives to prevent Liberals from taxing away their income.
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.