Pride Before The Fall (Horowitz Sticks it to the Fundies!)

FrontPage Magazine ^ | 5/20/03 | David Horowitz

[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.

[breakem]

I've answered most of 369 before. You believe in one version of human rights and I another.

I don't understand you last question? What's the point?

[colorado tanker]

You think our rights are a grant from the Constitution or the Supreme Court???

You don't think the rights you enjoy as an American citizen come from the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

I think we've found the source of confusion.

Agreed.

[AlGone2001]

Although Jesus did not write the Book of Romans, the Holy Spirit did.

He should read the second half of chapter 1 and see for himself what the Holy Spirit thinks of homsexuality.

[eastsider]

I construe the reticence on the matter of where the right to non-coital acts to come from as an admission that there is no basis for such a right.

[breakem]

re 367 You said I was recent to "gay rights" instead of saying you were wrong you compared my date with the date the constitution was in effect. Switch and bait is a sign of failure to admit you guessed wrong.

Of course nothing in the constitution lists a seual right or the right to walk outside or the right to wear a white t-shirt vs a blue t-shirt or the right to cook a hamburger or to blow you nose. You are not following NO ONE EXCEPT A FEW IGNORANT SOULS SAYS THE CONSTITUTION LISTS ALL HUMAN RIGHTS. If you want to surrender rights to the government that aren't listed in the constitution go ahead. Most of us will not be joining you.

[McGavin999]

That's an excellent point Dan, and I agree with you that forming a group is probably more destructive to them then they realize. I just think that the only way you can change things is to talk to people.

[breakem]

You might read the declaration of independence and some of the 17th and 18th century philosophers. You can cite any source you want. It is your burden to cite the source of governmental to prohibit the behavior. I must say in the absence of your ability to do so, you have lost the day.

[scripter]

Would you accept at face value the tenets of an article titled "The Christian Agenda for America" written by the American Atheists Organization?

You just demonstrated you didn't read the link, you have terrible reading comprehension skills, or you're just continuing with your obfuscation.

The link is a summary of the book very popular with homosexuals: After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

So, care to admit the homosexual agenda exists? Or, will you obfuscate or not respond? Perhaps you'll now read the link and the others I listed. Probably not as you don't seem interested in facts.

[eastsider]

It is your burden to cite the source of governmental to prohibit the behavior.

I have a burden to defend a proposition I haven't made? I don't think so.

[longtermmemmory]

Its not unconstitutional for a state to prohibit smoking. It a state or municipal issue for the legislature. The fact that the state of Texas can prohibit homosexual soddomy isa issue for the state of Texas legislature.

I did not say I agreed with that law, only that the law is valid. It was you who analogized smoking addiction and obesity to homosexuality. As behavioral examples, I addressed the fact that as behaviors they can be regulated. As behaviors they are undesriable. As behaviors we discourage our children from engaging in those behaviors, REGARDLESS of the law.

You have also refused to adress the protection of children. You have ignored examples of groups like Glsen and Glad directly ecouraging teenagers to experince homosexual sex. This is not appropriate conduct. It is indefensible.

You have further ignored the open hostility of homosexuals to any referendum which adresses homosexual special rights. The citizens of colorado passed a referendum but the homosexual groups had hissy fits. Citizens place a referendum on the miami ballots but the homosexuals run to court to prevent a public vote. This is no reason or need to create a special civil rights catagory for homosexual behavior. There is no constitutional right to be obese, there is no constitutional right to be a smoker, there is no constitutional right impose homosexual acceptance/tollerance/experimentation on children.

BTW Texas has a seperate statute which mandates the teaching that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle. Its not part of the supreme court case.

[breakem]

you need to go back to civics 101. Certain rights refers to the ones listed in the bill of rights and then it says should not be meant to deny or disparage other rights.

Make a coherent point and I may stay around. Your remediation is tedious.

You cannot use the 10th amendment to say that the constitution was meant to deny human rights. Who gave the founders the right to deny sometheing they did not have the power to grant or and thus to deny?

You can repeat your question all you want, but you have a serious misunderstanding of governmental power vis a vis human rights. Please let me know if you ever decide to run for office.

[Maximilian]

Religious Right buffonery is the number one weapon in the terror-apologist propaganda arsenal, their best opportunity to promote the big lie that they, and not we, promote the principles of The Enlightenment.

Your lucid presentation of your position makes it clear that there is no possible area of agreement between those in your camp and those in our camp. Which merely reinforces the original question raised by Horowitz's article: "Is there any way to maintain the Republican coalition between social conservatives and people like yourself?" Your statement implies that the answer is "No." You may be right, but that forecasts a period of turbulence ahead not only for Republicans, but for the Republic.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

YOU CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE!

[Raised eyebrows.]

I don't see Trace spamming thread after thread with information and links about ingestion of fecal matter during homosexual activity.

(Don't let me forget to thank you for that, btw, Trace.)

On the other hand, I am often reminded of this image when I open one of these threads:

[Clint N. Suhks]

I've answered most of 369 before.

That’s Bull Sh!t, you’ve addressed NOTHING but here’s your big chance.

You believe in one version of human rights and I another.

I believe in the Constitution and you have NO answer for it other than reprinting the 9th over and over without addressing how it supercedes the 10TH.

I don't understand you last question?

That’s not surprising.

What's the point?

That would be an example of when your unenumerated rights have a valid premise.

[colorado tanker]

This is going nowhere.

There are important differences between natural rights, constitutional rights, statutory rights and human rights. The source, importance and enforcement of each of them is different. Like I said, you might want to pick up a good treatise.

[breakem]

Then we agree? government cannot prohibit what you refer to as eroticism.

[breakem]

Why, when you've been so clear and lucid?

[breakem]

I hope your slow and haven't answered 391 yet. Your 394 is as bad as my rants.

[breakem]

I am reconsidering my comments about beastiality. There is a thread running now "Chimps to be Considered Human" FR. Is this a wonderful world or what?

[Mark Bahner]

"Like adultery and sodomy, fornication is also illegal in many states, although these laws are rarely prosecuted."

And there were laws in many states, up to the 1960s, that required blacks in public buses to go to the back of the bus, if a white person wanted their seat in the front of the bus. Does that mean that blacks don't have a civil right to sit anywhere they want on public buses?

Also, in many states, marriage between races was illegal, until fairly recently (16 states, as recently as 1967). Does that mean that there is no civil right for a person of one race to marry a person of another race?

"Marriage establishes both a spiritual relationship and a legal relationship. Both civil law and canon law have always recognized that the marriage contract allows unlimited access to one another's bodies for sexual relations."

Actually, until Griswold vs Connecticut, there WAS a "limit," at least in Connecticut. That limit was that no contraceptives could be used.

Do you think a state has the legitimate authority to prevent married couples from using contraceptives? How about the legitimate authority to require use of contraceptives?