Replies

Undoubtedly the poorest excuse for writing that I've ever seen Horowitz produce. This is laughable. He impeaches his central point in the course of two consecutive sentences:

You [Weyrich] 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."

Howowitz then marches off the end of the world with this response:

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.

Weyrich says he will have no power to convince evangelicals to turn out if the party turns pro-gay. Horowitz then accuses him of saying that Weyrich will encourage his followers to defect.

Since neither Horowitz nor Weyrich have ever been stupid, then someone is lying. Looks to me like it's Horowitz.

In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus neglected to mention the subject of homosexuality.

Horowitz demonstrates once again why secular Jews should refrain from trying to lecture Christians on the meaning of New Testament scripture. He doesn't believe in it himself and obviously has very little grasp of it. This is a very careless premise for his article. I've noticed a number of other secular Jews, including political leaders of Israel, commit theology with ridiculous results. They seem to think Judeo-Christian is a meaningful term when both observant Jews and Christians would exclude such thinking out of hand.