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.
He runs away when the health hazards of the homosexual life are presented, and this using objective stats.
tdadams uses misdirection when you respond to his questions when he says your input strays from what he's talking about. Apparently tdadams only believes the mainstream press when it comes to anything homosexual.
It doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a family to raise a child. And it takes a community to allow that family to exist. And it takes a State to enable that community to exist. And it takes a Faith to legitimize the authority of that State. And it takes a Savior to create the Faith that allows the human race to exist.
That is the Western vision of the universe: a cosmic hierarchy, with Christ as Lord and King at the top, and all of us His subjects, ordered into principalities and manors as He sees fit; each of us equal in dignity while unequal in authority. This is the Christian paradigm of reality: all Existence a cosmic Family, with the Fatherhood of God, the Sonship of Christ, and the Love of the Holy Spirit at its head, bound to our Mother, the Blessed Virgin as our Parents, and each of us their children equal in dignity but unequal in rank and responsibility. Death through Eve, life through Mary; damnation through Adam, salvation through Jesus Christ. The basic plan of the universe is reflected "on Earth as it is in Heaven" -- it is the family, not the individual, that is the basic unit of creation.
That belief is the core of true conservatism. The Enlightenment Conservatism of Self we champion today is only a pale substitute for the real thing.
Sorry, you couldn't be more mistaken. These are indeed random samples of those who voted.
And it is a nationwide sample.
Normally, national polls interview 500 to 1000 people and then have a margin of error of 3 or 4%.
This exit poll interviewed over 16,000 people. So, yes, it is far, far more in depth and accurate than a normal poll.
And its results exactly mirror the results of the actual election.
Look at the breakdown of the races and sexes, how they voted, etc. They mirror their percentage in the population at large.
The statistics are about as dead on correct as we are going to get. shred
No these are called a sample of “convenience”. What was the response rate and where are those percentages listed or are you saying 100% of 16,000 responded? Where is the control group?
And it is a nationwide sample.
Maybe but it doesn’t state how it’s a random sample and represents the entire population.
Normally, national polls interview 500 to 1000 people and then have a margin of error of 3 or 4%.
That has absolutely nothing to do with how margin of error is calculated.
This exit poll interviewed over 16,000 people. So, yes, it is far, far more in depth and accurate than a normal poll.
A “convenience sample” – regardless of its size – that represents the entire population cannot be known.
And its results exactly mirror the results of the actual election. Look at the breakdown of the races and sexes, how they voted, etc. They mirror their percentage in the population at large.
Garbage in Garbage out.
The statistics are about as dead on correct as we are going to get.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
I believe that's a safe bet. I vote republican because they best represent my social conservative views. When they no longer represent my views I'll change how I vote, and that could happen any time, although I find Dubya very supportable.
He's posted no 'historical facts' to me. Just about his obsessional links on queers.
I don't see him as being "obsessed". Links he posted are accurate and true.
So you claim, but I could care less about the 'gay' movement.
I can't help but wonder why you are so emotionally disturbed when one highlights the negative impact gays have had on history? Are you gay? Bisexual?
Nope, But its really weird, and emotional of you to ask that. Must be more than a bit disturbed yourself, imo.
If not, what exactly is your problem?
My 'problem' is the way you fellas want to ignore our constitution in order to control 'morality'. --That's not the job of the government in a free republic.
Just because you don't like or don't agree with my retorts doesn't mean they're obfuscation and misdirection. I think you've gotten so accustomed to throwing out those baseless charges whenever someone disagrees with you that they have no meaning any more.
Your inability to recognize an accurate summary of the homosexual agenda from gays themselves tells me you're not interested in facts.
When I see just that, I'll consider it, but what you linked to me was neither accurate (for reasons I've stated about three times now), nor written by gays themselves. So, I gotta ask, who's obfuscating here?
When the summary is done by someone with an obviously extreme prejudice against gays, and her summary is sparse on full quotes, and she rewords the points in very loaded terms, I'm well within my right to look at her "facts" a bit askance.
If you don't that simply tells me that you're fully invested in the anti-gay crusade and ready to drink the Kool-aid.
Ha, I haven't run away from anything (despite your incessant insistance to the contrary). What I said was that I'll believe your concern over the health issues of homosexuality is less than disingenuous when you show a similar all-consuming concern for smoking and obesity related illness. Those two cause far more sickness and death and would be far more worthy of your energy.
But I'm guessing you don't devote the same time and energy to smoking and obesity issues and it's because you simply detest gays and speciously hammering on health issues is a convenient way to couch your prejudice in pseudo-legitimacy.
It's amazing the amount of unexamined credibility some people will give to anything in print so long as it affirms their prejudices.
Don’t be a whiner. First of all my comment was not sexual in nature but technically accommodating the sodomites ipso facto makes you one of them (kinda like aiding and abetting the enemy during wartime makes you one of them). Are you with me Susan?
Secondly it’s odd you find such revulsion in that which you champion so fervently. Doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?
If I had known he was an atheist, I would not have been so tolerant of his opinion!
Or perhaps dear David is a closet homosexual, too cowardly to come out and instead shoots darts at those who have a moral code and will not compromise on their values and beliefs.
I'm not quite ready to go that far.
The moralistas are in a tizzy because they even talked to them.Back then I called them the "moral majorettes". >:)Whoa! Mid-Eighties flashback. Usually I refer to them as the Talibornagain.
-Eric
I completely disagree. Belief in God is the first pre-requisite for being a conservative. Standard short-hand for the evil philosophy which is the opposite of conservatism is "atheistic humanism." This encompasses communism and all the other liberal philosophies. If you don't believe in God, then you're a liberal.
Your mom said you should make your nasty sexual comments in the backroom, like usual.
548
Don't be a whiner. First of all my comment was not sexual in nature
You whine, as your own words belie you.
but technically accommodating the sodomites ipso facto makes you one of them (kinda like aiding and abetting the enemy during wartime makes you one of them). Are you with me Susan?
No "Sucks", I'm not with you.. Thank God.
Secondly it's odd you find such revulsion in that which you champion so fervently. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Nope, it shows that I hold our constitutional principles above personal prejudices.
You 'holy joes' have some line about respecting the rights of the sinner, while rejecting the sin, don't you? Or is that just more of your pious sanctimony?
Me: During your little hissy fit, you must have forgotten that this thread is ABOUT homosexuality. Another post simply added historical FACTS about how homosexuality leaves a negative impact on society under ANY circumstances. Is is YOU who is obsessed about seeing negative things about homos. Notice how others AREN'T carrying on like you are. It is YOU that is emotionally affected by the bad news of being a homo.
Me:I don't see him as being "obsessed". Links he posted are accurate and true.
You:So you claim, but I could care less about the 'gay' movement.
If you caould "care less" about the homo bowel movement then WHY are you so upset over criticism of it? People who truly don't care DON'T react as you do. If you disagree then state otherwise or is that too close to home?
Me:I can't help but wonder why you are so emotionally disturbed when one highlights the negative impact gays have had on history? Are you gay? Bisexual?
You: Nope, But its really weird, and emotional of you to ask that. Must be more than a bit disturbed yourself, imo.
Me:You're the one making a scene ... so curiosity over came me. I'm a heterosexual. I suspect with all these emotional, nasty outbursts you've been displaying, that YOU are at the very least a clost homo, hence the nasty responses to all who denegrate homos and their contribution to society.
Me:If not, what exactly is your problem?
Me:My 'problem' is the way you fellas want to ignore our constitution in order to control 'morality'. --That's not the job of the government in a free republic.
Me:LOL! NOTHING about the "Constitution was stated here. ALl others are doing is looking at the impact homos have had on society, past and present. As for the Constitution, I suggest you read it and make yourself familiar with the founding principles of this country. Also LAWS DO control morality. Always have but a homo doesn't want to hear this. It upsets them just as it pisses you off. Too bad. Get straight and you won't feel bad or embarassed about your private life.
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.