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.
You mock our principles. For shame.
Or is that just more of your pious sanctimony?
Yep that would be my pious sanctimony..
Thanks for being honest about your hypocrisy.
In the meantime, since you can't seem to discern the difference between the politically active agenda pushers and peaceful homosexuals who keep to themselves, you'll just discriminate against them all and let God figure it out. Is that about right?
Yet more misdirection.
Twice I've asked you what page(s) from the book in question you would like to see, but you have declined to answer both times. You're not really interested in facts and appear to think the ends justify the means here.
What you call 'pings' could be construed as baiting & stalking. - Give it up. -- I am not interested in your sodomy fetish.
Nobody is saying that. The gays you mention... what are they doing to stop GLSEN and others from teaching gay sex in the schools?
Nobody is saying they are required to do anything. If gays kept their sex life to themselves we wouldn't be talking about the homosexual agenda.
Statistics tell us gay foster parents are more apt to molest children. We're able to point to the link, the likelyhood and the lasting effects of homosexuality and child molestation. There is also additional information entitled Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. Nobody requires homosexuals to speak out against the homosexual agenda, but we see a pattern and we want it out of our schools; also the stats tell us a mom and dad are best parents so we don't agree with gay adoption.
A compassionate society should discourage the deadly homosexual behavior but those of us who do get labeled homophobic. We're not the ones who hate homosexuals, its the ones who don't discourage the deadly behavior that appear to hate homosexuals. A friend is someone who won't always tell you what you want to hear.
William Flax
No…I mock YOUR Liberaltarian principles…”I can do what ever I want anytime I want” so let’s throw away the 10th Amendment.
Or is that just more of your pious sanctimony?
Once again thanks for the compliment but no pious sanctimony here this time…just good ole conservative politics.
Thanks for being honest about your hypocrisy.
Hehehe…You really do get everything wrong don’t you? I was using the 1:a definition…as in a “devout state of being holy.” I’ll try not to spell above your head next time.
What's obvious is you want to change the subject. I have supportable docs for my arguments where you only have misdirection.
Let's recap and then on to incest.
You think that states have powers granted by the 9th amendment that supercede individual rights. I say no and use the 9th to say that the founders knew that there were more rights they did not address.
You say you can have sex with your animals because they are your property. I say no, because they cannot consent to it. I know you will be writing your representative to get all the laws protecting animals stricken from the books, since they violate your rights.
While you believe you can have sex with your animals you deny that humans have the right to have se with other humans. This puts you in an interesting position regarding sexual activity. Pun intended.
I did some reading on incest this morning for the first time since college. As you know I was concerned about the implications for any children resulting from such a union.
Speaking of children, can I safely say that we agree that they cannot give consent to sex? I say they can't and I'll proceed under that position. So when I address incest, I am only taliking about adult with a related adult.
Because I do believe that adults have the freedom to engage in consentual sexual activity, I believe that also would apply to relatives. While the instances of incest amongst adults is rare they would have the right to engage each other in such activity. With that comes the responsibility to raise and care for any childrn which might result from such a union.
I beleiev that this should not be illegal. Please distinguish that from my personal opinion that it is repulsive.
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.