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.
This is insane.
We should fight for out values, but we aren't allowed to determine what those values are??
This is like the liberals saying "It is the Constitution which forges our country, and neither you nor anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what the Constitution means."
Why don't we first try to address the issues Jesus preached about, then once we have mastered those, we can start working on what Paul and Timothy think.
So you believe Paul was wrong in Romans for dissing sodomites? Or do you believe that Paul was speaking for God, as in inspired, but not speaking for Jesus?
No, but it is a favorite tactic of those who seek to attack Christians.
do not agree with Andrew Sullivan on gay rights. That does not negate his valuable contribution to conservatism;
POST 43 AND :
I think it might be a little naive to assume that "gay Republicans" ever actually vote for Republican candidates or ever have.
I see the Log Cabin group as much more of propaganda device than any legitimate conservative group. They are not organized to nor do they work to move fellow-sodomites to the Republican position. Their entire concern is about their sexuality and their special rights.
If someone is trying to use a "Republican" group as a propaganda ploy and all they ever talk about is sodomy rights, then I suspect they vote Democrat in a ballot box.
I think the case should be compared to black Republicans. Among black Republicans, they actually work hard to swap people toward conservativism. And they have made some real inroads. So, even if 91% of the black vote went to Gore, it would have been more without black Republicans and their efforts. And I think they will continue to make more inroads. But it's still a tough fight ahead for years to come.
So black Republicans are definitely serious conservatives. I don't think you can say the same for homosexual advocacy groups who label themselves as Republicans so they can play Trojan Horse.
Or is Trojan Horse perhaps offensive to the anti-condom crowd like Sullivan?
53 posted on 01/23/2003 8:57 PM EST by George W. Bush
For those who are interested, Sullivan's web sites were cached and placed on display before he could get them shut down. This a link to the front page of those cached copies of his sites at AOL and BarebackCity:
Andrew Sullivan's barebacking sites Warning: very explicit photos of Sullivan on subsequent pages (not on first page). But this should tell you more about what gay rights mean to Andrew Sullivan and what he does with his freedom.
Sullivan is HIV-positive and advertises for sex without condoms with others. There's nothing remotely conservative about him.
Political Reality Bump!
Perhaps the reason Jesus said nothing specifically about homosexuality was that "gay lifestyles" were virtually unknown in the Israel of his day. Everyone knew and understood the culturally acceptable standards. Sexual immorality in any form was shameful and not for open public discussion. In fact, even the suggestion of heterosexual activity before marriage was scandalous:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. But as he considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit; she will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.' All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: 'Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel' (which means, God with us). When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took his wife, but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus." (Matthew 1:18-25)
What was the attitude of Jesus towards the Law of Moses? In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said the following:
"Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell." (Matthew 5:27-30)
"It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)
Thus Jesus invariably upheld the authority and applicability of the teachings and Law of Moses. In fact He interpreted Moses in a manner which intensified the demands of the Law. The Law reveals the moral character and the holiness of God which can not change. The purpose of the Law of Moses is not to produce good moral behavior, but to call all of us to understand our need for God's mercy and forgiveness:
"...a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified." (Galatians 2:16)
Homosexuality: A Political Mask For Promiscuity: A Psychiatrist Reviews The Data Indeed, the Torah reserves its most intense condemnation for homosexuality: "to'eva" - abomination...
If it's that important
For those who lack common sense:
St. Paul's Argument From Nature Against Homosexuality (Romans 1).
I said what I mean, and I mean what I say. Jesus has enough opportunity to state that opposing homosexuality was the most important thing in the world for his followers did. Do you think he forgot to mention that fact, and had to wait to blind Paul for it to be pointed out? I am not stating that Jesus was pro homosexuality. That is not my point whatsoever. I am talking about context. What was the most important message that Jesus wanted to share. Sermon on the Mount? Sermon on the plains?... I do question those who make Paul's message more important that Jesus' message. You can oppose homosexuality... but to do it while not promoting charity, compassion, meekness seems to be very twisted to me.
If Jesus rose up and spoke on the Sermon on the mount railed for an hour against homosexuality, and then said... oh by the way... love one another, the meek shall inherit the earth, yada yada yada... but most importantly, let's go speak out against gays first before I even tell ya about that Samaratan fellow, I would see the point.
Can I get an 'Amen' for political pragmatism?
I think it refers to those areas where the homosexual community is demanding things outside their normal rights. They have the right not to be beaten up, for example. But if they are beaten up, they don't get to send their assailant to jail ten times longer than your average heterosexual victim.
They have the right to enjoy any sexual activity they want to in their home, but they don't have the right to educate six graders as to the joys of their particular sexual peccadillos.
They don't have the right not to be called names. They don't have the right not to be fired. They don't have the right to prance naked into St. Patrick's cathedral.
But there are those who insist on demanding these rights by pushing their "homosexual agenda."
Do you honestly believe there ae NO gay Republicans, when we have several OFFICEHOLDERS who are gay?
This is true, and if all this gay group wants is for the governmnent to leave gays alone, then there is no reason to object to this meeting. But what are the chances of that? More likely they want special treatment by the government, which is where a problem arises.
Because they are all the words of Christ, written by the Spirit through the various apostles and prophets. One book of the Bible is not more important that the other.
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.