I can't remember where this quote comes from, but it seems approps (sp?) here: 'the Moral Majority is neither moral nor a majority'.
As I said on another thread concerning this subject; their (Fundies and/or Evangels) input is welcome, and can be put to the good, but if they think they're going to intimidate this President or this President's followers into blind acquiesence to their agenda, they'd better think again.
If they want to walk, that's A OK. Better a party rid itself of it's more fanatical sects, if it can.
Hello... Matthew 10:15!
No one is seeking to purge people who suffer from any disability, whether, perceptual, biological or moral, from any association or participation that is not directly related to or affected by their disability. It is true that there are Conservatives who are homosexuals, and there is no reason why we should reject their support. There is all the difference in the world between accepting and even courting the support of individuals and groups of every type and persuasion, and implicitly endorsing a particular group or persuasion.
Certainly people who have a problem, but will endorse the bulk of our agenda, should be treated with more than mere courtesy. They should be invited to support the bulk of our agenda. That is practical politics, and will offend almost no one but absolute fanatics. But for the Administration to act as though it seriously considers the idea that Homosexuality is an acceptable, alternative lifestyle is something very different. That is not about accepting & encouraging individuals to support your cause. That is embracing a proposition that runs counter to very basic Conservative social values--as well as to common sense, and every principal of natural law, consistent with common sense and historic human experience.
In brief, we are talking about the difference between morally consistent leadership, and the lowest brand of politics, where the politician seeks to be all things to all men.
Horowitz is very good when he bashes the Marxist influences in minority agitations. He understands certain species of the far Left, very well. But when he gets into this sort of argument, he appears out of his depth. His initial theological comments are just plain silly. The New Testament did not repeal the moral code of the Old, it merely tempered the severity of the punishments on the one hand, and offered an alternative path to Redemption on the other. It certainly did not make Homosexuality cease to be an "abomination," in the religious sense.
As a non-fundamentalist, I do not seek to persecute or punish the homosexual, in anyway, so long as the individual suffering from that disability/problem/ or whatever, respects the fact that his conduct is not acceptable to most other people, and will never be acceptable to most other people--outside a few centers where virtually anything is acceptable--and that he respects those other people's sensibilities. If an individual insists, instead, on an "in your face" effort to desensitize other people by flaunting offensive conduct, he deserves no sympathy.
The organizations that Conservatives find unacceptable as allies are not those which seek to help the maladjusted find ways to adjust to traditional society, or even ones that urge greater toleration or understanding for their situation. The objectionable organizations are those which to one degree or another, want to force others to accept conduct that is theologically considered an abomination, and which is certainly seen as aberrant in terms of natural law. In this objection, again, there is no desire to persecute any individual; merely, to make it clear, that fundamental morality and ancient cultural values are not things to be bartered away for mere votes at any election.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
It is about time that multiculturism is not tolerated and if we need to be tough about, so be it. Not such a great thing protesting how mean spirited the culture has become, especially when every parasitic and infected 3rd world peon comes to this country so that taxpayers can fund his life.
It's also odd that he would mention Gary Bauer, because I put David, Gary & Pat Buchannan in the same category..
IMO, their occasional flashes of brilliance are the exception, not the rule.
On the other hand, perhaps lumping them together like this is short changing Gary & Pat... Because I can honestly say that I like them.
Actually the same could be said of you. Are YOU, David Horrorwitz excempt from "loving thy neighbor" or perhaps you are selective and ONLY "love thy neighbor" when your neighbor is in agreement with YOU? Why must you be so intolerant of others who don't share your love of homosexuals? And why don't you RESPECT others who disagree with your atheist views and social liberal outlook?
Dear David, can you say HYPOCRITE?
The United States of America should have legal protections for human beings. I'm always concerned when this group or that wants group-specific legal protections. Because usually that means that they want affirmative action and the right to sue anyone on the basis of 'discrimination' where no witnesses are required to make the charge stick in court.
Mr. Horowitz, as a Jew, should know that the Old Testament says that, "You shall not allow a homosexual to live." The vast majority of evangelical Christians recognize that the new Law laid down by Jesus is more compassionate. Nonetheless, it is still insistent that homosexuality is a sin, and consorting with those who indulge in sinfulness is never a good idea, because they will always drag you down to their level.
I can safely predict that the Bush Administration will receive not one, repeat not one, additional vote of support from the homosexual community.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. -Romans 1:26,27 (KJV)
The term "sodomy," named after the inhabitants of Sodom whose homosexual perversions caused God to rain fire and brimstone on their city in the days of Abraham (Genesis 19:4,5,12,24), has for thousands of years been synonymous with this unique form of ungodliness. That it is basically a sin of rebellion against God is evident from the above passage in Romans.
The "cause" for which God "gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves" was that they had decided to "worship and serve creation more than the Creator" (Romans 1:24-25 - KJV).
Because such behavior is essentially animalistic, rather than human, sodomites are actually called "dogs" in the Bible. Note the strong prohibition in the Old Testament theocracy established under Moses.
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God." -Deuteronomy 23:17,18 (KJV)
Oh David, have you forgotten your Jewish roots? Belief is optional however even the OLD Testamnet condemns homosexuality.
We can be sure that, if these practices were abominations to God then, He has not changed His opinion about them today. The same terminology appears in the description of the holy city in the last chapter of the Bible.
Blessed are they that do His commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. -Revelation 22:14-15 (KJV)
Thus, sodomites--like sorcerers, whoremongers (same word as "fornicators"), murderers, idolaters and lovers of lies--should undoubtedly also be excluded from church fellowship. If such a person, professing to be a Christian, persists in his sin, he should be put out of the church, like the one who had committed fornication with his stepmother (I Corinthians 5:1).
Now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such an one no not to eat... Therefore, put away from yourselves that wicked person. -I Corinthians 5:11, 13 (KJV)
Homosexuality, like all other types of fornication, has no place in the family of God. Regardless of what modern promoters of "gay liberation" might wish to believe, sexual perversions are not inherited genetically but rather are learned behaviors and willful sins. Like alcoholism and other such sins of the flesh, they may become very difficult to give up for those who have been enslaved by them, but God is able to give deliverance to any who sincerely desire true freedom and salvation. To "straight" Christians in the church, however, the familiar old admonition to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" surely applies in such cases. Homosexuals, long accustomed to being looked upon with disgust by most people, are understandably anxious for acceptance by society. Nevertheless, they must not be encouraged to continue in their wickedness, for it may well cost them their eternal souls. Instead, they need to be "loved into the kingdom," being delivered first of all from their rebellion against God, then to Christ for salvation and cleansing.
Notice Paul's testimony concerning the very real possibility of such deliverance:
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, ...shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. -I Corinthians 6:9-11 (KJV)
When there is true repentance and the sin is forsaken, then such a person should be lovingly received into the fellowship of believers (or back into that fellowship, if previously excommunicated), like any other repentant and believing sinner. This is the example given in the case of the incestuous Corinthian:
Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that you would confirm your love toward him. -II Corinthians 2:6-8 (KJV)
In spite of great pressure today from humanists and other liberals to get homosexuality recognized as an acceptable--if not even preferable--life style, the Bible makes it plain that it is really unnatural and animalistic wickedness that must be rejected by true Christians. At the same time, we cannot forget that Christ died for their sins, as well as ours. They are still objects of His sacrificial love, and we should seek earnestly to bring them to Him for cleansing and deliverance.
For more http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-f019.html
Whether it be the Old or New Testament this verse applies:
2Tim.3:16
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
So, whether Jesus states it directly or not ALL that is in the Bible is God breathed through mere mortals. In other words ALL that is in the Bible is from God. It reflects the personalities of the writers but it is God's Word that "is written".
He said nothing about pedophilia, necrophilia, or sado-masochism either. Do you suppose he approved of these abuses of the human body that he created? Use your God-given sense of reason, Horowitz.
Your essay is worthy only a *flush* and nothing more.
Oh David ... ONLY 1-3% of the population is gay so 30% of, let's be generous, 3% will not make or break ANYONES chances to win.
Proof of how small the gap % is, is here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/910022/posts?page=2
Poor David is so blinded by his hatred of Christians he's can't think straight.
Horowitz, it appears, thinks Racicot should meet with the KKK and that these stupid racists shouldn't be stigmatized and shunned. Do I have that right?
Huh? The HRC is a "human rights" organization? What on earth is David smoking here? Why not just make the simple point that it may be stupid to withdraw support for Bush in 2004 over single issues, but he is on thin ice lecturing these men on Christian theology, and seeing radical homosexual groups as somehow groups of "tolerance".