Sgt. Al Horowitz?
Posted on 05/27/2003 5:59:16 AM PDT by SJackson
Some Christian conservatives confuse religion and politics. To say so is not anti-Christian; it is common sense
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences. -- C. S. Lewis
In a previous column ("Pride Before A Fall"), I took several Christian conservative leaders to task for protesting RNC Chairman Marc Racicot’s appearance at a meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, which is the largest group of gay citizens. The Christian leaders complained about the very fact that Racicot, who is the head of one of America’s two largest political parties had even met with the group. In explaining their position, one of the conservatives invoked the Ku Klux Klan – a notorious hate group -- as an organization whom Racicot wouldn’t think of addressing; another implied that Christian conservatives might withhold their votes in the next presidential election, while a third demanded that the RNC chairman declare homosexuality "immoral" (a fact I failed to mention in my article). I called this behavior "intolerant," and politically self-destructive.
I also pointed out that I was a defender of Christian conservatives against the vicious slanders of the left. I could have pointed out that I have opposed the gay left’s attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts; that I have decried the intrusion of the gay left’s sexual agendas into the public schools and that I have written the harshest critiques of the gay left’s promotion of organized promiscuity and subversion of the public health system, as the root cause of the AIDS epidemic, which I have called a "radical holocaust" (not a "gay holocaust," but a radical holocaust – the distinction as I will explain is crucial).
Yet the response to my article was – how shall I put this? – anything but tolerant. I will take one exemplary case, an article by Robert Knight that appeared on the website of Concerned Women for America. Knight is the director of the Culture and Family Institute, "an affiliate" of the organization. His article was titled, "David Horowitz Owes Christians An Apology."
Concerned Women for America is one of the groups that met with Racicot, and whom I criticized. I share its concerns about the left’s assault on American values and on the American family in particular. I have appeared on radio and TV shows sponsored by Concerned Women for America and would do so again. I consider the Concerned Women for America and the Christian right generally to be important elements of the conservative coalition who have made significant contributions to the conservative cause. Through moral persuasion they have succeeded in dramatically reducing the number of abortions, helped to strengthen the American family, and been on the frontlines opposing the left’s malicious assault on America’s culture and institutions.
In other words, I am a supporter of Christian conservatives even though we disagree on the matter at hand, and perhaps on the larger issue that underlies it. That issue, politically expressed, is the issue of tolerance. Theologically, it involves the distinction between the sacred and the profane, between this world and the next.
Why do I owe Christians an apology, since I have not attacked Christians? To accuse a Jew of attacking Christians is a serious matter and goes to the heart of the political problem that "social conservatives" often create for themselves when they intrude religion into the political sphere. Why is religion even an issue in what should be entirely a political discussion?
Well I know what triggered this response. I began my article by pointing out that homosexuality did not seem to be high on the scale of Jesus’ priorities since Jesus never mentioned it, while the Christian conservatives who met with Racicot considered it an issue that should determine the presidency itself. Knight and others who have responded to my piece have lectured me on the moral views of the Old and New Testaments, as though I was trying to dissuade conservative Christians from their moral views. "With all due respect, Mr. Horowitz owes Christians an apology for his crude distortion of Jesus’ teachings, and for his implied charge of bigotry."
To repeat, I did not charge Christians with anything. Nor did I make pronouncements on the subject of Jesus’ moral teachings. Perhaps this is too fine a point. I did not say that Jesus approved homosexuality, but I did point out the contrast in the degree to which Jesus considered it important to the salvation of one’s soul and the way some conservative Christian leaders considered it important to the coming election of an American president.
The fact is that I have publicly defended Christians’ rights to their moral views, specifically on their views on homosexuality (although I do not share them). I have publicly condemned spokesmen for the gay left for their attacks on Christians who voice their views. I have criticized these gay leaders as "anti-Christian" and "intolerant." The essence of tolerance in a political democracy is that individuals who hate, despise and condemn each other privately should live side by side in the same political community in relative tranquility and civility. Respect for difference is not the same as endorsing the different.
Whether Jesus condemned or approved homosexuality, therefore, is irrelevant to the question of whether the chairman of the Republican National Committee – a political leader -- should make moral pronouncements on the issue, as the delegation demanded. Is homosexuality – sexual relations between members of the same sex -- a threat to civic order? Should it be a crime? Should there be legislation to regulate it or make it a crime? These are the only questions that politicians and legislators need to confront, and therefore these are the only questions appropriate for a political movement (as opposed to a religious faith) to pose. That was my point. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.
Conservatives who believe in limited government should be the first to understand this. Christian conservatives more than others. The Christian right was born as a reaction to the government assault by secular liberals on religious communities in the 1970s. We do not want government intruding on the voluntary associations we make as citizens or dictating to us our moral and spiritual choices.
Robert Knight – and others who have objected to my article – do not seem to grasp that it is important to separate the political from the religious, that the realm of government should be limited. In my original article I made a point of objecting to the term "homosexual agenda," and saying that one had to distinguish between those homosexuals who were politically left and supported radical agendas, and those homosexuals who were conservatives. I observed that a higher percentage of homosexuals voted Republican than did blacks, Jews or Hispanics. Here is Knight’s response:
Mr. Horowitz’s assertion that "the very term ‘homosexual agenda’ is an expression of intolerance" is unfathomable. Christian conservatives have an agenda. Environmentalists have an agenda. Homosexual activists have an agenda.
"Christian conservatives" refers to a political group, as opposed to "Christians" which does not. There many liberal Christians and even radical Christians whose agendas are indistinguishable from the agendas of Communists whom Robert Knight and I both oppose. "Environmentalists" refers to a political agenda – protecting the environment. "Homosexual activists" refers to what? Is there a political agenda that is homosexual? If so, how is it that 30% of homosexuals vote Republican?
Mr. Horowitz’s agenda here seems to be to accuse Christian conservatives of bigotry, pure and simple, as if they could have no valid reasons for opposing the political agenda of homosexual activists.
What I said was that the validity of a political opposition to any group of activists should depend on whether the "political agenda" of those activists is conservative or radical, and it is bigoted to fail to make the distinction. The Human Rights Campaign – which is the homosexual group in question – is a radical group. But so are the NAACP and the ACLU, and there has been no Christian conservative demarche tot an RNC chairman who met with those groups.
The idea that there is a "respectable" gay movement that will go only so far and that will help the GOP win elections is a dangerous fiction. As a veteran of leftist revolutions, Mr. Horowitz should know better.
As veteran of leftist revolutions, I know the difference between a leftist gay activist and a Log Cabin Republican, and so should Robert Knight. It is not a fiction that homosexuals – as politically active citizens – can help Republicans win elections. It is a fact.
Christian conservatives and Torah-believing Jews oppose homosexual activism for three basic reasons: 1) The Bible and God’s natural design say it is wrong; 2) homosexuality is extremely unhealthy and hurts individuals, families and communities; and 3) homosexual activism threatens our most cherished freedoms of religion, speech and association.
Our agenda on this issue is to dissuade people from becoming trapped in homosexuality and to offer a helping hand to those who seek to change and pursue a fuller life.
As I have said, as a conservative I have no political objection to those Christians and Jews who oppose homosexuality because they are following what they believe to be their religious faith. Nor do I have objection to conservative political activists who oppose the leftwing agendas of "gay rights" groups that are destructive, anymore than I would have objection to opposing women’s rights groups that are mere covers for leftwing agendas, or black "civil rights" groups whose agendas are racially divisive. In fact, I have been a prominent leader of the opposition to all these groups.
What I do object to is the systematic confusion of ethnic, gender, or sexual groups with leftwing political agendas. All blacks are not leftists; all women are not leftists; and all homosexuals are not leftists. To condemn them as such is both intolerant and politically stupid.
Which brings us to Knight’s final comment and self-revelation: "Our agenda …is to dissuade people from becoming trapped in homosexuality." Let me make a personal statement here which does not – or should not – affect one way or another the political discussion about whether the it was appropriate to confront the RNC Chairman or to demand that the Republican Party take a stand on whether homosexuality is more or not.
In my view, Knight’s statement is a prejudice dressed up as a moral position. It presumes that homosexuality is a choice, while all evidence points to the contrary. The conversion movements have been miserable failures. They have recruited a highly motivated and extreme minority among homosexuals – people so unhappy with their condition that they are desperate to change it – and the results are pathetic. Only a tiny minority of what is itself a tiny minority of people willing to go through the conversion process achieve a well-adjusted heterosexual result.
That is my personal view, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Even if Knight were correct in thinking that homosexuality is a moral choice, and that Christians and Jews have a moral obligation to oppose it, this would not alter the fact that it is inappropriate and self-defeating for philosophical conservatives to make this their political agenda. A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause. Would Robert Knight like the government to investigate every American to determine whether they are homosexual or not and then compel those who are to undergo conversion therapy -- or else? This is a prescription for a totalitarian state. No conservative should want any part of it. But this is how Robert Knight sums up the political agenda of social conservatives. Those who agree with him should think again
Judging by the girth of the strawman in this last paragraph, David Horowitz has lost the debate.
To attempt to argue that there is not a "homosexual agenda" has led him down the road of perdition where he ends up accusing Christians of Naziism.
So do abortion and drug abuse among other issues hold the same weight?
To them, you'll always be known as "that Jew who used to be a communist, and who is just letting his true colors shine through."
Of course there is. Horowitz introduces an argument of whole cloth stating that Knight and, by proxy, Christian Conservatives are advocates of a totalitarian state.
It's a lie with no foundation created to avoid the argument that homosexuals do indeed have an agenda, a strawman.
Knight is either an advocate of totalitarian government intervention in citizens' sex lives, or he is not.
Horowitz need's to cite source, quotations, date and time to back up such an argument or basically sthu.
LOL, a fine example of a bigot defending against "bigotry".
To pretend they can be compartmentalized is foolish.
We can either be a society which hates the family and encourages deviancy or we can be a society which cherishes the family and discourages deviancy.
Sgt. Al Horowitz?
Isn't it tronic that Knight and the other hysterics would be the very same people that dismiss Catholics and blacks who get upset when GOP candidates go to Bob Jones "University"?
Despite attempts to self label themselves "Social Conservatives", the politico-religious right has nothing to do with Conservatism.
Conservatives favor limited government, as limited as possible.
The politico-religious right favors laws governing every aspect of a citizens behavior.
So9
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.