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
I guess that means you don't have much of a list, just a blanket insinuation without substance. But I'll at least take a look at the bland examples you did offer... There are still vestiges of blue laws in a few states (sharia law?), it's pretty tough to advance the pro-life pt of view (and I do believe there is an athiest prolife org out there, anyway), and there was a little more to Prohibition than religion.
That the best you can do? Letting a few merchants get some rest one day a week, and that amounts to a threatened theocracy?
This is plain old thinly-disguised personal distaste for the beliefs of your political allies--and it'll get on the nerves of those allies if you don't keep it under control.
If the neos don't like sitting at the same table with the religious right, just say so instead of delivering pompous little lectures . We could always move on down the line.
re: In my view, "conservative Christians" need to understand the intellectual and historical antecedents of the different view and will ultimately have to choose between supporting a conservatism that differs from theirs, but preserves a sphere in which they are free to live as they choose, and supporting a state that is tinged to a greater or lesser degree with theocracy...
In other words, you're takin' over the joint? Straight out of James Cagney...
If the latter, there will be little support, and the left, who will not even respect their sphere, will gain power.
No one's stopping the 'tarians from sucking up the lattes in the jazz bars with their liberal buddies...
1. Is marriage perverted if not christian, or jewish? Can others marry without it being perverted? Hindus? Muslims? Transit workers?
Marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman. Not sure what your gay transit workers have to do with it.
2. Ask a catholic priest about man-boy relationships.
Oh, so you think that those gay/pedophile relationships are fine? Your bigotry is showing. You just put together a sentence without bashing religion.
3. Special rights under the law? No, only equal.
Everyone is afforded equal protection under the law. But a mistress doesn't get health benefits, and neither should gay "partners". THAT is equal treatment.
The Fulfillment of the Law
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-20)
I suspect he did not feel it necessary to have a long discussion on whether or not homosexuality should be legal while being immoral, and whether Heather should have 2 mommies or not, or whether fisting should be part of gay "reality TV."
If you want to hear someone really laugh, just ask the Holy Spirit how Jesus would have responded if someone were to have been able to ask those questions back then.
:-)
If you want to be a troll, get off this board. Go to DU, mutter things to yourself in the dark. But I don't want any part of it.
Well, then what is the difference betwix them?
I don't think his determination is worthy either, but you must conceed that if he's using Homosexuality as a precedent that can not be worthy of changing people's hearts and minds for a politcal cause, and only for a religious mission, you surely can not apply Abortion and Drug Abuse either for a policy-making crusade.
(Run-on application humbly requested before sentence coiffed.)
Well, duh-h-h,--- the evasively-named "Human Rights Campaign" is the gay left.
Let's see if I've got this straight (if you will excuse the insensitivity of the expression):
What we would regard as severe repression of homosexuals was the norm in Jerusalem of Jesus time, therefore, since Jesus did not bring up the subject, it follows that he didn't see much wrong with homosexuality. -------Huh?
See, this wacky stuff is what happens when people don't read their Bibles in context!
Cheewillikers, what condescension.
Yup, we pore barefoots out chere cain't wrap our unsophisticated bumpkin-brains around such notions as "compromise" and "negotiation". Any sign that religious rightwards expect a place at the conservative table--that they have as much right to push an agenda as the Sierra Club, Log Cabin Republicans, et cetera--and look how you characterize them--as naifs. What makes you think that they expect the whole pie, when you know that even the best activism will only give you slices of that pie? Why wouldn't they know what you know? Unless you think they're just too dumb to figure it out...
Keep on underestimating them. Here's a clue--not only do they have your number, but they'll play on that kind of intellectual vanity to further their own ends.
I'm kind of disappointed in Horowitz (I've been a fan of his since "Destructive Generation"). He's feeling way too sorry for Andrew Sullivan--alientating allies isn't going to cure his friend.
Your insistence that any criticism of the religious right's approach is condescension is simply wrong-headed.
Because the religious right is concentrated in areas where they are not so far out of the mainstream, they fail to understand that in states such as those you mentioned (and I would add upstate New York, CT, MN, MI MD and other states that have recently barely elected Republicans after long periods, or where Republicans barely lost recent elections), they are perceived as way outside the mainstream.
Likewise, we who live in those places with a more socially liberal climate of opinion need to be more sensitive to the rest of the country.
The political problem, if one reviews the results of the 2000 and 2002 elelctions, is that the more populous states with the most electoral votes and power in the House, are in the areas most uncomfortable with the rhetoric of the religious right.
It's not exactly news to them. Urbanite 'tarians seldom manage to hide their icky-poo reactions. Some try to distract from it with meandering dependent clauses and arcane victorian usage of punctuation, but the end result is still--"icky poo."
What you are promulgating is a kind of blood libel. It's past the point of being treated with patience.
To explain: conservative Christians bring their issues to the conservative table. They bring votes, they expect some attention. Guess what--they've earned it and have every right to push a political agenda of their choosing.
What they choose to concern themselves with...They don't happen to like the fact that ordinary California businessmen are now required to hire six-foot guys named George who show up to work in fright wigs, high-heeled Manolo Blahniks, and tight cocktail dresses. They don't like the fact that a staggering redefinition of the nature of marriage is probably around the corner. The homosexual agenda includes bizarre attacks on wholesome private institutions such as the Boy Scouts, dear to the hearts of social conservatives (the breeders, after all, as Santayana named us)who are stuck with the responsibility of bringing up male children in a difficult culture.
Now, for the libel--Do you try to address the issues, or do you simply apply your formulaic "Christains attempting to impose a theocracy on us beleaguered urban elites of obvious superior intellect." To insinuate that we're not to be taken seriously because we're incipient tyrants is a lame excuse for an "argument"--though fallacies are known to carry weight. Such "arguments" do serve as a sure marker of an expression of personal distaste.
To close, you then reiterate how much we are disliked. You speak from simple parochial inclination, and don't have much of an intellectual argument to venture.
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.