Render Unto Caesar-Some Christian conservatives confuse religion and politics

FrontPageMagazine.com | ^ | May 27, 2003 | David Horowitz

[Chancellor Palpatine]

That's him - couldn't remember the name.

[jwalsh07]

You're a bigot Chancellor. When Conservative Christians exercise their right to petition their government and party, you call it shrieking. When Log Cabin Republicans exercise the same right, it is considered opinion.

I believ both have the same right and should vigorously exercise it. You want to muzzle one half of the equation. Ergo, you are the bigot.

:-}

[LiberationIT]

Not Nazism, rather intolerance and political shortsightedness; and, in no few terms, not grasping the "debate" as posed in his original piece.

[jwalsh07]

Do they, or do they not, advocate the use of government force to control the sexual behavior of consenting adults?

Can you clarify? If you're about to argue that states have no right to legislate certain sexual acts beteen consenting adults, then you're Constitutionally challenged.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

When someone from the religious marxists hollers about the acts of other people not directed toward them, all based on theology, then yes, it is shrieking

[jwalsh07]

Not Nazism, rather intolerance and political shortsightedness; and, in no few terms, not grasping the "debate" as posed in his original piece.

Whose intolerant? Why would one person who finds a particular act by antoher person intolerable have to tolerate it?

Is that what passes for freedom now days? No, folks don't have to tolerate things they find intolerable at all, they simply can not use force to halt or alter private behavior.

[sirchtruth]

A mission to rescue homosexuals is a religious mission; it is not an appropriate political cause.

So do abortion and drug abuse among other issues hold the same weight?

Clarify please.

First of all I think the statement "A mission to rescue Homos"...is FOS. Secondly, Would he make the same statment about abortion and drug abuse?

[jwalsh07]

When someone from the religious marxists hollers about the acts of other people not directed toward them, all based on theology, then yes, it is shrieking

I find that you are the only one shrieking on this thread, hence your appointment as head shrieker in charge.

[Taliesan]

Here's one bible-believing Wesleyan who thinks Horowitz is spot on.

[maica]

When you start shrieking like a hysterical bunch of harpies at the thought that a party honcho is meeting a gay advocacy group, then yes, it kind of telegraphs intentions.

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"?

*****

Good analogy and worth repeating.
However, lets say that Catholic and black DEMS use Bob Jones University appearances as a whipping boy. Catholic conservatives don't seem to have a problem with any conservative speaking there.

[jwalsh07]

First of all I think the statement "A mission to rescue Homos"...is FOS. Secondly, Would he make the same statment about abortion and drug abuse?

Look, I'm not being cute here but could you pose the question with a subject, predicate and proper name or two?

[ckilmer]

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.
////////////////////////////////
hmm. Jesus did not mention bestiality, nor lesbianism, nor incest. (He did get into a dispute with the devil however.) Moses, for that matter didn't mention homosexuality, bestiality or lesbianism. But the levitical laws set down in Numbers and Deuteronomy prescribed that the punishment for these acts should be death. (The pentatuch is thought to have been written by moses.)

Do we say that Moses is intolerant?

[Cacique]

ping

[Mamzelle]

So much for the religious conservatives rejoicing in a possible reappoachment with American jews, brought together in the mutual concern over the survival of Israel.

It is a curious phenom, the distaste I often sense in jews toward the evangelicals, even as the jews moan about the antisemitism of the religious rightward. Classic psychological projection--the evangelicals are always under quick suspicion for any hint of attitudes that don't alarm when expressed in other sources.

I watch the Ralph Laurens deify, in a kind of resentful admiration, the Anglican blueblood Episcopalians, who barely hide their disdain for Judaism (it interferes with a cozy relationship with Muslims). Yet Ralph (what is his real name, anyway?) Lauren wouldn't deign to dine with a Baptist, lest his tweedy elbows knock against an evangelical Chistian.

I read National Review Online, a socially conservative (mostly) magazine written only by jews and a couple of catholics--if a Baptist ever writes an article, he's treated as exotica. You can tell that they're really trying to be polite and tolerant of these bizarre footwashing snake-handlers, but their nervousness keeps breaking through. What exactly are they so nervous about? Maybe you can fill me in...

[jwalsh07]

Here's one bible-believing Wesleyan who thinks Horowitz is spot on.

To be so you must believe that the bible was silent on homosexuality and that there is no commonality between the agendas of left and right homosexuals. Is that what you believe?

[logos]

That was my point. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.

Horowitz (and far too many Christians, for that matter) completely misunderstand the words of Jesus here. For those who believe in God (and I do, I certainly do), what did Caesar ever have that he didn't receive from God? Jesus renders with a very fine comb; we humans generally can only produce lard.

[biblewonk]

The title of this article alone is way off. Politics is a subset of religion.

[Taliesan]

The bible is not silent on homosexuality and I don't care about the various agendas of gay groups. I hope there will be a prize at the end of the exam.

[roses of sharon]

Knight and other groups are simply responding to a political agenda by a group who prefers anal sex, and dresses up their agenda with flowery "civil rights" language.

Government schools are now teaching that it is normal and natural. High schools around the country (Ann Arbor), have boys and girls starting "Bi-Sexual" Clubs.

When anal sex by adults, (which most people could care less about) is practiced in private, why would any political group even bring it up? The dangerous nature of the act, and its death toll, has forced a response.

Since the 80's, gays have claimed political identification, and special status as a minority. And have worked for decades to enter the public schools.

It is predictable that other political groups would spring up to defend themselves and their constituancy.