Render Unto Caesar-Some Christian conservatives confuse religion and politics

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

[jwalsh07]

The bible is not silent on homosexuality and I don't care about the various agendas of gay groups

Well that would make you pluralist of the day.

[WVNan]

I don't believe that there are many Christians who advocate the use of government force to regulate sexual behavior between consenting adults. I think that most Christians advocate that homosexuals stop using government to force their lifestyle to be accepted as okay by society and advocate the use of "hate crimes" to punish those who disagree. I also thing that Knight did a poor job of answering David H.

[Kevin Curry]

Whether Jesus condemned or approved homosexuality, therefore, is irrelevant . . .

That must be why Horowitz began his toxic tolerance fussilade with his statement which clearly implied that Horowitz had consulted the New Testament and discovered that Jesus Christ was at most laissez-faire about the gay lifestyle and gay politics, i.e., because Jesus Christ's views (or what Horowitz believes those views to be) on the subject are irrelevant. < /sarcasm>

Disgust for and disapproval of homosexual behavior is not a conservative Christian monopoly. Virtually all religions and cultures condemn it. People must be indoctrinated into tolerating it, and the indoctrination does not happen overnight. Many--perhaps most--never do learn to tolerate it. That is why gay activists and their supporters push so hard for so-called hate-crime legislation: they seek to use the coercive power of the state to control the great intolerant unwashed and unsaved heathen who refuse in their hearts to undergo the true pro-homosexuality conversion of the soul.

How much longer until we suffer pro-gay inquisitions on behalf of the state seeking to uncover whether any of us has harbored a ciritcal view of homosexual behavior? In some respects that day is already here.

Horotwitz the gay rights defenders are the lead troops in a new battle to impose state control over the hearts and minds of good people.

[nmh]

Poor David. Highlighting his confused mind yet again. While he may not have a "political" problem with homosexuality, either a Christian or a Jew should have a moral problem. Many Christians and Jews get their moral views from the Bible and this shapes their "political" views. Poor David, being an atheist has blinded him from having a moral view.

There he goes again - Render unto Caesar ... From the NEW Testament he gets the dig for his title. Again, David is VERY shallow and lacks logic. Here's why:

Matt.22:21

[21] They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Mark.12:17

[17] And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

Luke.20:25

[25] And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

And just who do you think OWNS that coin? Who created the natrual resource that constitutes that coin or money? He is a marvel it goes right over the heads of most people.

[mr.pink]

In other words, I am a supporter of Christian conservatives...

Pretty funny stuff. I guess he's saving the "some of my best friends are Christian Conservatives" for the next chapter.

/yawn

[Mamzelle]

re: Pretty funny stuff. I guess he's saving the "some of my best friends are Christian Conservatives" for the next chapter.)))

(g)

Think this has a lot to do with it. David's worried about Baptist cooties.

Just how much constituency is going to be left in the conservative (paleo and neo) camp if the neos did manage to chace off the religious rightward?

[CatoRenasci]

I agree that Horowitz is essentially correct in distinguishing between the moral and political spheres.

While I personally think homosexuality is more of a choice than its advocates are willing to accept, and that it is a choice that should be rigorously discouraged, on a personal, moral, and social level, I don't believe the government should be busy snooping about in people's bedrooms and jugging consensual adult buggerers. Similarly, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is immoral and should be discouraged, but I would not want to return to the days of the state prosecuting adult heterosexual couples for fornication.

It seems useful to me to divide behavior into some categories:

1) that which is so reprehensible and egregious that the state should punish it, i.e. criminal behavior.

2) that which is not so bad as to be criminal, but which ordinary decent persons believe falls below the standard for acceptance by polite society, i.e. behavior that is immoral.

3) Moral behavior.

4Superogotary behavior: that which is good and admirable, but is at such a high standard that decent society does not think less of anyone unable to meet it. This would include heroism and saintliness.

The problem with "Christian conservatives" so-called is that many of them would criminalize large areas of behavior that most Americans believe should be within the realm of morality - personal choice - but not criminalize. My own view is that "Christian conservatives" would make more headway with encouraging moral behavior by teaching and example of moral behavior, than by trying to criminalize and have the state judge people in areas most considere moral. It makes people who would agree with the conservatives on the salient points of economics and defense -- which in my view create the conditions for liberty and the very society the conservatives long for -- refuse to support them and support their opponents, on the perfectly logical grounds that their moral agenda is intrusive into liberty and inconsistent with liberty.

[JohnnyZ]

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.

PLUS:

Should marriage be perverted to include "gay marriage"?
Should gays be allowed to adopt children, and if so will political correctness preclude adoption centers from investigating any history of man-boy relations?
Should people be given special rights under the law because of their orientation?

Etcetera. Horowitz is okay, but he'd have more cred if he argued honestly, giving even treatment to "legislating morality" and legislating immorality.

[Solson]

Not true at all. Conservatism by its very nature has much to do with religion in that it's foundation is inseparable from the laws of Nature and God's law.

[WVNan]

Sorry, poor sentence structure. Should......and stop using "hate crimes" to punish those who disagree. Thing=think.

[nmh]

I'm wondering if he had a stright face when he wrote this illogical, bogoted garbage. If he did, his editor should have proofed it and pointed out how forked tongue it is.

I think you're right ... the next chapter will be and "my best friend is a Christian ...". LOL!

[Mamzelle]

re: Christians would criminalize... what, exactly?

This is a canard. And an anti-Chistian canard--that righty Christians are trying to establish some kind of theocracy. It's as obnoxious and bigoted as the rankest antisemitic accusation...it is exactly like hearing some imam quote from the "Protocols of Zion".

The biggest issue that has homosexuals in conflict with Christians involves how the civil institution of marriage is going to be defined in this next decade, and who gets to define it. Considering how many weddings take place in churches, it is of interest to religious conservatives. The homosexual "agenda" is to redefine marriage away from what is traditional.

[BibChr]

I write this before reading beyond the first paragraph or two:

Let me guess. Horowitz learned nothing from the reasoned, intelligent, Christian response he received, continues to dig himself in deeper and deeper, continues to bloviate about something concerning which he has a deaf ear, and violates the very sensible Harry Callahan rule: "A man's got to know his limitations."

I'll post again after I've read it, to retract or congratulate myself for my prescience.

Dan

[Servant of the Nine]

Not true at all. Conservatism by its very nature has much to do with religion in that it's foundation is inseparable from the laws of Nature and God's law.

They are very important, but it is vital that the be religious and moral laws, enforced by moral and social suasion, not Governmental Criminal Laws.

So9

[nmh]

Yeah we get it too. It's fiscally conservbative for the most part and a social liberal proponent. The ideal reader would be a LIBERALtarian. They'd love Buckly with his wanting to legalize illegal drugs. It's not a magazine I take too seriously because of its left leaning moral views on social issues.

[Gargantua]

Jesus said that, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God." Our one and only accepted resource for "every word from the mouth of God" is the Bible.

The Bible says that man laying with man is an abomination before God. Thus, homosexuality is forbidden according to "every word from the mouth of God."

Jesus was quite unambiguously clear on this, and Mr. Horowitz is equivocating as well as distorting the truth to say otherwise.

[Corin Stormhands]

When Conservative Christians exercise their right to petition their government and party, you call it shrieking.

Exercising their (that would be our) right to petition government and party is one thing. Saying "if we don't get our way, we're going to stay home" is "shrieking."

I am a Conservative Christian. But these "spokesmen" are getting on my last nerve.

[Servant of the Nine]

Btw, what about the freedom to live in a society devoid of weird, freaky venereal diseases?

You have a right to live your life free of weird, freaky venereal diseases, just keep it in your pants. When you start talking about society and laws, you are starting to restrict other peoples rights solely to make you feel good.

So9

[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.
//////////////////////
Come on guys get a clue here. Horowitz shows himself to be politically tone deaf here. What's more he doesn't get how the political landscape has changed.
1.)Any political junkie knows gold standard line of Richard Nixon. Running up to the primary the party has to run right. (Raccort was running left.)
2.) The conservative social issues right sat on their hands in 1996 for what's his name Dole now of viagra fame. Why? Dole didn't care about their stuff. Dole didn't win. Raccicort made Bush look but ugly. Raccircort made it look like they'd brought the golden calf into the white house. By bracketing Raccicort-- social issue conservatives protected the president from Racciorts carelessness.
3.)The social conservatives of the republican party are the hot living heart of the republican party just like homosexuals are at the hot heart of the democratic party. (Something like 1/4 of the representatives to the last democratic convention were MANDATED to be homosexual.) The communists have lost their souls the blacks are bent on protecting their positions and the mexicans are still on the outside looking in. At heart here is the question as to the direction of the civilization. Whether it will be one in the Jedeo/Christian tradition. Or one of the pre modern civilizations like the Caananites or the Aztecs.

4.)This arguement started over the definition of marriage as between a man a woman by santorum. Santorum quoting from a chief justice from the 1970's said that if they allowed legitimized homosexual marriage the law could not legitimately oppose bestiality, poligamy, incest and the like. Raccicort gave the "Log Cabin" republicans a white house forum for rebuking Santorum--thereby making it appear that the white house had sided with the homosexuals in the dispute.

5.) The issue of legitimizing gay marriage is especially important to homosexuals because current medicinal technology enables homosexuals to use surrogate women to bear their children and human cloning research holds out the possibility that homosexuals will be able to write the opposite sex out of the procreative process altogether.

6.) See number above. This is big stuff. It threatens not only the crack up of the USA but also the crack up of the species. Don't be so vain guys. Show some fear of G-d in your eyes.