Render Unto Caesar-Some Christian conservatives confuse religion and politics

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.