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
Thus, this debate is NOT about restricting "rights" but simply a political debate about the moral clarity of a party.
Osama bin Laden would fully agree with that statement.
1. European society fought about 150 years of wars (ca. 1500-1648) that finally led to a general consensus that the state should not enforce religion as such. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not interested in setting the clock back on this issue.
2. The principle of separation of church and state is fundamentally libertarian. It precludes government from acting with certain motives, and in certain spheres. But pure libertarianism--of the kind that says you cannot regulate anything two consenting adults do--is not a complete or acceptable answer either. For example, prostitution has an impact on society, and the government is entitle to recognize that impact and forbid it.
3. Although the government should not enforce religion as such, the Republicans and their leaders certainly are entitled to express their opinions on moral issues. Moral suasion is legitimate right of every citizen.
4. In order to persuade non-"Christian conservatives," Christian conservatives should (a) make clear that they recognize the principle of separation of church and state; while (b) articulating non-explictly religiously based arguments against the homosexual agenda.
The record of "conservative Christian" groups in having the state enforce morality in the United States, from the abortion debate to Prohibition and blue laws to laws against gambling and prostitution is hardly encouraging, so a suspicion of "conservative Christians" is hardly a canard.
While America was settled by religious refugees primarily from England, church membership was hardly universal or even terribly widespread in the colonies or the early national period. A greater percentage of Americans are church members today than 150 years ago. While the Founders were all Christians or Deists, and they were certainly culturally Protestant in their worldview, they were all also men of the Enlightenment and sought to liberate humanity from narrow religious views. The Founders were deeply suspicious of the confluence of state and religious power, and deeply suspicious of the greatest proponents of that joining of secular and religious, the Roman Catholic Church. The Founders were not supporters of all traditional order, rather they created a new one, which became the classical liberalism that modern conservatives seek to preserve and maintain.
Religious conservatives need to understand that there is tension between their religious worldview and the Founders' vision. The key point, however, is that the Founders' vision has a place for religious conservatives in it, where there is suspicion the vision of religiouis conservatives does not have a place in it for the classical liberalism of the Founders.
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. If the latter, there will be little support, and the left, who will not even respect their sphere, will gain power.
Simply put, the Bill of Rights are restrictions on what the government can do, NOT restrictions on what citizens can do with government.
For Conservatives to somehow acquiesce and support a "principle" not supported by tradition and certainly not historically accurate will not, and should not happen.
Now, what should be supported from a politically prudent POV is different. IMHO, Conservatives should be supporting the conservation of tradition at a state level rather than a national level. If a Conservative, in order to give a voice to their POV advocates federal legislation, it flies into the face of politically supported tradition of the conservative, namely strong state governments and a smaller centralized bureacracy.
Look, I'm not a grammanalist. I have made it quite clear, and others can attest, that I have been given full, unfettered access to a Creative Spelling Dictionary. Futhermore, I reserve the right to construction word lineage as confusing as possible to reach my goal of confounding the masses if need be.
Does the sentence structure have to be perfectly acute for you to apply the premise?
Let me see if I can make it everso clear for your Preistly Word Arrangement.
If the author replaces the word "Homosexuals" with Abortionist or Drug Abusers, would his conclusion still have the same merit?
I beg to differ, I think your quite cute! ;-)
Homosexuality is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
What part of WRONG do people not understand?
The part where it interfers with their selfish desire...
Using poor logic to demonize my statement doesn't refute it.
I'm sure that bin Laden would also fully agree with the statement: "Water is wet."
The "principle of separation between church and state" is not a principle, but the private opinion of one seminal US statesman - who was himself an adherent of secularism, vide his bowdlerized New Testament.
The man is the worst kind of moral idiot: an ARROGANT moral idiot. He just repeats his same initial errors, and worsens them. AGAIN he mishandles Jesus' teachings, about which he clearly knows or understands very little. Then he digs deeper by confirming that he doesn't at all "get it" about homosexuality, and to top it all off he has to tell us that he's a Jew (!!! — who knew! Oh, right; EVERYBODY). Ironic, isn't it, that someone who so rails against black liberals dropping the race-card, hints at his own little ace up his sleeve?
What a fool.
Dan
First, "founders...sought to liberate humanity from narrow religious views."
No, the founders sought to free a nation from religious persecution and a state sponsored religion. They did not seek to liberate humanity and they did not seek redress from "narrow religious views."
The other exception is the purported ability to separate a government from its foundation. As Kirk stated with much of taken from Burke, "At heart, political problems are moral and religious problems."
That said, Conservatives, like Burke, should distrust "abstractions", that is absolute POLITICAL dogmas separated from political experience and particular situations. In many many ways, that which is supported by "Christian conservatives," of which I am one, can be considered an abstraction.
The words "separation of church and state" are not part of the text of the First Amendment. I did not claim that they were. But the text is a particular manifestation of what was in fact a widely recognized principle.
Having said that, I do not understand the distinction you are trying to draw. I do not assert that either the Constitution or government should prohibit anyone from making explicitly religiously-based arguments. I merely assert that anyone with a firm grasp of the historical and philosophical basis of the Constitution will reject them.
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.