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
There is no such principle that was "widely recognized" by the founding Fathers. Furthermore, studying the philospohical and historical determination of the Constitution will not lead to a rejection of religiously-based arguments. To the contrary, study of the philosophy of the Constitution leads us to Burke, Locke, Socrates, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine.
With that basis understood, I do believe the political expedience of proposing and selling federal legislation based purely on religious arguements can and will fail. This is a problem for conservatives. We should be able to cogently argue for state legislation which can be argued from tradition, history and political feasibility while having a strong and enduring foundation of moral clarity. Had Horowitz discussed the matter in which the three approached Racicot and their childish threats and left it at that, he wouldn't have the argument he now has. By focusing on the religuous and moral argument, he has become mired in a much wider debate with much more emotion and conviction on every corner.
I agree with Horowitz on the method of the three. Furthermore, I agree with the rejection of Knight as the representative for all as well as making a political agenda of "rescuing homosexuals." However, I disagree vehemently with Horowitz as to the reasons to reject their arguments about their morals not reflecting the wider political agenda of conservatives.
Or so you claim.
The two nations who have accomplished the greatest advances in the past three or so centuries are undoubtedly the US and the UK.
The UK has had an official state church throughout that entire period, and the US has had a deeply religious civil society which has had a strong and enduring influence on the state throughout that period.
As long as people vote with their consciences, religion and politics will never be separate in this country. Thank God for that.
We remain much at odds on your second point; your reliance upon Russell Kirk and what seems to be his view of the later Burke doesn't help because I read Burke differently (see Burleigh Taylor Wilkins, The Problem of Burke's Political Philosophy Oxford 1960? -- I was a student of Wilkins') and consider Kirk to be representative of a different strain of conservatism than mine. My own approach would best be described as classical liberal. I am probably more socially liberal than most "Christian conservatives", in what I think the role of the state to be, more than in personal behavior.
This from a political pundit? Where's he been? Jews attack Christians on a regular basis: ACLU, PAW, Americans United for Separation of Head and Neck, Hitler was a Christian etc. etc. etc. This is NOT meant to be a generalization about Jews but Jews (mostly leftist Jews) do indeed attack Christians and use politics to do so.
Amen! Same goes for the War On Some Drugs---and the recent GOP proposal to withhold funds from states that allow medical marijuana.
You are projecting your own clarity. Sadly, many "Christians" seem to think that Jesus entered the world to make sure the police burst in on sodomites in their filth and drag them to the public square.
I think you are simply wrong on this point. For Locke, for example, see: http://www.bartleby.com/218/1413.html. Note that Locke makes an exception for Roman Catholicism precisely because he perceived it, as a practical matter, as threatening the principle of separation.
Further, I don't think it adds to your argument to cite to Socrates, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. Yes, they are all part of the Judeo-Christian western tradition. But you could just as well say that of any other thinker in the tradition "led" to the Constitution.
The founders definitely did not, in any meaningful way, follow, say, Thomas Aquinas with respect to the issue of separation of church and state. Quite the contrary.
Furthermore, studying the philospohical and historical determination of the Constitution will not lead to a rejection of religiously-based arguments.
I didn't quite say that it would. What I am saying is that argument in the civil sphere ought to be rationally grounded, although it certainly may be motivated and informed by religious priniciple. Based on the last few paragraphs of your post, I think you would basically agree.
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations. The battle is not to the strong alone. Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, ALMIGHTY GOD! Give me liberty or give me death!" Patrick Henry of the Constitutional Convention
"Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being, who rules over the universe, who presides in the council of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States.." "...Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency" From President George Washington's Inaugural Address, April 30th, 1789, addressed to both Houses of Congress.
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible" President George Washington, September 17th, 1796
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle." President George Washington
"...The Smiles of Heaven can never be expected On a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of Order and Right, which Heaven Itself Ordained." President George Washington
"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- God Governs in the Affairs of Men, And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, Is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?" Benjamin Franklin
"Except the Lord build the house, They labor in vain who build it." "I firmly believe this." Benjamin Franklin, 1787, Constitutional Convention
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and His Apostles.... This is genuine Christianity and to this we owe our free constitutions of government."Noah Webster
"Whether this [new government] will prove a blessing or a curse will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation [Proverbs 14:34]. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself and encourage it in others." Patrick Henry
"The Bible is worth all other books which have ever been printed." Patrick Henry
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." President Thomas Jefferson
"The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart." President Thomas Jefferson
"Of all systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to be so pure as that of Jesus." Thomas Jefferson, To William Canby, 1813
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending in human passions ubridled by morality and religion. Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams, address to the militia of Massachusetts, 1798.
"I hold the precepts of Jesus as delivered by Himself, to be the most pure, benevolent and sublime which have ever been preached to man..." President Thomas Jefferson
"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity." President John Adams
"Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe. And to the same Divine Author of every good and perfect gift [James 1:17] we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land." James Madison
"We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded." President James Madison
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." First Chief Justice of Supreme Court John Jay
"Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine....Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other." James Wilson, a signer of the Constitution and an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court
"Let the children...be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education. The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools." Benjamin Rush
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God." President John Quincy Adams
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.... the general principles of Christianity." President John Quincy Adams
"a true American Patriot must be a religious man...He who neglects his duty to his maker, may well be expected to be deficient and insincere in his duty towards the public" First Lady Abigail Adams
"The Bible is the Rock on which this Republic rests." President Andrew Jackson
If there is anything in my thoughts or style to commend, the credit is due to my parents for instilling in me an early love of the Scriptures. If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity." Daniel Webster
"It is extremely important to our nation , in a political as well as religious view , that all possible authority and influence should be given to the scriptures , for these furnish the best principles of civil liberty , and the most effectual support of republican government. The principles of all genuine liberty , and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by it's authority.The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be accessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer...." Noah Webster
"The Bible must be considered as the great source of all the truth by which men are to be guided in government as well as in all social transactions...." Noah Webster
"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws...." Noah Webster
"All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice , crime , ambition , injustice , oppression , slavery , and war , proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible...." Noah Webster
"The religion which has introduced civil liberty is the religion of Christ and his apostles , which enjoins humility , piety and benevolence ; which acknowledges in every person a brother , or a sister , and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity , and to this we owe our free constitutions of government...." Noah Webster
"It is the sincere desire of the writer (Noah Webster) that our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible , particularly the New Testament or the Christian religion." Noah Webster
"I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior (Jesus) of the world is communicated to us through this book. Abraham Lincoln
"Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that is should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." US Supreme Court, 1892
"The fundamental basis of this nation's law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teaching we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in the right for anybody except the state." President Harry S. Truman.
"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration to ultimate national disaster" General Douglas MacArthur
I hardly think it's condescending to suggest to Christian conservatives that their interests are best served with a conservative party that does not go as far as they do. It's a rational calculation. I think it is a given that a majority of the electorate in the United States could best be described as indifferent moderates - they really don't want to focus on politics and want only stability and security. To the extent the right convinces those voters their interests are better served by the right, we will win elections. To the extent that they are afraid their interests will not be served by the right, the left will win elections. Most Americans, for whatever reasons, are put off by religious Puritanism and fundamentalism. Come across like Carrie Nation, Bowdler or the later William Jennings Bryan, and you will lose in almost every state. it's the reverse of the problem the Democrats have: if they run left, people are afraid of them and we see 49 state romps like Nixon/McGovern.
While I like Horowitz (and generally support him), he was completely wrong with this topic. How would people feel if Racicot had a secret meeting with gun control groups(or anti-taxcut groups), and the news reports were that he echoed their views. Does anyone think that GOA or NRA members wouldn't be a little upset?
Horowitz has taken the attitude that religious conservatives should never critize the Republican party. While it appears that their protest worked at least in a small way. Racicot has had meetings with Christian groups and ex-gay groups to learn about the non-pc view.
Disregarding Horowitz' not so subtle misreading of the bible in his first screed, this sentence is the crux of the matter.
Knight's position is that homosexuality is wrong and as a Christian he sees it as his duty to persuade others of that view.
David H. takes that and turns it on it's head and through some random mutation evolves suasion into coercion.
Opposing certain common goals of a "homosexual agenda" such as homosexual "marriage" and opposing the state peeking into bedroom windows are not mutually exclusive thoughts but David can't seem to come to grips with that.
He demands tolerance when it is not his to demand.
I don't think his conclusion is meritorious. And I also don't think you can replace the words you put forth and maintain a cogent piece. But hey, I've been wrong innmuerable times before.
The data would seem to contradict your thesis.
Younger generations are more pro life than their parents and grandparents ever were. That is a direct result of what some might call "shrieking" by the religious right.
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.