[jwalsh07]

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

Judging by the girth of the strawman in this last paragraph, David Horowitz has lost the debate.

To attempt to argue that there is not a "homosexual agenda" has led him down the road of perdition where he ends up accusing Christians of Naziism.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Who was it that quoted..."A moral people do not need a government"...?

It is true though. Back in the day in the 18th century and not much farther back as the 1950's. The People of the United States had 2 governing bodies. The Kingdom of Heaven and the United States Government. The Kingdom of God being the first and formost Governing of all, including the United States Government. Our Constitution was written on Christian attritbutes from many denominations, primarily Episcopalian!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

David, David, David - I can't believe it took you this long to find the fickle core of the social conservative. It'll take a few more slaps to the face to get you to realize that you can't forge any real consensus with them, and that they are unappeasable. As Bruce Willis said in the first Die Hard (after the terrorists shoot up the black cop's car) - "welcome to the party, pal".

To them, you'll always be known as "that Jew who used to be a communist, and who is just letting his true colors shine through."

[wideawake]

Religion and politics have never been separate, are not separate and will never be separate.

To pretend they can be compartmentalized is foolish.

We can either be a society which hates the family and encourages deviancy or we can be a society which cherishes the family and discourages deviancy.

[PatrickHenry]

Horowitz is walking a very fine line here, but I think he's correct. He could have avoided most of this mess if his earlier article hadn't brought up Jesus' silence on the issue. It proved nothing, and it wasn't essential to his point, but it caused a lot of knees to jerk. We shouldn't demonize Horowitz. He's on our side and he's very effective.

[Taliesan]

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

[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

[biblewonk]

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[LiteKeeper]

Christian Worldview SITREP

[Happy2BMe]

Blah, blah, blah - way too much blah.

Homosexuality is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

What part of WRONG do people not understand?

[BibChr]

I read it. Boy, was I right.

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

[Trace21230]

"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."

BINGO. I would call Horowitz brilliant if his points weren't so obvious. Unfortunately a certain element of the far right will never get it.

Trace