Replies

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.

As far as I am aware, the head of the Republican Party has not met with either of these groups in secret, and denounced Christian Conservatives. If such an event became public knowledge, I would expect a similar reaction.

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?

David is the one injecting religion into this argument. He began it with that stupid line about Jesus never commented on Homosexuality. I don't believe that Knight mentioned David's faith. It looks like David is trying to make it sound like Knight is anti-jewish.

Ugh got to leave for work.

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 see two errors here. While I understand the need to separate religious issues from political issues, one can not separate ones religious convictions from ones political convictions. That is, if I believe G-d exists, I can not pretend that G-d does not exist, or that I don't believe G-d exists, when acting in the political arena. That would be an attempt to divide truth from truth, which I don't believe can be done.

The second is that there can be a conservative homosexual. There can be a libertarian homosexual, but conservatism believes in conserving the culture as much as conserving resources, particularly capital which seems to be the only issue in this author's mind. Conservatism is about much more than lower taxes. Our culture is a heterosexual culture and will not be sustained on any other lines.

That is what I believe to be true. The fact that part of the reason I believe it to be true comes from my faith does not allow me to "separate" this belief from the political.

Shalom.

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).

Last sentence very key. IMHO, you need to read it a few times to "get it". I'd say this: If david Horowitz supported Santorum's recent comments (which follows Horowitz's prescription I believe), he's on the level.

" 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,.."

Well, duh-h-h,--- the evasively-named "Human Rights Campaign" is the gay left.

"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 ...."

Let's see if I've got this straight (if you will excuse the insensitivity of the expression):

What we would regard as severe repression of homosexuals was the norm in Jerusalem of Jesus time, therefore, since Jesus did not bring up the subject, it follows that he didn't see much wrong with homosexuality. -------Huh?

See, this wacky stuff is what happens when people don't read their Bibles in context!