Posted on 05/27/2003 4:21:05 PM PDT by theoverseer
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 Racicots 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 Americas 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 wouldnt 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 lefts attacks on organizations like the Boy Scouts; that I have decried the intrusion of the gay lefts sexual agendas into the public schools and that I have written the harshest critiques of the gay lefts 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 lefts 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 lefts malicious assault on Americas 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 ones 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 Caesars and unto God the things that are Gods.
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 Knights response:
Mr. Horowitzs 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. Horowitzs 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 Gods 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 womens 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 Knights 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, Knights 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.
The conservative movement would be much better off if we concentrated on tax cuts, economic prosperity and a strong national defense. Let the preachers endorse religious morality in the pulpits, not in the poll booths.
Thank you, David Horowitz, for exposing the secular fundamentalism of the left and not being afraid to do the same to the religious fundamentalists of the right.
And, limited government most of all.
Politics and religion do not mix. It's embarrassing that leaders of the Christian right attempted to make a political issue into a religious issue.
Heck I would meet with a gay group, and be civil. I still would fight agains this Constitutional right to be gay that they demand.
Horowitz is an asset to conservatives, and I believe that this harangue against him is as unjustified as the left's witch hunt against Rick Santorum for words that he did not say about gays.
Agreed. then why was Racicot in attendance at a gay meeting? Any group that distinguishes itself from other groups based on their sexual persuasion is part of the over wheening liberal assault on our common cultural heritage. And when conseravatives forget that and attend these meetings they give credence to the idea that these groups should have a voice on whatever subject is at hand simply because of the fact that they are homosexual.
...Or to civilization?...Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality
I suspect that if gay rights activists were as active in 1st century Israel as they are here today, Our Lord would have had more to say about it. Just a guess. It wasn't an issue to the Jews that Jesus was ministering to at the time. When it became an issue Paul had a response.
How about a gay group that wants lower taxes, economic growth and a strong military while being left alone? There are homosexuals who hold those beliefs, who wear 3 piece suits, do not engage in public displays of affection, but want certain rights to privacy.
No, they would not be welcomed in Lou Shelton's church, but the republican party is not the Lou Shelton's church teachings party yet as far as I can tell.
We must first do no harm. We must also as individual free adults have decisions to make. The way of the Taliban is to limit freedom in order to ensure goodness. If you are not allowed to sin, as some folks would like, in a theocracy, then you really aren't necessarily a good person, just scared.
Let these folks battle in the court of debate, not in the court of law. If they believe God will punish homosexuals, go door to door and pray and convince these people of the errors in their ways.
I am personally squeamish about homosexuality. But I get even more squeamish when people try to invoke the state to roust adults who are not under duress who are living a life of their own free will. Just my two cents.
For the sake of argument let's assume Horowitz is correct in this assertion.
Given that however, Horowitz is still fundamentally wrong because practicing homosexuality is a choice, a moral choice.
Your first statement, above may indeed be consistent with the American political tradition. The second statement, however, confuses what happened here. It was an attempt by the RNC to humor an attack on religious and secular values, for political reasons. It was not the protestors who confounded religion and politics, but those whom Horowitz is defending.
To the extent that any of the groups, which claim to speak for homosexuals, have a political issue in this, it appears to be an attempt to alter the traditional social attitudes of the American people on the subject of sex roles and sexuality, via Government action. The initiative for change here, comes not from the religious right, but from those who attack moral principles basic to American Society from our inception. Does Horowitz dare to suggest that religious groups, simply because they are religious groups, do not have a right to join with other American Conservatives in fighting back!
There would not be a political issue here, if certain groups--certainly not from the Christian Right (of which I am personally no part, although I highly respect many of its members)--were not attacking the American tradition--the American secular tradition of supporting marriage and the family. The only reason there is any controversy at all here, is that Conservative values, both secular and religious are under attack. Horowitz looks ridiculous when he point his finger at those who are responding to that attack.
Horowitz, also, seems completely unable to appreciate that nothing in either the New or Old Testament removes the "abomination" signification for homosexual behavior. While he seems to be trying to quietly back off his nastier earlier comments; he still fails to acknowledge the obvious.
The best thing he can do, at this point, is just let this issue go. No one wants to purge him for what he said. But, on this issue at least, he is not likely to persuade anyone who did not already agree with him.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
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.