Render Unto Caesar (Horowitz Comes Back with a Knockout Punch!)

Frontpage Magazine ^ | 5/27/03 | David Horowitz

[theoverseer]

The left must be having a field day with this. Horowitz, whom the left has identified as a "traitor" to The Cause, is being brow-beaten by the social conservatives simply because he disagrees with the way they portray homosexuality and how they make it an important issue out of it for elections. No wonder the left has been so successful in demonizing the right. With friends like Knight, Bauer and Sheldon, who needs enemies?

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.

[NetValue]

"The conservative movement would be much better off if we concentrated on tax cuts, economic prosperity and a strong national defense."

And, limited government most of all.

[cake_crumb]

Good comeback from Horowitz.

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.

[pgkdan]

The conservative movement would be much better off if we concentrated on tax cuts, economic prosperity and a strong national defense.

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.

[Grando Calrissian]

Prepare to be inundated by 1,456 cited articles about sodomy. Nevertheless, good response by Mr. Horowitz.

[B-Chan]

Next: Horowitz proudly takes up the cause of the necrophiles, sheep-shaggers, and auto-erotic asphyxiationists. After all, some of them are conservatives, and the GOP needs the votes...

[ffusco]

You said it all.

[onedoug]

Is homosexuality...a threat to civic order?

...Or to civilization?...Why Judaism Rejected Homosexuality

[pgkdan]

... I did point out the contrast in the degree to which Jesus considered it ( homosexuality) important to the salvation of one’s soul...

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.

[pgkdan]

Amen.

[TheAngryClam]

Amen. (heh heh)

Now, count to three and we'll get all the "Bible says so, therefore we need to stone homosexuals" freepers in here to go ballistic.

[dogbyte12]

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.

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.

[ApesForEvolution]

What a crock you buy into.

Horowitz puts another brick on the wall of same sex marriage and the further erosion of family and structure in our society that it brings.

God didn't create Adam and Steve and Jesus Christ of Nazareth was clear about sexual immorality and in particular the insiduousness of homosexual lust on a soul...

[Amerigomag]

It presumes that homosexuality is a choice, while all evidence points to the contrary

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.

[ffusco]

In this case being is doing. A person who defines themself by behavior is not himself if he refrians from such behavior.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"Why is religion even an issue in what should be entirely a political discussion?"

This is where I disagree with Mr. Horowitz. Why should, or how can, the political be completely devoid of religion? In my view it cannot be. For the religious devotee’s life is permeated by issues of faith. Mr. Horowitz is simply restating the secular libertarian viewpoint. My religious faith plays some role in all of my moral positions. How am I to separate my foundations in faith from my social conservatism? I cannot. Here, Horowitz sounds like the ALCU by arguing for the banishment of religious perspectives from the political realm. I am fearful of completely secular politics as secularism becomes a religion in and of itself. But hey, whudda I know... I'm just one of those unenlightened fundies that will surely be denounced in this thread just as they were in the previous article thread.

[Moby Grape]

This is the second time you have made the same error...Horowitz made a mistake when he said that Bauer had compared meeting with gay to meeting with Nazis....it was clearly corrected.

Secondly, you seem to find glee in the idea that Christians can be labeled as extremists, and are a danger to the party. The truth is that Christians who will not compromise their faith are not extremists, and ARE KEY to the GOP holding power. If you are one of those county club republicans who is embarassed by those do-gooders who worries about unborn babies and other"moral" issues that the old blue bloods just do not want to be bothered with. You will not bolt the party if it goes pro-gay rights and pro-abortion, but about 20% of the GOP base will if they do so....you may not like it, but that is the way it is.

I understand Horowitz's points, and he presents his case well. His book "Prodical Son" is a must read for ALL liberals (but they won't). But, aside from the break from an empty and dangerous political view, the unavoidable other lesson from his book (which he did not see) was the absolute emptiness in the lives of his parents, who found their god in their politics, and it left them without spark of life, unhappy, and broken human beings.

[ApesForEvolution]

"A person who defines themself by behavior is not himself if he refrians from such behavior."

Wrong.

That person would not be behaving as that person defines himself...

[Ohioan]

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.

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

[ffusco]

While it is correct that Judaism first codified proper sexual behavior, it wasn't neccessary for civilization.

Many pagans lived monogamous married lives since it is the optimal arangement for men and women. Civilization means to live in cities, which people lived in since Ur.