Posted on 05/20/2003 8:14:33 AM PDT by theoverseer
In four Gospels - including the Sermon on the Mount - Jesus neglected to mention the subject of homosexuality. But that hasn’t stopped a handful of self-appointed leaders of the so-called Religious Right from deciding that it is an issue worth the presidency of the United States. In what the Washington Times described as a "stormy session" last week, the Rev. Lou Sheldon, Paul Weyrich, Gary Bauer and eight other "social conservatives" read the riot act to RNC chairman Marc Racicot for meeting with the "Human Rights Campaign," a group promoting legal protections for homosexuals. This indiscretion, they said, "could put Bush’s entire re-election campaign in jeopardy."
According to the Times’ report by Ralph Hallow, the RNC chairman defended himself by saying, "You people don’t want me to meet with other folks, but I meet with anybody and everybody." To this Gary Bauer retorted, "That can’t be true because you surely would not meet with the leaders of the Ku Klux Klan."
Nice analogy Gary. Way to love thy neighbor.
This demand to quarantine a political enemy might have had more credibility if the target – the Campaign for Human Rights -- were busily burning crosses on social conservatives’ lawns. But they aren’t. Moreover, the fact that it is, after all, crosses the Ku Klux Klan burns, might suggest a little more humility on the part of Christians addressing these issues. Just before the launching of the 2000 presidential campaign, George Bush himself was asked about similarly mean-spirited Republican attacks. His response was that politicians like him weren’t elected to pontificate about other people’s morals and that his own faith admonished him to take the beam out of his own eye before obsessing over the mote in someone else’s.
The real issue here is tolerance of differences in a pluralistic society. Tolerance is different from approval, but it is also different from stigmatizing and shunning those with whom we disagree.
I say this as someone who is well aware that Christians are themselves a persecuted community in liberal America, and as one who has stood up for the rights of Christians like Paul Weyrich and Gary Bauer to have their views, even when I have not agreed with some of their agendas. Not long ago, I went out on a public limb to defend Paul Weyrich when he was under attack by the Washington Post and other predictable sources for a remark he had made that was (reasonably) construed as anti-Semitic. I defended Weyrich because I have known him to be a decent man without malice towards Jews and I did not want to see him condemned for a careless remark. I defended him in order to protest the way in which we have become a less tolerant and more mean-spirited culture than we were.
I have this to say to Paul: A delegation to the chairman of the RNC to demand that he have no dialogue with the members of an organization for human rights is itself intolerant, and serves neither your ends nor ours. You told Racicot, "if the perception is out there that the party has accepted the homosexual agenda, the leaders of the pro-family community will be unable to help turn out the pro-family voters. It won’t matter what we say; people will leave in droves."
This is disingenuous, since you are a community leader and share the attitude you describe. In other words, what you are really saying is that if the mere perception is that the Republican Party has accepted the "homosexual agenda," you will tell your followers to defect with the disastrous consequences that may follow. As a fellow conservative, I do not understand how in good conscience you can do this. Are you prepared to have President Howard Dean or President John Kerry preside over our nation’s security? Do you think a liberal in the White House is going to advance the agendas of social conservatives? What can you be thinking?
In the second place, the very term "homosexual agenda," is an expression of intolerance as well. Since when do all homosexuals think alike? In fact, thirty percent of the gay population voted Republican in the last presidential election. This is a greater percentage than blacks, Hispanics or Jews. Were these homosexuals simply deluded into thinking that George Bush shared their agendas? Or do they perhaps have agendas that are as complex, diverse and separable from their sexuality as women, gun owners or Christians, for that matter?
In your confusion on these matters, you have fallen into the trap set for you by your enemies on the left. It is the left that insists its radical agendas are the agendas of blacks and women and gays. Are you ready to make this concession -- that the left speaks for these groups, for minorities and "the oppressed?" Isn’t it the heart of the conservative argument that liberalism (or, as I would call it, leftism) is bad doctrine for all humanity, not just white Christian males?
If the President’s party – or conservatism itself -- is to prevail in the political wars, it must address the concerns of all Americans and seek to win their hearts and minds. It is conservative values that forge our community and create our coalition, and neither you nor anyone else has - or should have - a monopoly in determining what those values are.
Answer my question - Why are you berating me as if I said I supported Glsen's presence in the schools?
Horowitz, it appears, thinks Racicot should meet with the KKK and that these stupid racists shouldn't be stigmatized and shunned. Do I have that right?
Most sensible people would do a quick internet search to see who is being reasonable.
You keep saying I've given you nothing more than "I feel it's propaganda" and that's a bold faced lie. I gave very valid, legitimate, and reasonable explanations of why this woman's summary is suspect in post #551. You can choose to reject those explanations, but if you insist that I've offered nothing more than my feelings, you're simply a liar. That's the last I'm saying on this particular matter.
Here's what you said in 551:
When the summary is done by someone with an obviously extreme prejudice against gays, and her summary is sparse on full quotes, and she rewords the points in very loaded terms, I'm well within my right to look at her "facts" a bit askance.Then simply run an internet search and see what others are saying. Once the book arrives I'll scan any page you want. Is there anything in particular you would like to see?
I really don't give a flip about what you find on the internet. There are as many opinions, studies, and theories on the internet as there are people on this earth. I can link you to people who believe the earth is flat, aliens walk among us, and Elvis is sharing an apartment in Atlantic City with Jimmy Hoffa.
Some of that is just misdirection. You have the opportunity to find what others have said about the book, no matter what their position on the matter, but you won't do that.
I have no respect for someone who can't articulate a single argument in favor of their point of view but only insists that others "do an internet search". Only when you can make a rational, reasoned, well-stated argument of your own will I give a speck of credence to what you say.
As I previously said, I've made statements and supported them with links. You haven't supported a single statement you made.
I'm not berating you, I'm simply asking you if you deny the existence of a homosexual agenda, an agenda GLSEN is pushing. Do you support GLSEN's presence in the schools? Are you against GLSEN in the schools?
Do you deny the existence of a homosexual agenda?
That's misdirection. The topic is the homosexual agenda and why we should be concerned about it.
Huh? The HRC is a "human rights" organization? What on earth is David smoking here? Why not just make the simple point that it may be stupid to withdraw support for Bush in 2004 over single issues, but he is on thin ice lecturing these men on Christian theology, and seeing radical homosexual groups as somehow groups of "tolerance".
And what, exactly, would be the point of that? Would I expect to find any comments that are any less subjective and biased than yours? Quit beating a dead horse.
If so many folks have misrepresented the book, finding something to support your position should be easy, thus the internet search. I don't know what you'd expect to find, but you won't even try.
Do you deny that you're categorizing all homosexuals as members of a radical agenda, when you know this isn't true, simply because you detest homosexuals and you want to deny them their basic rights and dignities as a human being?
Why is such emotional irrationality and misapplied logic acceptable to you when conservatives attack gay people but not when liberals attack gun rights?
Please answer me. I'm really curious, because it seems you're being extremely inconsistent.
In what post did you answer my question: Do you deny the exist of a homosexual agenda? A simple yes or no is really all I'm looking for, but feel free to answer either way with an explanation.
We can move on to your questions without the misdirection and obfuscation when you answer mine.
I'm not. I know the internet. The good, the bad, and the ugly. I already know what I'll find if I indulge your pointless excercise in searching for comments on this book.
I can look on the internet and find opinions saying Hitler was the noblest human to ever live. I can find opinions saying Mickey Mouse is satanic. Do you really want to base the validity of your assertions on whatever random opinions you can find on the internet? It's utterly stupid of you to keep insisting on this. Like I said, quit beating a dead horse. You're becoming an extreme bore.
That's misdirection. The topic is the homosexual agenda and why we should be concerned about it.
Are you denying that much of this thread has been about hysterical rants about 'sodomy'? -- But in any case:
Um, how bout supporting the constitutional rights of a private life, liberty under the rule of law, and private property?
Why do you want to make 'laws' concerning the 'homo agenda'? We can counter their BS without involving government.
That doesn't at all implicate all other homosexuals, undoubtedly the majority, who simply wish to live their lives in peace free from the harrassment, capricousness, and vituperation of people like you.
Now, your turn.
Maybe not. Just maybe I've been on longer than most: since 1988. And you? So of course I know what you'll find, but you won't even try. If there's so many opinions out there, perhaps you can find one that supports your position.
You're not becoming anything. Your arguments are the typical arguments we see everytime, and always without supporting evidence.
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.