[Vision2020] David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO

[Chasuk]

On 5/17/06, Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:

> Next, a well-written article, by a Jewish intellect, many will find
> interesting

> HOMOSEXUALS HAVE EASTER BUNNY IN THEIR SIGHTS

Thank you, Ed.  In the spirit of reciprocity, I'll share an article
written by your hero, David Horowitz.  Actually, I think everyone
should read this article.  I found it informative, and Horowitz is
definitely not my hero.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7910

Pride Before a Fall

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.