[Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad dayin IDAHO

Thu May 18 06:17:16 PDT 2006

So Joe, If the Declaration of Independence is to be your ultimate guide in 
this matter, I am sure that you have no objection to three men/women who 
love and respect one another enjoying the right to marriage and their own 
version of the pursuit of happiness. After all, why should couples enjoy 
special rights? Like you say, equal rights for all.

gc
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "Ed" <ecooper at turbonet.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:14 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Re: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad dayin 
IDAHO

> What is the "homosexual agenda," Ed? How is the right of one man to marry 
> another man -- e.g., the right of each person to marry the adult person of 
> his or her choice -- a "special" or "group" right and not an individual 
> right? This is a right that you and I enjoy but clearly not everyone 
> enjoys this right. You are the one advocating special rights, rights that 
> straights enjoy but gays and lesbians do not.
>
> This particular liberal does not want "special privileges for every 
> diversity or enclave in the States," so your unsupported generalization is 
> just plain false, as well. All I want is equal rights for all. All I want 
> is the US to realize the true consequences of these very words: "We hold 
> these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they 
> are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
> these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
>
> You can suggest that this is something special but you are smart enough to 
> know better. I didn't notice any footnotes in the Declaration of 
> Independence advocating the narrow interpretation that you would give it. 
> Can you point them out to me?
>
> I await your next evasion of my clear and direct questions.
>
> --
> Joe Campbell
>
> ---- Ed <ecooper at turbonet.com> wrote:
>
> =============
> Chas,
>
> I'm glad to see you're reading material from quality web sites. Horowitz 
> is not my hero, but a great visionary and thinker. He makes some valid 
> points in the article; but, in my estimation,  he fails to stress the 
> importance of our Constitutionally-grounded individual rights in a society 
> that is increasingly demanding group rights.
>
> True conservatives advocate equal rights for all; liberals want special 
> privileges for every diversity or enclave in the States. In my estimation, 
> he (Horowitz) was a bit over the line in his dismissal of the KKK analogy. 
> The KKK is somebody--even though their intentions/actions are 
> racially-driven. However, one could categorize both these groups' agendas 
> as harmful, detrimental to society. (Note, I don't advocate violence 
> towards any person or any group--or kicking someone in the groin for that 
> matter. )
>
> In sum, the article was well-written, but failed to mention his true 
> feelings about the homosexual agenda..
>
> FWIW, my idol (if I had one) would be Lawrence Auster...another Jewish 
> American.. (Horowitz and Feder, also great conservative Jewish 
> intellects.) Course, I'm a racist, sexist, homophobe if you listen to some 
> people..
>
> Thanks for sharing the article, Chas.  I enjoyed it...
>
> --Ed
>  ----- Original Message ----- 
>  From: Chasuk
>  To: Ed
>  Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>  Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 3:25 PM
>  Subject: David Horowitz [A gift to Ed] Was: A sad day in IDAHO
>
>
>  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.
>
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> 