May 06, 2005
Exclusive: Hutch and Lapin fight back

In response to this ad hominem screed: "Resurgent bigotry troubling, dangerous," by liberal political activist Daniel Weiner (who calls every opponent of HB 1515 a "common, base" bigot), Pastor Ken Hutcherson and Rabbi Daniel Lapin collaborated on the following rebuttal, published here at SoundPolitics.com first:


Help!—A Jew And a Black Under Attack!

By Pastor Ken Hutcherson and Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

We’ve been close friends for years. We have shared Sabbath meals and addressed one another’s constituencies. One of us is a very large black man, the other is an average size white guy. One of us raises Rottweiler dogs, the other sails boats. One of us is a Christian pastor while the other is an Orthodox Jewish rabbi. Yet for all these differences, something recently united us. And it was not that we’re both bald or that we both have beards!
What happened is that the senior rabbi of one of Seattle’s largest Reform congregations attacked us in a local newspaper for our opposition to homosexual marriage. In his florid article, filled with alliterations, (apparently we promote “regressive religion and puritanical politics) he fired off three grenades at us.

The first—in regarding homosexual conduct as a sin, we demonstrate that we lack love and compassion.

Second—we sully religious faith with political exploitation.

The third grenade the Reform rabbi lobbed at us was that we hurl out our hate speech while safely hiding behind our ethnic identities.

Well, he’s not the first to deploy that outdated ordnance and not the first to discover that those particular grenades are duds. They make a lot of noise but throw no shrapnel.
Take that first charge for instance. Does a mother who denies her children their urges for an excess of unhealthy food lack love and compassion for those children? Of course not, however, you might argue, candy imperils teeth and half pound hamburgers cause obesity, while homosexual behavior hurts nobody.
This is precisely where our beliefs differ from his. We believe that homosexual behavior does indeed threaten the durability of a society; maybe not immediately but in time.
You see, clear and present threats, like angry Rottweiler dogs, are not so dangerous because people recognize the threat and avoid them. However dangers that take longer to develop can be truly terrifying. For instance, early in the 20th century, people would seek therapeutic benefit in the tunnels of uranium mines in Montana. This horrifying practice persisted for decades before the dangers of radioactivity were fully understood. By the time they were understood, it was too late. By then large numbers of patients had contracted cancers, become diseased, and had died. By the time the perils of homosexual marriage become obvious, it might well be too late. That is our belief and we are entitled to share that belief with others.
Our belief, along with millions of our fellow Jewish and Christian Americans, is that Scripture provides a sort of Biblical blueprint for safe and long-term human organization. Call us “old-fashioned” or any other names you prefer, but human history does seem to bear out our view. It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a society for whom rampant homosexuality was not a symptom of impending extinction.
Additionally, we also believe, though this seems obvious, that living in a healthy and vital society with a long-term future is more valuable than living in a doomed one. Thus it is our belief that societal acceptance of homosexual marriage will, in time, worsen the quality of our own lives and those of our children here in the United States. Let us make it as clear as we can: We oppose homosexual marriage because it will ultimately harm the land we love and lower the quality of life for those many millions for whom we have great compassion.
Look at it this way: we are advising all the occupants of our lifeboat to discourage some individuals from drilling small holes through the hull. They have their own reasons for wanting to drill those holes, and those small holes may not appear immediately to imperil the vessel, but in time, make no mistake, they will sink us.

--ooOoo—

Let us move onto the second grenade which lies fizzling at our feet. The Reform rabbi charged that when we oppose homosexual marriage because the Bible views homosexuality as a sin, we use faith merely to advance a political agenda. That is like saying that because he quoted Scripture while fighting segregation, Reverend Martin Luther King used faith to advance a political agenda. Civil rights was not any more a “political agenda” than is protecting the traditional family. They are both deep moral values. They may not be everybody’s moral values but they are ours.
Politics is nothing more than a society applying its deepest moral values in a practical way. Without politics, citizens who disagreed with one another would resort to guns and knives. However the system of politics does depend upon treating with respect, even those with whom we disagree. Your labeling us as prejudiced bigots is not respectful. You may disagree with us, but we are as entitled to our beliefs as you are to yours. America grants freedom of belief to Bible-believing Jews and Christians as well as to secular fundamentalists.
Drawing upon the Bible as a source for our deepest moral values, as we both do, does not give you the right to demean our values. We do not insult those who gain their moral compass from John Locke, Karl Marx, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, or the Readers Digest. We may disagree with some of those values but we disagree on the merits of the morality not by demeaning the source.
To us, the Bible is not a dried-up, desiccated, dusty old volume devoid of all passion and practicality. On the contrary, to us and to millions of our fellow citizens, it is a vibrant source of life-affirming guidance, as relevant today as it was a thousand years ago. Encouraging our fellow citizens to apply these Biblical values to society through the blessed mechanism of democratic politics honors the Bible. Doing so certainly does not sully it.

--ooOoo--

The rabbi’s third grenade is not even fizzling. It merely rolls across the floor looking ridiculously impotent. He charged that the past suffering of Jews and blacks provides the two of us with the “ethnic bona fides to minimize the rights pursued by others.” He betrays himself by suggesting that the merits of our argument depend upon skin pigmentation or upon tribal affiliation. No, rabbi, you are just plain wrong.
We feel confident opposing homosexual marriage not because one of us is descended from slaves in America while the other is descended from slaves in Egypt, but because the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob opposes homosexual marriage. Frankly, what baffles us both is how you, calling yourself a rabbi, can completely ignore that book which God presented to the Jews at Mount Sinai 3317 years ago.
However, even if you choose to ignore the Torah and its guidance on homosexual behavior, millions of Americans do not. They are entitled to hold their beliefs and even vote their beliefs without earning your antagonism.

--ooOoo--

This attack upon us has revealed the real difference between medieval Europe and modern America. Long ago, Europe’s sinister theocracies made secularism look benign. Today, here in the United States, secular fundamentalism has become sinister in how it demonizes Orthodox Jews and serious Christians. Secular fundamentalism has become its own stern faith with its own harsh doctrines, practicing intolerance for dissent and administering punishment to heretics. Thanks rabbi; we think we understand.
Your attack upon us has done something else for which we both thank you. You have shown that the real canyon cutting through our culture is not between Jew and Christian. It is not even between black and white. It separates those of us who regard the Torah as divine and binding from those who don’t. It is as simple as that. There are Jews and Christians on both sides of that canyon, just as there are blacks and whites.
Finally we thank you for helping our friendship grow still deeper. One black man and one white man, one Orthodox rabbi and one Christian pastor, arm in arm, and shoulder to shoulder as we try our best to defend the America that our Founders intended.
###

Pastor Ken Hutcherson, a former Dallas Cowboy, is senior pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington. Rabbi Daniel Lapin, a radio and television host, is president of Toward Tradition.


Posted by Brian Crouch at May 06, 2005 04:26 PM | Email This
Comments
1. Matt Rosenberg considers their view "outdated." See his post today on Mayor West. Am I characterizing your position fairly, Matt?

Posted by: jsa on May 6, 2005 04:32 PM
2. I hope the word "ordinance" will be changed to "ordnance" before this rebuttal hits the press. It would be a shame if readers got the impression that Daniel Weiner is hurling municipal law at Mssrs. Hutcherson & Lapin.

Posted by: Thoan on May 6, 2005 04:39 PM
3. Thoan: Fixed, thanks.

Posted by: Bleeding heart conservative on May 6, 2005 04:44 PM
4. Beautiful essay. It gave me chills. Keep up God's work you two. You will be blessed for it.

Posted by: Vicki on May 6, 2005 04:45 PM
5. It is hard, if not impossible, to think of a society for whom rampant homosexuality was not a symptom of impending extinction.

Really? Is there an example where this has actually been studied scientifically? Unsubstantiated stories from the Bible and other related mythology is not the kind of solid evidence that can be used to promote discrimination.

Posted by: thehim on May 6, 2005 04:46 PM
6. I disagree with the views of Pastor Hutch and Rabbi Lapin. I don't believe there is a rational basis for worry about the future of population based on an extremely small percentage minority that may not be procreating. If China is any indication, we've actually got just the opposite problem due to heterosexuals.

However, they are entitled to hold these views, and they should not be labled as racists simply because they have a set of religious beliefs.

Posted by: Jeff B. on May 6, 2005 04:47 PM
7. I was going to write Rabbi Weiner a nasty e-mail in response, but Rabbi Lapin and Pastor Hutcherson did it far more eloquently (and with far more delicacy) than I ever could.

So let me say that Rabbi Weiner--especially at a synagogue named Hirsch no less, is what my grandmother would have called a "shonde for the goyim". Stefan, I trust you know what that means too.

Perhaps Rabbi Weiner can tell us sometime what he is doing to help perpetuate the Jewish people and our traditions, since liberal Jews have few kids (and many of those aren't even Jewish, attributable to intermarriage), and gays have practically none.

Posted by: Howard Hirsch on May 6, 2005 04:58 PM
8. Well written and articulated rebuttal. However, that does not give Pastor Hutch the right to threaten a company and its employees because they disagree with him.

ABC has a policy of church discipline on Sunday mornings. It is time the Church disciplined thier pastor.

Posted by: Monroe Parent on May 6, 2005 04:59 PM
9. Howard,

Don't waste your time writing a nasty letter-- all you do is give them a chance to say "See, I told you they were all mean spirited bigots!"


Monroe Parent,

As a private citizen, he has every right to "threaten" (I just heard him on Carlson calling it a promise, not a threat) a private company with a boycott, when that company decides to take public policy stances he doesn't agree with. Why doesn't he have that right? Where is it written that Microsoft is entitled to his money?

Posted by: Mike H on May 6, 2005 05:21 PM
10. It is stunningly ironic that Rev. Hutcherson objects so strongly to allowing the marriages of gay and lesbian couples to be recognized legally.

It was not so long ago that his own marriage to a white German woman was outlawed in most states, condemned by a majority of U.S. citizens, and supported by numerous religious leaders citing Scripture.

When Rabbi Weiner points out that the Reverend should know better, due to the discrimination he has suffered throughout his life, I think he hits the nail right on the head.

Posted by: Mickymse on May 6, 2005 05:22 PM
11. That depends, Mickymse, if your view of homosexuality is that it is equivalent to someone's race or shade of melanin.

Posted by: Sid on May 6, 2005 05:43 PM
12. Watch out, Hutch and Rabbi Lapin; you're 'off the reservation' and BOY, is the Left ever mad about THAT!~

I have heard that in parts Europe where gay marriage is legal, marriage in general has declined. NOT a good direction for society to go. You think it's bad now; wait til you see what happens if America goes that way.

Posted by: Michele on May 6, 2005 06:21 PM
13. Monroe Parent: I think what you missed along the way is that the problem isn't that Hutch disagrees with Microsoft policies. What he has a problem with is Microsoft forcing its own policies on everyone else, which is exactly what their support of HB 1515 would have meant.

Mkymse: There are quite a few black pastors out there who are angry that the Left is comparing a political movement based on skin color to a political movement based on a sexual act, and are not being shy about making their dissenting views known about this topic.

Posted by: Michele on May 6, 2005 06:29 PM
14. Human beings are sexually reproductive animals. That means that it takes one man and one women to procreate. This is normal. Anything outside of this act is not a normal act of sexual reproduction. Therefore, a man and a man or a woman and a woman could not now or ever be considered "normal human sexuality".

Now the problem here is that everybody starts assigning morality to all these issues. Let's just get some basics straight before we go and start assigning morality. Sex is not an act undertaken for its relative moral standing, it is a natural human act designed to bring about offspring and therefore continue the human race. Any sexual act outside of these parameters falls outside of the boundaries - the only counter I would have in terms of sexual acts outside of sexual intercourse in heterosexual couples is that they are usually a precursor to the act itself.

Therefore, the homosexual community has essentially an untenable position. They have to argue that for some reason their sexuality is consistent with "normal" human sexuality, which it clearly is not. Their continued fight for "rights", including forcing the overwhelming majority of Americans to view their "marriages" as legitimate, is going to end up in a backlash that will eventually, I believe, lead to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex "marriage". The reason I believe this to be so is that if Oregon state amends its state constitution to ban same sex "marriage", and the same type of amendment passed in all 11 states it was brought to ballot in, what hope do they have? Instead of taking the route of strengthing civil unions - which can also be between a man and a woman - they had to have the "M" word.

Posted by: Aaron on May 6, 2005 07:53 PM
15. Michele:

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the Left normally whinge and moan about the influence of Big Business on politics, and then have a hissy fit when somebody gets Big Business out of politics on an issue the Left wants?

Posted by: Ted Schuerzinger on May 6, 2005 07:59 PM
16. Excellent point, Ted

Posted by: Michele on May 6, 2005 10:40 PM
17. Sex is not an act undertaken for its relative moral standing, it is a natural human act designed to bring about offspring and therefore continue the human race. Any sexual act outside of these parameters falls outside of the boundaries - the only counter I would have in terms of sexual acts outside of sexual intercourse in heterosexual couples is that they are usually a precursor to the act itself.

So having sex with a condom on is the equivalent of gay sex because it can't end in pregnancy?

Posted by: thehim on May 7, 2005 12:15 AM
18. There are people of faith that believe that procreation must be part of the relations to make it valid...The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind...but there are many of us that make note of passages that indicate that sexuality was given as a gift of pleasure as well, but within the context of marriage. This is covered extensively in Dr. Ed Wheat's book on love life.

Personally, I like the approach Hutch and R. Lapin took on the subject at hand.

I don't know to what extent there is an inevitability of the demise of society if the gay choice runs rampant, but I can see it in concept.

On the other hand there is this...there is a great irony in that the dems/left presume abortion to be proper and a secure choice apart from government dictates. So literally millions of babies have been killed. Yet we are now projecting deficits for Social Security. It would take only limited imagination to see that the addition of perhaps 40 million or so taxpayers at the young end to ease the problem for the retirees.

These things happen on a personal basis, but the cumulative effect for society can be enormous. I really don’t care what anyone does behind closed doors, presuming participants have obtained their majority and give consent. I just don’t want to hear about it, nor do I want it to govern public policy nor do I want a matter of choice to be equated with things that are not choices.

Posted by: scott158 on May 7, 2005 02:03 AM
19. Looks like I am finally going to have a legimate reason for permanmently switching to Linux. I will vote with my wallet. If a company chooses to inflict its influence toward the moral decline of society, I will do what I can with my votes (read as $$$) to hinder their efforts. Likewise I will encourage those other indivduals, organizations, and companies with which I have dealings to do likewise. It won't be painless, but if the issue is forced, I will take a stand for good... def: That which is morally right.

Posted by: Jamie on May 7, 2005 08:08 AM
20. A great reason to cancel my MSN and go to another provider!!!

Posted by: Nirm on May 7, 2005 08:10 AM
21. Jamie, Nirm, Been there, done that. SuSE (Novell) 9.1 is great!

Posted by: Dogbert on May 7, 2005 08:53 AM
22. Actually, Guys 'n Gals, I prefer Mandrake, but just about any *nix will do. Oh, by the way, did I mention that I *hate* Micky$oft?

I don't support what I don't believe in, so there's a LOT of products I don't buy, and a lot of companies/products that I *do* support especially for their policies. I just wish I could get out of paying Sales Tax, because I sure as heck don't support what's going on in Olympia!!

Igor

Posted by: Igor on May 7, 2005 11:54 AM
23. thehim,
Try studying any of the ancient empires that fell. When they became powerful and relatively at ease, taxing those they had conquered while they indulged in luxury, they generally became hedonistic and gradually inattentive to the discipline required for survival. If you will dig a little you will find that their libertine lifestyle included a rise in acceptance of homosexuality.

It would be a mistake to say that homosexuality caused the downfall. It would be entirely accurate to say that its rising acceptance can be a barometer of a society that is weakening in moral resolution and thus endangering its way of life.

Posted by: Larry T on May 7, 2005 09:18 PM
24. Want to protest against Microsoft? Choose openoffice.org software to create your documents and spread sheets. This is the FREE open source software alternative to Microsoft Office product. Make great business cards by using Open Office writer.

Want to take Linux out for a spin on your computer with out installing it. Check out these three websites:
http://www.watsky.net Beatrix Linux 200 MByte CD to boot up from without changing your present installation. Download the .ISO file and burn image to CD.

http://www.knoppix.net Knoppix Linux download and burn 700MByte ISO file. Burn image file .iso to CD.

http://www.mepis.org Mepis is an improved version of Knoppix. Cost about $10.00 plus $3.00 handling charge to get a bootable CD to try in your computer.


Looking for alternative FREE software for Windows? Try these two websites that have openoffice.org software in the .iso file image to burn to CD. You don't have to continue using
Microsoft Office products.
http://www.kavlon.org
http://www.theopencd.org


Good Luck in protesting against homosexual marriage. Each one of us needs to take a stand for good values. Such an articulate well written article that makes a case for standing up for good values. I liked that the rebuttal was point by point and gave me food for thought.!!!

I liked to hear Hutchins debate against homosexual marriage on afternoon John Carlson KVI 570 show.

Posted by: Fred Finster on May 7, 2005 11:06 PM
25. Good point, Larry. It would be pretty tough to prove that acceptance of homosexual lifestyles "caused" the decline, but it's fairly easy to show that it is at the very least a symptom of a society in decline due to loosening moral values in general - a point which is pretty easily proven.

Of course, as a Christian myself, there is something to be said for having God's blessing, provision, and protection over your country. I do believe that once a country starts enacting policies in direct opposition to the Word (and come on...how can so many people say with a straight face that the Bible doesn't say homosexuality is a sin? It even goes so far as to say that it is an "abomination"), that God very likely will remove His hand of blessing or protection. Or both. Not necessarily punishing us so much as ceasing to protect us from ourselves.

Posted by: Scott on May 9, 2005 08:25 AM
26. While I'm at it - why is there all this talk about marriage being a "right"??? Last time I checked, it was still a privilege. Many people don't seem to understand the distinction anymore, it seems.

For instance, having a driver's license is a PRIVILEGE, NOT a right. I view this latest, fanatical drive to obtain "equal rights for gays to marry each other" as akin to blind people demanding driver's licenses because it's their RIGHT!

Furthermore, does no one realize that homosexuals have the same opportunity to get married as anyone else?? We all can get married if we so choose - to ONE person of the OPPOSITE sex.

And all this bunk about how homosexuals "are born that way" (I call it bunk because I personally don't believe it) shouldn't be an excuse either. For example, I think we all can agree that most/all men are born with/have an innate, natural desire to sleep with many, many women. So why are we forbidden from marrying multiple women (note: exempt in Utah - j/k)?? I mean, we're BORN with that innate desire, and therefore it's our RIGHT to marry as many women as we want, right??? Wrong.

Of course, if this country keeps going along with the loony left, soon polygamy will become legal too, and we'll all just be doing whatever feels good - a sure recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.

Posted by: Scott on May 9, 2005 08:35 AM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?