Wednesday, October 8, 2008

DOES THE GOP USE/ABUSE EVANGELICALS? --(amended 10/8)

Mudrake said that evangelicals are "pimped" by the GOP --meaning, I guess, that we are "used" just for our votes and that the GOP could care less about our issues.

My answer to that was as follows: Professional party big wigs may "pimp" the prolife Catholics and evangelicals, as he says, knowing this is a large voting bloc they need. BUT they gave us born again Condi Rice, more than 2 pro-life Supreme Court justices, an evangelical presidential speech writer for awhile, several sincerely pro-life senators and representatives and Christians in Congress. (Read Chuck Colson's Born Again--and how a group of Congressmen prayed for him and led him to faith in Christ by giving him C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity to read.)

By the way, I believe Geo Bush's Christianity is real. He ALSO gave us the faith-based initiative possibility, which has helped poor churches have programs for needy people, though there were too many strings attached for evangelicals. He compassionately tried to rescue all the AIDS victims in Africa --which is money down a rat hole if they don't change their promiscuous ways via abstinence education which has reduced new AIDS cases in one nation where they use it. And finally, Geo Bush started out with regular Bible studies and prayer optional for staff in the White House --as a Jewish biographer of the Bush White House pointed out.

I still say, history will reveal that he wasn't wrong about Iraq and not the cause of our economic woes. But he was not able to shrink entitlements --or say no to any group with its hand out because of their own choices (the mortgage and wall street bail-outs.)

Bush vetoed tax- supported stem cell research on abortion victims. Pro-life folks prevented abortions funded by the military health system; the party gave us equal access legislation in the schools, some conservative and God-fearing judges at various levels, SOME successful resistance to the ACLU's war on national monuments, Ten Commandments, religious mottos, etc. and some restrictions on abortion at state and federal level.

The GOP stands for parental rights and vouchers for educational choice, very important to evangelicals.

Because the other party is strong in opposition, it's hard for GOP leaders, sincere or not, pimping or not, to accomplish much re the social issues. GOP majorities have never been that great in Congress that they could reverse Roe, e.g.

It doesn't help when the young evangelical voters are weak on worldview, and unaware of the history of the battle between conservatives and liberals, the conservative gains and losses, having been steeped in liberalness at the secular u's.

Of course, many religious folks have been democrats by family history --believing the democrat party to be the party of the common man, the laborer, the poor. But talk about pimped, the Democratic party really is the party of liberal elites, atheists, God-haters, Christian -haters, and leftwing radicals --THEY lead that party more than evangelicals lead the GOP.

Evangelicals are so busy with family and church; political involvement is difficult. It's hard to find good candidates among these people --because they do prioritize family and church and that keeps them 100 per cent occupied, in addition to their jobs. But there are evangelical republicans who have made our voice heard so loudly, that Mudrake thinks we are the biggest threat to the planet, advocating fundamentalist theocracy. He's wrong, of course.

He thinks we should be denied free speech in the name of separation of church and state and by his view of "hate speech" --which is any speech that says some behaviors are sins; i.e. preaching the Bible on moral matters. HIS is the dangerous thinking, contrary to the First Amendment, threatening to religious freedom.

I swear he would throw me in a North Korean prison for daily beatings --as this one dear Christian lady experienced (Voice of the Martyrs' latest magazine.)
So vitriolic he gets.

Whether or not all the GOP leadership agrees with evangelicals, I will vote for them because they are the pro-life party. I can't vote for people who think abortion is a woman's right and want to fight for that right. It tells me a lot about their respect for God -- that their respect for Him is not enough that I should want them heading our country.

I prefer a president who might actually pray and be heard by the ruler of the universe. As we are going to need the help of God to keep our ship of state afloat.

As for the budget crisis --the greed of the CEO's --often democrats --and the greed and corruption of the lenders (so many grads of liberal education), the decline of ethics in business, the careless spending of the whole nation resulting in credit card debt, I blame the liberals who have wanted our people to lack faith in God --which lack of faith allows for corruption everywhere. Christianity is salt and light --we ought not erode it by public policies nor engender hostility toward Christendom, as Mudrake does. Does he want to live next door to people who determine right and wrong based on their personal desires? instead of eternal truths? I guess he does.




"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

9 comments:

candyly said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
candyly said...

I guess if you are raped and acquire AIDS you are now considered promiscuous? You don't know very much about the blight in Africa, apparently. Teaching a woman about being promiscuous doesn't stop the ravages of men. Further, if you are SO against Stem Cell Research why aren't you boycotting and ranting about the evils of the In Vitro business? What do you think they do with the embryo's that aren't put in a womans body? Do you think that they grow them and adopt them out? No, they discard them! At least if we did stem cell research the little bundle of potential life will have achieved something. Come on, your whole logic is inconsistent and irrational.

Barb said...

Of course a rape victim isn't considered promiscuous. Where did you think i said that? Are you saying rape is the main cause of AIDS in Africa? I know there was awful treatment of women in the Rawanda war between Tutsis and Hutus. Of course rapists are promiscuous--and I repeat, there is little benefit to AIDS treatment in a promiscuous culture. They have to change their lifestyles as a people.

If a people are promiscuous, they won't stop the spread of AIDS.

The main thing about fetal stem cell research is that it isn't necessary. The best research is adult stem cell and people's own cells used to help them. I haven't heard of any great discoveries from fetal stem cell research, have you?

I think the embryos of the in vitro business, are problematic. I don't have a recommendation --except Just keep them on ice, I guess (or whatever they do to preserve their viability) --to implant with their parents permission someday, perhaps. They are people in the making.

candyly said...

Just because you don't directly say something doesn't meant that your lack of knowledge doesn't say it for you. There are many reasons for the widespread epidemic of AIDS in Africa and the promiscuity among women is quite rare. In fact in most of the African cultures women are taught from childhood that sex is saved for procreation and marriage only. Hence female circumcision, to lessen a womans desire for and pleasure of sex. Women and children are raped daily and not only is she infected but her subsequent children and childrens children, many may not even know they are infected. If we stop sending aid to them or put forth some sort of Western/Christian ideal we are killing more people and CHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN, than we have aborted in the United States since Roe V. Wade. Proselytizing has its place and education is of the utmost importance, but if you care so much about life, ALL life you won't use those as stipulations to help save millions. You can go to www.Worldvision.com, you can read up on more information and donate is you so desire. Steve and I have donated through them.

kateb said...

Some sort of Western/Christian ideal? Are you saying that is synonymous with stopping sending aid?

Christian mercy does not rely on the acts or state of another. It is generated within a believer of Christ and given to those in need. Period. We don't pass judgments and determine who we will or will not be of service to.

Also, I will say that the largest and most consistent humanitarian efforts, on this entire planet, are motivated and supported by Christians.

And the world is the place for proselytizing. Every inch of, every cubic inch of air to be used to breath the Gospel. To all people, everywhere.

candyly said...

In Barb's original post she insinuated that we should stop sending aid to Africa because they are promiscuous, that sounds pretty judgemental to me because that is statistically not the case. By the way I misspoke when I said "If we stop sending aid to them or put forth some sort of Western/Christian ideal we are killing more people and CHILDREN, BORN AND UNBORN...." I meant to say that if we stop sending aid to them because they don't subscribe to the Western/Christian ideals we put forth.....We can't base the aid and help we (Christians) give someone on whether they subscribe to the perfect ideal that we want them to. That is as bad as doing nothing.

Barb said...

Kateb, you must have accolades for Geo Bush and his compassionate conservatism that has us borrowing money to send aid to Africa against AIDS.

I'm all for George and his compassionate acts.

I'm just being pragmatic when I say it won't do long-term good if they don't also change their culture.

Why do the virtuous circumcised mothers have so many sons who think it's ok to be part of a maurauding gang of rapists???

there are cultural problems in some of those groups.

I thought I understood from some documentary that the So. African young people were very sexually active by choice, both sexes --and that it was difficult to accomplish a new standard of abstinence until marriage.

I believe you about the rapacious gangs --but I don't think all the African groups guard young virginity with female circumcision. I wonder if it's particularly the Islamic groups.

Missionaries used to tell that grandmothers inducted young boys into sex in some tribes --and how some chiefs would offer wives to their visitors for the night.

Barb said...

That last comment was not for you KateB but for Candyly.

Barb said...

Also, Candyly --here in US, we TEACH waiting for marriage as an ideal --or used to --yet people have historically often gotten the cart before the horse --but it has been worse since The Sexual Revolution of the late 60's, 70's,80's. That's when PP-style sex ed swept the schools and media --non-judgmental condoning of pre-marital sex as long as you didn't make a baby.

Then the diseases hit --and condoms were non-judgmentally recommended to youth as making sex "responsible." Even though condoms are not foolproof/fullproof? and girls can't be sure guys will use them once in bed.

Africans are no different than any other matriarchial society with men not fulfilling their places. banana beer is a big problem in central Africa and missionaries to Rwanda have helped the women develop sewing businesses, to support their families because their men were strung out on the beer all the time.

Said by those who were there.

And you say the men are rapacious as well.

And tv documentaries tell us that getting the African people to use condoms is very difficult.

These are cultural aspects that need to change if AIDS is to be curbed.

The meds and condoms BY THEMSELVES are not the best cure or prevention for AIDS --a monogamous generation producing monogamous offspring --that's the best cure for AIDS. So abstinence education (with condom knowledge for those who won't be abstinent before marriage and faithful in marriage) is the BEST sex ed and AIDS prevention anywhere --and it must go with the aid to help the victims of this tragic disease --or the money will not curb this world-wide epidemic.