Republicans not always a Christian's best friend

[rgrove]

Admittedly, I haven't voted for a Democrat that I can remember. But I have no illusions that a political party completely shares my beliefs as some people seem to do. Here's yet another article that demonstrates this to be the case. I put a couple of snippets from the article below from Baptist Press to give a quick idea of what it talks about.

A porn star at the presidential dinner
Friday, Jun 10, 2005
By Kelly Boggs

If all goes as planned, "adult film actress" (can you say oxymoron?) Mary Carey will accompany her boss, hardcore pornographer Mark Kulkis, at the 2005 President's Dinner and Salute to Freedom June 14.

While the purpose of the event is to raise money for the NRCC which, according to its website, exists to support the election of Republicans, one of the main reasons guests are forking over $2,500 a plate is to dine with President Bush.

In the case of Carey and Kulkis, the pair hopes their $5,000 will also translate into positive public relations.

Carey describes herself as an aspiring politician. She was one of 135 candidates who ran for governor of California in the 2003 recall election. Her platform included taxing breast enhancements, making lap dances tax deductible, using porn stars as "goodwill ambassadors" and installing web cameras throughout the governor's mansion.

Prior to the dinner, Carey plans to officially announce her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of California. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."

Carey indicated she was looking forward to meeting Karl Rove because, "Smart men like him are so sexy." She also added she hopes to persuade Rove to support "gay marriage."

Kulkis, president of Kick (expletive) Pictures, sees the invitation as a way of gaining credibility for the porn industry.

"Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party," Kulkis said, according to WorldNetDaily. "Well you won't find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers." He added, "We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year."

Kulkis also sees the dinner as an opportunity to challenge the stereotypes of porn workers. "We're not the freakish demons people make us out to be," Kulkis said. "I'm not a creep with a coke spoon around his neck. I'm a regular guy."

Regular guy? Yes, of course, how silly of me to not realize that all regular guys shamelessly exploit women for profit.

...

When asked about the presence of the porn peddlers, NRCC spokesperson Carl Forti downplayed the situation. "There are going to be about 6,000 in the ballroom," he told WorldNetDaily. "It's not like it's some kind of one-on-one dinner."

Forti added, "They've paid their money. No matter what they do, the money is going to help elect Republicans to the House."

Thank you, Mr. Forti, for clearing things up for folks, like myself, that voted for the president this past November. If I understand the explanation correctly, economics trumps ethics. To put it another way, money talks -- even money gained by prostituting the glorious gift of sex -- and everything else walks.

[Alejandro]

rgrove said:

Carey describes herself as an aspiring politician. She was one of 135 candidates who ran for governor of California in the 2003 recall election. Her platform included taxing breast enhancements, making lap dances tax deductible, using porn stars as "goodwill ambassadors" and installing web cameras throughout the governor's mansion.

Is that true?


Never am I impressed with either of the political parties that seem to run this nation. I do not think there will ever be a party that fully represents the way God would have us live. We must strive to live according to God, rather than a political system that man has created.

Be blessed,
Alejandro

[Soulfyre]

Perhaps the great difficultly which we have in a representative democracy (a republic) is that we cannot necessarily choose our constituents. Nevertheless, I believe that people who desire representative office can and should control from whom they receive contributions. I do not believe that a representative government should require than an elected official check his or her morality at the door under the specious argument that they represent all of their electorate. If this is the case, we no longer need representatives at all, but large electronic tabulators at each desk that can at any time measure the attitude of the electorate on any specific topic and vote accordingly. Of course, this would institute the tyranny of the majority in ways that cannot be imagined.

We currently have a two-party system feeding a three-ring media circus, each side discussing hot-button issues that assure notice by lazy journalists desperate for a eye-grabbing headline that will sell more papers. We have a congress whose members are adept at manipulating their constituent bases in accordance with major donors and special interests. And both parties are equally to blame. The Democratic party delights in making the "vast right-wing conspiracy" their favorite whipping boy, enabling them to reject out-of-hand the sincere beliefs of many traditional Christians who are simply, and conveniently, lumped in with the "lunatic fringe". This appeals greatly to the "loony left" contingency, who seem to believe that traditional morality, especially as espoused by those of the historical Christian faith, is the root of all evil and tyranny. Their ilk have effectively tyrannized society in the name of a politically correct civil rights that has never seen the inside of the Constitution.

The Republican party has spent a great deal of time looking under rocks for anti-patriots, stoking up the fires of pro-life (although rarely a consistent pro-life), and "standing up for traditional marriage". These are treated, not within the sweeping moral obligations of our time, but as hot-button issues to rally the faithful (whom they hope will turn a blind eye to other issues such as the spiraling cost of health care, public transportation, the decrease of gas emissions that lead to global warming within a comprehensive energy conservation and transformation plan, and effectively addressing the issue of retirement and social security. I am not a socialist, mind you. Few things are actually are administered better by unelected bureaucrats with no financial investment in the outcome, but our society espouses "liberty in law", an essentially Biblical notion that we cannot be truly free without the confines of law. Thus, "de-regulation" is not the tonic to cure all ills (remember Enron?).

We are far beyond the point where we should vote for people because of their party affiliation. Rather, we must develop a deeply Biblical social outlook, and make our voice heard accordingly. We need to shed the Pharisaic title of "moral majority", and endeavor to display the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ in our lives. We need to become consistently "pro-life", as we are willing to consider others, being tender, compassionate, generous and loving. We must seek to persuade, not simply by words, but by actions. And we must vote intelligently, not according to the party of an individual, but according to their moral integrity. And we must hold both parties, one individual at a time, to their sacred obligation.

Remember. Few politicians see us truly as individuals, but as one of two groups: 1) those who can contribute the truly vulgar sums seemingly required to command today's marketplace of "ideas", or 2) those who can be relied upon to vote to assure an adequate turnout to guarantee re-election. In our entertainment deluged society, many pols realize that appearance is far better than substance, and vocality better than effective activity. And personal power and security trumps them all. These people are often paid princely sums, given the best health care in the United States, and have employment perks that can only be imagined by the electorate. In many cases, personal wealth is a requirement for office, trumping all other considerations. Must we passively encourage the corruption within a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? If so, we rightly condemn ourselves.

Now is the time for us to bear the true cost of Christian discipleship. Now is the time for us to let our works so shine before others that our Father in Heaven may be glorified. Now is the time for us to speak out for the poor, the downtrodden, the widow and the orphan--to call for justice and demand righteousness from our government. Now is the time to reject hot-button politics to return our government representatives from the subtle assumption of "dieu et mon droit" to a servant leadership. But we can only do this if we also have "servant hearts", being willing to imitate our Lord in His humility for the sake of our salvation. In fact, if we are to bear the name of Christ, we can do no less.

God bless and keep you always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

I would be fine in voting for a Democrat, but I am nothing short of an abomination in the eyes of the vast majority of the leadership of that party. I only see them moving aggressively farther and farther away from me. 20 years ago there were Democrats I had a lot of respect for in the Senate (Sam Nunn from GA comes to mind) but nowadays it's almost impossible to find one that doesn't purposefully take time out to dehumanize me. I believe I've been forced to become a one party voter by the Democratic party. Especially in such an astonishingly liberal place as where I live just outside Portland, OR. The Democrats here make me cringe every time they open their mouths. And unfortunately the Republicans are frequently just as liberal. Social issues don't separate them in this part of the state, only economic ones. I have as little in common with a socially liberal Republican as I do with 99.99% of the Democrats in office today. I've traditionally written my wife's name in as the candidate I vote for when a socially liberal Republican is running...

Agreed about that pathetic name "Moral Majority". Never liked it. It exudes arrogance that can't possibly be pleasing to Christ.

Yours In Christ,
Ron

[melinky]

I tend to stay away from politics, for similar reasons to Ron's. When I vote, I usually feel that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. However, out of this thread, the thing that offends me the most is that it has become socially acceptable to be a participant, on any level, in the porn industry. I hate what the modern world has turned the gift of physical love into. But then again, those who uphold the porn industry are most likely the same people who would tell you that humans are more highly evolved than animals. I wonder....

Melinda