Subscribe to Christianity Today
Subscribe to Christianity Today
Donate to Christianity Today
login | my account
May 26, 2012

Home > 2010 > April (Web-only)Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2010
Political Advocacy Tracker
The GOP War Chest Malfunction
Groups react to the nightclub spending spree. Plus: some attack pro-life Democrats even as Christian leaders sign "Covenant for Civility."




Political Advocacy Tracker is a roundup of what Christian activist organizations have been talking about over the last week.

The Republican National Committee spent nearly $2,000 at a strip club featuring women performing simulated lesbian and bondage sex shows.

Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America (CWA) immediately put out a statement calling the episode "outrageous."

"Please explain to women if and why you think it is appropriate to attach your organizations to pornographic enterprises? Did you really swill drinks, ogle young girls and plan party business at this kind of establishment?" Nance said.

Yesterday, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC), told members, "Don't give money to the RNC."

"If you want to put money into the political process, and I encourage you to do so, give directly to candidates who you know reflect your values," he said. "This latest incident is another indication to me that the RNC is completely tone-deaf to the values and concerns of a large number of people from whom they seek financial support."

In recent months, social conservatives have been at odds with the RNC leadership. Last fall, they were outraged when the RNC backed Dede Scozzafava, who favors abortion rights and same-sex marriage, in a special election in the NY 23rd District. (A Democrat won the election.)

Some conservatives responded to the New York loss by suggesting a purity pledge that candidates would need to agree to in order to receive support from the RNC. At its January meeting, the RNC rejected the pledge.

Earlier this month, the RNC hired Ted Olson to represent the GOP in a campaign finance case. Olson represented George W. Bush in the 2000 Supreme Court case, Bush v. Gore. He later served as solicitor general under Bush. However, he is currently fighting to overturn Proposition 8, which defined marriage in California as being between one man and one woman.

Fred Jackson of the American Family Association (AFA) said on Tuesday's AFA Report that the RNC paying for the strip club visit is a "black eye" that shows "a divide in values even inside the Republican party." For co-host Buster Wilson, the episode is a reminder that "politics is a very dirty business."

"We have to remember, and this is obviously not to excuse this kind of behavior, but when you get into the upper echelons of politics or business or sports or the entertainment industry there [are] a lot of unseemly and wicked things that go on," he said. "For Christians who want to get involved in politics, you better not be naïve. Because this kind of thing I'm sure is not unusual. It may be unusual that they tried to use RNC money, but I'm willing to bet that [there're] a lot of trips to these kinds of clubs amongst some portion, fraction, of Republicans and Democrats."

Pro-Life Democrats Under Attack

When Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio) was in the Ohio state legislature, he received a score of zero from NARAL Pro-Choice Ohio. When asked his view of abortion, Driehaus said he opposed abortion in all cases (including rape, incest, and when the life of the mother is in danger). He also opposed any public support of abortion.

Since being elected to Congress in 2008, Driehaus has consistently backed pro-life efforts in the House. He was one of only 23 Democrats to sign a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi in defense of the Hyde Amendment and other pro-life provisions on appropriations bills. He was also one of 25 Democrats to sign a letter in September supporting the Stupak Amendment to the health care legislation. He voted to bar the District of Columbia from using local taxes to fund abortions.





Christianity Today


  


Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.


Click here for international orders2-for-1 Gifts!

Displaying 1–5 of 28 comments

Dan H.

April 14, 2010  5:30pm

Hey Scott: First thing: back up, hoss, and re-read my previous post. "Your suggestions that I don't believe humans have a soul and that I haven't studied the bible are baseless." First, I said "I think your real issue is not so much with the "when" as much as it is with the 'if'." In other words I was trying to clarify the issue - not what you personally believe - altho I do wonder why you believe in a soul. Second, I said, "You assume there is ensoulment to begin with." So...what's the problem there? And then I encouraged you to read and meditate on God's word. How is that challenging your biblical knowledge? And then you said, "...when you move to legalize your belief (and how can you not)?" Scott, let me be perfectly clear: If nominated I will not run; if elected I will not serve. (Sheesh! And I thought we were getting along so well.)

Scott M

April 14, 2010  11:37am

Your suggestions that I don't believe humans have a soul and that I haven't studied the bible are baseless. At least you're using "in my opinion" language, conceding that this is your belief. Americans are free to believe what we choose. I've been fairly polite in this space but get ready for a brutal fight with the rest of America when you move to legalize your belief (and how can you not)? If you learned anything from the creationism fiasco, you will have to completely secularize your argument. This is your only shot because our constitution prevents theocracy. Secular consensus is necessary and if your argument is effective, anything is possible. Our laws already hold that an unborn child is a human being (Scott Peterson, et al). I concur and expect you would agree that this is the correct direction. Will society move all the way to life at conception? It’s not impossible, unless the only rationale is based in scriptural invective, in which case religious freedom will prevail.

Dan H.

April 14, 2010  7:41am

"...your Jeremia reference tells me a human being is formed in the womb but it does not say when." I think your real issue is not so much with the "when" as much as it is with the "if". You assume there is ensoulment to begin with. Why? Given your line of questioning so far, I would think you would have more problems with the belief in a soul. But of course philosophically you can't prove we even have a soul let alone when ensoulment occurs. In my opinion the bible never addresses ensoulment because it is assumed to occur at conception. My advice, for what its worth: read and meditate on God's word specifically those passages addressing how God views people. We are created in His image. Start here: Genesis 1:27 "God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." And keep going. God's only condition for giving you understanding is are you willing to believe and obey.

Scott M

April 13, 2010  10:15am

Biologists do not address the philosophical question of whether an embryo is a human being and your Jeremia reference tells me a human being is formed in the womb but it does not say when. Clearly you should understand by now that I don’t view the scripture as helpful in defining the moment of ensoulment and why should I? The 2000-year church track record here is abysmal, why should I believe you can do better? The Popes and Saints could not agree on this and I don’t expect you and me to agree, nor is agreement my objective. Believe what you will and act accordingly. I applaud that but those who wish to legalize the notion of ensoulment at conception need to be prepared to explain to the rest of us, who are not so sure, exactly how we will need to behave to protect fertilized eggs that would be considered human beings. I understand the moral comfort of holding that life begins at conception but the biology presents thorny barriers and my desire for answers is sincere… Anyone?

Dan H.

April 12, 2010  9:58pm

"Today we issue the certificate at birth." God said in Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." "But if you contend that a fertilized egg is a human being then what’s your plan to codify the concept?" Well, you got me there. I don't even have tomorrow planned out let alone a plan to codify the concept of ensoulment at conception. "Because if you are not prepared to act as though an embryo were a human being then maybe you don’t really believe it." (People always acting...act up, act out, act accordingly, act right, act stupid, act your age...etc. Now you want "to act as though".) When my wife found she was "with child" 25 years ago, I "acted as though" she had a real human baby inside her womb. No, actually, it wasn't an act. I danced around the house and acted a fool - well, that probably wasn't an act either. But you get my drift.

You must be a Christianity Today subscriber or have created a FREE registration to post comments
[Browse More Christianity Today]



War and Peace

War and Peace

Pastor Tullian Tchividjian survived a leadership coup by finding rest in the liberating power of the gospel.

Facing Fears

Facing Fears

Max Lucado employs preaching to overcome fear.

more | current issue

Christian Bible Studies

Unbalanced Blessings

Unbalanced Blessings

The balancing act of...

Books & Culture

Quiet

Quiet

Shhh! Introverts working...

Preaching Today

NFL Star Junior Seau Searched for Peace

Small Groups

Prepare with Prayer

Prepare with Prayer

Don't leave out this...

Search
Search
Search
Scripture Search
Go Deeper