Obama on Separation of Church and State vs. Hillary's Christian Dominionist Prayer Group

In response to continued anti-Obama faux outrage, denigration and deliberate misrepresentation here at GDP, I wanted to present some facts to clear up any confusion as to where Obama stands on faith and politics:



http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1907

At the CNN/YouTube debate, he answered a question on this topic:



http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1881


All the while, Clinton attends secretive evangelical prayer Fellowship groups with Senate rightwingnuts. The Fellowship consists of 'a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast... The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit."'



http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-2.html

Hmmmm..... very interesting. I never knew that Hillary Clinton was a closet Christian Dominionist.

Now flame away, emit more faux outrage, play distraction games, attack the messenger. Frankly, I don't give a damn.

Who she prays with, is really none of your business.

Do you have anything else other than another Hillaryworlder attempt at faux outrage for printing some facts about The Queen of Parsing?

too many here on DU have an extreme adversion to any expression of religion or faith at all.

The OP is engaging in McCarthey-esque guilt by association

Karl Rove was a master of that approach, wasn't he?

all you have is opinion. No facts.

Wanna cracker?

thats it

:rofl:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Now I know why they endorsed her. a few days ago.... birds of a feather and all that.

and you haven't posted any evidence that she is

All you've got is she sits in a room with other people who are Dominionists.

I'm sorry if your reading comprehension is clouded by your worship of all things Clinton.

That's all you have

Too funny.


:rofl:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image

First McClurkin - now this??

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

LOL

but I dont see what it has to do with Obama. His name isnt even mentioned in the article. :shrug:

Shit, involvement in this group borders on treason. These loonies want to supplant the Constitution with Biblical Law. totally batshit--:crazy:

What, no response to the fact that your candidate for president is a member of a Christian Dominionist prayer group?

You are engaging in McCarthyesque guilt by association

they believe that Jesus would have been a Wall Street broker.

No one "runs" it. You obviously haven't been to many prayer groups. People bring up things to pray about, and the others, if they choose to do so, pray for it. There's nothing to run.

and a few months ago he was quoted in a newspaper article saying how his opinion of Hillary had changed (for the better) since she joined the prayer group.

Hillary could have joined or started a mainline Protestant or a liberal prayer group, one that extols liberation theology for example, but instead she has to join the fundie group.

Liberals Against Christian Dominionists Unite!

The fact that Brownback is involved proves nothing.

:rofl:

You're SUCH a great "Obama" supporter!

But I am also an evangelical Christian with a strong sense of Justice. I am caling you on this becsue I think the OP was insidious on it face not becuse I am a Hillary supporter.

But I think the OP content is right on -- and NO ONE in this entire thread has posted ANY link to evidence to the contrary, so your opinion and that of others
on this thread seem totally subjective at best -- you've already seen the worst directed at me. lol

Glad to help. :hi:

or the right christians? All others need not apply? I am of the opinion and have had this opinion for years is the only thing wrong with Christianity is no one has really tried it in its full concept.
There was a separation in the bible if I am not mistaken. What was it? render unto ceasear etc etc and render unto G-d etc. etc.

I try my best to show many on the right their understanding is all wrong. Take for example, I believe it is found in the book of james where there is a brother and sister in need of food and clothing. This one man comes up to them ( i call this man of the religious right) and he sees their plight and all he does is ask them to pray. They pray and then he walks away. The brother and sister are still in need of food and clothing.

Now another man ( uh huh this man is a liberal ) walks up to them and sees their plight and he asks them to follow him and he takes them in and feeds them and clothes them, and then the miracle happens....uh huh He then asks them to pray and give thanks unto G-d for their blessings bestowed unto them.

This is the example of works and deeds. Now who was the better person? This is the way I see liberal folks understanding what is meant in so many of the examples jesus spoke of.

I do thank you
Ben David

Or a man who was a constitutional law professor who believes strongly in the separation of church and state.

and my guess is you know that. There are tons of reasons to oppose Clinton. One based on a lie, is not one of them.

This is just bizarre. You deserve a "beneath contempt" award for nurturing and spreading a lie. You, madame, are bearing false witness.

Despicable.

No, I do think she's a Christian Dominionist. Read the article. It's clear she is.

Your persistent personal attacks against me are against DU rules. And they are despicable. Why don't you go beat up on someone else for a change?
Or are you singling me out for your character assassinations?

The only evidence presented is that Hillary sits in a room where some Dominionists are sitting.

You keep saying people should read the article. I'm not surprised you make no attempt to cite the evidence yourself by quoting where the article actually presents evidence and not another loony opinion

WTH should I cite evidence when it's RIGHT THERE IN THE OP???

:rofl:

article when it came out, pumpkin. It's a hit piece. I love MJ, but they did themselves no favors when they published it.

Clinton's history and voting record should be enough of a clear refutation of the claim that she's dominionist for anyone with half a brain and without a raging hate on. Obama for instance trucks far more in the language of religion and the religious right, than Clinton, but I know damn well that he's not a Dominionist or religious nutcase.

Keep trafficking in hate and slime, and I'll keep calling you on it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and no I don't attack you with hate and slime; I call you on your obsessive hate and slime. I know you're confused, but there's a difference. And I'm certainly not stalking you, I'm responding to what you post- there's a difference there too.

I'll you get the last word in on this. You seem to need to. And then you can return to your obsessive hate and mucking around in shit.

Just more ad hominem attacks that are a reflection of your trademark self-righteous hypocrisy. Typical of Hillaryworld defender apologists.

LOL!

No, the OP source is not a hit piece, it's correct and I haven't seen any evidence posted by you or anyone else to the contrary.
It's pathetic how you keep attacking me for bringing up uncomfortable facts about Clinton's Christian Dominonism.

Get a life.

as far as HRC is concerned. Ive officially gone from being 'not for' her to completely and totally against her. Dont get me wrong. Ive never claimed to be her biggest fan. Or even a fan at all for that matter. Shes repelled me since the early 90's and the more I find out, the more I understand why. Ive tried really hard to see the good in her since she entered the presidential race. But Im over it. I never should have doubted my instinct.

She's too much of an atheist for the Right and too religious for the left...

How is that too much?

Honest question. Are you saying this story isnt true?

She attends the Senate's Wednesday Morning Prayer Group which includes members of The Fellowship. The OP is using guilt by association to mislead people into thinking she is a member of The Fellowship when it is not true

Not the first time this Obama supporter has played loose with the facts

but not actually become a member. That would be OK by you?

Your comparison does not work.

that show the mindset required to think Hillary is a member of The Fellowship

Now youre trying to avoid your own argument.

"Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship."

This seems to contradict your statement.

Just because someone else on the internet thinks she belongs to The Fellowship doesn't make it true. How about some real evidence that she is a member of The Fellowship?

She attends Fellowship prayer groups. Period.

doh!

Hmmm... do I believe you or my lyin' eyes?

segregationist that wouldn't make you a segregationist.

The fellowship launched the prayer group but they aren't involved in the weekly meetings. Membership in the fellowship is not a criteria for joining. All in the Senate are welcome. There are 40 members. Hillary is the only Democrat. Republicans who attend say they found out from going that Hillary isn't the monster she's portrayed to be. Hillary worked with many from the group to get legislation passed that benefited America.

I like to think that I can share my love of God with anybody on the planet who loves God too. We are all God's children.

And Im supposed to think thats a good thing?

I feel like religion is fine. If people want to practice it, fine. Its their right. Its your right.
But its also my right to be freaked out by such an extremist group.

If the group is so benign then why is she the ONLY Dem to take part? It just doesnt sit right with me.

Hillary is liked by some Atheists too. What does that prove?

The most likely reason I can think of for no other Democrats to be involved is that the group is a bunch of Republicans.

which Edwards was co-chairman of while he was in the Senate. Might as well bring Johnny E. into the mix.

Are you serious? Please elaborate. As an undecided... I'd seriously appreciate it.

<<snip

Q: How about in your speeches and in your writing? Is faith included there? And how does that affect the audience, the people that you serve?

A: Well, the answer is yes. I'll give you a couple of examples. I have myself `co-chaired` the Senate Prayer Breakfast for a couple of years. And it played an important part for me because we were able to bring members of the Senate who come from different faith traditions and different faith beliefs together to sort of share our beliefs and outside the partisan atmosphere that sometimes exists in the Senate, in a very healthy way. To talk about our personal life and how important our lives have been—our faith has been in our life.

>>snip

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4886

I've learned something from you tonight. The more I learn... the more I learn I dont know anything. Thanks again!
:hug: b~

The annual Senate Prayer BREAKFAST is not the same as the weekly Senate Fellowship Prayer Meeting the OP source is referring to.

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060202prbrkfst.htm

A simple phone call to the Edwards campaign will confirm it.

in Edwards' own words:

<<snip

Q: How about in your speeches and in your writing? Is faith included there? And how does that affect the audience, the people that you serve?

Well, the answer is yes. I'll give you a couple of examples. I have myself `co-chaired` the Senate Prayer Breakfast for a couple of years. And it played an important part for me because we were able to bring members of the Senate who come from different faith traditions and different faith beliefs together to sort of share our beliefs and outside the partisan atmosphere that sometimes exists in the Senate, in a very healthy way. To talk about our personal life and how important our lives have been—our faith has been in our life. The same thing is true, I was a `co-chair` of the National Prayer Breakfast and exactly the same thing was true. We made a really strong effort to reach out to all faith ministries. To have them involved and have them participating in every level in the National Prayer Breakfast. And so the answer to your question is, when I speak, depending on what the subject matter is, I do talk about our responsibilities and my faith, our faith being our personal responsibility to help others. Particularly to help those around us who need to be lifted up and given opportunity and help. And I do sometimes talk about my faith in that respect. >>Snip

You'll notice that Edwards quantifies two(2) specific prayer breakfasts. One, mentioned in the first bolded section, is the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, of which he mentions he was co-chair for a "couple of years." He then - second bold section - mentions the National Prayer Breakfast, and how he also co-chaired it for a couple of years.

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4886

Small photo of John Edwards leading the prayer at the 2003 national Prayer Breakfast:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week745/news.html

And more:

Are we to assume that Hillary endorses what the Fellowship stands for, given her 14-year association? Alternately, is it possible that she doesn’t literally accept what the Fellowship espouses, or that she associates with them out of a lack of egalitarian and progressive faith options for senators and representatives inside Washington?

In raising these questions about Hillary’s judgment and motivation, fairness dictates that her opponents be held to the same standard. John Edwards likewise was a co-chairman of the same Senate prayer group when he was in the Senate, so he also must have known about the Fellowship’s goals and objectives. As for his judgment, Barack Obama singled out far right GOP senator Tom Coburn,☼ a member of Hillary’s Senate prayer group as someone whom he can do business with, notwithstanding Coburn’s documented extreme positions on women and gays. Does Obama’s desire for a new kind of politics with such people, and Edwards’ and Hillary’s association with the Fellowship disqualify them from progressive support? Or is it an unfortunate sign of the times in Washington that our top three candidates associate with and tolerate those like Coburn and the Fellowship, instead of shining a light upon such beliefs?

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010937.php

That whole article is worth reading.

And The Left Coaster's claim is totally BOGUS because it is not supported by the link he provided. The link he provided is to an article that supports what I said:



http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/politicians/edwards/v-print/story/653253.html

That Senate prayer breakfast is the annual event, NOT the weekly Senate Fellowship prayer group.

Like all of his pro-Hillary defensive attempts, Steve Soto is either deliberately lying or he's an incompetent. I am leaning toward the former, since he's been parroting
Mark Penn's talking points since he endorsed Hillary. I got rid of his bookmark because of it. Either way, he's WRONG. And I think it's damn shameful that
Hillaryworlders are willing to throw Edwards under a bus in order to prop up Clinton's obvious Christian Dominionism.

Shame on all of you.

The National Prayer Breakfast is one function. It is the annual event, and it is organized by the "Fellowship".

The weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast is another, separate function. It is, as its title indicates, a weekly event. Both Clinton and Edwards, as well as many others, mostly Republicans, have been attendees of the weekly prayer meeting, (something of a rogue's gallery, actually) which does include Fellowship members, but not everyone who attends meetings is necessarily a member of the Fellowship.

Edwards was co-chairman of both. He said so, in his own words, linked from a pro-Edwards website. (The same information is available elsewhere as well.) I even gave you a link to Edwards speaking at the 2002 National event. Here's the link again:

http://www.jregrassroots.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=4886

Note: He himself states that he co-chaired A) The Senate Prayer Breakfast, and B) The National Prayer Breakfast. The News & Observer story sees fit to mention only the former.

Now, the Fellowship may hold its own meetings, exclusive to Fellowship members, but that meeting is neither the National Prayer Breakfast, nor the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast, but its own entity. Whether or not Edwards attended any of their meetings, I don't know. I doubt whether anyone has asked him, which is really all Steve Soto suggested be done. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? If candidate Hillary is to be examined and questioned on this issue, isn't it fair that other candidates be examined in the same way?

She called the leader of The Fellowship " a genuinely loving mentor," for Christ's sake. What a nut.

That's good to know.

Time for a debate question for both presidential candidates.

I just checked. The annual Senate Prayer BREAKFAST is not the same as the weekly Senate Fellowship Prayer Meeting the OP source is referring to.

http://salazar.senate.gov/news/releases/060202prbrkfst.htm

But what can we expect from Hillaryworlders?

Thats right... the Fellowship has the "National Prayer Breakfast" not the Senate prayer breakfast. Phew. Its hard to keep these damn prayer breakfasts straight. lol.

Yeah, there are way too many.

By the way, when I read your original post, you could have been talking about me. I no longer have any illusions, either.

It's about time people knew the truth instead of the spin surrounding Hillary Clinton; all the nasty attacks I've been subjected to on this thread
and others are worth it if I think of it that way. ;-)

I provided ample links. It's obvious she is. And are you accusing me of lying?

Another reason to NOT vote for Hillary and 4-8 more years of "Faith Based" bullshit. Got enough of that from W.

Nice job in the other thread with the one who loves too much. :thumbsup:

everyone still believes that the Religious Right is going to be a huge factor in this election.

Personally, I think they are P.O'd and won't turn out---as long as Hillary is not the nominee

and that the reason she prayed with those fundies in Congress is because she wanted to network with them for her own ulterior motives.

The assumption seems to be that anyone who doesn't support Obama supports Clinton. The assumption seems to be they are the only two candidates in the primary.

They are not. And quite a few do not support either. So your trying to pit one against the other is a waste of time. Which is what both of them are. A waste of time.

They make people look elsewhere

While I disagree with you about the candidates, I do respect your pointing out the hidden assumption in the OP.

I was putting out facts for a certain subgroup of partisans who delight in attacking Obama. By no means do I feel it is a two-way race
and have said so on many an occasion. As for "pitting one against the other," contrasting and comparing presidential candidates does
not seem to fall under that category. And it's interesting that you are ignoring the vicious attacks from Hillaryworlders directed at me
for daring to print the facts about their Politics of Parsing candidate. The truth hurts.

guilt by association smears over and over again. How many times does it take to debunk something?

The National Day of Prayer is brought up in this. Its started by the family. 4000 people, every important person in Washington attends. After the 2004 VP debate, a picture of Edwards and Cheney sitting together at the head table of the prayer breakfast was used to debunk a Cheney lie that he'd never met Edwards. Everybody goes. Does that make them all Dominionists?

Without addressing the issue of Hillary ebing a Christian Dominionist using links and articles as I have.

But then again, I'm used to vicious ad hominem attacks from you and all the others who've PILED ON this thread.

I'm honored by the attention.

Really.

group be of any significance in any discussion of anything? As far as I can tell, she has never tried to impose her religion on any group or person. Obama, whom I admire, but have wished from day one had waited for another pres cycle, did actually go on stage with a very homophobic singer. That is fact whatever one's position on his presidency.

that concert. He was there on film only.

...a Christian "cell"

...part of the Fellowship (or "the Family")

...political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ

...Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible"


Sounds like 4 or 5, at LEAST...

:eyes:

Try again.

Am I getting warm, at least?

Ha. Ha.

Never have been, never will be ....

That being said: This is a legitimate concern for me .... It is the strongest, 'real-ist' criticism I have seen coming from you .... MotherJones is no slouch in reliable reporting, and I respect them ....

Faint praise, I suppose .....

I have no 'favorite' in this race: I have always voted for the Democrat, and that is not going to change .... Whoever emerges from nomination will get my vote: But I will be damned if I am dragged into Theocracy by a DEMOCRAT ! ...

As I said: I am no fan of your constant drumbeat AGAINST candidates: But this is a REAL concern, and needs to be considered by all 'free thinkers' in the party ....

Thanks for this ....

Thanks for the honest and fair hearing. I give as good as I get.

The only evidence that Hillary is a Dominionist is that she attends a prayer meeting that Dominionists attend. I think it takes more than that to become a Dominionist. The simple fact that she is pro-choice proves she's not a fundy or a dominionist.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

Why does she even attend that prayer meeting when there are others that are not of THE FELLOWSHIP?

Do you know why? BECAUSE SHE IS OF THE FELLOWSHIP.

She's a life long church goer. Her late father was a minister. If we judge people by every one else in the church or prayer group they worship with, none of us would meet the standard. Faith and belief can be personal. Not all Christians are sheeple. Some are capable of holding to their personal belief standards not because of who they are with but in spite of it. Just saying.

Christian Dominionism is no mere expression of gentle faith, but a strident proponent of BIBLICAL rule, including the repeal of all laws that are not supported by scripture, or those that appear to violate Abrahamic precepts and Levitican 'law' ....

As an Atheist I feel it is important to recognize that FREEDOM of thought, which I adhere to, also includes the freedom to belong to such religious associations .... But if the group you belong to proclaims a desire to overturn constitutional traditions and institute religious rule, then we should consider such associations above and beyond their mere religiousity, and look deeper into how they might affect our long held rights; those which have been hard-fought since the Era Of Enlightenment ....

I have not joined in attacking Hillary here in the past, but I am very concerned about this ..... We all should expect a clarification as to WHAT part of this association includes acceptance of their ultimate ambitions ....

as to the likelihood she is influenced by Dominionist tought.

But even the idea causes consternation .... I am ABSOLUTELY, UNEQUIVOCALLY against the ideas of Christian Dominionism .... I cannot with certainty know that the movement would or would not accept a female president. That isnt clear. Whether they might accept a woman as a proxy hasnt been ruled out, has it ?

Look .... I am no Hillary 'hater', and you well know that .... But ANY association with Dominionism is negative, in my book .....

She is pro-choice, pro-immigration, anti-school prayer, pro women's rights, etc

Since when have the Dominionists been known for having such a Big Tent that Hillary could fit into it? Be realistic.

What a piece of shit this flame bait thread is.
Absolutely disgusting that DUers rec this crap, let alone post it.

:(

:smoke:

not surprised at it's source

C'mon, you can do it, Hillaryworlder acolyte apologist cuke! Say it. Say it! Because you've already called me a racist and a homophobe in another thread.

Why not go all way instead of beating around the Bush?

:spray:

and the bus he's driving over LGBT people to gather religious homophobe votes.






And trust me, the outrage is very real.

Interesting how she refuses to talk about her secret Fellowship faith, eh? But oh how she gushes over the leader of Fellowship!

Oh yeah, she's no Christian Dominionist. Uh huh.

While acting and speaking out the other corner of his mouth with all the right words for another. Much like another certain somebody we're all too used to.

Not that Hillary is any better with her uber-religious ties. They're both too cozy with the wingnuts for my taste.

have you proof otherwise?

The OPer is claiming she's a member of the Dominionist movement.
Read this and see if you agree:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/

But heres the thing I dont understand. Why be a part of a prayer group thats part of this "fellowship" if she doesnt agree with it? Its not as if theres pressure. Shes the only Dem! It reminds me of all that anti-liberal DLC shit. Again... why associate if she doesnt agree?

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/7235393/the_crusaders/
Christian evangelicals are plotting to remake America in their own image

You may spend decades in a church or other group where you don't agree with everything. Remember, know your enemy? Nah, it's Hillary she MUST be one of "them".

edited for missing word.

*crickets*

On Wednesdays, they all get together in the Senate building. It's the only time that happens and Hillary is smart and brave enough to keep an eye on them

Talk about loony!


:rofl:

Under the assumption of separation of church and state, how is it that they are meeting in the Senate building for a religious obervance -- as that's what prayer is?

It stinks to high heaven, doesn't it? No pun intended.

A generic moment of silence to start a Senate session wouldn't bother me all that much. But we're not talking about something that benign. In the link to the article I just posted, there are comments by members of Congress who are *very* uncomfortable with the intrustion of Christian dogma into the business of government.

No, we're talking about something akin to Opus Dei for protestant evangelicals. *shudder*

I've read the comments and it's startling to know that nobody can stop the unconstitutional use of federal government property for religious use
because it's sanctioned by Republicans (of course) and Democratic party leaders like Clinton.

And...the use of federal property for religious use is just a minor footnote, when compared to all the other affronts to our constitution.

I may need some cyber-booze to get to sleep tonight -- er, this morning.

That's why I'm supporting the ex-community organizer who used to teach constitutional law.

Now go get some sleep, puebloknot. Nice to meet you and I hope to "see" you soon.

...let me just say that I've read Obama's latest book, think he's very bright, would love to have a black president (on general principle), find him charming although a little too slick and a little too general in a lot of his responses. While I am offended by Hillary's "faith" talk because it comes across as phony, and she reinvents herself, like a chameleon, in each and every situation, I have a feeling that Obama is actually more sincere with regard to *his* faith talk than Hillary. That's just a personal feeling.

But I'm still bothered by his closeness with the evangelicals. And whether a candidate is extremely sincere about their personal faith, or putting on a show, I don't think discussions of religious faith belong in politics. If a person's personal beliefs inform their acting in the public interest, fine. But it's a subject that should be banned from public political discourse, such as debates, in my view. We've had seven years of Jesus talk now, and I'm really, really offended by it.

I am a dedicated agnostic that comes from a long line of atheists. Do you know anything about the United Church of Christ? It's the same church
that Howard Dean belongs to. UCC is the MOST liberal Protestant church in America.

So though he is comfortable talking about religion, I see that as a plus because I want evangelicals to see in him what we do and if his language of faith
helps open their eyes and ears to the liberal message of hope and change from the amoral excesses of the GOP, then all the better for our chances in 2008.

Moreover, he's no stinkin' closet Christian Dominionist. :puke:

Yes, I'm familiar with the UCC, and it's the polar opposite of the "Church of Christ," Texas-style, that I grew up with. Are you saying Obama belongs to that church?

I have to part company with you with regard to Obama, or anyone else, making faith talk in the political arena. It's absolutely a sign of the weakening of the principle of separation of church and state. I've become so offended by it that I often say, a *little* bit tongue-in-cheek: "I don't care how big it is, put it back inside your overcoat."

No, I don't think Obama is a Dominionist, nor have I felt that John Edwards is. But there is that little fact that Edwards presided over an official Prayer Breakfast, which is the baby of The Fellowship. I have to wonder if Obama has attended one or several of those.

In short, go to church, get inspiration from that, but keep it out of our government. Want some of what I'm smoking? It's GOOOOOOD! :)

I understand completely how you feel about public talk of faith but I make an exception with Democrats like Obama who seem to be trying to
pull in evangelicals to a more liberal Democratic way of thinking about wedge issues and socio-economic justice.

Stay mellow, fellow. :smoke:

I grew up with these fundie types, and changing their world view, inculcated with their first breath and their mother's milk, is as rare as hen's teeth.

And what price would be paid, what compromises made to try to lure them into voting in a more liberal Democratic way? We've already seen a major sellout of our rights to the extreme right wing "Christians".

Enough, I tell you! :)

I agree, in principle and cannot fault your warning at all. I trust Obama to know what he is doing, though.

I hope you got to sleep earlier today than yesterday. :-)

I work from home and am involved in a writing project right now -- best done when the rest of the world is sleeping.

Are you a writer? Well, it's been good of you to lend your support on this Hillacious thread given your commitments.

May we both wake up to a better world soon.

And since I've posted articles to back me up and you haven't posted articles to defend her, I'd have to say you are indulging in
the ad hominem attacks that characterize Hillaryworld attempts at dialogue.

By the way, how's Richardson doing? I heard he criticized Vilsack's ludicrous remark about Clinton being the face of foreign policy
in the 90's. Good man. Do you agree with your alleged candidate?

:shrug:

The OPer is accusing Clinton of being part of a secret society of evangelicals trying to take over the world. How low will the HillHate cult crawl?

The sky is falling...live with it.

The OP has been roasting Hillary in many threads over the past few days. Wonder why? Her record of what she has done in her public life is pretty damned good--particularly the work she has done on behalf of children.

Never have heard her attempt to preach ANY religion--she generally sticks to facts.

so to speak

Live with it. What are you afraid of?

:rofl:

The peanut gallery was bound to jump in.

Wanna cracker?

Do *WE* want a cracker?

Ha. Ha.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you post a link to any article that says any different? Or are you going to keep whining?

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

hmmmm...just as soon we'd forget about that, eh?

:sarcasm:

as forcefully as you criticized Obama for having McClurkin on his tour?

Say yes. Please say yes.

Wow. You just make shit up as you go, don't you.

EDIT: For fun, let's stipulate that she is a member of this Prayer group. Do you not have a problem with some of it's members and their "worldview"?

If you're fine with accusing Clinton of being "a closet Christian Dominionist" you need to stop waffling and come right out and say it. Say she's a member of a secret society of uber-fundis intent on prepping the Earth for the Resurrection. Say it. Please say it.

That alone speaks volumes

Come on jef_dem - JUST SAY IT! (please!! pretty please!)

Boring.

Who should we believe, attack-the-messenger Hillaryworlders or my lyin' eyes?

Oh, and notice Methuen Progressive refuses to answer the question about whether he believes Hillary is a Christian Dominionist or not. lol

Hey, you were outraged at Obama's expressions of faith in another thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3754593&mesg_id=3754593

What, no outrage over Clinton's Christian Dominionist sympathies?

Another in a long line of examples of Hillaryworld Hypocrisy.

you never let me down!!!!!!

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

Obama is very clear on and is an advocate of separation of church and state.

That's the bottom line for me.

I don't care about the rest of the faux charges and innuendos being used as a weapon around here. Most of the attacks against fellow Democrats here at DU are nonsense anyway.

Otherwise he'd be sitting next to her. When comparing his membership in the incredibly liberal UCC to The Fellowship Senate prayer group,'
the contrast could not be more clear. Case closed.

I think their tires fully deflated now (private joke). ;-)

... steps up in the faces of believers and doesn't budge from his pro-choice stance.

That is by definition precisely the OPPOSITE of pandering.

They can only pretend there is air in their tires. ;)

Even what air they pretend is in their tires is all hot. ;-)

I am an Obama Supporter and find this ad Hominen attack on HRC's faith to be both wrong headed and wrong hearted.


WHy don't you follow Obama's own words and respect people whos's faith is different than your's. The Mother Jones piece is insidious and inflammatory and is full of fallacious reasoning and anger and ugliness.

Contrasting and comparing presidential candidates is a legitimate exercise, as Obama has said many times. And attacking me
doesn't take away from the facts in the source. They are easy to confirm, too. If you're an Obama supporter, then why aren't
you in threads defending Obama from Hillaryworld attacks? Why do you seem to be in threads only scolding me?

Hmmm....

Conspiracy theorists have proven that the old adage that 'one thousand monkeys banging away at one thousand typewriters will produce one correct sentence every one thousand days' was too optimistic.

And using the old trick of denigrating the messenger with the "conspiracy theory" canard - much used by Bush/Cheney Republicans against
liberal Democrats - is not going to erase the fact that all Hilleryworlders have to offer in this ENTIRE thread are vicious ad hominem attacks
and partisan denials backed up by NOT ONE LINK of evidence to the contrary.

ClarkUSA; "Hillary's Christian Dominionist Prayer Group," and "the fact Clinton is a member of a Christian Dominionist prayer group," and "I never knew that Hillary Clinton was a closet Christian Dominionist".
All articles cited by ClarkUSA; Not one mention of the word "Dominionist".
There's still time to edit all your posts if you hurry.

It's very very obvious that she is. What did she say about the leader of Fellowship again? Hmmm?

Did you, before attacking me?

Answer my question first.

Answer my question first.

*crickets*

that is very gracious of you

I've never seen her posting in even one pro- Obama thread thus far but she HAS scolded me for like an angry Hillaryworlder at least twice
in the last week. Hmmm....

I think she knows what her opinion is better than you do.

I'm sure a Hillaryworlder would never LIE about it in order to better defend Clinton. Oh no.

Even though I've unmasked a few pretenders in the last day or two. lol

if you do a search of his posts, you can clearly see that. But I guess if a fellow Obama supporter disagrees with you, you must question his or her loyalty. :eyes:

Kinda like when a fellow Democrat disagrees with a Hillaryworlder, then they are branded "haters" who are playing into Republican hands.

Perky has started several pro-Obama threads, as well as threads critical of Hillary.

Is that true? She seems to have had a change of heart because I have never seen her on any of the pro-Obama threads
I've been a part of nor have I ever seen her defend Obama against patent lies and smears by Hillaryworlders. That's
an interesting kind of supporter, that's for sure. Hmmm....

ANd how about checking my profile befroe assigning gender.


Ohh that's right... you assume you are right all the time.

:rofl:

I am am avid Obama supporter. I have contributed heavily to his campaign. I think Hillary would be an abysmal president and we would be worse off in four years with her in the White House.

I have been an Obama Fan since he was in the Illinois Senate.

If you had don the least bit of fact checking before making undounded accustations... you would have seen my leanings in theis race.


Oh...but wait... you do not check your facts before posting anyway.....what was I thinking.


Bluntly. your post was disgusting and not worthy of the candidate you claim to be supporting.


It is an embarassment to Obama, to Democrats, and to progressive Christians everywhere.

And I believe everything you said.

Really. No, really.

Any more ritual shaming? Maybe you're not done yet. Funny how I've never seen you defend Obama with as much determination and passion
as you are attacking me. And I'm sure Obama would like the way I pointed out the rank differences between the candidates and how I work
to dispel the fugly attacks on him with FACTS.

lol

Perky is a devout Obama supporter and has been from day one. As far as he's concerned atheists and uppity GLBTs can eff off if it will win Obama votes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3589009
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3646639
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3689912

There are many others to choose from if you utilize the "search" function.

I would add the term uppity in front of atheists as well.

ANd I want their votes to...but the pooint was not that they were Atheist or GLBT, it was becuase they wre su uppity and offended or "scared" that Obama would reach out to Evangelicals.

But the truth is That I could care less about an an individuals sezual or religious preferences. It just irritates me when the defaut position of some those who choose to disgree with Obama's inclusiveness on matter of faith is anger, fear, deep suspicion and the like. GLBT and Atheists who automatically recoil at Obama's reaching out to Evangelicals (not fundies, but evangelicals)..are politically myopic IMHO. They are no more or no less important to the political process. Why should Obama have to kowtow to any group by avoiding another?

I feel preciesly the same way about uppity Chrisitians. Democrats can have a permanent majprityu in thios country only when we strech out our tent pegs to include those we disgree with on onew or two issues because we agreeon about 50 others.

Or of anybody reaching out to evangelicals. We're just tired of the way some evangelicals believe they must be kowtowed to constantly--or else. We're also disgusted with the way Obama and others are spending inordinate amounts of their campaign time preaching, and infusing nearly every topic on which they speak with religious rhetoric and code-words lest the Christians be upset. Politics and religion are fast becoming one, and we all suffer as a result.

:thumbsup:

...reading the report. It's *very* informative. The author is Wayne Madsen. I've found nothing in the article so far difficult to believe. It's long, but a very good read because it goes back in time and gives the history of how the Dominionists got started, and how widespread this cancer is on our country, and on the world. If Hillary isn't a card-carrying Dominionist, she certainly seems to be a fellow traveler. The National Prayer Breakfast, and the weekly prayer groups *held in the Senate* are all under the umbrella of The Fellowship. Below is an excerpt from the article. Full article is at this link:

http://www.insider-magazine.com/ChristianMafia.htm




People who did not have the "pleasure" of growing up with people of this mindset find it hard to believe that they truly believe they have the right and the obligation to take over our government, and every government in the world, *for Jesus.* Progressive are too high-minded, often, to face the "down and dirty" aspects of this sub rosa agenda.

I also note that an article from Mother Jones, a respected and trustworthy publication, about Hillary's close association with these people is simply dismissed by those who "don't want nobody bringin' them no bad news." Rather like that Republican "woman" who put her hands over her ears on television to block out something she did *not* want to hear!

Truer words never said.

Thanks for the very informative link. I'll be reading it soon. It's unconstitutional for Christian Dominionists to even be able to hold prayer meetings on federal grounds
and I wish those who oppose it would speak up more but I guess they know if that happened, the Clinton party apparachik would crush them.

It's very disturbing to know how deeply embedded Christian Dominionists are in our armed forces and our government. I thought it was a problem isolated to Republicans
but to find out that the Democratic frontunner to the presidential nomination is one of them -- oy vay!

I live just down the road from Colorado Springs, where the Air Force Academy is located. There has been a lot of information posted here about the strong-arm tactics to evangelize air force personnel. West Point, too.

I sometimes dream of a military coup which will put an end to our current fascism, but then I ask myself what I've been smoking. We *had* the coup, and too many military types are happy to support God's boy on Earth, George W. Bush. And then there's Blackwater -- also a Dominionist group.

I'm not Jewish, but ... oy vay!

We have a "Recommend" button at DU. We should also have an "Oy Vay" Button! :)

comments.

I will post one last thing. Maybe HRC consults the Magic Conch ( SpongeBob )
Spongebob: (gasp) Obama people , you must never question the wisdom of the Magic Conch. The club always takes it's advice before we do anything.
Patrick: The shell knows all!!

I thank you
Ben David

"Ben David's Girl"

That was too funny! :hi:

Obama is spending a lot of time talking about his evangelistic leanings, and Hillary goes to a bible study group and shuts up.

I like Hillary's approach better. If one's religious views aren't important, why spend so much time yakking about it during a campaign? There are many more pressing issues to deal with.

Hillary's approach is a stealth one and potentially dangerous. She's behind the scenes cozying-up to people who can change our lives with restrictive legislation. Because we don't necessarily see or hear what is going on we're not able to speak out against it.

Nonetheless, Obama is right up front preaching to people who openly detest LGBT people and others. People who want to take the human/civil rights away from Americans and will vote to do so if given half a chance. Therefore his preaching about his faith and giving a stage and microphone to brazen religious bigots cannot in any way be condoned.

...but feel that Obama's is far worse. It exacerbates an already anti-gay climate, and that is beyond the pale.
Too, as a child of religious refugees, I abhor any amount of church-state cooperation whatsoever.

I can tell you something about weekly prayer meetings and bible-study sessions in the private sector: as a rule, they are networking sessions for most particicpants as opposed to spiritual experiences, whatever they may tell you. If the only face time an ambitious person gets with (fill in the blank) is at a bible-study meeting, he or she will likely go and pretend to be into it. Cynical, I know, but lots of people have used religion for far worse things.
I get out of them by scheduling meetings for myself-too busy working, don'tcha know. ;-)

If the same degree of cynicism doesn't exist (or isn't exceeded) in DC, I'll be surprised. I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I really don't mind her atttneding such sessions.

And I agree with you. Sucking up to open homophobes and giving them a microphone to spew their hatred is both insidious and dangerous. It essentially says you not only condone their views but support them, occasional lip-service to opposing ideals aside. Obama has repeatedly thrown LGBT people (and the non-religious) aside in his desire to win the evangelical vote, and it's obvious he doesn't care what happens to them as a result.

Religion has been used as a political tool for all of recorded history. And, as Shakespeare noted, the devil can cite scripture for his purpose. Heck, so can Riqster! Observe:

Jesus was in favor of the separation of church and state:"Render unto Caesar that is which is due unto Caesar and render unto God that is which is due unto God." Matthew ch 22, 21

Jesus opposed candidates talking about their religion:"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you." Matthew ch 6, 5-6

Regrettably, in the Old Testament and Paul's screeds, there are lots of homophobic passages and edicts that are used by people to justify their heinous actions.

Many of the founders fled from theocracies. They knew what a weapon religion can be, how it can oppress and destroy the spirit of the people.

And I love citing the perfect scripture to beat fundies at their own game, or just to torque them off. They aren't the only ones who can use the Bible as a weapon. ;-)

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-3.html

Hillary Clinton may not know this, but America wasn't meant to be a theocracy led by Christian Dominionists.

numbers because the campaigns aren't focussed on South Carolina yet.

they are driven by national trends rather than local trends because the campaigns aren't focusing on those states yet.

Is it part of that movement that wants a christofascist state?