At least Hillary doesn't run around telling Democrats we should woo Evangelicals for their votes

I don't give a rats ass if she secretly worships Dominionism, Catholicism, Presbyterianism, Witchcraft or Voodoo in some remote corner of the world. As long as she doesn't ram it down my throat or worse yet, suggest we need to suck up to certain religious factions in order to court their votes, she can worship whoever and whatever the hell she dam well pleases.

I'm a bit confused, here.

being a private matter?

Some have bery liberal worldviews but they feel they won't be accepted in the Dem party. It's disconcerting the amount of hostility towards Christians on this board.

to do with separation of church and state. There's a reason for separation of church and state. Did everyone forget or something? Jaysus!

dems have had that put on them that the christian viewpoint is not accepted in the dem party which is untrue. Republicans don't have a monopoly on religion. However, this is a particular group where most are in the right-wing camp such as Ashcroft or Delay, etc. and talking about their policy and goals they have or had.

They are apart of those groups because they don't feel accepted by the Dems. They may associate with those groups but many would love to find other groups.

religion with politics.

Many want a very distinct separation of church and state.

I don't see where Obama would mandate a state religion or force anyone to believe as he does.

If the Dem party is going to become a party where religion is never mentioned it will be very disappointing. That's the way it appears to me on this board.

Obama comes off too much like a preacher.

That too goes over the line. No thanks......not interested

Sometimes when we are looking for something we will find it.

and yet it is ignored

The last thing I would think regarding Obama is that he is acting like a preacher. Maybe it's because I have a different perspective of preachers.

Who knows, there are a few things he reminds me of but preacher is not one of them.

A candidate's private religious beliefs do matter in terms of how they govern. It may be expressed as progressive, liberal, moderate or conservative stances -- but it does affect how a person behaves and their stance on issues.

Dr. Martin Luther king, for example, preached the most progressive of messages firmly rooted in his religious beliefs.

But Hillary's beliefs in "personal salvation" over secular social and economic justice do affect her platform and stance, by diluting the very essence of liberal/progressive politics.

However, if Hillary does indeed hold a belief that "personal salvation" is more important than "social activism" to promote liberal/progressive beliefs, and the result is to dilute that aspect of politics, then it is worth knowing.

There's no comparison

It's a chicken-and-egg question. Which comes first?

MLK was a social activist on issues of civil rights and economic justice and war. For him, those were direct expressions of his view of Christianity. But his view of Christianity was also a direct expression of his own secular views on those issues.

He could just as easily been a right-wing Baptist or a do-nothing Baptist.

In Hillary's case, one could say that her advocacy of do-nothing centrism rather than liberal activism is a reflection of her religious beliefs. Thus she is "cramming down" her religious views on us.

as would Hillary. The doctrine of personal salvation and the role of "good works" have never been seen as opposing each other. The idea that there is some difference here is something I believe you invented out of thin air, and I'm sure you can not document such a difference

From the infamous Mother Jones article:

Two decades later, while Bill was campaigning for president, Clinton picked up that theme once more, displaying a theological depth that conservative believers could appreciate. In an interview with the United Methodist Reporter, she expressed regret that her church had focused too much on social gospel concerns in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, "to the exclusion of personal faith and growth." The spirit, believe theological conservatives, matters more than the flesh. Clinton added that she was happy to see her liberal denomination becoming more salvation centered in the '90s...."

---
There's a big difference between "good works" and activism. Good works are helpful, but innocuous, and they are not aimed at addressing the root causes of problems like poverty.

Acvtivism -- whether based in secular or religious motivations -- is oriented to changing the conditions that cause problems like poverty or avoidable illness.

And any group that believes "goods works" lead to salvation would disagree that it is "innocous". Your argument makes no sense as does your definition of activism. Activists in the Africa hand out condoms, sometimes risking their lives to do so, which nobody believes attacks the root problems of AIDS. Activists sheltered slaves escaping to the Free States though nobody thought that addressed the root causes of slavery

I'm sure you think the words you write are pretty sounding, but it would help if you compared your thoughts to reality from time to time. Neither "good works" nor "activism" have ever been limited to focusing on the roots causes of a problem. You have once again created a false dichotomy between things that are not in opposition to each other. Maybe that's because when it comes to MLK Jr's religious beliefs, good works, activism, and personal salvation, your research consists of nothing more than reading an article in Mother Jones.

I believe there is a very apt comparison. Regardless of whether he was an elected official or not, Dr. King was attempting to get legislation passed which, in principle, was based directly on his faith.

Unless of course, one holds the status of "elected official" as the only litmus test and the only group who can indeed get laws passed and changed...

to make your comparisons to. For the time being, though, this one is about comparing politicians. Nice try, though...

"If you're going to do religion in public life," concurs Schenck, a Jewish convert to fundamentalist Christianity who's retained his sense of irony, Coe's friendship is a kind of "kosher...seal of approval."

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.

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." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.

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

Just like her connection with Rupert Murdoch, do you think he held the fundraiser at his home and gives her large sums of money without expecting anything in return. I am sure he doesn't want any help from her to increaase his news/media conglomerates.

and other religious groups hawking the Workplace Religious Freedom Act. Not only pandering but endorsing legislation that married religion and politics.



It did happen with pharmacists and the morning after pill. I don't think supporting the effort to make the pill legal "over the counter" balances out the rest of the problems with that legislation.

When I see Obama try to force laws like this down our throat, perhaps I'll work up some righteous outrage.

It is a private matter, just as I don't care about anybody's sex life. It seems to be a fact of life that religion is lodged in our government and politics, whether I like it or not. I would like religion out of government even more than I'd like it out of politics, though, and that's already a whole lot. I do consider Senate prayer groups and breakfasts unacceptable, it troubles me deeply this goes on in government buildings; separation of church and state is an important guiding principle for our democracy. However, I would be a whole lot more troubled if it reflected in voting records, which hasn't seemed to be the case for our candidates. I don't believe reaching out to evangelicals on the campaign trail is quite the same as reaching out to fundie evangelicals. It's a concept Howard Dean supports and I see the sense of it, because we could use the votes in the GE. I think representing liberal values to conservative voters is rather a good thing and I don't object to it, which is why I thought the Fox boycott misguided. But I seriously wish I could live to see the day religion is a truly private, not a public matter.

then I'm not sure how you can support "reaching out to evangelicals on the campaign trail", whether Howard Dean supported that concept or not.

99.9% of the time I think your posts are dead-on, but I'm just a little confused with this one, my friend.

Or the Muslim vote. As a cultural group vote as much as a religious vote. The point I think you are avoiding is that not all evangelicals are created equal - some are wingnuts, it's true, but others are not and if we can get that category of evangelical over to the big tent, I don't object. I think I'm stuck with the religious vote, basically, and I'm not in favor of turning away GE votes as a practical matter. I'm more disturbed by religion in government, in the workplace, in schools than I am on the campaign trail.

I understand where you're coming from on this issue much better now. Point well taken.

the main reason for coming to America.....to practice "freedom of" or "lack of" religion.

the pro-Hillary people have brought that into this post. What the article was about was the right-wing group she had joined several years ago and refuses to comment on (understandably so). Look at what that particular religious right-wing group's policies and goals are.

Hey, no problem about what religion and how she practices it. It is all the other stuff around it and her refusal to acknowledge those things.

The pro-Hillary people on here instead of just supporting Hillary, they seem to attack each and everyone who posts an article about her they don't like. You don't have to like the post but if you disagree with it, just show where it is wrong or what you disagree with instead of just attacking it. Nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is one of the most important aspects of our country and it should be protected.

Yet another stupid post by a Hillary hack.

What's this?


Sen. Clinton urges use of faith-based initiatives
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/

You didn't.



I never claimed to be a genius, and judging by the majority of your posts, you sure as fuck aren't any rocket scientist yourself pal. lmfao

on edit: typo

Perhaps you don't know why you posted your OP?

:boring:

the better christian. Or is this election going to boil down to be the christian right vs the right christian?

Pat Robertson did himself no good by supporting Rudy. Once it was announced then HYPOCRITE he was called. Just like all those in the christian right of the republican party if they too support Rudy then they have committed a bigger sin....believing what would jesus do and all these years saying there is no way jesus would support anyone that is pro choice. So, if they do support Rudy then they have "denied him before men".


BD

and vice versa for Rudy.

Meet the new boss...

...same as the old boss.

Meets John's VP choice

:evilgrin:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
a new record.

You sick ol' SOB.


Part of Hillary's cabinet.

I wouldn't support anyone that worship that way.

Its understandable that you would mistake the two, since the Clinton camp has been trying to push this "third way" jive for more than a decade.

I hope that liberals try to find a common ground for dialogue with conservatives. That doesn't mean selling out our principles with triangulation.

By the way, Clinton has been pushing her religion for some time now, if you hadn't noticed.

Clinton hires faith guru
By Alexander Bolton
December 13, 2006

Burns Strider, one of the Democratic Party’s leading strategists on winning over evangelicals and other values-driven voters, will join Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) as she prepares to launch her 2008 presidential campaign.

(snip)

Strider’s move to Clinton’s camp suggests that Democrats will woo so-called faith voters in the 2008 election. The plan is buoyed by the Democrats’ success in winning over religious voters in Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania in the midterm elections.

more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-hires-faith-guru-2006-12-13.html

from http://www.hillary-rodham-clinton.org/hillarys_religion.html">HillaryClinton.org:

But I agree with you on this 100%.

Now if only she would quit cozying up to the military-industrial complex, then maybe we could truly see eye to eye.

I don't want anyone's religion being shoved down my throat.