Do we need more religion in government given the bang up job it’s done so far? What would a Religious Left look like? Could it be worse than the hypocritical, child molester protecting, anti-freedom Religious Right? With God on your side, anything is possible. And allowable.
Hillary’s Prayer: Hillary Clinton’s Religion and Politics
Such references to spiritual warfare—prayer as battle against Satan, evil, and sin—might seem like heavy evangelical rhetoric for the senator from New York, but they went over well with the Sojourners audience, as did her call to “inject faith into policy.” It was language that recalled Clinton’s Jesus moment a year earlier, when she’d summoned the Bible to decry a Republican anti-immigrant initiative that she said would “criminalize the good Samaritan…and even Jesus himself.” Liberal Christians crowed (“Hillary Clinton Shows the Way Democrats Can Use the Bible,” declared a blogger at TPMCafe) while conservative pundits cried foul, accusing Clinton of scoring points with a faith not really her own.
In fact, Clinton’s God talk is more complicated—and more deeply rooted—than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful religious strand in her own politics.
[…]
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. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection.
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 [Fellowship leader Doug] Coe’s Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance.
religion doesnt BELONG in a country with MANY religions.
Government is the middle ground.
religion is for the individual…If his teachings are good, he can carry them with him. And it influences his life, but should NEVER conflict with others beliefs and control of the Gov.
>>Now liberals have been waging war against anyone
>>who believes in God
Gosh, Smitty. I am a “liberal”, and (gasp!) I believe in God. Am I at war with myself? I haven’t notice me lobbing grenades at myself, or blowing myself up with IEDs.
I think the difference between you and me is that I choose to keep my religious activities in the home and the place of worship, rather than in the boardroom or Senators’ Secret Clubroom. The idea of Hillary praising Jesus with Rick Santorum (http://tinyurl.com/a5rk6) or Donnie Rumsfeld kind of skeaves me out, and significantly reduces the likelihood that I will vote for her.
>>M. Scottie: In what way do you feel that anyone is waging
>>war against that?
I think what Mr. Smith is referring to is liberals “waging war” against enforced prayer in school, the abolition of reproductive rights, legislatively defining marriage as one man/ one woman, stuff like that. He doesn’t understand that the “war” is against authoritarian police-state imposition of his (or somebody’s) religious beliefs on those who don’t share them.
#34 – MM,
Gosh, Smitty. I am a “liberal”, and (gasp!) I believe in God. Am I at war with myself? I haven’t notice me lobbing grenades at myself, or blowing myself up with IEDs.
LOL. Love the imagery.
You’re likely correct about Smitty. I’d like to hear it in his own words though. Then I can hope to play verbal judo and use the force of his own words to make my point. Care to cooperate Smitty? Think you have a better reason than any that came before you to legislate your beliefs on others?
#31 – Scott
The Constitution prohibits the federal government from endorsing one religion over another. It requires our federal government to remain religion neutral. However, this isn’t enough for some liberals; they need to purge any recognition of a diety from our society. It’s pretty hard to argue in favor of abortion-on-demand when the majority of people are God-fearing. And gay rights can’t get much traction if a majority consider same-sex marriage a sin.
So the libs attack religion by ridiculing its practioners and erroding their rights with rulings from liberal judges.
And why I should have to explain that to you and the majority of contributors and posters on this blog?
#36 – Smith,
You did a wonderful job giving me plenty for verbal judo.
It’s pretty hard to argue in favor of abortion-on-demand when the majority of people are God-fearing. And gay rights can’t get much traction if a majority consider same-sex marriage a sin.
What you fail to understand is that I have no problem with you not wanting an abortion. I also have no problem with you not wanting to marry a member of your own sex. In fact, I did not marry a member of my own sex.
The problem with legislating against these things is that in doing so, you assert your religious views on others. That is simply not OK.
So the libs attack religion by ridiculing its practioners [sic] and erroding [sic] their rights with rulings from liberal judges.
No. The liberals attack the legislation of religion. If you believe something is wrong, don’t do it. However, your religious belief that something is wrong does not give you the power to tell me or anyone else not to do it. That’s what we mean by separation of church and state.
And why I should have to explain that to you and the majority of contributors and posters on this blog?
No need. But, what did you come here for?
>>It’s pretty hard to argue in favor of abortion-on-demand
>>when the majority of people are God-fearing.
Why’s that, Mister Smith? It seems perfectly simple to me. As so many have said before, IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE.
>>And gay rights can’t get much traction if a majority consider
>>same-sex marriage a sin.
See above.
Sorry to have to break this to you, Smitty, but I don’t give a flying fuck WHAT you think is a sin. As long as I’m not trying to get you to participate, it’s none of your fucking business.
>>So the libs attack religion by ridiculing its practioners
The problem, Smitty, is that so many of its practitioners are ridiculous. That pains me deeply, as a believer, but wtf. It’s a free country (at least as long as the holy-rolling snake handlers don’t take over), and if they want to make assholes out of themselves, I guess that’s their business.
It’s kind of annoying that I get painted with the same brush as Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart, but whaddaygonnado. I can deal with it.
>>erroding their rights with rulings from liberal judges.
Yeah, the “right” to legislate your own personal religious beliefs onto unwilling citizens. The “right” to force children to pray to a god they don’t believe in. The “right” to make it a crime to marry any consenting adult you wish to. Those rights are all in the Constitution, aren’t they?
I know they got a good start on the enforced-format marriage “right”, but those darned pesky liberals seem to have stuffed that one up in their unending quest to give Americans silly things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There oughta be a law!
#38 – MM,
It’s kind of annoying that I get painted with the same brush as Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart, but whaddaygonnado. I can deal with it.
I know we’ve had some heated debates. I don’t think I ever painted you that way though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MDQkXodLyY
#38 – The problem, Smitty, is that so many of its practitioners are ridiculous. That pains me deeply, as a believer, but wtf. It’s a free country (at least as long as the holy-rolling snake handlers don’t take over), and if they want to make assholes out of themselves, I guess that’s their business.
It’s kind of annoying that I get painted with the same brush as Ted Haggard and Jimmy Swaggart, but whaddaygonnado. I can deal with it.
Comment by Mister Mustard — 9/4/2007 @ 1:32 pm
It’s good to be fighting on the same side again… Together, we can stamp out the forces of evil once and for all. 🙂
>>#40 Misanthropic One: “This train runs on meth and man ass
>>on a Sunday morning… give me meth and man ass and we’ll
>>praise the Lord.
Hey, that sounds like an “alternative” fuel that the Republicans/ Neocons/ Religious Fascists can really get “behind”. Haw! Go Green! Heads up, Amtrak!
So, Uncle Dave. When will your religion rants take aim at John’s horoscope ads to the left.? The pot is still black.
“I’m from the UK and we’ve finally booted out out religious lunatic leader who goes to war because the voices in his head tell him to.”
we plan on adopting sharia law by the end of the decade
>>So, Uncle Dave. When will your religion rants take aim
>>at John’s horoscope ads to the left.?
Probably right around the time that John’s horoscope ads to the left start trying to force school prayer, outlaw abortion, and criminalize the marriage of two consenting adults.
Sound about right?
As usual, you people haven’t a clue. I was making an observation of the political impact religion has in the real world, and of course, you idiots have to turn this into another religious debate and (this is laughable) ridicule me for my religious beliefs.
I have no religion and I hate people preaching at me. (Last week, I walked a mile in 102 degree weather to get away from missionaries. I was waiting for my ride in the shade of tree on church property, so telling them to “fuck off” seemed grossly inappropriate.)
You see, I don’t like to debate religion. It’s not that I’m afraid I will become converted (no chance of that!), it’s that winning the debate means I have instill my own doubts into another. Now why on earth would I want to do that????
I consider my own views about abortion to be immaterial. I never discussed my views with my first wife, because for us it was a non-issue. But when our 15-year old daughter became pregnant, I asked my wife if they were considering an abortion. She gave me this look of disgust and said, “Of course not!” (I still love her for that.)
And as for gays: My older brother was gay. He died of aids. I don’t give a damn about the sexual preference of others.
But even though I hate people preaching religion in my presence, what I find truly despicable is an athiest imposing his order upon the world. (Hey, old man, there is no heaven. When you die, you simply cease to exist.)
>>what I find truly despicable is an athiest imposing his order
>>upon the world.
Well, get some balls, Smitty. Whenever an atheist tries to impose his order on my world, I tell him to go fuck himself up the ass with the business end of a pineapple.
Or if by “his order”, you mean letting people do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t affect you, well then. Better gird your loins. The war is underway.
>>It’s not that I’m afraid I will become converted (no chance of that!)
Maybe you should consider it. It might make you less angry and full of hate for the rest of the world. Just a suggestion.
Seperation of church and state is already dead what with secular Humanism being the state religion. Hillary wants to create Humanist “Christians” to be the official “religion”, so she can force the real Christians to submit to the Humanist “Christian” organizations.
Emperor Constantine pulled that trick in 326 A.D. This trick has also been done by the Third Reich, the Stalinists and the Maoists. That’s why there is a movement among the Christians to form up small groups that aren’t part of any large church. So says George Barna.
Go Hillary ! You are my heroine !
You gotta do what you gotta do to get elected. Sure, you have to suck up to the bible thumpers – we know (wink wink). Sometime you gotta laugh at fund raiser “fag jokes” (wink wink). We know, we know….
>>Seperation of church and state is already dead what with
>>secular Humanism being the state religion.
If by “secular Humanism”, you mean allowing others to enjoy the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, as long as it doesn’t interfere with your right to the same, then I guess you’re right.
Christ, I can’t believe I’m siding with the atheists here, but “secular Humanism” ain’t no fucking religion, son. It is, to quote Wiki-Whatever “a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice”.
As to your reference to the “Real Christians”, now you’re scaring me, dude. I’m getting a kevlar vest and a Glock .40, in case you come trying to evangelize at my house!
#27 Do you really believe that?
Believe what?
It doesn’t matter if Bill has kept Willie Jr under control. She’s a politician. She can claim what all politicians claim, that God has helped them through their times of trial.
#32 2) No religion should have a “voice in government”. That’s what the founding fathers meant by separation of church and state. Freedom of religion does and must include freedom to choose none of the above.
And yet our Politicians are often “sworn into office” with their hand on a Bible, held by their wife, which often concludes with them spouting “so help me, God.” – even though that last bit is not required.
Just because you & I are in favor of the separation of church & state doesn’t mean there isn’t any political capital to be made by sucking-up to the people who disagree with us on this issue.
#42 – MM,
Not sure how fast I’d get on a train powered by meth and man ass. But, if it’s enviro-conscious, I might give it a try.
#46 – Smitty,
you idiots have to turn this into another religious debate and (this is laughable) ridicule me for my religious beliefs.
Read our posts again. I challenge you to find a single line that ridicules you for your religious beliefs.
As for the political importance of religion in the world, I again challenge you to show a place where religion has made a positive difference in the law. Remember, if you look to religious law, your brother, along with my closest friend from childhood would both be stoned to death, as would your presumably unmarried daughter and some very close relatives of mine, though I’d rather not specify the relationship for their protection.
For me, atheism is liberating. I take responsibility for giving my life meaning. I find life all the more precious because I believe that when it’s over it’s really over. I also feel stronger for not needing the crutch of religion. But, my only point to you was not that you should believe as I believe but that you MUST NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES LEGISLATE THAT I BELIEVE AS YOU DO!!
Do you understand the difference?
#49 – Dallas,
Believe that if you want. But, read the article again. Her extreme religiosity predates her political career by many decades.
Wow. this one really took off. Let’s see…
#8 — Misanthropic Scott
I think it’s foolish to demonize coal, and anyone who believes in its use. So what’s the alternative? Nuclear Power? Oil? Are these really better?! Coal doesn’t spill and foul the oceans. Coal powered plants don’t threaten to meltdown, explode, and spread radioactivity all over us. And coal’s waste produce can be safely handled. And as far as Wind and Solar power are concerned. Keep dreaming. They’ll never be powerful enough. Liquefying coal is similar to what the germans wanted to do in WW2, so they could use their coal resource instead of foreign oil. Same now with US. Only I believe it would be better to convert coal to electricity. And charge storage cells, than pump coal as a liquid fuel alternative. It wastes too much energy inbetween. But the Oil industry wants to hold onto fuel pumps, like grim death, regardless of what gets pumped. Because they can controll the pricing better. Back to the real topic, religion in government.
It’s not that religion is a bad idea. It’s what some do in the name of a religion that they happen to adopt. And often it has nothing to do with that religion. Just their distorted militant view of it. The Spanish wiped out most of the indigenous population of south america, in the name of their religion. But really, it was all about gold fever. The germans had their militant religious excuse for killing Jews and the war. The Japanese for invading China. The Jews for taking back “their” land from the Arabs. Etc, etc, etc. And now, some Arabs use their militant view of religion to justify terrorism. And all of these have used their militant religious view to control their governments.
What we don’t need here in the US, is any more influence of “righteous” religious view to involve us in more and bloodier wars abroad. And that’s what it will come to. Because it’s painfully obvious that the politicians’ religious beliefs aren’t keeping them from robbing the taxpayer’s kitty (with earmarks) for their own benefit (bridges to nowhere). Or boinking the congressional pages.
So that just leaves their power to “go to war” or Not. And I pray to God they don’t start using some insane religious fervor for that! Because, it’s going to lead to a 2nd civil war in this land. Just as it has in other countries that let a militant religious view run their government.
#53 – Glenn E,
First, let me state strongly that I demonize all fossil fuels and anyone attempting to increase their use rather than decrease it. Coal just happens to be the worst of the bunch.
Coal produces about 4 times the carbon dioxide for the same energy as oil or gas. Coal releases mercury into the environment to travel far and wide. (Inuit women’s breast milk is so high in mercury and PCBs that it can literally be classified as hazardous waste and they live far from any coal plant or GE facility.)
Coal is no longer mined traditionally in large areas. Instead, mountaintop (and whole mountain) removal is common. Where this is practiced, water supplies are horribly contaminated. Runoff causes hypoxic dead zones in the oceans into which the rivers flow.
So, yes, coal and its supporters actually should be demonized.
As for your views on religion, this is just a matter of opinion. Yours is as valid as mine. Mine just happens to be that religion by its very purpose is divisive and violent. It has had a huge deleterious effect on humanity as evidenced by its huge number of deleted humans.
Religion is, by its very nature, sectarian.
Think about what that means. It means that religion is used to divide people up into sects of Us and Them. Thou shalt not kill Us. It is always OK and often desired that We kill Them.
However, in reality, there is no Us and Them. There is only Us. We went through a bottleneck about 70-80,000 years ago where there were only about 3-7,000 humans on the entire planet. Thus we have a very small gene pool and are highly inbred. We are all closely related.
In a very real sense, all humans are Us. We must try to rid ourselves of anything that tells us otherwise. Our survival as a species depends on it.
We know she supports world government.
Cronkite said, “Today we must develop federal structures on a global level. To deal with world problems, we need a system of enforceable world law, a democratic federal world government.”
Clinton, then first lady, congratulated Cronkite, saying, “For decades you told us ‘the way it is,’ but tonight we honor you for fighting for the way it could be.”
“First, we Americans are going to have to yield up some of our sovereignty,” Cronkite said. “That’s going to be to many a bitter pill. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new world order.”
He continued, “What Alexander Hamilton wrote about the need for law among the 13 states applies today to the approximate 200 sovereignties in our global village, all of which are going to have to be convinced to give up some of that sovereignty to the better, greater union; and it’s not going to be easy.”
As a member of the “religious left” I want to point out that we ALREADY ARE in government. Millions upon millions of us are everywhere.
The reason you haven’t noticed us is that we aren’t as pushy and rude as the religious right.
So, would we be better behaved in government? We already are!
>> 28 Religion of any form doesn’t belong in Politics
But what about we religious people? Are we banned from politics?
If so, isn’t this just reverse religious politics? Preference for the non-religious?
#54 MS
I think your are being selective about your views on religious teachings, I agree with the idea that religious organizations over the centuries have been the basis of many atrocities and deaths of humans but they have also created the concepts of “turning the other cheek” and the buddist religon of not harming any life even insect life etc. You have seen people like Mother Teresa and Gandhi use their beliefs to attempt to cure and heal. The issue is what humans do that manipulate and twist these teaching and create tragedy which is the fear the article on Hilary is using crudely to cast doubt on her candidacy.
#57 – Greg Allen,
But what about we religious people? Are we banned from politics?
Of course not!! But, when will you lift the ban on non-theists?
If so, isn’t this just reverse religious politics? Preference for the non-religious?
I do have a preference for the non-religious. It happens to be the minority of which I am a member. It also happens to be a minority with ZERO count ’em ZERO elected officials representing us.
Oh yeah, I forgot, one of us came out of the closet recently, but only after announcing that he would not run for reelection. So, who is underrepresented in our society?
#58 – KVolk,
The issue is what humans do that manipulate and twist these teaching and create tragedy which is the fear the article on Hilary is using crudely to cast doubt on her candidacy.
I take the other side of that viewpoint. I think it is the people who do good despite their religion that are twisting the meaning and purpose of religion. I think, based on history right up to the current day, that religion, or more specifically, theZoroastrian-Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular) is divisive and violent by its nature, as stated above in post #54.
People doing good, especially for the outgroup and especially without trying to convert the outgroup to the ingroup, are by far the exception rather than the rule in Zoroastrianism and all of its sub-sects.
I’m just replying to the title of this piece.
2 things that are true:
1) She very likely does not want to do this.
2) If the does, it would be good for the world because TRUE liberal Christians won’t care about someone’s religion, just whether they are good people and can get the job done AND will want to get rid of all fascists in our government, which is what is ruining the government now.
Regardless, this can only be a good thing.
#60 MS
Your picking and choosing the information that fits your arguments. The teachings of religon are different then the practitioners who pervert it. Tossing off generalities about a lumped together self described religous category shows you have closed your mind to seeing any good or potential good.
I also wonder why as a non-theists you want to be treated equally as a religious practitioner under the law. You have a lack of belief in a faith by definition that means you wouldn’t be treated the same. The abscence of something doesn’t define it because it is absent.