5 Facts About Hillary Clinton's Faith

[cbayer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/11/hillary-clinton-faith_n_7043176.html

Religion News Service | By Cathy Lynn Grossman
Posted: 04/11/2015 9:27 am EDT Updated: 22 minutes ago



NEW YORK, NY - APRIL 01: Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attends a round table conversation and press conference announcing a childhood development initiative with first lady of New York City Chirlane McCray on April 1, 2015 in New York City. (Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images) | Andrew Burton via Getty Images

WASHINGTON (RNS) As she embarks, again, on a presidential campaign, one facet of Hillary Clinton, 67, is unchanged across her decades as a lawyer, first lady, senator and secretary of state: She was, is and likely always will be a social-justice-focused Methodist.

1) She was shaped by a saying popular among Methodists: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can,” says Paul Kengor in his book “God and Hillary Clinton.”

As a girl, she was part of the guild that cleaned the altar at First United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Ill. As a teen, she visited inner-city Chicago churches with the youth pastor, Don Jones, her spiritual mentor until his death in 2009. During her husband’s presidency, the first family worshipped at Washington’s Foundry United Methodist Church, and Time magazine described her membership in a bipartisan women’s prayer group organized by evangelicals.

2) Clinton’s been known to carry a Bible in her purse but, she told the 2007 CNN Faith Forum, “advertising” her faith “doesn’t come naturally to me.” Every vote Clinton made as a senator from New York, she said, was “a moral responsibility.” When asked at the forum why she thought God allows suffering, Clinton demurred on theology, then swiftly turned her answer to activism: “The existence of suffering calls us to action.”

more at link

[leftofcool]

1. Many Dems believe in God, faith and Spirituality.

Fortunately for us, not one of our Dems take the Bible and thump in across our backs.

[cbayer]

2. Agree. There is a big difference between her faith and, say, Ted Cruz.

[haikugal]

27. Really? How many degrees difference?

Last edited Mon Apr 13, 2015, 11:23 AM - Edit history (1)

She has been part of the family for years. You should read the book so you know who and what they are.

Read Jeff Sharlet's book The Family

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. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

[cbayer]

30. Light years of difference…. light years.

The Family is a disturbing group, but her involvement in it is markedly different than Brownback or Santorum or Cruz.

Those that wish to discredit her will pull up this article from 2007 without actually reading it to discover what her involvement has and has not been. They will continue to make claims that she is involved in the same way as the rabid republicans, but it's only used as a smear. It's a long article, I realize, and most won't make it to the conclusion

It might be an interesting exercise to actually find out to what extent and at what level she is currently involved with this group. My guess would be not at all. You?

Do you seriously think she is anything like Cruz when it comes to her religious beliefs?

[haikugal]

32. I think they are both conservative,

I think they both belong to or are affiliated with a group named The Family that have been active pushing their agenda in DC and around the world. I have read Sharlet's book, have you? You're reacting to information not propaganda...

Sorry if I stepped on a sore toe but I don't trust anyone who is involved with this group.

Light years of difference, only in delivery...degrees.

[cbayer]

34. Oh, dear. I see where you are and I fear that we have little in common when it comes to this.

I am indeed responding to information and not propaganda, as you state. The Clinton-Family connection is pure propaganda.

Are you able to tell me what Clinton's involvement is with this group at this time? Other than the Prayer Breakfast, which is pretty much attended by everyone, can you tell me the last time she had any contact with them?

Did you know she was a young republican early in her life?

[haikugal]

35. Link?

You don't know who Sharlet is do you.

[cbayer]

37. Link to what?

[haikugal]

38. Your assertions...

[cbayer]

39. What assertions?

Also, I just saw your edit. You posted a link to the rather infamous, but terribly old, Mother Jones article by Sharlet to start this discussion, so your saying I have no idea who he is is very curious. I think he did a great job of investigative journalism when it came to the family, but not so much when it comes to making a really strong connection with Clinton.

Look, many have tried to use this against her for the last 2 campaigns and they are going to try it again. They were embarrassingly unsuccessful before and using it for a third time and this many years later looks rather sad.

[haikugal]

41. I didn't start this discussion I posted my reply to the article that you posted in the OP.

How is it infamous, link please.

I'm not using anything against Hillary, she doesn't need any help, neither did Bill. I just posted a You Tube of an interview with Sharlet...see for yourself.

Politics sucks but I'm tired of giving people the benefit of the doubt that don't deserve it. You make assertions and don't follow up with any back up then claim ignorance when asked to provide some evidence. That's part of why politics sucks. Discussion depends on information not pure emotion and grade school argument.

[cbayer]

42. Er, no. You posted a reply directly to me basically say that Clinton and Cruz are not that

different and included a link to the 8 year old Mother Jones article.

The you tube won't play, is five years old and has a single comment.

This is one person's analysis of a situation which pretty much no one else has ever substantiated. That some have tried to use it against her and failed really points to it being propaganda.

What assertions have I made? It is you that are making assertions. I can not find a shred of evidence linking her to this group for years, other than speaking at the prayer breakfast five years ago.

I'm not claiming ignorance at all. I challenge you to provide evidence other than this single author's assertion that Clinton was deeply involved in The Family or is involved in any way whatsoever at this time.

Discussion does depend on information and not pure emotion and grad school argument. It also relies on someone looking critically at information instead of just looking for what they want to be true.

[haikugal]

44. Yes I replied to your reply about how different hills...

So are we counting points rather than furthering the discussion? Competitive much? Where are you supports for your assertions?

The YouTube plays for me. So what that it has one comment and is five years old...the information has been out there a while...what does that mean in your mind?

So, only very recent info is acceptable, you write the rules? Information is information, do you have any?

This 'single' author did extensive research...figure out how to play the YouTube, you need to see it.

[cbayer]

45. Well, that's not the same thing as replying directly to the OP right?

What points are your talking about? I am quite competitive, but I'm not at all sure what you are talking about.

As a rational thinker who is quite skeptical in general and who puts a lot of thought into the processes required to validate a hypothesis, I do indeed look at the amount of time since a claim has been made and whether it has been replicated or substantiated. In this case, it's old and it hasn't been.

The you tube is by the same guy who wrote the story. It's the same evidence being said by the same person in the same way.

He did great research, but his conclusions about Clinton are wholly speculative and have not been substantiated.

"Competitive much?" "You write the rules?" "Information is information, do you have any?" "Figure out how to play the YouTube, you need to see it"

Resorting to the personal is a sign of having lost your argument and I accept.

Good luck on your crusade and I will be glad to offer you the opportunity for the last word, because these are mine..

[haikugal]

47. ...wtf....

Please back up your assertions that somehow a YouTube that won't play ( it plays for me), can be dismissed out of hand, have you seen it? What evidence to the contrary do you have beyond putting your fingers in your ears "la, la, la, la"...please at least site someone beyond your own opinion.

I would like to have information that refutes Sharlet...if you have some. He didn't write his book on opinion or hearsay he researched thoroughly and wrote a factual account. In the YouTube you can see he wasn't on a mission, he just followed the information.

You can have the last word.

[okasha]

52. Alas, be says he accepted hearsay.

"Hillary wouldn't talk to us, but some of the people around her would."

Did you watch your own video?

[okasha]

36. Having read the book

you will remember that The Family does not allow women members.

Hillary's ability to gain the cooperation of opposition Senators was one of the reasons I supported her in 2008 and one of the reasons I support her now. It's something Obama doesn't have, and it's been a liability to his presidency.

[haikugal]

40. She is affiliated..

[okasha]

46. Not really.

She belonged to a prayer group that included wives of several conservative senators who were affiliated with C Street. That's two steps away from "affiliation."

And I'm sorry to say this, but Schalert is dead wrong about Hilary's alleged "rejection" of the social gospel. Her work for women and girls; her other human rights work; her support of LGBT causes all comes under the social gospel rubric.

[haikugal]

48. You didn't watch the video or you wouldn't say that.

Her work, as you put it, is clearly compromised and less than honest.

[okasha]

50. I did watch the video.

Schalert did some excellent journalism with his books. I'm disappointed that he's descended to peddling propaganda as he does in this video. That compromises his credibility in a very unfortunate way.

[cbayer]

49. Text from Hillary

[okasha]

53. ..

[cbayer]

55. Are you seeing this thread with the formatting all messed up or is it just me?

[okasha]

56. There is something wrong with the formatting.

Turning the screen 90° helped, but I can do that only because I'm on my phone.

[cbayer]

43. BTW, it appear that something in your post #27 has a formatting issue.

It can't be replied to at this point and I could be wrong, but I think there is a problem with it.

[safeinOhio]

3. Can't wait to see how

right-wing Christians look at Hillary.

[leftofcool]

4. Well, you know since she wears pant suits she is probably not a "real" Christian

Those girls at Faux Snooze are real Christians because, you know, they dress like ladies and such.

[cbayer]

5. Just like Obama, I predict they will not see her as the right kind of christian at all.

[safeinOhio]

6. If she forgave Bill

she's a better Christian than any of them.

[cbayer]

7. Touche! She's certainly better than I could ever be.

They have a fascinating relationship. I read a great article about them during the last primary and I might reprise it.

[Htom Sirveaux]

8. If she had listened to her church, it would have saved her from her Iraq War vote.

After the resolution passed, the UMC called a war with Iraq unjustifiable.

[cbayer]

9. Agree. More political than religious, imo.

[stone space]

10. This is one of those cases where Politicians would have been well served to...

Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 12:39 PM - Edit history (1)

...consult their Religion for guidance and moral wisdom before acting.

Politicians on both side of the aisle, interestingly enough, who rejected the wisdom of their own common faith, to engage in a murderous act that millions of people have suffered horribly for over the years, and an act from which people still suffer.

President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.
Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough programme of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.

[yeoman6987]

11. As long as Biden gets the same criticsm

If he runs. Of course I didn't hear any negativism during he last run. No idea why? Kerry didn't either during his 2004 run. Wonder why?

[cbayer]

12. IMO, it was because the race was between Clinton and Obama and it was vicious.

It is one of the things that distinguished them and was embraced with gusto by those who supported Obama and were very negative about Clinton.

That didn't really apply to Kerry or Biden.

[yeoman6987]

16. That's true

[edhopper]

13. I would love to see her say

"my faith is private and should not be an issue."

Especially with the crop of religious nuts the GOP is offering.

[cbayer]

14. Me, too. I think it would appeal to lots of people and would be a real

boost for those who don't identity as christian.

But she will only do it if the numbers make sense.

[stone space]

15. That's exactly what she said when she voted for War.

"my faith is private and should not be an issue."

She ignored the moral wisdom of her own (and Bush's!) religion, and they took us to War, instead.

That was in service of a different God.

One of the Gods of the Civil Religion.

[edhopper]

17. link?

[stone space]

18. See post #8 for link. (nt)

[edhopper]

19. I don't see why she should do what her church says,

her faith is private and she follows the dictates of her church at her own discretion.
Yes she was wrong about Iraq, but I don't want any President to do something just because their church says so.
Her faith and the way she interacts with it is private, I wish most politicians would keep it so and not wear it on their sleeves.

Her vote on Iraq was purely political and it is one of the marks against her.

[stone space]

20. Neither did she. And neither did Bush.

I don't see why she should do what her church says

They were both wrong.

[edhopper]

21. Yes they were

but for reasons other than not "following their church"

Do you want a Presidents that decides things based on the dictates of their church?

[stone space]

22. Precisely because they didn't "follow their church" in this case, actually.

Do you want a Presidents that decides things based on the dictates of their church?

I want a President that recognizes sources of wisdom in their own traditions and in the traditions of others.

Presidents who discount sources of wisdom in their own religion telling them not to unleash their Gods of Metal to murder people by the tens of thousands are getting it wrong.

When one is contemplating whether or not to go on a horrific mass-murder spree is precisely the moment when one should most seek moral guidance, not a time to ignore that moral guidance, and throw your supposed Religion (the one that a politician claims to have during campaigns) under the bus for the sake of the secular Gods of Metal of the Civil Religion of Militarism.

Sometimes as atheists, we don't come down hard enough on the Gods of Metal of the Civil Religion of Militarism.

We're afraid of being perceived as too "militant" in our atheism if we do so, I suspect, because these Gods are perceived as sacrosanct in our society.

And we think that's a bad thing. It's not. Militancy is a good thing. There are Gods who need to be opposed, and opposed rather forcefully.

[edhopper]

24. And if the President is Catholic

do you want him/her to go to these sources so they can bad abortion, birth control and gay marriage?

[stone space]

29. In the search for wisdom, one must always use discernment.

Last edited Sat Apr 11, 2015, 02:59 PM - Edit history (1)

What if you go to this church?

Not every sermon preached from the pulpit contains pearls of wisdom.

But neither should pearls of wisdom be ignored and discarded simply because they came out of the mouth of a preacher, and/or are couched in religious language.

[Goblinmonger]

67. You know that's satire, right?

[cbayer]

23. If those "dictates", or perhaps better called "positions", are aligned with my own, then yes,

I would be glad for them to take that into consideration.

Not talking about a lockstep adherence, but perhaps a source of guidance. No need for it to be public, but anything that would get them to support or reject the same things I do is a-ok with me.

[edhopper]

25. a private matter

but it seems the morals are not dependent on any church, since they differ so much depending on the denomination.

[cbayer]

26. Morals and ethical codes are highly individualistic.

Religious or not, they may come from many sources and may change.

Religious groups may offer guidance and have their own set of positions or rules. Some may demand fealty to those, while others give a wide berth for discretion.

The methodist church is one of those that is pretty flexible.

If the tenets of one's church guides you, I'm for that is it steers you in my direction and will reject it if it doesn't.

It's just not a black and white thing, and wanting it to be nothing is just as bad as wanting it to be all.

[edhopper]

28. Guidance that can be rejected

pointing to one incident where she should have followed her church doesn't make it the right thing to do, as I showed in my examples.

You just want them to follow the guidance you approve of. How do you feel about the GOP candidates following their churches?

I do wish they had little or no impact on secular policy.


I'll read your reply later, gotta go out.

[cbayer]

31. Of course it can be rejected. Where do you get these ideas?

I wished she had followed the guidance of her church in this instance. I am glad for the catholic leaders who choose not to follow some of the guidance of their church, and not at all happy with some others that do.

Of course you want to follow the guidance you approve of. Your continuing distorted view of the religious as sheeple terribly distorts your view of the world.

I reject the GOP candidates following their churches on issues I am opposed to.

You can wish all you want, or you can develop a nuanced view of this which allows you to see that some things about religion are good and some things are bad and you have the opportunity to choose what you will support or not.

Or does your personal doctrine not permit you to allow others that flexibility?

[edhopper]

60. I am not saying that

but this is getting too mixed up.
I made my point in my first post and I am leaving it at that.

[stone space]

33. Pointing out instances where following your church is wrong...

...does not negate the rightness of instances where following your church is right.

pointing to one incident where she should have followed her church doesn't make it the right thing to do, as I showed in my examples.

Just like pointing out instances where following your church is right doesn't negate the wrongness of instances where following your church is wrong.

It just means that judgment and discernment are required in the search for moral wisdom.

[edhopper]

59. And churches aren't necessarily

a good place to find it.

[Mariana]

62. If you're going to follow your church when you agree with it

and ignore its positions when you disagree, why bother consulting the teachings of the church in the first place? Seems like a waste of time, when the result is going to be the same either way.

[stone space]

63. Because doing so might stop you from engaging in mass murder.

If it encourages you to think more deeply about what you are planning to do.

If you're going to follow your church when you agree with it

and ignore its positions when you disagree, why bother consulting the teachings of the church in the first place? Seems like a waste of time, when the result is going to be the same either way.

[Mariana]

64. Well, yes, IF you're going to follow its teachings

even when you disagree with them (and if it actually teaches against mass murder, of course). I'll ask again: If you're going to ignore the teachings you disagree with, then what's the point?

[stone space]

66. The context here is the link in post #8.

(and if it actually teaches against mass murder, of course).

Here is the link:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/20/usa.iraq

President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.
Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough programme of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.

I'll ask again: If you're going to ignore the teachings you disagree with, then what's the point?

President Bush ignored his own church when he went to war.

He had a source of wisdom readily available to him. Right there in front of him, in his own damn church. He didn't have to search very far if it was wisdom he wanted.

You are correct that the wisdom present in his own church did not prove beneficial.

But that's because he ignored the moral wisdom coming from his own church and went on a killing spree instead.

[Mariana]

68. In the search for wisdom, one must always use discernment.

You posted that above. Well, Bush used discernment, and he came to the conclusion that he was right and his church was wrong.

[cbayer]

65. For you it would be a waste of time and I don't think you should bother at all.

For others it is a source of guidance and they use their own critical thinking skills to determine what makes sense to them and what doesn't. For others, it offers the opportunity to reflect and reach their own conclusions. It's a part of who they are. Just because that doesn't apply to you doesn't mean it's wrong.

[pangaia]

51. Faith is just hoping somethinhg is real or true.

I just don't get why this 'word' is such a big topic of discussion.

I have faith that I will not be in an accident driving to work. But,, ya never know.

Actually I do not have faith in that. Who knows. I just drive to work as safely as I can and hope for the best.

[cbayer]

54. Actually faith is not hoping it's true, it's believing it's true, despite

the lack of evidence.

[pangaia]

57. Believing is no more backed up by fact,

or reality than say.. having confidence.

[cbayer]

58. Right, believing is not backed up by fact, but it's more than having confidence, I think.

It's hard to translate these concepts to things outside religion.

[pangaia]

61. "It's hard to translate these concepts to things outside religion."

That is certainly true.