The Remaking of Hillary Clinton

[HagiaSophia]

Talk about truth in packaging…

2008 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is reportedly consulting with a prominent evangelical minister who’s coaching her on how to communicate with Christian fundamentalists, a top clergyman said this week.

“She has engaged the former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Assemblies of God minister Dr. Don Argue,” Rev. Rob Schenck said Thursday.

Schenck is president of the National Clergy Council.

Appearing on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” radio show, Rev. Schenck told fill-in host Steve Malzberg that Rev. Dr. Argue had visited with the Clintons “numerous times in the White House” and is now helping Mrs. Clinton “learn the language of evangelicalism.”

newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/30/221503.shtml

 

[David_Paul]

Another example of our most cherished freedom–
separation of church and state–being undermined.

 

[masondoggy]

I wonder how many Americans will fall for her phoney Christian act?

 

[Peace-bwu]

The thought of Hillary Clinton being my husband’s commander -in -chief makes me want to hurl. 4 more years of the Clintons is not what this country needs. She makes me ill, *literally. *Hopefully the Christian Fundamentalists will see through the wolf in sheep’s clothing. So sad.

 

[kaymart]

If The Clinton’s thought dying their hair blue would get votes they would do it . When will America wake up and see through these two phony people??? The fact that she has to be taught what Christian people want is clear cut that she doesn’t have a clue!!!

 

[Lisa_N]

Utterly laughable. I suspect when Mrs Clinton does ‘evangelical-speak’ much will be lost in translation.

Lisa N

 

[Fitz]

masondoggy:

I wonder how many Americans will fall for her phoney Christian act?

All the phoney Christians will fall for it!

 

[Pete2]

All politicians do this, it’s not unique to Hillary Clinton or the Democrats. Politics is sales and marketing, that’s why most people do not like or trust politicians.

Check out this article:

Openly Religious, to a Point
Bush Leaves the Specifics of His Faith to Speculation

By Alan Cooperman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

Before President Bush addressed a Knights of Columbus convention last month in Dallas, the audience of 2,500 conservative Catholics watched a documentary film about a woman who chose to die rather than end a pregnancy that threatened her life. Then the president gave a speech in which he called Pope John Paul II “a true hero of our time” and used the pope’s phrase “culture of life” three times.

When it was over, many in the audience were convinced that the president shared their view that abortion is murder and should be banned. “The ‘culture of life’ is a very important code word that will resonate with Catholics,” said Carl A. Anderson, head of the 1.6 million-member Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Roman Catholic men’s society.

But Bush had not actually said that abortion is tantamount to murder. Nor, according to aides, has he ever said that all abortions should be illegal. When asked by reporters during the 2000 presidential campaign and again last fall whether abortion should be banned, Bush said the nation was not ready for that step, without indicating his position.

George W. Bush is among the most openly religious presidents in U.S. history. A daily Bible reader, he often talks about how Jesus changed his heart. He has spoken, publicly and privately, of hearing God’s call to run for the presidency and of praying for God’s help since he came into office.

But despite the centrality of Bush’s faith to his presidency, he has revealed only the barest outline of his beliefs, leaving others to sift through the clues and make assumptions about where he stands.

Bush has said many times that he is a Christian, believes in the power of prayer and considers himself a “lowly sinner.” But White House aides said they do not know whether the president believes that: the Bible is without error; the theory of evolution is true; homosexuality is a sinful choice; only Christians will go to heaven; support for Israel is a biblical imperative; or the war in Iraq is part of God’s plan.

Some political analysts think there is a shrewd calculation behind these ambiguities. By using such phrases as the “culture of life,” Bush signals to evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics that he is with them, while he avoids taking explicit stands that might alienate other voters or alarm foreign leaders. Bush and his chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, are “very gifted at crafting references that religious insiders will understand and outsiders may not,” said the Rev. Jim Wallis, editor of the evangelical journal Sojourners.

-snip-
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24634-2004Sep15.html

 

[Pete2]

David_Paul:

Another example of our most cherished freedom–
separation of church and state–being undermined.

I don’t think many people on these message boards cherish separation of church and state!

Pete

 

[kaymart]

Pete2:

I don’t think many people on these message boards cherish separation of church and state!

Pete

It’s using Church for your own benefit and then separating it when convient. This is what most people do not like.

 

[Pete2]

kaymart:

It’s using Church for your own benefit and then separating it when convient. This is what most people do not like.

I agree, people don’t like that, either: Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are both guilty of co-opting catch phrases and lingo to try to win over religious groups for their own benefit.

But that’s not what I’m saying… I’m saying that separation of church and state is likely a distant second place for people here on CA, far behind the teachings of the Church.

Homosexual marriage is a good example of this. The Catholic Church is against homosexuality, and of course doesn’t support gay marriage. According to separation of church and state, the state should not use God or the Church as a reason to oppose homosexual marriage. God or the Church are really the only reasons anyone can give for being against homosexuals. But most people here on CA would wholeheartedly support a law that prevents homosexual marriage in the US. But how can you support a law against homosexual marriage and also be a proponent of separation of church and state?

[Note: I know that this is hard for a lot of people here, but please realize that this example is just an illustration of my point about separation of church and state. I’m not advocating one way or the other for homosexual rights in this post.]

Pete

 

[Lisa_N]

I think there is a huge difference between Hillary and President Bush’s approach to their faith tradition which ironically is the same, Methodism.But Hillary is totally hypocritical, needing a ‘coach’ to tell her how to approach evangelicals. She has consistently sided with the proaborts and has never spoken out against abortion other than some vague reference to wishing abortion were ‘rare.’ OTOH even Bush’s detractors believe that his faith is sincere and an important part of his life. Whether he talks the kind of talk Pete wants to hear, I have seen no evidence that the faith is a put on as it is with Hillary. I hope her coaches tell her that Job is not in the New Testament.

Lisa N

 

[David_Paul]

Pete2:

According to separation of church and state, the state should not use God or the Church as a reason to oppose homosexual marriage. God or the Church are really the only reasons anyone can give for being against homosexuals.

You are kidding, right?

On both counts you are goofing on us, aren’t you?

 

[Pete2]

David_Paul:

You are kidding, right?

On both counts you are goofing on us, aren’t you?

My educated reporter friend from Connecticut who has studied EB White, types 100 words a minute and knows the location of lead mines…

Are you going to engage in discussion here? Because I won’t dignify that with any kind of direct response.

Pete

 

[Pete2]

Lisa N:

I think there is a huge difference between Hillary and President Bush’s approach to their faith tradition which ironically is the same, Methodism.But Hillary is totally hypocritical, needing a ‘coach’ to tell her how to approach evangelicals. She has consistently sided with the proaborts and has never spoken out against abortion other than some vague reference to wishing abortion were ‘rare.’ OTOH even Bush’s detractors believe that his faith is sincere and an important part of his life. Whether he talks the kind of talk Pete wants to hear, I have seen no evidence that the faith is a put on as it is with Hillary. I hope her coaches tell her that Job is not in the New Testament.

Lisa N

Neither you nor I have any idea what kind of faith Hillary Clinton has. Just because Bush wears it on his sleeve doesn’t mean he is more sincere than Hillary in it’s practice.

I can guarantee you that Bush is coached on all manner of things, including his positioning on moral issues, and maybe even on what the Knights of Columbus would like hearing from him at their convention. He has people that put words in his mouth each and every day. This isn’t a partisan issue-- it’s what politicians do!

Pete

 

[David_Paul]

Pete2:

My educated reporter friend from Connecticut who has studied EB White, types 100 words a minute and knows the location of lead mines…

Are you going to engage in discussion here? Because I won’t dignify that with any kind of direct response.

Pete

OK. Let’s take two of your comment one at a time.

According to separation of church and state, the state should not use God or the Church as a reason to oppose homosexual marriage.

The first clause is meaningless. You cannot cite any “according to” judicial decision or law. Yes, SCOTUS did incorporate a metaphor Jefferson used in a letter into constitutional law (Everson 1947). But the court itself cannot figure out what it means today. As we saw in the Ten Commandments decision handed down this week. OK to put them outside. Not OK to have them inside.

Next you say “the state” should not use religion as a reason to oppose gay marriage. No reason need be given why a law is passed. No one is obligated to swear (under oath…hee…hee) to how they arrive at a political decision.

What you are saying is those with religious beliefs have no right to have them reflected in law. That notion, which is being promoted by PFAW and others, is outside American law and American tradition. The DOI used God as a justification for rebellion. The American revolution was preached from the pulpit. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was a minister. Think he didn’t use his theological training (learned in Germany) to arrive at political decisions?

Your comment is out of the French or Bolshevik revolutions, not the American.

Your next comment:

God or the Church are really the only reasons anyone can give for being against homosexuals.

uh…huh…if I didn’t go to church or believe in God, I would be dating the guy down the street. I think not. An aversion to homosexuality is innate. That is why we have billions of people on the planet.

But I’m not “being against homosexuals.” You, once again, have left the classical definition of liberal democracy which is, of course, to tolerate that which one finds offensive or with which one does not agree.

Read fewer cultural marxists, Pete. Read more Montesquieu

He who fears and hates religion is like the savage beast that growls and bites the chain which prevents his flying on the passenger. He who has no religion at all is that terrible animal who perceives his liberty only when he tears in pieces and when he devours.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Interestingly enough there is in today’s news the following quote about the Pope’s new book :

“Before long it won’t be possible to affirm that homosexuality, as the Catholic church teaches, constitutes an objective disorder in the structuring of human existence,” he writes. “And the fact that the church is convinced that it does not have the right to bestow priestly ordination on women is considered, by some, to be irreconcilable with the spirit of the European constitution.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=63096 (Post #1)

 

[HagiaSophia]

Pete2:

I don’t think many people on these message boards cherish separation of church and state!

Pete

I thought the pope was rather clear last week:

Benedict and Ciampi agreed that Italy and the Vatican must remain independent of each other, with the pontiff saying Italy’s “healthy secularism” was “legitimate.”

But he said Italy’s secular nature couldn’t exclude “those ethical references which find their final foundation in religion.” The church also has a right to intervene in issues “which derive from an integral vision of man and his eternal destiny,” Benedict said.

He said he hoped Italian lawmakers would find “human solutions” to issues concerning the sanctity of marriage and defending life.

“The church … sees in the family a very important value that must be defended from every attack aimed at harming its stability and questioning its very existence,” he said.

“For this reason, the Pope went on, “a healthy laicism of the State” is legitimate, “by virtue of which temporal situations are governed according to their own norms, yet without excluding those ethical references whose ultimate foundations are to be found in religion. The autonomy of the temporal sphere does not exclude an intimate harmony with higher and more complex necessities deriving from an integral vision of man and of his eternal destiny.”…”

“The church recognizes in human life a primary good, and therefore asks that it be respected both at its beginning as well as at its end.” He didn’t mention euthanasia, which the Vatican is opposed to, but underlined the need for “adequate palliative cures, that make death more human.”

 

[Pete2]

David_Paul:

What you are saying is those with religious beliefs have no right to have them reflected in law.

No, I don’t think that’s what I said. I certainly agree with you that the founding fathers of the US were very religious, and that lawmakers bring their personal views into account when they do their jobs.

But if two individuals want to get married by a judge, how can you oppose it, without bringing religion into the picture? What reasons can you provide, without drawing on religious-based arguments, and in the context of a free country that doesn’t discriminate on the basis of gender, that two individuals can’t get married in a civil ceremony?

David_Paul:

uh…huh…if I didn’t go to church or believe in God, I would be dating the guy down the street. I think not. An aversion to homosexuality is innate. That is why we have billions of people on the planet.

You are completely misunderstanding me there. I am not arguing that religion is what prevents everyone from being homosexual! See my response in this post to your first point… I think you get my meaning.

Pete

 

[Lisa_N]

Pete2:

Neither you nor I have any idea what kind of faith Hillary Clinton has. Just because Bush wears it on his sleeve doesn’t mean he is more sincere than Hillary in it’s practice.

Certainly no one knows what is in another’s heart but by their fruits you will know them. IOW look at the ACTIONS of each. Which indicates that they support the kind of culture of life that we hold dear in the Catholic church? Hillary has had consistent proabort, pro liberal, pro secular positions. She devalues the family and is basically socialist in her philosophy. None of that sounds like a sincere religious faith.

Pete2:

I can guarantee you that Bush is coached on all manner of things, including his positioning on moral issues, and maybe even on what the Knights of Columbus would like hearing from him at their convention. He has people that put words in his mouth each and every day. This isn’t a partisan issue-- it’s what politicians do!

Pete

Certainly Bush has speechwriters, however his positions are consistent and as I said even his enemies admit to the sincerity of his faith. He does not have coaches telling him how to appeal to the secular leftists but obviousl Mrs. Clinton wants to try to bamboozle people of faith. Even Mrs Clinton’s FRIENDS would not presume to suggest that her personal or political positions are Christian in focus. She could have Billy Graham on a remote feed and still not sound sincere.

Lisa N