Hillary Clinton is talking about her faith. Again.

[cbayer]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/04/26/has-hillary-clinton-again-started-to-talk-about-her-faith/

BY KATIE ZEZIMA
April 26 at 7:33 pm

LOUISVILLE, K.Y. — By all accounts, Hillary Clinton is a devoted Methodist whose life has been guided by the church's obligations to help the less fortunate and advocate for those who have no voice. But Clinton's proclamation of her faith, once a regular part of her public discourse, has been absent of late.

Until now.


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers the keynote address to the United Methodist Women's Assembly at the Kentucky International Convention Center, Saturday, April 26, 2014, in Louisville, Ky. (AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley)

Clinton addressed the United Methodist Women Assembly here Saturday morning, a "homecoming" that allowed her and others to celebrate the works Methodist women are doing across the country and world. But could it also be a return to the idea that Clinton will talk more publicly about her faith, especially as she prepares for a potential presidential run in 2016?

"I have always cherished the Methodist Church because it gave us the great gift of personal salvation but also the great obligation of social gospel," Clinton said to the group of 7,000 women gathered here. "And I took that very seriously and have tried, tried to be guided in my own life ever since as an advocate for children and families, for women and men around the world who are oppressed and persecuted, denied their human rights and human dignity."

Clinton once spoke freely and openly about her faith. Her 1996 book, “It Takes a Village and Other Lessons Children Teach Us,” has an entire chapter devoted to religion. Clinton wrote about how she and former President Bill Clinton were struck by the profound spiritual questions their daughter Chelsea and her friends raised and her deep roots in the Methodist faith.

more at link

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Dear God. nt

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Indeed, Manny.

Indeed.

[yeoman6987]

51. Well she was speaking to a group of Methodists

I am not sure how she could not speak of religion talking with this group. I mean that is the main group. You talk to your audience.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. That's not what bothers me about Hillary & religion.

This quote is originally from MoJo, but I found it on Daily Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/04/490211/-Hillary-Clinton-member-of-cell-church-run-by-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. When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat. Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family&quot , 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. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.)

[cbayer]

4. This has always disturbed me as well.

She has been mostly silent about her involvement with this group.

I suspect that her involvement is entirely political and has nothing to do with religion, but I sure wish she would disavow any affiliation with them.

[immoderate]

5. Disavow?

Would that make her any different?

--imm

[cbayer]

6. I'm not sure what you are asking.

If she is doing this just for the political pull, then I would like to see her acknowledge that and stop participating with them. Would it make her different? I'm not sure. But it would seem the honest thing to do.

[Jackpine Radical]

14. If she has an affinity for that crowd (and she apparently does),

"disavowing" is meaningless. Like, holy crap, what's she doing among them in the first place?

[cbayer]

16. It's politics and it doesn't mean that she necessarily has any

kind of affinity for that crowd.

If she does, it sure isn't apparent in her actions.

But, as a savvy politician, she knows which tables seat powerful people and she play to them.

Still, I wish she would disengage from this particular table.

Perhaps that would be unwise politically, though. I don't know.

[tularetom]

7. I don't think she really believes that crap, but in many ways that's almost worse

Like she was willing to conceal her true beliefs in order to suck up to a group of people that she (or more likely Bill) believed had the power to advance her politically and/or financially.

[okasha]

8. This is called politics.

Networking--or coalition-building if you will--is what made her an effective Senator.

Show me where she's supported the Family's social policies, such as the kill-the-gays laws in Uganda and the subordination of women;, and I'll be concerned.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Yeah 'cause "coalition building" with the fucknutz-crazy crowd has been working out really well for

us.

Enough is enough. Until we make it clear that this crap is unacceptable, the shit will continue unabated. It is not ok. It is not "just politics".

[Nay]

55. AMEN. nt

[AuntPatsy]

28. Scary

[DURHAM D]

9. I am an ethnic Methodist but a non-believer

and it always been obvious to me that her public service is guided by her Methodist faith. It is so very familiar to me.

I grew up in a small town in the lower midwest in a family of strong women who were (still are) very active in WSCS. For 60 years I have watched as they quietly network to take care of what needs taking care of in the community. If someone needs a car repaired or new tires, utility bills paid, a job, food, clothing, babysitting, or housing they pass the word at Circle and good things always happen. If a pregnant teen or gay kid gets kicked out of their house some member of Circle will take them in or find them a place to live. When kids age out of foster care and their foster family boots them to the curb the women up at the church will include them for holiday and birthday gatherings and help them with things like getting auto insurance, utilities turned on and basic banking skills.

Twice a year they have city wide graduation parties for kids/adults that get their GED.

If a school bond issue is on the ballot they work to pass it.

Right now my cousin is in charge of the committee that gathers in the church kitchen every Tuesday night and prepares a meal for anyone in the area who needs it. The local grocery stores donate the food for the meal plus extra stuff like fresh fruit and vegetables, canned goods, laundry detergent, and personal hygiene items to take home with them. Most of the women doing this work are in their 70 and several are in their 80s and they do need some younger women to join them.

When I joined the church (had no choice) back in the 50s I remember only two messages (1) live by the Golden Rule and (2) give back to your community. Hillary has always lived these two basic principles.

When I see some of the extremely harsh judgments posted on DU about her personal choices I am flabbergasted because I know she would never judge them in the same way as it is just not in her. I don't give a damn that she prays or who she prays with and I am the non-believer in this thread.

[cbayer]

10. What you describe goes on all over this country.

What a wonderful picture you have painted here.

It all comes done to deeds, not beliefs.

And I hold Clinton to that same standard. I think she is good in her heart and where that goodness comes from makes little difference to me.

[nevergiveup]

17. Yep

"When I joined the church (had no choice) back in the 50s I remember only two messages (1) live by the Golden Rule and (2) give back to your community. Hillary has always lived these two basic principles."
Same time frame and same experience for me. Although totally agnostic today I have nothing but positive things to say about the Methodist church during those days. I grew up in rural West Central Illinois and the ministers we had during those times were quite progressive and open minded. Today that small community is dominated by tea baggers. The phrase "we've come a long way baby" has a totally different twist in much of rural America.

[Frustratedlady]

33. That is the Methodist church I went to as a child and

young adult, as well. I was married in the Methodist church and active for many years until the church divided into two factions...one which wanted to run everything and everybody else. I am still Methodist but no longer take part in organized religion because of the infighting.

[fredamae]

11. Is it just me or is

Hillary willingly mapping out reasons why she shouldn't get, hasn't earned and isn't going to get progs to support her? Or is it a matter of the Clinton Camp "messaging to progs-"this is where the New Dem Coalition/Third Way/Wall Street Dems Are and where they're gonna stay--It's what "the Elite" wants-so just get used to it?

[cbayer]

12. Do you think acknowledging her religious beliefs and speaking to Methodist women

decreases her support among progressives?

I don't.

[fredamae]

21. Not the fact that she is faithful

but that she's bringing into politics and read post #2---
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218126109#post2

It's the "Conservative" beliefs--which she is entirely in her rights to hold and believe...but, I do not want those beliefs imposed upon me. And it is my opinion that we have a dangerous trend toward bringing in "Conservative Religious Beliefs" into our political platforms...and it isn't just the GOP--the Dems are following suit like a bunch of lemmings-again, imo.

[okasha]

23. What "Conservative beliefs?"

Be specific, please.

[cbayer]

24. Bringing what into politics?

She was asked to be the keynote speaker of a apolitical group and spoke to them.

Please show me where Hillary Clinton has tried to impose her religious beliefs on you?

As to her association with the family, I think that's political but she never speaks of it publicly, as far as I know.

I hear where you are coming from (I think), but it is highly likely that Clinton is going to be our nominee and I am going to fully support her, religious or not.

[fredamae]

29. Go for it-I will wait to

decide who I support after I see who we have to choose from. I supported HRC Fully over Obama in 2008-but she lost. Since then I've earned a lot more about both the politics of the Clinton's and am also one of the "disappointed" in PBO.

No, I'm not disappointed with PBO about the things he cannot control and accomplish on his own, nor di I hold him responsible for not be able to overcome the GOP Obstructions...

As a 55 years long Dem, It is my observation that Dems have moved so far to the Right since Reagan...I don't trust any of them anymore.

If HRC wishes to engage in Conservative Religious Studies-and give speeches to all of them-more power to her, but these things tend to leak into their policy positions and governance. I disagree with that.

[cbayer]

30. You don't trust any of them?

That seems pretty extreme.

At any rate, I'm more of a pragmatist and as a 40 years long Dem (short of you, admittedly) I'm a realist about what can and can't be accomplished.

And who can and can't get elected in this country.

At any rate, other than her "affiliation" with the family, which I do find disturbing, I don't think her religion comes into her politics in a negative way.

[fredamae]

52. No, I don't-Not fully

I have cautious hope in many-but trust them? No-Not when I read who donates to their campaigns, who they dine with, not after I review votes and etc.

I am a realist (mostly) and I Believe things can be accomplished that seem impossible - the task is to convince others that the impossible can be achieved. We've (Americans) have pulled ourselves out of this type of crap before but Dems/Indies (not just the GOP) need to stop voting against their own best interests also, imo. Or STOP voting for "the least bad" that is Such a useless measure of quality for the integrity of our government.
As far as HRC goes? I want a woman POTUS too--but I also realize this very special candidate like All other candidates has to be "right" for the country and us-not only about Gender and not Favoring Wall Street/Corps etc.

[cbayer]

53. Well, I think it's probably foolhardy to trust any politician fully.

It's just about how much you are willing to disregard, isn't it?

The system is set up in a way that people have to take donations and dine with objectionable people.

Sometimes the most "progressive" candidate turns out to be the biggest snake. John Edwards comes immediately to mind. I shudder when I think of how many people he fooled with his fake populism and how close he came achieving his own personal agenda.

Anyway, I'm happy with Obama and will hate to see him go. I would gladly support Clinton.

And I am interested to see who else throws their hat in the ring.

[LuvLoogie]

13. I think most progressives,

most liberals, most Democrats and most women support her and are going to continue to support her--even if she does read the Bible with other people who do. This is America, not Iraq. We are progressives; not the Tealiban.

[goldent]

47. Excellent point.

[longship]

15. But there's still no religious test for office?

That claim is falsified by the fact that for years candidates have been tripping over each other to profess their faith in gods.

In my younger years one never ever heard about this. But since the Religious Right first stuck their claws into politics it has been the thing to do.

The only time this ever came up before then was JFK's Catholicism. He dispatched that very effectively.

I hate the smarmy politics of religion. It stinks to high heaven (so to speak).

[cbayer]

18. She was asked to be the keynote speaker at a convention.

I don't think that really qualifies as tripping over others to profess her faith in gods.

Should she have refused?

[longship]

20. I am not complaining about any one candidate.

They basically all do it to some extent, especially presidential candidates.

What I object to is the milieux that the religious have apparently imposed on our country's politics where this is thought to be normal.

In short, there is an implied religious test for federal office, and almost all others as well.

I want somebody to stand up to it, but I won't hold my breath.

Hillary will do what she has to in order to run. I have no problem with that. I just wish it wasn't necessary. In fact, it utterly disgusts me that it is.

[cbayer]

25. What you say is true and there has been a rather dramatic

change over the past 30 years or so.

I think it is waning, but we shall see. I would also like to see one's religious affiliations become a non-issue in political races.

[skepticscott]

19. No, the claim is not falsified

The "religious test" clause of the Constitution is only concerned with legal requirements for holding office. The Constitution says nothing, and can say nothing, about the criteria that individuals use to make their voting decisions. Many, many individuals have "religious tests" in that sense.

[longship]

22. I understand that.

My point is that there may be a defacto religious test. I would like a non-believer to run for high office. That would inform us all the extent to which there is.

However, it is my opinion that there is.

[skepticscott]

41. Of course there is a defacto religious test by individuals

That's matter of simple fact, not opinion. Who ever made the claim that there was no test like that, other than some of the religionista apologists and ignorance pleaders here?

[struggle4progress]

43. Last I heard, she's not a government official. And last I heard, she said she didn't plan to run,

ever again, saying she'd spent enough of her life in politics -- though that hasn't kept everyone from constantly interpreting everything she does as a campaign move

[longship]

44. Last I heard, she's considering it.

That, within this very week.

I am not against Hillary, but I am against her overt religiosity. Just like I am against Obama's, and every national candidate for so many years, from both parties.

In my youth, I thought we put this issue to bed when JFK was elected. Apparently not.

Religion has abso-fucking-lutely no place in politics. Article VI and the First Amendment to the US Constitution say so. The extent to which candidates pander to religion is the extent to which there is no religious freedom.

That's where I draw the line.

[struggle4progress]

45. I guess she could be, but her nix-on-that statement seemed pretty definitive, and all the subsequent

stories seem to me of the following flavor:

Clinton talks about some issue she thinks important -- the possibility (say) that a gigantic asteroid could wipe out all life on earth or something else nobody cares about. A reporter, hoping to write a story that an editor might actually care about, asks, So! are you running in 2016? Clinton furrows her brow and tries to bring the conversation back to whatever issue she was talking about. The reporter persists: Are you at least thinking about it? Lots of people are encouraging you to run! The gears churn in Clinton's mind, and she says something like It's too early to be talking about that! The reporter needs this story -- because nobody really gives a fuck about gigantic asteroids, or whatever it was that Clinton was jabbering -- so asks again So you'll think about it later? Trying to keep the veins in her forehead from popping out irritably, Clinton says, I'm sure I'll think more about this in the future! and again tries to steer the conversation back to gigantic asteroids or whatever it was. The reporter writes the story about Clinton still considering a run in 2016; if the story references gigantic asteroids anywhere, the editor removes any such references from the final version, and headlines the piece HILLARY STILL EYEING 2016

[Smarmie Doofus]

26. Can the "listening tour" be far off? n/t

[cbayer]

27. What would be wrong with that?

[Smarmie Doofus]

31. Nothing that wouldn't be wrong w. kissing babies.

The gal is getting to be a ............................................. cliche.

It is no longer 1992.

[cbayer]

32. This is hilarious.

It's the first time I've seen an article in Religion attract this particular crowd.

I don't see anything wrong with kissing babies or having listening tours.

The "gal"? "Cliche"?

Are you going to run?

[okasha]

36. Remember that its not 1992 anymore

the next time you feel the need to trivialize a woman by calling her a "gal."

[Smarmie Doofus]

37. That's interesting. Why don't you alert on my post? I'd be interested to see if a DU ....

....jury would agree that use of the word "gal" in referencing a specific woman is necessarily "trivializing" her.

If it is... than the jury would necessarily be bound to ban it, seems to me.

[okasha]

38. I alert very seldom, and never for mere assholery.

I prefer to let the post stand and embarrass the poster.

[cbayer]

39. Lol. Now that's an excellent point, okasha.

[okasha]

40. It needed to be made.

I lost all patience with ingrained sexism among "progressives" in 2008. It's one reason I refuse to apply the label to myself. I'm a socialist, have been since the age of 18, and have openly identified myself as such ever since.

[okasha]

46. Point me to any such post

defending homophobia. Outside your imagination, that is.

[skepticscott]

48. If you say you haven't seen any posts on DU

defending the pope, one of the most prominent homophobic bigots on the planet, then there's not much hope for you.

[rug]

49. So you can't.

[okasha]

54. Obviously

he csn't. I didn't expect him to be able to, and he proved me right.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Every post boosting the pope, a person who is the head of an organization

that has an official doctrine of homophobic bigotry.

Until that doctrine changes, until the RCC stops with its homophobic nonsense, many of us find any support for the RCC and its leaders to be "defending homophobia".

Perhaps a jury will find this also too much for DU?

[rug]

57. If you're complaining about the hidden post, you should at least have the integrity to state what

he actually typed, a sleazy false personal attack on a DUer.

But apparently you still tolerate the support of homophobic bigotry by "progressives" including some of the most prominent posters in this Group.

"apparently" doesn't disguise it.

[okasha]

58. So good of you.

Here's the thing. I'm lesbian, and any time I feel I need to be defended from the Pope, I'll do it myself.

But I do find your tender concern touching.

[hrmjustin]

59. Well said!

[Warren Stupidity]

60. I'm sure you find your response just devastating.

But I'm not going to play "LGBTQ creds one-upmanship", nor "who's being paternalistic now". Boosting the pope is supporting homophobia, in my opinion. If in your opinion it is jolly-good, well then "so good of you".

[okasha]

61. I'm willing to give him some time

to come around.

It took Barak Obama four years, during which his DOJ attempted to defend DOMA in the courts. He only discovered that he supported LGBT rights when we threatened to withhold campaign contributions.

I wonder how strongly you'd support LGBT rights if you couldn't use us as a club to bash religious people in general and the RCC in particular.

Not so much, I'm thinking.

[trotsky]

62. That's an inappropriate comment, okasha.

Let's try to stay civil here, OK?

[Heddi]

63. You seriously said that Warren wouldn't support LGBT rights

if he couldn't use it to bash Catholics with?

Seriously>

You said that shit?

You've called atheists racists and bigots and homophobes before.

And you stand behind these statements??

One shred of evidence from you for the basis of that statement. One post from Warren showing he has no interest in LGBT rights other than the religious aspect.

This is yet another part of a sickening trend on your part. To smear people as being homophobes, racists and bigots, without a shred of evidence, and only to score points with your "holier than thou" friends who frequent the forum is really fucking low.

perhaps you can take some umbrage with Starboard Tack, who compared same-sex marriage with marrying a vole, a dog, a dead grandmother, a sister, and a bicycle. That seems a bit bigoted to me.

I anxiously await your condemnation of his hateful remarks...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=124676

[okasha]

64. No, I have not called "atheists"

Homophobic or bigoted or racist--ever. That is a flat-out lie, and I suspect you know it.

I have called out posters--both theists and atheists-- when they made comments that were homophobic or bigoted or racist and will continue to do so. Tantrums certainly won't stop me.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I actually spend a LOT more time going toe to toe with religious-right fundamentalists over civil rights (primarily, but not entirely LGBT issues), than I do poking around in this folder, fighting with the religious left over religion.

The latter is an interest, no denying that, but the former is a full-tilt-boogie fight that I intend to win. I've taken some big lumps, and lost more than a few friends that proved intolerant in the long run, but I feel it is worth it.

[hrmjustin]

34. Good for her!

I was always curious about what she thinks about her faith.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. This seems like a non-issue.

I don't understand the 'again' quip in the headline.