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.
#62 – KVolk,
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.
Actually, I recognize that much good has been done in the name of religion, despite what it says to do in the texts. What I go by though when I through out perfectly good bath water just ’cause there’s a dirty baby in it is the net effect. IMNSHO, the net effect of the Zoroastrian religion and all of its derivatives has been hugely negative. And, also IMNSHO, the positives have been because most people are good and decent, despite the abhorrent crap in the texts they point to as the source of their goodness.
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.
I’m having some trouble parsing this one. Why does a lack of faith by any definition afford me less protection under the law than someone of faith rates? Are you honestly stating that you feel that an atheist is less of a human being than a theist??!!?
I hope I’m misreading your post. However, if you actually do believe that non-theists are not the equal of theists under the law, you are doing an excellent job of proving my point about the evils of religion. If I have misread your post, please correct my interpretation of it.
#63 MS
I am glad you see there is good in religious teachings and it is more the application people apply to it that is the sticking point. That seems to be the position of a reasonable human being as opposed to a more extremist postion would see that dirty baby go flying just because the water was soiled.
What I was trying to get across is that a non-thesist does not believe in religon and therfore is not a religious person or a member of a religious organization. Therefore how can they claim the same benefit under law? An example would be that religious organizations are tax exempt being a nonthesist how would you by the definition of a non-thesist be able to have the same benefit? I bring this up because I felt you implied equal treatment should be given to a non-thesist as a thesist. See below from post #32:
” Everyone in government is openly religious. Atheists are still the least respected minority in this country. We atheists need to come out of the closet and gain some respect, as the LBGT community has done so successfully.”
The implied arguement to me was that atheists represent another form of religon and that I think is incorrect. I am splitting some hairs but I think it is an important distinction to make that atheism is not a religon and the pursuers of that thought should not expect to be seen as members of a faith based organization. Not equal under the law was meant to be a distinction based on the above example as opposed to saying “Oh your an atheist you are second class citizen.” which I am not espousing.
>>It also happens to be a minority with ZERO count ‘em
>>ZERO elected officials representing us.
Well, not quite ZERO, Scottie:
http://www.secular.org/contest/
>>The implied arguement to me was that atheists represent
>>another form of religon
Hoo boy. You may regret opening THAT can of worms!