2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary Clinton Reveals How The Bible Made Her Who She Is Today
This is from before the current news cycle, but it's not ancient and I'm catching up.
Hillary Clinton Reveals How The Bible Made Her Who She Is Today
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/hillary-clinton-bible_n_5500041.html
Well that settles it. Us Bible believers <snicker> better vote for Hillary.
At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.
Let me guess. She looked at the Book of Job and said "If I were in charge, I could devise even better loyalty tests".
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Joe Magarac
(297 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Acts 4:32
freshwest
(53,661 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)And Friedrich Engels wrote glowingly about the early Christians. Jesus was indeed a small c communist.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)The YSA achieved substantial influence in the anti-Vietnam War movement between 1965 and the early 1970s, including near complete control over the Student Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam, a national campus organization with a peak membership of some 100,000...
The organization went into rapid decline with the end of the war in Vietnam in 1975. By 1980 its membership had fallen to 468, of whom only about 275 were not also members of the Socialist Workers Party.[2] The YSA formally dissolved in 1992. Two years later the Socialist Workers Party created a new youth organization called the Young Socialists...[10]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Socialist_Alliance
I was involved with the YSA at my university, after SDS fell apart, which I got into during my high school years:
SDS: Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was a student activist movement in the United States that was one of the main representations of the New Left. The organization developed and expanded rapidly in the mid-1960s before dissolving at its last convention in 1969.
SDS has been an important influence on student organizing in the decades since its collapse. Participatory democracy, direct action, radicalism, student power, shoestring budgets, and its organizational structure are all present in varying degrees in current American student activist groups. Though various organizations have been formed in subsequent years as proposed national networks for left-wing student organizing, none has approached the scale of SDS, and most have lasted a few years at best.
A new incarnation of SDS was founded in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Students_for_a_Democratic_Society
After that I worked with the SWP:
The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is a far-left political organization in the United States...[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_Party_%28United_States%29#Formation_of_the_SWP
We were all into non-violence training and we went from coast to coast in the mobilizations. We worked on this year around. I was very involved with unions and the SWP in my area and we did carry the district in a presidential election. Some time later I blew them off. I'll explain in mail to you if you want to know, but not here. I found SDS to be correct about almost everything but sexism, but was able to move past it, since I wasn't vulnerable to demands.
I still agree with most of the things cited in the SWP entry, sans the international concerns. The farmworkers and other groups mentioned in that piece were very much a part of my life for some years, especially the war, racism, etc.
Engels wasn't perfect. And well... anyway. Some other time. I later became the president of the Young Democrats at my college and volunteered since my early teens to do phone banking for them and canvassing. I was in all civil rights matters in my city and union matters in my state after I left college and worked.
Virtually everything we worked for was taken away in the following decades. The state I came from is unrecognizable to me, nothing like it was now, and I see things solidifying in a bad system that too many agree with.
I support democratic socialism and it's part of the CPC Sanders is in. But this nation is so much farther to the right and their power has grown so immense I don't have the luxury of a purist. I'm sticking with the Democratic Party because it can get things done and save lives. We need to get a firm majority elected and a Democratic POTUS.
Probably went off topic there.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)Back in the days when her media gurus and focus group testers were still telling her that all Americans were raving religious loonies and if she wanted to be president she would have to talk like a fundamentalist wack job.
I guarantee you won't hear any bible blather out of her as long as Sen Sanders is still in the race and talking about wealth and income inequality. If she survives the primaries, she'll be back to Bible Girl trying to win over all the loons she's currently ignoring.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Acts 4:32
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)bigtree
(86,015 posts)..is this just for Christianity, or should we start ridiculing all religions for the purpose of our political debate here?
I would defend anyone's right to be an adherent, or defend persons of religious faith in the same manner. I don't believe either should be ridiculed in our political debate unless those beliefs are directly related by the individual or group to discriminatory, hateful, or hurtful acts or rhetoric.
If a person told you they believe that a magical zombie will determine how your soul spends the afterlife, I think many others besides myself would be uncomfortable with them having the military might of the U.S. At their fingertips.
You can disagree but many would agree with me. That means it is open for discussion.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If so, yes.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)FDR believed in the same magical zombie that Hillary believes in.
So you wouldn't have been comfortable with FDR as commander in chief, correct?
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)clouds FOREVER, thus rendering this mere 70 years of life a relatively minor affair, then yes, I would be uncomfortable.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)against the Kennedys. The levels some will sink to is interesting.
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...candidates have been expressing their faith for decades, including Kennedy. Just stating her own beliefs isn't knocking anyone elses. That's a made up standard of the op's which is purely crap.
The insinuation in the op is that merely stating one's religious beliefs, as Hillary did, has some sort of negative meaning or is related to something we should reject or abhor.
edit: misunderstood your post. Sorry (first cup of coffee)
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I'm instantly suspicious of politicians that promote their "Bible cred" - means they're pandering to the Christian Right.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)She also listed John Grisham, Toni Morrison and Walter Isaacson as her favorite writers. The article also makes clear that she mentioned numerous books as her favorites but doesn't include their titles in the article.
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...are there no progressive notions of Christianity you can think of?
This is a rather reprehensible line of political attack. Your statement is both intellectually vacuous and factually incorrect.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Conservative Christians are generally the ones who need their candidates to swear the Christian loyalty oath.
I'm pretty much immune to whatever outrage you manufacture, so rail against me all you want if it makes you feel better.
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...her statement has zero to do with any 'swearing of a Christian loyalty oath.'
Truth, in this matter has taken a back seat to your reprehensible political attack on Hillary Clinton's religious expression/belief.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I prefer that candidates don't bring the Bible into their stump speeches. I explained why.
Keep lashing out. It suits you well.
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...at Hillary Clinton based on a religious expression of hers, defending that criticism of yours by contrasting a progressive expression of religion with your view of a conservative one. You certainly didn't mean to suggest she took a progressive stance. It's as if you think no one could see your comment accusing her of 'pandering to the Christian Right.'
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)For the record, I don't think Hillary is capable of taking a sincere Progressive stance.
We have historical evidence of her pandering to the Right:
In 2004 many polls were published showing that America was a "Christian nation," with all the attendant Sunday-morning talk show pomp-and-circumstance and the right-wing radio gloating. Thus, when confronted with the gay marriage issue, Hillary pandered to Christian Conservatives (note the use of Christian Conservative phrasing):
https://www.catholicvote.org/video-hillary-clinton-marriage-is-sacred-bond-between-man-and-woman/
In 2011, after a brutal air war campaign that reduced Libya to a smoking ruin and plunged the African nation into a downward spiral of misery and chaos, all based on trumped-up lies about "genocide," Hillary pandered to jingoistic American Exceptionalists who get a vicarious rush from the imposition of American military might. Note the paraphrasing of Julius Caesar, not thought of as history's greatest progressive:
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...as reprehensible and demagogic as those comments were.
Attacking her for a disassociated religious expression is a slimy political tactic.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)But "We came, we saw, he died" is in no way reprehensible, and Hillary is in no way a demagogue.
bigtree
(86,015 posts)...but I do know that attacking someone for their religious expression and projecting the worst of your imagination onto it is a pathetic practice of politics. You live with that.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)I didn't attack Hillary for her religious expression, per se, but for her pandering to the Right.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)it becomes a matter of political debate.
It would be a great deal easier to treat Christianity as something above ridicule if people identifying as Christians were less in the habit of exhibiting ridiculous behaviour.
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)RussBLib
(9,056 posts)...an atheist, and I look askance at someone who waves the Bible proudly over their heads and claims to be a believer.
It smacks to me of intellectual dishonesty.
Strike against Hillary.
femmocrat
(28,394 posts)This article seems to agree with that description:
Hillary Clinton grew up in a Methodist household, she taught Methodist Sunday school like her mother, is a member of a Senate prayer group, and regularly attends the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington. Hillary Clinton can be placed in the moderate to liberal wing of American Christianity, but she appears to share a number of attitudes with more conservative American Christians. Clinton's liberalism is a relative matter: she's more liberal than many in America, and certainly more liberal than the Christian Right, but she has a long way to go to support truly progressive stances when it comes to religious debates.
http://atheism.about.com/od/hillaryclintonreligion/a/ClintonReligion.htm
Sancho
(9,070 posts)All of a sudden a bunch of irrelevant Hillary bash attacks show up on DU with low post counts?
I have no idea who people are, but what difference does this make? Everybody comes from somewhere. Bernie lived in a kibbutz, Hillary was Methodist, etc.
If you want an issue, check out the Supreme Court!!! Six Catholic and 3 Jewish!!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/supreme-courts-lack-of-re_b_5545989.html
If the post is an attack on Protestants, maybe there's a group for that. If the OP is Hillary history, then so what? Some people get inspiration and insight from the Bible (Hillary would not be the first), and others get their values from the latest summer blockbuster movie.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Looks like DU just threw him under the bus along with JFK...in order to attack Hillary.
SMH
freshwest
(53,661 posts)But I don't think Sanders would do that.
Joe Magarac
(297 posts)But FDR did not go in for litmus test Bible thumping at all.
Neither did Republicans in that era (such as Unitarian Herbert Hoover).
Some southern Democrats, maybe.
Response to freshwest (Reply #42)
Joe Magarac This message was self-deleted by its author.
PatrickforO
(14,604 posts)of him that influence my behavior and outlook to this day.
Dad was not a religious man, but was a 32nd degree Scottish Rite Mason, and I can remember as if it were yesterday when he had the talk about religion with me.
We lived out in the relatively affluent suburbs at the time, and it was maybe 1963 or 1964. As a family we never spoke much of religion, but Dad always had a curious (to me) reverence for peoples' beliefs, whatever those might be.
Well, there were quite a few Jewish kids in my school, and it amazed me (remember I was all of 5 or 6 years old) that they did not celebrate Christmas or Easter. So I precipitated this conversation which has stuck with me these 50 or more years by asking if I have to respect peoples' religion, then why are there different religions? Is there one I should respect more?
Dad, who was hot tempered at best, and many times flew into unpredictable rages, this time sat and answered me thoughtfully.
He told me that everyone needs to do their own spiritual study and find their own path. He said my path would be different from others, but that I should respect theirs too. He said the main thing is that I should never try and make other people believe like I do, and that I should not allow someone to do that to me.
So, I say this to all of you: It seems fashionable among some progressives to scoff at the bible or religious beliefs (very easy in fact with the crazy wing of the GOP base), but I'm reminding everyone that we should try to be respectful. I know it is difficult, but if someone says the bible has inspired them in some way, we should take that at face value, not scoff or try and convince them about our own ways of believing, but just live and let live. In the words of that bible, we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
That said, I can't resist a funny story: Later in the same conversation, Dad warned me not to fall prey to religious cons. He said that when I got older I might decide to join a church. He said that the leaders in this church might ask me for money. He said they might ask me for a lot of money. So, he told me, here's what to say: OK, here's what I'll do. I will throw my money up in the air. What stays up there is God's. What comes back down is mine.
The funny thing, is that later in life I DID join a church, though I'm not a member any more. When they asked me for a tithe, I told them the story above and they were NOT amused.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Has she announced that she will govern and make laws based on biblical principals like Santorum has said or Cruz?
Her religious background is not some secret new reveal. It's been known for decades.
What a weird thing to complain about. And fwiw I identify as atheist.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,452 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)It's odd to single out Hillary.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)A good man who uses religion for the right reasons.
ann---
(1,933 posts)Hillary Clinton to Jewish donors: Ill be better for Israel than Obama
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)http://www.mediaite.com/online/excuse-me-shut-up-bernie-sanders-defends-israel-from-town-hall-hecklers/
Regardless of how one feels about the conflict one must admit he displayed a saddening lack of empathy.
no_hypocrisy
(46,286 posts)She may well believe in what she says.
And it explains her allegiance(s).
a/k/a the Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fellowship_%28Christian_organization%29
okasha
(11,573 posts)Find a new canard.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)no_hypocrisy
(46,286 posts)'Family': Fundamentalism, Friends In High Places
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106115324
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics
Jeff Sharlet on Hillary Clinton's Relationship to "The Family
Please show me yours.
dsc
(52,172 posts)since it was brought to us by a bunch of reverends. Maybe we should undo many of the progressive era reforms while we are at it as those were brought to us by a bunch of religious people.
Response to Joe Magarac (Original post)
Corruption Inc This message was self-deleted by its author.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Your Post title: She has a million fake facebook friends too, LOL
Article headline: Hillary Clinton Allegedly Has More Than 2 Million Fake Twitter Followers
You're off by about 1 million and referencing the wrong account. Additionally, read the disclaimers:
So, essentially, if you follow more people than follow you, have let several weeks go by without tweeting, and haven't tweeted much, you account will be flagged as fake.
Exactly.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'm used to everyone around me being religious. I'm usually the only atheist.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Coming out as an atheist is political suicide in this fucked up nation. So they all pander to the gullible religious crowd.
My issues with HRC are far more important and relevant than this drivel.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)to compete with bernie.
now she is pivoting to the right to get the religious crazies and it isn.t even primary season yet.
this poor woman is grasping at anything to connect with someone now that she is on a sinking ship.
sad.
edit: never mind. this is old news. she is still wearing her progressive attire, for now.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,719 posts)Acts 4:32
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I wonder whether this cost him many votes.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)Whether she really means it not, we will never because of that.