Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hillary Clinton and her bible study group - The Fellowship

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 03:57 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton and her bible study group - The Fellowship
This is for all those that want to decry Christrians and Barack Obama's identity on DU:

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url...
and
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillary...

"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."

"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"), 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.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15157545 /

The roster of regular participants has included such notable conservative names as Brownback, Santorum, Nickles, Enzi, and Inhofe. Then, in 2001, just after the new class of senators was sworn in, another name was added to the list: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

One spring Wednesday, a few months into the term, Senator Sam Brownback’s turn came to lead the group, and he rose intending to talk about a recent cancer scare. But as he stood before his colleagues Brownback spotted Clinton, and was overcome with the impulse to change the subject of his testimony. “I came here today prepared to share about this experience in my life that has caused great suffering, the result of which has deepened my faith,” Brownback said, according to someone who watched the scene unfold. “But I’m overcome now with only one thought.” He confessed to having hated Clinton and having said derogatory things about her. Through God, he now recognized his sin. Then he turned to her and asked, “Mrs. Clinton, will you forgive me?” Clinton replied that she would, and that she appreciated the apology.

“It was an extraordinary moment,” the member told me.

This repentance fostered an unlikely relationship that has yielded political bounty. Clinton and Brownback went on to cosponsor one measure protecting refugees fleeing sexual abuse, and another to study the effects on children of violent video games and television shows. “That morning helped make our working relationship,” Brownback told me recently. “It brought me close to someone I did not ever imagine I would become close to.” Since then, Clinton has teamed up on legislation with many members of the prayer group.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12...

"Though Strider, as a onetime staff member for Nancy Pelosi, is squarely in the liberal camp, Clinton is part of not one, but two, prayers groups with distinctly conservative bents: an exclusive Senate prayer group that meets on Wednesday mornings, and a women’s prayer group that she’s been a part of since her early White House days. The women’s group is run by Holly Leachman, a layperson at the McLean Bible Church in Virginia, itself magnet for prominent conservatives, including former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, Republican senators John Thune and James Inhofe, as well as several Bush staffers and their families."

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/010937.php

Ignorance cannot be an excuse here, because a Google search would tell you the Fellowship believes that Christian elites have a duty to rule the world, and serve Jesus Christ in a higher calling than their duties as leaders of nations. Plainly put, according to Sharlet, “the Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.” The notion that Christian elites should rule the world for the rest of us, and should lead their countries not for the benefit of all, but to pursue God’s plan as defined by the Fellowship and founder Doug Coe runs contrary to what this country was founded upon, and is anything but progressive.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I re-posted this thread because my original thread got totally hijacked by people who didn't even read the original point. The point is that people should be very careful about anti-Christians rants if their own candidate, and the likely nominee, has significant involvement in an extremely religious group within the Senate who's membership list is an anathema to DU and the nominee's supporters. Obama is regularly attacked for his associations w/ the anti-gay, ex-gay minister but yet I think if people saw that Clinton is very tied in religious ways with anti-gay Senators it might open their eyes.

I'm imploring people to have a consistent set of standards for all their candidates.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Indeed. I posted similarly yesterday, but was told it didn't matter
since it was Obama who said he was a proud Christian, and wasn't pride a sin, its the rhetoric that counts, etc, etc.


Which is why I just posted the definition of proud. One wouldn't think one would need to do that amongst educated folks.

They are much alike. So when some attack Obama, they are also attacking Hillary, like it or not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. I agree - but some on DU have one political objective over all others - the end of religion - it is
interesting that they think they are Democrats when they have one hot buttun much larger than the rest - and that button has nothing to do with the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rydz777 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Well said. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. ROUND II
of when Fundies attack....

You already got lamblasted for this same post an hour ago. Back for more "Christian" bashing of fellow Democrats? I'm no fan of Hillary, but am answering you as a PRO-OBAMA DU'er.

Save this stupid shtick, okay? You only make Christians look small.......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I didn't get lambasted, I got non sequiter responses.
No one wanted to actually talk about the body and content of the post.

Most of the responses were anti-Christian statements and nothing more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. WHAT anti-Christian statements (I see you capitalized the "C")?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Yes, I capitalized it. I actually read what people have to say and
try to correct things (in this case a punctuation error) when I can.

And I think if you read my 2 threads revolving around this matter you will easily see many anti-Christian statements. There's one Christian DU member that stood forward and thanked me for calling attention to the bigotry that exists on this board. She is a real person, how do you think she feels here? I think you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Wha, wha, WHAT!!!!
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 05:00 PM by ClericJohnPreston
You didn't get shelled???

Nice try on the ole spin machine there, skippy. You got legitimately toasted, so your response was.....gee, I'll try it again 15 minutes later.

Listen pal, the using Christianity as a WEAPON to club another candidate, while DECRYING the use of Christianity to attack your man, Obama, is cynical and hypocritical.

Got it? That was more than a one line retort. Some Christian you are.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #9
16. I am not a Christian. I said that in my original post. Apparently you
didn't read it and therefore I don't think you are prepared to really comment on the responses.

I'm just asking people to have a consistent set of standards when judging the candidates. There is nothing wrong in that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClericJohnPreston Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. oh yeah...
You're an "agnostic"....sure. "Bread and Circuses" as a username ( referring of course to the Roman Games )and your all religion rants and "righteous indignation" mean you are anti-Christian.

What you certainly are, is an Obamite and you would stoop to any level to get your smear out there.

I smell desperation flop sweat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Bread and Circus is what the powerful elite use to keep the masses
comfortable and well entertained while they keep them supressed. I use it as my moniker here as a reminder that the powerful and elite didn't stop doing this when the Roman Empire ended. Keep daring to pretend you know what I am and what my motives are.

If you want to debate the argument on the merits, please let's get back to that. All I've seen from you are ad hominem attacks.

Why does what I say bother you so much if it does not strike a nerve?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SoxFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
11. Fundies?
Got anything to back that up?

Lot's of active Democrats (and more DUers than the loud minority realizes) are devout Christians. Others are jews, Muslims, and members of other denominations who take their faith very seriously. We are sick of a handful of loudmouths throwing epithets like "fundies" around every time a Democrat speaks openly about their faith.

For the record, I'm not a "fundy", "snakehandler", "Bible-thumper", or anyhting of the sort. I'm an imperfect Roman Catholic who counts Pope John XXIII and Joseph Cardinal Bernardin among my heroes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rox63 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. More people need to read this
Unless HRC is trying to attract the wingnut vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
6. All of our candidates are Christians
I don't think we have a problem with any candidate having and practicing religion.

I couldn't care less if they went to service 3 times a day.
I just don't want religion to drive government policies.
Morality should drive government policies
But we've seen this push to tailor law to some religious beliefs where there is no legal foundation and only a religious foundation for the practice

Same sex marriage
Same sex unions
Birth control
Creationism in science class
Stem cell research
just to name a few
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. That's fair enough as long as you are consistent with Obama
Edited on Wed Jan-23-08 04:39 PM by Bread and Circus
If you were one to express outrage at the McClurkin thing then I think the "Fellowship" might give you pause. I disapprove of Obama using any spokesperson for his campaign that is bigoted toward gays so let's get that straight. However, Clinton has kept her religious activity in the Senate with other socially conservative (and anti-gay) Senators, very hush hush. I'm trying to bring this to light in the hopes that people will come clean and be consistent in how they judge, see themselves in others, and be careful about the difference between talking about religion and it's influence on poltics and being outright hateful.

What I've been struck with by my two threads is that some of the most ardent supports of Clinton (robbedvoter et al.) have taken a very glib stance, failing to discuss or even show evidence they read the thread, and seem fairly oblivious to Clinton's religious activity.

I concede that Clinton all but has this nomination sewed up so I don't think by any means any discussion of her Senatorial religious activity will have any bearing on the nomination process going forward.

A higher level of debate is all I ask for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fresh_Start Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I'm personally a fan of politicians keeping religion hush-hush
in fact would prefer it.

But all of our candidates have spoken about religion and its influence on them.
If its made them better people,great.
If its inspired their public service, great.

Just don't preach to me or put it in my laws or spend my money on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. She'd do better to read the New Testament alone
than thump the bible with the Empire's false prophets.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mondo joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. I don't care of people pray. I care when people prey using religion
to cover their bigotry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-23-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Okay as long as you read up on the matter and you're consistent
in your standards of judging candidates then I have no qualm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC