Senator Clinton says god is a good thing

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Sen. Clinton urges use of faith-based initiatives

By Michael Jonas, Globe Correspondent | January 20, 2005

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills.

In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person."

She said there must be room for religious people to "live out their faith in the public square."

The issue of faith in politics has been at the center of debate following the presidential election, with some arguing that Bush's strong identification with religious values was a key to his victory over Senator John F. Kerry.

The dinner was a fund-raiser for the National TenPoint Leadership Foundation and the Dorchester-based Ella J. Baker House. Both youth outreach programs are directed by the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers 3d, a leader of the clergy-based efforts to stem youth violence in Boston in the 1990s that has become a national model for community-police partnerships.

The minister has often criticized established black leaders and liberal politicians, saying they have failed to deal honestly with the problems of youth violence.

Rivers said he hoped Clinton's appearance last night would build broader support for an issue on which some Democrats have been skittish.

"She is in a position to articulate a progressive vision around this issue of faith and values," Rivers said.

"The Clintons, on faith-based solutions, have always been way ahead of the curve," said Rivers, citing President Clinton's support of a 1996 law banning the federal government from discriminating against religious organizations seeking funding available to groups delivering social services.

In her speech, Clinton praised the efforts of Rivers and others working to curb youth violence, saying those of faith are often most willing to walk the streets of the country's most dangerous neighborhoods to try to reach young people. Where others "see trouble," she said, Rivers and faith-based soldiers "see God's work right in front of them."

Although the senator has insisted that she is focused only on her work in the Senate and constituents in New York (she faces reelection in 2006), talk of another Clinton seeking the White House seems to be a topic of speculation wherever she goes.

Mayor Thomas M. Menino got the ball rolling with his introduction of Clinton last night, calling her "the first first lady to be a US senator and maybe the first woman to be something else."

"I don't know who the right person will be in 2008, but Hillary is certainly one of the most compelling political figures on the horizon," said Alan Solomont, the former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who attended last night's event. '

Clinton wasn't the only would-be candidate generating buzz at the dinner. Seated prominently at the head table was Deval Patrick, a former assistant attorney general in the Clinton administration who said last week that he is considering a run for Massachusetts governor in 2006.

"I'm interested and I'm exploring," said Patrick last night. "I'm trying to cast a wide net and talk to a lot of people."

The 48-year-old black attorney from Milton said he will decide in the next several months whether to seek the Democratic nomination for the state's highest office. Patrick, who was in charge of the Justice Department's civil rights division from 1994 to 1997, left his position last month as chief legal counsel to Coca-Cola Co., where he worked for nearly four years.The event was billed as the Ella J. Baker Awards Dinner, and four leaders were honored for supporting the youth outreach efforts of the Baker House.

Receiving awards were Boston Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole; Sylvia R. Johnson, associate director of the Hyams Foundation; former US attorney Donald K. Stern; and Roxbury District Court Judge Edward R. Redd.

Michael Jonas can be reached at jonas@globe.com.

Text
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
 

Tripleshot

Elite Member
Jan 29, 2000
7,218
1
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office


Ya, and you can kiss mine.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.

Ha, again your wrong. The people of America are a religious people, they believe deeply in god. They want their politicians to do the same.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Well... until the demographic shift happens, Dems are going to have to move towards the middle a little more if they want any success. On the other hand, it's hard to tell how seriously to take this. All presidents and most politicians talk about god. Only Bush is dumb enough to think god communicates with him.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.

Ha, again your wrong. The people of America are a religious people, they believe deeply in god. They want their politicians to do the same.

Hah, I'm wrong? I am a "person of America". I am not a religious person, I do not believe deeply in god. I could care less what my politicians believe in.

The problem I'm having with this whole thing is that they (and apparently you) believe you have a right to force a religious government on me just because there are more of them. Despite, of course, a system of laws designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent that from happening. It doesn't matter how many Americans believe something, they can't have a religious government. They can have leaders who are personally religious, but the government itself cannot be officially religious. What part of that is difficult to understand?

And speaking of silencing other voices, you notice how you cut me out of the "people of America" just because I don't believe the same way "everybody else" does? Yeah, that's what I was talking about. And that's exactly the kind of view we don't need as an official government position. History has never had an officially religious government that was good for those who didn't believe.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.


In regards to what's in bold, you need to see that both sides on this issue are guilty of this. It is Left side that wants to silence out the Right's in many situations. Removing the word, "God," from the Pledge (yeah, I know it wasn't there before), remove a Judge's exposing of the 10 Commandments in his courtroom, and even on his clothes. To you, maybe those things sound fine, but to others who believe differently, the Left is trying to silence their beliefs.
 

raildogg

Lifer
Aug 24, 2004
12,884
569
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.

Ha, again your wrong. The people of America are a religious people, they believe deeply in god. They want their politicians to do the same.

Hah, I'm wrong? I am a "person of America". I am not a religious person, I do not believe deeply in god. I could care less what my politicians believe in.

The problem I'm having with this whole thing is that they (and apparently you) believe you have a right to force a religious government on me just because there are more of them. Despite, of course, a system of laws designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent that from happening. It doesn't matter how many Americans believe something, they can't have a religious government. They can have leaders who are personally religious, but the government itself cannot be officially religious. What part of that is difficult to understand?

And speaking of silencing other voices, you notice how you cut me out of the "people of America" just because I don't believe the same way "everybody else" does? Yeah, that's what I was talking about. And that's exactly the kind of view we don't need as an official government position. History has never had an officially religious government that was good for those who didn't believe.

Who is forcing a religious government on you? I am just baffled. Supporting faith based initiatives in no way means there is a religious govt.. Americans dont want a religious govt., where did you come up with that? Wow, noone is saying our govt. should be religious in terms of endorsing a particular religion or whatever.

I was saying majority of Americans are religious people. Thats all. Notice "majority". Yeah.

 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.

Ha, again your wrong. The people of America are a religious people, they believe deeply in god. They want their politicians to do the same.

Hah, I'm wrong? I am a "person of America". I am not a religious person, I do not believe deeply in god. I could care less what my politicians believe in.

The problem I'm having with this whole thing is that they (and apparently you) believe you have a right to force a religious government on me just because there are more of them. Despite, of course, a system of laws designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent that from happening. It doesn't matter how many Americans believe something, they can't have a religious government. They can have leaders who are personally religious, but the government itself cannot be officially religious. What part of that is difficult to understand?

And speaking of silencing other voices, you notice how you cut me out of the "people of America" just because I don't believe the same way "everybody else" does? Yeah, that's what I was talking about. And that's exactly the kind of view we don't need as an official government position. History has never had an officially religious government that was good for those who didn't believe.


Govenment = people
85% of people believe in God = 85% of government believes in God
US = 85% Religious government

Can you name the last US President that didn't at least claim to be a Christian?

How far do you want to take "separation of church & state?" Maybe if someone believes in God, or is Buddhist, cannot run for office and make decisions for the state?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
how is this pandering?

religious organizations have always provided the best charity for local communities.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
While having faith is important to electorate...she won't get an ounce of traction from this. Hillary makes democrats write checks to RNC.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Looks like a good example of what I believe will be a growing movement to pander to the religious right since they've shown that they can swing elections.

But shouldn't I be happy that Democracy is working? Well yes, except it's not really. The religious right is a large voting block, but their goal isn't to have their voice heard, it's to silence the other voices. Their principles, more than most, are harmful to those who don't share them. In liberal terms, it's not so much that they want to save the forests, it's that they want to bulldoze your house and plant some trees there.

Ha, again your wrong. The people of America are a religious people, they believe deeply in god. They want their politicians to do the same.

Hah, I'm wrong? I am a "person of America". I am not a religious person, I do not believe deeply in god. I could care less what my politicians believe in.

The problem I'm having with this whole thing is that they (and apparently you) believe you have a right to force a religious government on me just because there are more of them. Despite, of course, a system of laws designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent that from happening. It doesn't matter how many Americans believe something, they can't have a religious government. They can have leaders who are personally religious, but the government itself cannot be officially religious. What part of that is difficult to understand?

And speaking of silencing other voices, you notice how you cut me out of the "people of America" just because I don't believe the same way "everybody else" does? Yeah, that's what I was talking about. And that's exactly the kind of view we don't need as an official government position. History has never had an officially religious government that was good for those who didn't believe.


Govenment = people
85% of people believe in God = 85% of government believes in God
US = 85% Religious government

Can you name the last US President that didn't at least claim to be a Christian?

How far do you want to take "separation of church & state?" Maybe if someone believes in God, or is Buddhist, cannot run for office and make decisions for the state?

I agree, but the whole idea of our Constitution and Bill of Rights is to limit even the power the people have, the government is dangerous if it was unlimited control, even if that control is in the hands of the majority.

I didn't say you can't be religious and run for office, I said quite the opposite in fact. But you can't have a government that's officially religious, you can only have a government made up of religious people. They are not the same thing.

I'm having trouble explaining exactly what the difference is, but talking about your faith in a public speech if you are an elected rep. Giving special tax exempt status to Christians is not. I guess that's how I view the difference. Our government isn't supposed to officially play religious favorites.

Edit: I find it interesting that you brought up the Buddhist example, because contrary to what I said earlier about not being a religious person, I DO in fact identify with that faith to some extent. Even if I was the best candidate (disregarding my faith), what do you think my chances of getting elected to ANY office in the US are if I state my faith in public? None? Less than that? The system is rather biased as it is, no need to make it worse for the other 15% of us.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
Originally posted by: loki8481
how is this pandering?

religious organizations have always provided the best charity for local communities.

That's fine. Let them continue CHARITY, not taxation for charity. Wefare is bad enough (should be extremely abolished to the point that only absolutely needy get it for a short term), but attaching it to a religious orginization via taxation with the possible stiuplations that these instituations would try to impose for the receipt of the charity is unacceptable.

Either fund welfare normally (waste by the government and all) or not at all.

 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
I sure hope she keeps her sorry ass in NY. We sure don't need her attempting to get into the White House.
 

imported_Condor

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2004
5,425
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
I sure hope she keeps her sorry ass in NY. We sure don't need her attempting to get into the White House.


Once again, we agree on something. See, we are all basically the same at the core!
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
I sure hope she keeps her sorry ass in NY. We sure don't need her attempting to get into the White House.


Once again, we agree on something. See, we are all basically the same at the core!

I've never been a big fan of Hillary's... she's too entrenched with the DLC.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
I sure hope she keeps her sorry ass in NY. We sure don't need her attempting to get into the White House.


Once again, we agree on something. See, we are all basically the same at the core!

Yeah and neither of you are from NY... you can't possibly dislike her us much as we do
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
My prayer is that in 2008 the Repbulicans will abandon this neocon BS and field a decent candidate if She-Man Clinton runs for Democrats.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Condor
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Hillary Clinton pandering to the powerful religious right- no surprise. she'll kiss anyone's ass to get into office
I sure hope she keeps her sorry ass in NY. We sure don't need her attempting to get into the White House.
Once again, we agree on something. See, we are all basically the same at the core!
You've gotta dig pretty deep to get to our similarities.
 

Darkhawk28

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2000
6,759
0
0
Originally posted by: lozina
My prayer is that in 2008 the Repbulicans will abandon this neocon BS and field a decent candidate if She-Man Clinton runs for Democrats.

Hey, I just noticed the date on which you joined the forums.......

DID YOU KNOW SOMETHING WAS GOING TO HAPPEN????

:Q :Q :Q :Q :Q
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |