General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you believe that the Bible is the Biggest Influence on Hillary Clinton's Thinking?
For those who don't know she recently stated this. Also dividing this into those who are supporting her in the primary and opposing her.
25 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited | |
I support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I believe the statement above | |
1 (4%) |
|
I support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I am not sure about the statement above | |
0 (0%) |
|
I support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I don't believe the statement above | |
2 (8%) |
|
I don't support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I believe the statement above | |
0 (0%) |
|
I don't support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I am not sure about the statement above | |
0 (0%) |
|
I don't support Hillary Clinton in the Primary and I don't believe the statement above | |
18 (72%) |
|
I don't support bullshit polls | |
3 (12%) |
|
I like to vote. | |
1 (4%) |
|
1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)She probably does believe that statement. She is from the bible belt after all. As long as she believes in separation of church and state. After all, Jimmy Carter is very influenced by the bible also.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)I hope at least that they come back for the general election.
wyldwolf
(43,870 posts)Right?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)DUers don't represent the masses. And you can expect a lot of then to carry water for republicans if she is the nominee.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)And thank goodness for that.
Logical
(22,457 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)And she will lose, with less support than in 2008. The implosion has already begun with such absurdities as saying that she was broke in 2000 and this now blatant pandering to the kind of voter who needs to hear that "the Bible" is one's most important influence.
What does she have to say that's useful about war and peace, and wages, the 1% and the 99%, the surveillance state?
NOTHING.
Exposethefrauds
(531 posts)As will Wall Street.
Those of us who will not vote for Hillary well we, I for sure, have been told our votes and money are not needed. So they must know that Hillary has it in the bag
Don't worry.
Beacool
(30,253 posts)News to me.
Stellar
(5,644 posts)because she spent a lot of her early years there, before she graduated high school and attended Wellesley College in Massachusetts.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)things sure as fuck would be a hell of a lot different than what they are.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)Autumn
(45,120 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Warren isn't running.
Shoulders of Giants
(370 posts)You have to be religious to be elected in this country, so I suspect many politicians fake religion.
Stinky The Clown
(67,819 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)The Magistrate
(95,255 posts)She finds what she thinks herself there in it, and in a pinch, before certain audiences, will say with sincerity that what she thinks comes from the book....
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)BootinUp
(47,197 posts)Same as with Obama and questions pertaining to his personal beliefs.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If so, thats her biggest influence.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)As for her religious views, I have no way of knowing anything whatsoever about her personal life and inner feelings. However, as I believe all politicians are professional liars and that lying is a necessary political skill I would not be surprised if the statement were false.
Response to el_bryanto (Original post)
Little Star This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Iggo
(47,571 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)"Love your neighbor as yourself". "Blessed are the peacemakers". "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". There is plenty of good stuff in the Bible. Of course, given the Clintons' net worth of $200 million she might be a little bit less comfortable about the "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven" thing.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)I come not to bring peace but a sword (Matthew 10:34)
Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death (Matthew 10:21)
The kingdom of heaven is like a rich man who distributed his wealth to his servants while he traveled. He gave five talents to one servant, two to another, and one to a third. When he returned, the servant with five talents had made five more, the servant with two made two more, but the servant with one talent only had the talent his master entrusted to him. The master rewarded the servants that had risked his money and took the talent from the single-talent servant and gave it to the one with ten talents. "For unto every one that hath shall be given .. but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath." Then the cruel and unjust master cast the servant who carefully protected his master's talent into the "outer darkness: [where] there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (paraphrased from Matthew 25:14 - 30)
It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid. (These are the OT laws, Luke 16:17)
Whoever curses father or mother shall die (Mark 7:10 et seq)
Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. (Romans 1:31 -32)
Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (i.e don't get married, 1 Corinthians 7:27)
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 34)
Then, of course, there's 1 Timothy I'm sure Hillary is really into that epistle.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)Hillary says she is Christian. So does Obama. I am not in a position to say either of them isn't. There are many people who I admire who believe that Christianity informs their life choices. It can be something as basic as believing that each is thy brother's keeper. That could be the inspiration for "It takes a Village". Honestly, how the hell would I know? I don't know Hillary personally nor do i know anyone who knows her well.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)As an Atheist, I have been voting for fake Christians for decades. If Democrats have to lie about believing in Jesus to get elected I am happy to back them up on it 100%.
BootinUp
(47,197 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)She's not. She's also not inevitable.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)You do realize that candidates win election by how many votes they receive and not how many times a bunch of people on DU say they won't vote?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The same hypothesis was proposed in 2008, and it failed.
And how about you lay off finding ways to label people you disagree with as "Republicans"? (I have only responded in kind.) It is a corrupt practice.
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Bernie Sanders? There isn't another Barak Obama to support your theory but keep up the magical thinking!
uppityperson
(115,681 posts)meh
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
She sure dose not act as if she believes that. Does not act as if that influences her in the least. Perhaps it should. If she's so damn holy, she should follow the rules. She's opposed equality for years on the basis of her unfollowed faith, just as Obama did. And Warren. All of them, every last one is a hypocritical sack of gas when it comes to religion. It is detestable.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 16, 2014, 01:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Her stances on gay rights, minorities, immigrants, abortion, family planning, equal pay for equal work, educating girls, against violence against women, forced marriage, for child care, health care and support for women and children have garnered extreme hatred from right wing religionists.
These are HUGE issues to many Americans. For whom they are not, well, they can go their own way and stop the pretense of being the allies of those whom these are life and death, quality of life and maintaing our freedoms under secular, progressive law issues.
I saw many of those who left the Democratic Party in 2008, many of them were HRC supporters. It left a bitter taste in my mouth I cannot forget and bet a lot of others have not forgotten it either. It was a gut wrenching experience but realized they were not allies to our principles.
But that cannot describe who HRC really is, not really. Anymore than many terming themselves the 'followers of Christ' are representative of his work or message, a good one that centuries later encouraged many to support the social safety net and fight the social darwinists. Not by relying on the church, but seeing the government as the a democraticl force able to take care of those who are unknown to many and unchurched as well.
She's not a RW kind of Christian and the wingers know it well. It's silly to pretend she's a right winger on the basis of her religious belief when one looks at her with a clear eye. Many very liberal people took their cues in guiding their life from the Golden Rule and the belief we are all brothers and sisters. Not that they are perfect or effective in their applications.
All that being said, HRC is not my first choice for nominee, but I'll support her in the general if she makes it through the process. She needs make the case clearly so that anyone can understand her stances.
Warren stated repeatedly she is not running and supports HRC. Sanders has stated clearly that he does not think she will lead in the ways he thinks we need to go but supports her on social issues. But I doubt he would stand aside and let her fail against the nightmare that the GOP is sure to nominate.
She has the support of most of the progressives and liberals who have been activists for many years and she is from an older generation. I'd have to perform a bit of mental gymnastics to see her as favorably as I have seen Obama. I do not see in her the same qualities for leadership that he has, but neither did I in Biden who is excellent in his role beside Obama.
I'll vote for her in the end if that's what it takes. I hope the primaries will reveal the differences in her and her opponents and she will explain her decisions well to the satisfaction of all. It's possible that Obama will campaign for her and he could explain her to many.
I admit, I was furious with her in the debates in 2008, before I even looked at Obama. It was his words and behavior at that time which convinced me he was of the type I was, an activist who knew some things can be negotiated to save lives, some things are possible amd some are not and that lives depend on even tiny victories.
And Obama is moving to get going to war as an option off the table. She won't be able even if she wanted (and I'm not saying she would, although she is more hawkish than I prefer), to start a war with what he will leave as his legacy, an American public who has lost its belief that war is the answer to anything. And I believe she was caught up in a certain time frame, which no longer exists.
So on that, I don't feel there is any danger from what the OP is about. She'll have to prove her bonafides during the primary. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Pander artist, however.
ileus
(15,396 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Great work.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Lots of religious folks voted for bill....they'll vote for the female Clinton also.
Boomerproud
(7,968 posts)She has always spoken about the influence of her pastor from childhood.
Caretha
(2,737 posts)Hell No?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I could easily disbelieve anything she says.
--imm
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)But I have enough confidence in her to doubt that the biggrest influence in her thinking is a book of bronze and iron-age mythology. She majored in political science! She was an editor of Yale Review! C'mon Clinton, you don't have to pander to the Duck Dynasty vote!
kelly1mm
(4,735 posts)She said that the Bible was the biggest influence on her thinking so if we do not believe that is a true statement, are not the only two possible reasons for her stating that the Bible is the biggest influence on her thinking that:
1) She is lying
2) She is mistaken
???
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)My understanding is that there are a couple of dozen primaries in various states, and they start in almost two years from now. Lots can happen between now and then.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)But in case anybody is curious about how this process works, here is a wikipedia page that will talk you through it.
Bryant
snooper2
(30,151 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)definitely appears to be running.
Which is why it's reasonable to ask about her.
Bryant
George II
(67,782 posts)...this is June 2014, more than two years before the next Presidential election.
Post another poll in early 2016 with more appropriate choices and we'll give it a go. No surprise you only got 125 "votes".
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)So 5-8 months from now, all the candidates will have announced and started campaigning. That's how it is. How can you not know this?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Beacool
(30,253 posts)For the record, Hillary is religious, has always been so. She just doesn't carry it on her sleeve like many of the hypocritical right wingers.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)She thinks it's 1995. Hill, it's not 1995.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)And I am uncommitted regarding the 2016 primary. Will vote for whoever wins the primary in the GE.
Julie
longship
(40,416 posts)I would have said the US Constitution.
BIG DIFFERENCE! Especially with the GOP going all theocratic.
The questions are...
Is Hillary pandering to the religious right? If so, WHY?
Alternatively, what does this mean? She is an advocate of The Family, that creepy E Street house, the residence of several congress critters, many who have opinions Democrats abhor.
Whenever I read politicos making religious pronouncements, I worry. Given the theocratic GOP these days, if they are Democrats, I want to vomit.
I do not know if I can support Hillary Clinton for POTUS with this revelation, especially previously knowing her association with The Family.
We need a secular government.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)processes to say one way or the other.
That said, my immediate, off-the-cuff reaction to the statement is, it sounds like bullshit pandering, and sadly not even current, effective bullshit pandering, but bullshit pandering that is 10 years behind the curve and designed to appeal to some all powerful "values voter" bloc which never really existed then, but certainly doesn't NOW.
In which case I think it bodes ill for whoever is running her strategy this time around.
dembotoz
(16,844 posts)you can not avoid it
xmas
easter
thanksgiving
memorial day ceremonies
i have not been to church for sometime yet i can honestly say the bible is a big influence on me because
i grew up here
it is the culture
clinton is not my first choice for potus but i can see how such a statement could be honestly true on her part or true for pretty much any other person living in this country