Thank you for standing up for the truth. I have always found Mrs. Clinton to be a fine example of being a "doer of the Word," but for some reason, all my friends react with great surprise when I mention Hillary's devout faith.

Christianity and the Social Crisis anyone?

Posted by: Justin Crisp | March 3, 2008 5:55 PM

I feel that's beyond unfair and morally irresponsible for someone to comment on any person's faith other than their own. A relationship with Christ is intimate and personal, and no one but God truly knows where someone's heart is. It's not only hurtful to the person to whom the comments are made (in this case, Mrs. Clinton), but to the Christian Community as a whole.

Thanks for speaking out against this.

Posted by: WonderSpot | March 3, 2008 6:17 PM

The poor ought to be the full and exclusive responsibility of the church. Unbelievers ought not to be held to the same standards of charity as believers are. The state ought to stay out of charity altogether, because it's form of charity is commanded at gunpoint. There is no virtue in that.

HEAR, HEAR!!

Posted by: joekc | March 3, 2008 8:18 PM

I always felt a little sorry for her . Her stern outer posture I discerned was from years of the political rat race and being married to a womanizer .

I always wondered I and I what liberals saw in her ? But her being a woman I believe helped her more then hurt her in politics . The fact that Jim Wallis stated he had people not beliving him that she was a spirtual women shows her disconnect with allowing hrself to be sen as she is. That concern for allowing people to see her is from the hurt done to her I believe ,

I don't attack her for that , I feel sorry for her .

Posted by: Mick | March 3, 2008 9:48 PM

I and I -

Three words: smart, assertive, female. That's all it takes, apparently.

Posted by: Another nonymous | March 3, 2008 10:49 PM

I believe that Hilary Clinton is a supporter of partial birth abortion. What is the objective behind this practice? I don't think that the procedure is necessary since abortion is legalized and recognized as a woman's right to choose. Must we still take that extra step to legalize the right to actually end the life of a living baby? I can't help but to wonder how many women have terminated the lives of future Einsteins, Edisons and other brilliant minds. The right to choose is already legalized. Partial birth abortion refers to terminating a life as the baby is being born. How does a baby fight for its right to live; the voiceless? I believe the argument for 'Pro-choice' is based upon an unborn fetus, or unidentifiable nucleus.
What is the purpose of partial birth abortion and what is the argument behind the right to choose this procedure as it is apparent that a baby in its truest form will lose its life?

Posted by: bloggingitright | March 4, 2008 12:07 AM

If either of the Clintons has ANY core beliefs, religious or political, I have yet to see them. They both appear to be bourgeois careerists who will pander to any group, make any compromise, and betray any promise to get and hold power. As a hard-left Christian, I felt betrayed by them the minute I saw her health care program back in 1993 — talk about a sell-out to the insurance companies!

Oh — except for abortion! They seem to support that as a matter of principle right through the third trimester.

Posted by: R.M. Schultz | March 4, 2008 12:53 AM

"I still don't understand why so many people have such a visceral hatred of Hillary. I find that very strange. What did she do to Republicans to deserve all that, other than being from the opposite party? Can anyone answer that for me?"

I don't hate her, but she sure didn't endear herselves to us as homeschoolers, back in 1993, when she publicly characterized homeschooling as a form of child abuse.

She and Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund even spearheaded a proposal - taken up by some Democratic state legislators - to force homeschooling parents to register on state child abuse lists, and even enjoined homeschool associations to turn over lists of parent members.

Now why would you see homeschooling as so potentially child-abusing that you would place parents on lists of actual abusers? And how could anyone ever get off such a list? Now that felt like visceral hatred and it set off fear and panic among parents in homeschooling associations.

And then Hillary partnered with Rep. George Miller (D) of California to effectively outlaw homeschooling in the United States altogether, in 1994. Miller's midnight stealth legislation, which mandated that any homeschool teacher must be state-licensed and possess a separate and specialized degree in every single subject taught at home, passed first reading in Congress. Never mind that this requirement was not mandated for public or private school teachers, who most often had only an education degree - or, none at all in some cases. The bill also received the full support of the National Education Assocoiation, the national teachers' union, which was hostile to the very idea of homeschooling.

Congressman Dick Armey (R) alerted Focus on the Family to this egregious bill, and thanks to his efforts and the publicity received on Jim Dobson's radio program, the Congressional switchboard was inundated and overwhelmed with the Christian public's visceral response against the Clinton/Miller anti-homeschooling legislation.

As homeschoolers, we ourselves sent letters to our representative, at one point saying that rather than give up our right as parents to educate our children according to conscience, we would be forced to leave the United States.

The second reading of the bill in Congress was held. Only George Miller voted forhis amendment. Homeschooling's death as an educational alternative in the United States had been narrowly averted.

So while I won't demonize Hillary by misrepresenting her faith, I think it's clear that her "It Takes a Village" approach to education gave us no faith that we could trust our destinies with her judgment - and that she herself didn't care much how she demonized all dedicated and loving homeschooling parents, including the Christian majority of them.

Coda for the story: two of our homeschooled children are now in a public university after they were required to have almost-perfect SAT scores to be accepted, unlike public school students, and their grades are such that they have been invited to apply to the Honors College.

Republicans are sometimes accused of imagining others as demons and then creating their own enemies. This is a case where Hillary and her Democrat allies did just that. In a way, she and they energized through her own mistaken and unfair attacks what she imagined as the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Hope that shows there are genuine reasons to mistrust Hillary based on her record and that it has nothing to do with gender bias.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 4, 2008 2:19 AM

I also completely agree with what Sojourner Truth has said. I can completely understand someone having "concerns" about homeschooling, to make sure really bad individuals don't do it. Shrug, hey, there are a few bad apples in ANY bushel at the supermarket.

But...you correct such a problem with a good set of tongs - to lift out ONLY the bad apples.

You don't throw the whole bushel out!

Over-reactive responses like that - and sponsoring sledge-hammer legislation like that - does not engender confidence in a person's wise judgement. They don't show a cool head and calm thinking.

Calmer heads would think: how do we monitor for abusive individuals doing homeschooling? How do we test students to ensure they are getting an accurate education?

How can we make it better? NOT...how can we eliminate it?

These kinds of proposals are scary to me. They are gross over-reactions. I know homeschooled children and the parents that do it. They are very adequately educated children. If anything...they are way ahead of their public school peers! And they are also very well-socialized. Homeschool parents plan many get-togethers and field trips for their children.

I sense Sojourner Truth's point: a good President unites people by proposing good legislation that addresses and solves the problem. Not legislation that is based on overblown fears. "Fear"....now there's that word again, hmmmm?

Posted by: Amazon Creek | March 4, 2008 3:12 AM

JamesMartin--thanks for post to Kevin. I often pray, "Lord, if no one else changes, learns or grows, let it begin with me." Your comment, represents to me, how to engage fully in life, reflect on my own person/behavior/heart, and not only adjust myself but also humble myself in relation to another. Thank you.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 4, 2008 7:43 AM

If either of the Clintons has ANY core beliefs, religious or political, I have yet to see them. They both appear to be bourgeois careerists who will pander to any group, make any compromise, and betray any promise to get and hold power.

Philip Yancey pretty much put that one to rest. In his book "What's So Amazing About Grace?", he mentioned that he'd interviewed them for Christianity Today and that he truly could not understand them without their religious faith. And he got a lot of grief for writing that.

I think Hillary-hatred boils down to one thing: She doesn't answer to the right wing -- remember that right-wing media were the ones portraying her as a power-hungry shrew in the first place (and everyone else picked up on that). Until the last few months I believed that she was one of the few that could take it down because she had something Bill never had: Coattails. Her problem is that she knows how to fight conservatives and win, which was a necessary skill in the 1990s but, with Reagan-style conservatism waning, no longer a big deal.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 8:13 AM

s there not a fine line, and a dramatic difference, between having faith in the government as either an agent of the Kingdom or the Kingdom itself; and people who in devoted submission to the Lord of All attempt to wisely steward the government...

I think this is where Luther's doctrine of the "two kingdoms" might be useful. Lutheran theology views the earthly kingdoms and the heavenly kingdom as both under the rule of God but with different roles and purposes. Rulers and government ministers who are aware of their roles under God's Kingdom can rule in justice, and the people under that kind of rule will be blessed.

Statism can certainly be a false god. But so can anti-statism and promotion of individual rights. Balance, as in most things, is needed.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 8:51 AM

Sojourner: "She and Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund even spearheaded a proposal - taken up by some Democratic state legislators - to force homeschooling parents to register on state child abuse lists, and even enjoined homeschool associations to turn over lists of parent members."

Sojourner, I find this hard to believe. Though the George Miller legislation sounds believable, are you sure this bit about partnering with MWE to recognize homeschooling as child abuse isn't an urban legend started by rightwing Hillary-haters? I did a Google search on clinton+edelman+homeschooling+abuse and found nothing to substantiate your claims. However, on one homeschooling website, I did find this pertinent quote by Ms. Wright Edelman: "Parents have become so convinced that educators know what is best for children that they forget that they themselves are really the experts."

If you can link to a credible website that substantiates your claim, I'll believe it. Because right now it sounds too unbelievable, for both Ms. Clinton and Ms. Edelman.

Posted by: I and I | March 4, 2008 9:14 AM

Most of the Christian dislike for Hillary is due to what they see as her stand on abortion. Yet, as stated above, I don't see any Scriptural basis for a pro-life stand. According to Genesis, man doesn't acquire a soul until his first breath--not at conception. A person who causes a woman to miscarry is not charged with murder. God constantly orders the death of pregnant women. In the New Testament, we see Joseph and Mary selfishly choosing to protect their own child at the expense of the innocents.

Jesus nowhere mentions abortion, but in fact, says it is better not to get pregnant. So, on what Scriptural basis can you condemn Hillary, who works to build a society where abortion is no longer necessary?

Posted by: Ashpenaz | March 4, 2008 10:18 AM

I am amused by how Sojo skips around the possibility that Clinton's campaign was responsible for the release of an embarassing picture of Barack Obama in the garb of a Somali chieftain --- the visual equivalent of shouting "Hussein!" at a crowded political rally.

That's because evidence is lacking. Remember, the Clinton camp also got blamed -- falsely -- in the right-wing Washington Times last year for saying that Obama attended a radical Muslim "seminary" in Indonesia. (In that, the Times was trying to kill two birds with the same stone.)

Behaviour that is not in the least inconsistent with Hillary just being a competent politician who is ready to give her audience what they want to hear.

You in fact could say the same about any politician, even -- and I would say especially -- Ronald Reagan, who rarely, if ever, directly addressed people who disagreed with him. That's why people insist he was so popular (when he was actually deeply hated in, say, the black community).

I don't expect total evenhandedness, but a Christian publication should be able at some point to call a foul on its own partisans (like the late Bill Buckley's unmentionable mag did on occasion) and after all the ringing denunciations of conservatives for this that and thuther it would be refreshing to see Sojo acknowledge that its allies aren't always as pure as the driven snow.

And even Bill Buckley at the end of his life disavowed much of what National Review published. Besides, other conservative mags exist just to skewer the other guys and in many cases committed libel in the process (but it would cost too much to sue them).

Stewardship of government as a Christian ought to mean making it as small and weak as possible. This flows out of an understanding that the state is a pagan institution, and anything that it does which deviates from normal judicial activity will be done inefficiently and devoid of virtue.

This actually contradicts Scripture. It assumes that only individuals, not society, suffer from sin and that only personal corruption needs to be addressed. The legacy of racism in America and other nations should be proof that people can commit evil in God's name -- that's why you have law, which is the proper ordering of relationships.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 10:28 AM

The Lutheran "two kingdoms" doctrine is clearly supported by Scripture. Just look at Romans 13, for example. Human governments exist because God ordains human government. Human governments are also answerable to God. Even the Anabaptists recognize this, though they, as a whole, choose not to participate in government themselves.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 11:05 AM

Don -

As a fellow Lutheran, I have always been more than a little bothered by some of the applications to which the "two kingdoms" theory is put. John Howard Yoder's critique in "The Politics of Jesus" is particularly telling, I think. Yoder, as I'm sure you know, points out that the makhaira - the sword to which Paul refers in Romans 13 - was a symbol of authority but *not* a military weapon. Thus, any attempt to use Romans 13 as an endorsement of war misreads the text.

That said, I agree with you that there are good and necessary uses for governmental authority, and that to lump all of these together under the category of "force" or "violence" is an untenable position. Sorry, Nathaniel; I deeply respect your position, but I don't agree with it.

Posted by: Another nonymous | March 4, 2008 11:22 AM

Rick,
Law is not government. We can have law through courts without having large arbitrary governments. Actually, my primary beef with governments is in the way that they corrupt the law.
How does society suffer except through individuals? If no individuals are suffering is society? This is smoke and mirrors, all this discussion of society, as if there were some tangible thing you could point to and call it “society.” It does not exist.

letjusticerolldown,
Society has two primary methods for creating institutions: Peacefully and organically, where order emerges naturally without anyone exercising power. or, Arbitrarily and deliberately, where a set of individuals impose an order to their own benefit, privilege, and interests. I hold that emerging order is legitimate and that imposed order is not, because it requires the use of force. Force is the central element here.
Christians ought to advocate pure voluntarism and the abolition of force wherever possible.

Don,
I end up having to read Romans 13 about once a week as an advocate of my position. I always follow that reading with I Samuel 8. And now I often refer to Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship which says of Romans 13, “St. Paul is talking to the Christians, not to the State… No State is entitled to read into St. Paul’s words a justification for its own existence… He (Paul) has no intention to instruct the Christian community about the task and responsibility of government.” (p.294-295, Chapter 30) Human governments exist at God’s ordination as an administration of grace to pagans. They do not exist as elements of God’s Kingdom. They certainly do not exist so that Christians can take them over and use them to accomplish through force those mandates which were delivered to the church to be fulfilled voluntarily. Theonomy can be just as ugly as socialism or fascism because the real problem is not which –ism, the problem is the state.

Ashpenaz,
Nations do not equal states. Nations are cultural and linguistic groups, which may or may not have a government. America is a nation. The United States Government is a government. They are separate entities. The cultural-linguistic hodgepodge called America is legitimate, per my organic, emerging definition above. The Federal Government is not. Force is not.
I do not know much about Wesley, except that he romanticized poverty a bit, but I would not call him a heretic, and labeling Calvinism heresy is a bold step. I would not do the same with Armenianism. Claiming America as a promised land of any sort fits better with Mormonism, which I would call a heresy, than with either of these others.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 4, 2008 11:42 AM

Clinton/Huckabee (Arkansas Unity) ticket

will run against

McCain/Obama (We Love All Ages)

Now you know why my candidates never win.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 4, 2008 11:56 AM

Theonomy can be just as ugly as socialism or fascism because the real problem is not which –ism, the problem is the state.

No, the problem is not the state. The problem is that humanity is fallen. Sin nature infects all that humans do, including civil government.

At the same time, Christ died to redeem us from sin. That includes governments.

You misread Lutheran "two kingdoms" doctrine if you think that it sees government as part of Christ's Kingdom. It sees civil government as one part of the rule of God in the earth. It is answerable to God, just as individuals are so answerable. Lutherans, along with all Christians, recognize that the day is coming when "the kingdoms of this world are become the Kingdom of the Lord and His Christ."

No State is entitled to read into St. Paul’s words a justification for its own existence

And I never said that Romans 13 means that; nor did I say that I believe such a thing. Civil government is instituted by God to produce order among humans, not for its own sake. The text of Rom. 13 is clear on that point.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 11:58 AM

I and I,
I have read some Reformed theology and will continue my search there and in other traditions. I apologize for “hijacking”. I’m on spring break and have nothing better to do! And I need the challenge, I think we all do, of trying to defend my position against intelligent and knowledgeable opponents, in order to better articulate what we mean, and to discover fallacies in our arguments, and also in learning how to fight fair. I need a lot of work on that last one.

That said, my position on small government is rather the assumption of full responsibility rather than self-serving.

Rick,
Bruce Benson in the Enterprise of Law makes several case studies of common law systems that have emerged without legislation. Also, trade organizations have their own laws which emerge absent a centralized authority. The Law and Economics movement has a large literature describing how new laws emerge to the benefit of all, but how legislated law frequently fails to account for unintended consequences.

Jim Crow was the fault of Christians who failed to keep the gospel. It was upheld by arbitrary laws with no legitimate precedent. It was force for privilege and it was evil.

Don,
Given that humanity is fallen under sin it makes no sense to try to create legal systems which assume benevolence of individuals. Better to assume competition and self-interestedness. I don’t see redemption extending to governments anywhere in scripture. To nations yes, but not to governments.

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 4, 2008 12:16 PM

I don’t see redemption extending to governments anywhere in scripture. To nations yes, but not to governments.

True enough. But to the extent that governments are made up of individuals who in turn are part of nations, it seems logical to think that the benefits of redemption can extend to government entities (as well as any other human institution). Governments made up of redeemed people might be motivated to govern better, perhaps, and be less inclined to display the favoritism, privilege, etc., that you mentioned earlier.

I wouldn't want to push that too far, of course.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 12:25 PM

"Sojourner, I find this hard to believe. Though the George Miller legislation sounds believable, are you sure this bit about partnering with MWE to recognize homeschooling as child abuse isn't an urban legend started by rightwing Hillary-haters?"

Why is there this reflexive action to almost label someone who personally experienced this as "right-wing" "Hillary-haters" or those who are duped by them?

The characterization of homeschooling parents as "weird," "anti-social," "controlling," "overprotective," "abusive" "psychologically damaging" or even "munchausen by Proxy" types are all concepts expressed at one time or another by many people, especially by some of those who work within the professional educator and social work fields.

It wasn't so long ago that home schooling was illegal in many states and parents could be subjected to arrest and children removed from the home. Homeschool students were viewed as truancy cases.

In Florida, large numbers of homeschool parents left homeschool associations when the state announced they would be required to turn over information on the parents and students who belonged. We and others withdrew rather than comply.

I don't feel like rehashing this whole history for those with such short historical memories, but any family involved in homeschooling at the time will have those painful memories, where it was in extreme jeopardy.

I haven't heard Mrs. Clinton's position on homeschooling now, but back then she saw it as a highly dangerous experiment that removed the child from "the village."

The idea was that homeschooling parents were doing something psychologically damaging by removing them from the healthy societal environment, hence, "It takes a village to raise a child," the motto of the time. She and Marian Edelman really did characterize it as a potential form of child abuse. A Christian lawyer friend of mine also warned us against it, calling it "a dangerous experiment."

I am sure you know about the culture wars in which extreme invective is used over things like charter schools and educational vouchers. The language used is often extreme and comes from just the same sources, with always the teachers' unions opposed to educational innovation that might rock their own members' economic boat. Call it their own form of "pre-emptive war" in which they "take out" anything that might be a threat to the union some day - and all couched in rhetoric of "doing it for the children."

Homeschooling is now done by millions. And at this point, the legal basis for it is at least as assured as the right to buy handguns, which is to say, some still oppose it but not too many are comfortable directly coming out against it anymore since there is a large political backlash to doing so - which Mrs. Clinton discovered.

The more I remember the nineties, the less likely I am to vote for Mrs. Clinton. She has remade herself in the last few years as a kind of fiscal and military hawk. At one time she was, despite her Republican upbringing, very much a socially left radical.

Recall that she exercised power in the White House, particularly early on in developing the health care initiative, but in secret. She claimed she wasn't subject to open government laws because she really didn't have an official position. She fought tooth and nail against the kind of disclosure the law required for her husband. In her own way, she made just the same claims that Dick Cheney has, but with even less to stand on.

Hillary's left-radical approach had a lot to do with the failure of her health initiative and then the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.

I think Barack Obama would be highly preferable.

No, the more I think of the Clinton years, the more bad political memories crop up in which I found their judgment and actions questionable. They were just too glib, too much powerseeking shapeshifters.

There's a good reason for the twenty-second amendment limiting Presidential terms and I don't think the United States should stoop to the Isabel Peron loophole, even if it were to give us the first woman President.

The first election around, Bill said (even as he appeared disingenuously on television with, I think, Morley Safer, to admit failings as a husband which he promised were forever over with - but weren't) that if people voted for him, they would get both Hillary and him. This election cycle, I just think we would be getting both of them again as well, and, well, fugettaboutit.

Good government over gender, please.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Bruce Benson in the Enterprise of Law makes several case studies of common law systems that have emerged without legislation. Also, trade organizations have their own laws which emerge absent a centralized authority.

You still needed an authority to make those laws because they needed to be handed down from somewhere. The idea that people will simply do the "right thing" contradicts Scripture -- they had to be told.

An example: Sometime ago I read a bio of a preacher who stood in the pulpit of my church, and he mentioned that children could be identified as "sinners in need of a Savior." One woman objected, insisting they were innocent." The conversation went like this:

"Do you have children?"

"Yes."

"Do they have to be taught to misbehave or do they do so on their own?"

After a pause, she said, "Oh."

You see, Nathanael, you seem to believe in the inherent goodness of man and that external forces are not required to make him behave properly. The Scripture, however, argues otherwise, which is why we have law in the first place. And where new situations crop up new laws need to be made. (Granted, law can go only so far.)

And that's why this political discussion is necessary, determining who's the best person to run this country -- whether because of experience, governing philosophy, even relationship of religious faith. We Christians are not called to be isolationists.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 12:35 PM

I am sure you know about the culture wars in which extreme invective is used over things like charter schools and educational vouchers.

Well, there's actually good reason for that. Many charter schools in my area turned into abject disasters because folks believe that public schools were by nature incompetent. In fact, a law permitting such was passed in my state after one school, the closest school to where I grew up, was illegally privatized basically to get rid of the district's teacher union (but that also became a failure).

As for vouchers, upon examination they're popular virtually nowhere -- and they're actually least popular among wealthy families who simply don't want poorer children attending their schools.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 12:47 PM

Her notorious behind the scenes language and attitude do not resemble fruits of the spirit.

Do you know this for a fact or are you just regurgitating impressions that Hillary-haters would say just to denigrate her? One rumor that was floating around about her being nasty to some "Gold Star" mothers turned out to be completely false.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 12:52 PM

"You see, Nathanael, you seem to believe in the inherent goodness of man and that external forces are not required to make him behave properly."

Actually, Rick, that's exactly what Nathanael doesn't believe. He believes that an economic system that assumes human self-interedness works better than one that doesn't. If these were the only options available, I would agree. However, as I've argued before, American capitalism works best when aided and regulated by the government. The greatest period of prosperity and economic equality this country has ever known was brought about by the New Deal, and as New Deal policies and attitudes have been repealed, we've slipped back into greater inequality and widespread suffering. The historical record speaks for itself.

Posted by: Another nonymous | March 4, 2008 12:57 PM

During our devotions this morning, my wife and I were discussion some of the remarks that have been made on this blog. My wife, who is rereading Jane Eyre, read me the following, a response to criticism of Bronte’s negative depiction of self-righteous Christians:

“Having thus acknowledged what I owe those who have aided and approved me, I turn to another class; a small one, so far as I know, but not, therefore, to be overlooked. I mean the timorous or carping few who doubt the tendency of such books as "Jane Eyre:" in whose eyes whatever is unusual is wrong; whose ears detect in each protest against bigotry--that parent of crime--an insult to piety, that regent of God on earth. I would suggest to such doubters certain obvious distinctions; I would remind them of certain simple truths.

“Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last. To pluck the mask from the face of the Pharisee, is not to lift an impious hand to the Crown of Thorns.

“These things and deeds are diametrically opposed: they are as distinct as is vice from virtue. Men too often confound them: they should not be confounded: appearance should not be mistaken for truth; narrow human doctrines, that only tend to elate and magnify a few, should not be substituted for the world-redeeming creed of Christ. There is--I repeat it--a difference; and it is a good, and not a bad action to mark broadly and clearly the line of separation between them.

“The world may not like to see these ideas dissevered, for it has been accustomed to blend them; finding it convenient to make external show pass for sterling worth--to let white-washed walls vouch for clean shrines. It may hate him who dares to scrutinize and expose--to rase the gilding, and show base metal under it—to penetrate the sepulchre, and reveal charnel relics: but hate as it will, it is indebted to him.”

Preface to the second edition of Jane Eyre, by Charlotte Bronte

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 1:26 PM

There are two issues that Jim brings up here. One is the vitriol with which some people respond to Senator Clinton and the second is the skepticism about her religious beliefs.

I absolutely agree with the comments from Christianity Today. People on both the left and right need to calm down and remember the Bible's admonition.

As for Clinton's beliefs, it's hard not to be skeptical about anything she believes because she seems so scheming and poll-tested. I take her at her word that she has strong Christian beliefs, but the fact that she brought up her faith in her first meeting with Jim Wallis doesn't prove anything. Jim's a minister, so of course that's what she's going to bring up; it's what she assumed he wanted to hear. When she meets with ministers she talks religion, when she meets with teachers, she talks education. Call me when she speaks at the annual conference of Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State and talks about the important role religion should play in public policy.

Posted by: Eric | March 4, 2008 1:49 PM

Wolverine -

Most obviously, Buckley repented of his early support for segregation, which was expressed more than once in the early years of NR. I won't post specifics: de mortuis and all that...

Posted by: Another nonymous | March 4, 2008 2:19 PM

The state ought to stay out of charity altogether, because it's form of charity is commanded at gunpoint. There is no virtue in that.

HEAR, HEAR!!

Posted by: joekc

Whoa Joekc , you must be in mourning my friend ?
In my area its how much has Mommy Government delivered for ya .
What part of the country do you live in ?

I agree with your premise , forcing a person to give is in no way promoting the Bibical view of charity . Robin Hood style government if you ask me , but not too many do . But people forget , the Lord is also concerned in the heart of the giver , people hire accountants , even christians so they can pay less taxes . Mixing Christianity with a call for higher taxes is out of my Bibical understanding . Raising taxes because you want government to do something in my opinion always has a merit of debate to it . But I think Christ is more concerned with our hearts , the poor and the rich .

Posted by: Mick | March 4, 2008 3:01 PM

"Over time I've come to see that there is a genuine heart beating in that conservative breast"

Thanks?

Posted by: kevin s. | March 4, 2008 3:39 PM

"I still don't understand why so many people have such a visceral hatred of Hillary. I find that very strange. What did she do to Republicans to deserve all that, other than being from the opposite party? Can anyone answer that for me?"

I'm not sure. I especially don't understand why she gets blamed for Bill's fooling around. She's the victim, for pete's sake. It does bother me that Bill's misbehavior seems to hurt all his associates without doing any damage to him--Gore, whose family life seems impeccable, and Hillary, who is, as previously mentioned, the victim.

Anyway, I think it is easier for people to hate her because it is easier for most people to develop a visceral dislike of a woman for things that would not as readily bother them about a man, such as her looks or her voice. You might want to read Dorothy Dinnerstein's book (The Mermaid and the Minotaur, I think?), in which she explains that misogyny is really a result of the role that mothers play in almost every culture, as representing the stern hand of Reality to their children. Deep down, we all (even women) resent our mothers for telling us we have to pick up our toys and eat our spinach, etc.

Posted by: Marian Neudel | March 4, 2008 3:59 PM

Sojourner: "She and Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund even spearheaded a proposal...to force homeschooling parents to register on state child abuse lists"

Sojourner, I am sympathetic to parents who wish to homeschool; I have several relatives and friends who are doing so. And while I found your long response interesting, it did not substantiate on your claim that those two women wanted homeschooling parents to register on child abuse lists. That is what sounded like a rightwing urban legend to me--but I was not suggesting that you are one, not at all.

Now, let's look at this:
"Why is there this reflexive action to almost label someone who personally experienced this as "right-wing" "Hillary-haters" or those who are duped by them?"

And then in the same post you write:
"Recall that she exercised power in the White House...She claimed she wasn't subject to open government laws because she really didn't have an official position...She fought tooth and nail against the kind of disclosure the law required for her husband...Hillary's left-radical approach..."

All I can say is, why is there this reflexive action to label this seeming power grab as left-radical?

Posted by: I and I | March 4, 2008 4:08 PM

"An example: Sometime ago I read a bio of a preacher who stood in the pulpit of my church, and he mentioned that children could be identified as "sinners in need of a Savior." One woman objected, insisting they were innocent." The conversation went like this:

"Do you have children?"

"Yes."

"Do they have to be taught to misbehave or do they do so on their own?"

After a pause, she said, "Oh.""

Most of the time, when children "misbehave," they are not being "evil," they just don't know any better. Most of the "good behavior" we expect of children is the equivalent of traffic regulations. People who jaywalk because they don't understand the "walk-don't walk" signs aren't "evil," they just need to read the Rules of the Road.

Posted by: Marian Neudel | March 4, 2008 4:12 PM

Steve S: "but those inside the Clinton White House have spoken of Hillary's verbose temper and ability to launch into expletive-laced tirades. Now, I can't say that a Christian could never do this, but fruit of the spirit are our insiders look at a person's soul."

Funny you should bring up the uttering of naughty words. It seems both Bush and Cheney had quite the potty-mouths behind the scenes and in public (like the Senate floor), yet few of their faithful questioned their religion.

Posted by: I and I | March 4, 2008 4:40 PM

"Funny you should bring up the uttering of naughty words. It seems both Bush and Cheney had quite the potty-mouths behind the scenes and in public (like the Senate floor), yet few of their faithful questioned their religion."

How about this one:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushflipbird.htm

He thought it was funny

Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 4, 2008 4:51 PM

The civil rights movement was the REMOVAL of state power arbitrarily granting privilege to some at the expense of others. It was the reduction in the size of the state.

Didn't happen, thank you. The legal and political prescriptions took place, to be sure, but we still feel the moral and social effects to this day -- which affected the political ones in the first place. There is no running away from the evil of racism; the political ramifications made things worse.

And Christians made it possible by sitting on their dead ends instead of accepting the call to responsibility for the least of these. If good abolitionists wanted to end slavery, they could have bought the slaves from their owners.

Some did, probably, but that didn't change the reality that the system itself was evil because it still enriched the slave owners, which is what they wanted -- and in fact by buying people out of slavery the way you suggest they would have been actually complicit with the system. THE SYSTEM ITSELF HAD TO BE DESTROYED!!! (Heck, Wilberforce understood that.)

Now, can we go back to the original topic? We were talking about Hillary.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 5:03 PM

The potty-mouth comments are interesting.

One of the cogent arguments Nixon made for voting for him rather than Kennedy at the first TV debate was that Truman had sworn freely, while Eisenhower never did. Of course it's since come out that Eisenhower swore like a trooper.

Then at the time of Watergate I was a member of a free pentecostal church whose pastor was a dear man and an intelligent man and a Nixon loyalist-- right up till it came out that he, Nixon, had used vulgar and obscene language! (In fact, I had said to myself, when I heard about Nixon's naughty words 'Well, Pastor won't be for Nixon any more.)

What's with US Christians anyway? The Lord told us to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, but instead we're 'wise as pigeons and harmless as timbe rattlers.' Why can't we smell the wolf-musk under the sorry, bedraggled old sheepskins our politicians of such-and-such a party don every election year?

I mean, Nixon? a pathetic and a tragic man, but a crook from day one.

Reagan? the supreme instantiation of the all-American con-man; made PT Barnum look like a piker.

Cheney/Bush? Cheney? Just obviously the meanest man in the world, especially when he smiles... (I saw a picture of him smiling once... I think he was smiling...) and George W? he's just pathetic, a strutting, posing, primping little pipsqueak

Posted by: Ted Voth Jr | March 4, 2008 5:18 PM

thank you for writing something in support of Mrs. Clinton's faith!

For years, I have attended a white, evangelical Christian church in suburban Mpls./St. Paul. I enjoy the church because of the Christian teaching I have received. BUT, I have been saddened on more than one occasion by the attacks on Hillary Clinton, especially those of a sarcastic, anti-religious, Anti-Christ suggesting manner. And as this election has drawn closer, they have come more heavily.

I want to lend an unique perspective as to why I support Hillary. Like Mrs. Clinton, I am a highly educated and successful woman. I have held high positions in Fortune 500 companies for years. It's not easy being a woman at the forefront of anything in this country. We would like to think that we are country where women have a fighting chance. But, the reality is...today, a woman seeking to be a leader needs to guard herself. It seems no matter what she says that may tread in to the area of emotions or passion, she will be misinterpreted.

Like Hillary Clinton, I guard my positions on many issues that are close to my heart. Those closest to my heart stay closeted the most. It does not surprise me at all that she is hesitant to be highly vocal on her faith. Somehow, she knows it will be turned against her. If it is turned against her, it will be a challenge to her personal faith. That is something which she must maintain secure in this very serious time, in this very ambitious challenge. It is the strength from which she pulls everything she needs to do this most exceptional thing, being the first woman to seriously run for president in the United States.

I wish people would realize this. But, I find even other white women do not understand this. It is very sad. She fights a lonely battle that one day will seem so very ridiculous to have been fought.

Posted by: Hillary Supporter in MN | March 4, 2008 5:42 PM

Where does the Hillary hatred come from? It comes from people who are scared of powerful women. They have been beating this drum for at least 15 years, recognizing how much potential Hillary had even in the 90's to become a very powerful political force. It's the same reason some folks find it necessary to spread ridiculous rumors about people like Oprah and Rosie O'Donnell. It's the mentality that is obssessively interested in the antics of Britney, Lindsey, Paris, etc, but scarcely notice what their young male counterparts are up to. Then when you get megas-mouths like Limbaugh, Scarborough, Carlson, etc, fanning the flames, some people take that kind of talk a little more seriously, just because it's on the radio and TV. And people do love gossip. I have found that so-called Christians are some of the most gossippy people, perhaps because they think they have a free pass to judge others.

Posted by: c kitty | March 4, 2008 5:55 PM

Bravo Jim!

Hillary needs and deserves our support and it's not been so long ago that she's been attacked. My brother slams her in every conversation he has.

When she speaks of her experience, people bash her. When Bill was president, half the conservatives said she was the one running the country and now they're saying she doesn't have experience, and that he will run it.

We have never had this opportunity before! I find it odd that conservatives, who hold wives and mothers in such high regard -- calling them their right arms and all that -- would not see that this equips her for the role of President herself. She was not like many first ladies, who sat on the side lines looking pretty. She was very involved in politics-- not in picking out White House China or planting flowers. Let that experience work for us!

Posted by: Nancy | March 4, 2008 6:13 PM

Most conservative men are afraid of women, period. Their psychological development arrested at the Oedipal stage, they fear Mommy's retaliation for their hatred of Daddy. Castration anxiety mounts, while compulsive anality stimulates neurotic tics and psychoses (hence Limbaugh's pill popping and Hannity's fingernail biting).

Whipsawed by crosscurrents of masturbatory guilt, unable to confess to priest or Christ due to their repressed, subconscious guilt, they can only view women like Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton as castrating dominatrixes who seek socialized medicine, premature withdrawal from Iraq, and sadomasochistic secular humanism.

Posted by: lloyd crump | March 4, 2008 7:01 PM

Another and Rick,
We are arguing over data now, or so it seems. Each position accurately demonstrates a peculiar worldview. I will not concede on either the question of the civil rights movement or the great depression. I think your information is wrong. But worse, I think the motivation behind the use of particular facts is flawed. I still see no justification for the state to be involved in most of the activities the candidates for this election are stumping on.
Let me clarify that. I think that any of the good things the candidates want to do through government ought to be done through the church and could be done better through the church. I think that militarism, imperialism, and protection of corporate or labor interests are bad, and should not be done by anyone.
I believe complete abolition of political privilege is consistent with our faith, and no politician can afford to take such a stand because they will lose the votes of those who hold more closely to their privileges than their rights.
I think we can agree in principle to most of these ideals. I also think we are the very ones who have to backbones to live them out as well, however impractical they might seem to us today.
Nathanael Snow
ndsnow@gmail.com

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 4, 2008 8:13 PM

Posted by: jurisnaturalist | March 4, 2008 8:13 PM

"I think that any of the good things the candidates want to do through government ought to be done through the church and could be done better through the church."

That's where we disagree. I think they can be done better by the government, with the church serving as the prophetic voice it should be.

"I think that militarism, imperialism, and protection of corporate or labor interests are bad, and should not be done by anyone."

Agreed, except for labor interests. It's not a level playing field for labor, and never will be.

"I believe complete abolition of political privilege is consistent with our faith, and no politician can afford to take such a stand because they will lose the votes of those who hold more closely to their privileges than their rights."

Agreed. No candidate who said what I think needs to be said would ever be elected. Politics is the art of the practical.

"I think we can agree in principle to most of these ideals. I also think we are the very ones who have to backbones to live them out as well, however impractical they might seem to us today."

I'll shake on that. Time to watch the primary votes come in now.

Posted by: Another nonymous | March 4, 2008 8:25 PM

I think your information is wrong. But worse, I think the motivation behind the use of particular facts is flawed. I still see no justification for the state to be involved in most of the activities the candidates for this election are stumping on.

Of course you do -- you support a theory that I don't believe could work in the world as it is. To do so you would have to have a major spiritual revival plus those Christians have to be extremely rich -- but that leads to its own set of problems.

I think that any of the good things the candidates want to do through government ought to be done through the church and could be done better through the church.

I'm not so convinced because not every need people have can be reduced to charity. Justice is more the operative word, so that people in need can get for themselves instead of being dependent on the church, which is often worse than on the state.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 10:16 PM

I care about whether an action is legitimate and moral or not.

Legitimate ideas work -- that's how and why they become legitimate, especially in the Christian realm (our God is very, very practical). You can have any kind of pet theories, but if they don't work they ought to be placed on the trash heap. I used to be an aspiring scientist, and in science when you propose a theory but that is contradicted by the evidence, you don't throw out the evidence -- you throw out the theory.

He has clearly forbidden the use of force by His followers. Therefore, His followers ought not to advocate the use of force by others.

I don't consider that "blanket." For openers, define "force."

Is justice knowable or do you think it changes? If it changes we are stuck. If it is knowable, how can it be known or discovered? Do you really think legislation is a good means of discovery?

The question is, "What's best for the greatest number of people as well as individuals?" It's a general principle, not an easy formula. The Prophets are full of references to justice (but none to "freedom" as we understand it). You can only get a handle on it when you see past your own nose to understand the needs of others. Therefore, it's not enough to focus on the "diaconal" issues that you say the church alone should take care of.

Also, you miss the real focus of the church, which is to proclaim the advent of a new Kingdom through the cross of Christ -- it does not exist primarily to meet physical needs (that's a side issue).

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 4, 2008 11:42 PM

"The poor ought to be the full and exclusive responsibility of the church. Unbelievers ought not to be held to the same standards of charity as believers are. The state ought to stay out of charity altogether, because it's form of charity is commanded at gunpoint. There is no virtue in that."

As posted earlier.

Please consider a few implications of the issues outlined above.

• Consider the disastrous effects on many of the inmates of the church and mission schools in Canada and Australia for children involved both of aboriginals or mainstream origin. Done in the name of Care.

• Where the Church as defined by those actively attending church is not many more than the numbers who attend football each week. Where are the resources to come from? The comment assumes that the majority of the citizens of the area are "Christian".

• Has the activities or non actvities of the state caused more poor than there should be. Ie poor mental healthcare so those who are affected end up homeless or in jail? So who is to pay?

The tension between home schooling / independent schooling and the need to protect the rights of the child (Lets look at the UN charters here – issues of health, housing etc, as a guide on what should be the basic human situation. Sure many disagree on some concepts, but denying basic food, health, shelter, safety - bit hard to argue about that.), demands that some sort of CONTINUAL societal review is needed to prevent repeating the diasters we have had in the past through “good intentions".

We live in fallen world, and so to get the best results all avenues must be used for justice. To systematically denigrate and degrade the structures of society rather than to critique and actively work in those structures where at all morally compatible, is a cop out of the first order.

From the other side of the Pacific, the combination of active "God Talk" and politics does not translate too well. It will be interesting to see if Hillary’s actions and words are more in tune than what has been the case recently from the USA. Makes it very difficult when talking about Christianity to non believers.

Posted by: JohnH | March 5, 2008 8:34 AM

I love the media this morning. They just aren't certain what their storyline is on the Democratic side. They were anxious to put a damper on their over-the-top hyping of Obama. But last night really changed nothing. So now what??

Maybe the facts would do fine.

Too boring.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 5, 2008 10:15 AM

I'm not a fan of homeschooling and never have been. I had well educated parents, but their information was outdated and they were highly disorganized. School was a place where I could become myself, and not be just one of their kids -- with a clearly defined role. My niece was home-schooled and hated it.

If you go to Europe (where another sister lives) they have as many statistics backing up the benefits of early day-care as we do for keeping a child at home. Statistics are almost living beings -- anyone can read them any way they wish.

My point is -- whatever circumstances you find yourself in -- you can still raise happy and healthy kids if you want to. Since most families in America have both parents working, day care relief has it's advantages. That, and a candidate's view on abortion or partial-birth abortion is one piece of your decision. Their theology is another piece.

My real question is why do they see the question of, "Who do you want as Commander and Chief during at 3am crisis" as a negative attack? Isn't that the question we should all be asking?

Posted by: Nancy | March 5, 2008 10:55 AM

I agree with Barbara. I think if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, we're more likely to see the high road taken by both him and McCain than if Clinton wins. I can foresee a Clinton-McCain contest dragging us through the gutter again, possibly worse than ever. (No, it wouldn't all be Clinton's fault, but her campaign would surely play a role in it.)

I wonder if that's one reason the electorate has responded so positively to Obama, at least until yesterday. They see him as a chance to take us away--at least for a while--from negative campaigning.

D

Posted by: Don | March 5, 2008 11:05 AM

I guess, if the majority of folks here don't mind seeing the freedom to educate your own children in a Christ-centered way, supplanted by a state that will indoctrinate its own competing ideology into your children, turning you into a mere breeder for the state, then I would characterize that as a statist, leftist view.

I'm against statist, rightist views also.

And against tyrannies of the elite via economic rule by unaccountable corporations that treat people as nothing more than consumers, making merchandise of all men.

Individual freedom really does mean something, not just a nanny-coddling one-solution-fits-all smothering socialism that makes it equivalent only to fulfilling basic bodily functions by federal mandate.

If we're going to have community support, it can't be by top-down dictates or by a majority voting to overrule individual choices. It has to empower personal choice.

There's nothing worse than arrogant do-gooders appropriating your dollars to make you do what they think is good for you.

How does Hillary's past history fit into opposing that statist trend? It doesn't.

Now, in addition to that, she's morphed over the past few years into a statist in favor of expanded militarism as well.

And she's playing up the fear card, too, pandering instead of making a case for really understanding the nature of conflict in this world we live in, in favor of the simpleminded nostrum of hegemonic US violence as an answer. God save us from a woman leader outto prove to us she has as much moxie as the most bellicose male.

That could be a pose to get the industrial-military corporate complex on her side. But then that shows there'll be no change from our present disastrous foreign policy course. She will always be having to prove she's not weak by being excessively jingoistic,

All this shows such grasping for power, the urge to exercise it. I think she misses the incredible power rush of being in the White House. She wants to be President because she is so personally ambitious, and which she's already experienced by proxy.

Is this for us, or for her? Why ought we to indulge her ambition? Just so we can say we made a woman President? That's a childish, selfish reason. I think that anyone who wants to be President in such a visceral way, is dangerously not qualified for it.

When she ran for Senator, she unequivocally stated that she was not preparing a path to run for President. Nobody believed her. She easily sacrifices principle to ambition.

There are about 150 million people who are not males in this nation. I am sure that there are thousands of highly competent women who are more qualified to serve as President. And a million equally qualified.

So is this Hillary-bashing? No. There are plenty of my dear fellow Christians, even in local church, who I would not dare to place into power, knowing them too well, though I love them dearly.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 11:41 AM

Ashpenaz,
Are you saying that scripture should or shouldn't be our model for compassion?

Posted by: Eric | March 5, 2008 12:37 PM

So now the blog that says to "Denounce the Hillary Haters" means you are a "hater" if you don't agree with the person's politics or their verifiable political history, as open to interpretaion as that might be? Or because your own political beliefs might conflict with Mrs. Clinton's?

Is this the new tack of intolerance in the name of tolerance?

Isn't it just the same old, same old, "if you don't agree with me you are evil?"

Are only social progressives to be considered Christian now, dragging along their secular leftist allies?

Has Jim Wallis, at long last, endorsed Hillary Clinton as "The Christian Candidate?"

But Jim Wallis then would have no more meaning to me than James Dobson, who hasn't endorsed anyone so much as dis-endorsed them this season.

I will gladly go along with policies to help the poor - but don't tell me the price must be in supporting and abortion-on-demand, celebrating homosexual marriage, huge new governemnt programs or jingoistic military expansion.

I will agree to support public schools, but don't tell me that you demand that of me while denying our families the freedom to pursue their own educational alternatives
like home schooling. That would be capitulation, not cooperation.

Why can't we support one another? Perhaps the divide really is too great and compromise is called for by only one side of that divide by the other?

Who wants to fix being co-opted by one secular ideology by exchanging it for that of another?

It seems to me that everyone now still in the race claims to be a Christian, so we couldn't possibly be offending God by moving beyond a basic religious litmus test (which I abhor, BTW) and start examining policies and political approaches.

As someone else observed, don't expect political saviors, or treat them as if they are. These are normal, fallen, human beings who can't be trusted with too much power any more than anyone else can be.

Critical thinking is a must, instead of acting like it's some version of American Idol.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 5, 2008 12:52 PM

Can you please cite the poll that establishes this fact? School choice, which has a similar demonstrable effect, has been largely opposed by city interests and unions.

I'm spefically referring to referenda in California and Colorado in the 1990s that were defeated handily; later, in my state, a voucher bill never even got out of committee. (I won a bet with a Christian talk-radio host over that.) I first realized where it was going in a Wall Street Journal story in the early '90s in which a woman from a wealthy suburb in San Francisco was quoted as citing the things I mentioned. And as for Cleveland, its voucher program, thrown out by the courts in 1996, would never have been approved without the Ohio Legislature allowing an opt-out provision to suburban school districts -- all of which, of course, did.

Bottom line, the idea that teachers unions are to blame for vouchers not being approved is total hogwash, because the public isn't fond of them anyway -- people will gladly spend tax money for their kids but not for other people's kids. I don't think a poll has ever been taken because the "pro-choice" folks don't want to know the answer.

Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 5, 2008 1:11 PM

As a former Christian who still has a deep respect for the teachings of Jesus, it upsets me to see people judge another person's sincerity of faith. How do we know what's in the heart of our fellow man? His or her personal struggles in their heart with what they feel and believe? And can't the most passionate and powerful proclaimer of his or her faith be also a good actor? I see a current president who had a lot to say about his faith but little of his actions speak loudly, to me, of kindness and moral principle. Taking them at their word means they can misrepresent themselves. Take them at their deeds.

Posted by: Christine | March 5, 2008 1:31 PM

Bloggingitright: "They cannot survive on their own and they know it so they perpetuate their failing existence by shaping and molding the young minds that we send them to educate. It is for this reason that they would give a woman the right to kill her baby at birth but will not give the same woman the right to decide who educates the child she chose not to kill."

Welcome to the God's Politics blog. As you have noticed, we generally try to keep our language fair and reasonable. Sometimes we fail, but if somebody goes overboard on a repeated basis usually a few complaints are submitted to the moderator and the offender is restricted from posting for a while. If this by any chance (God forbid) happens to you, I can recommend the "Free Republic" blog--they have much looser standards on what passes for rational discourse.

Welcome to the blog.

Posted by: I and I | March 5, 2008 2:05 PM

"...it makes sense because vouchers have the potential to strip schools of 1) good students and 2) outstanding athletes, that give school a good rep."

Also, in the case of Michigan's proposal, to strip schools of 3) funding, because there was no provision in the proposal to make up for the dollars that would have flowed out of public education budgets into private schools' coffers.

I think the point you've mentioned before, that private schools do not have to accept all children whose parents want to enroll them, was an issue too. And elitist private schools would have been able to raise their tuition levels so as to become unaffordable to most students even with the vouchers, while still receiving voucher dollars for the wealthy students already enrolled.

Posted by: I and I | March 5, 2008 3:27 PM

We can't really assess Hillary's personal relationship with God. To what degree is her faith real? We just don't know.

But as a politician, we can look at whether her policy positions and her manner of operating are consistent with our understanding of the Christian faith. I find so many things that seem inconsistent with Christian faith that for purposes of considering her public persona, I do not find it Christian whatever her private faith might be.

I believe Christ stood for peace and life. But Hillary is a consistent death ethic politician - militarist, zealously pro-abortion and for the death penalty.

We can see her history in Arkansas of getting wealth through using her political connections to get heavily favored treatment in "investments." We can see that the Clintons got fabulously rich while Hillary held no paid job and Clinton was a public servant. We can see their ostentatious lifestyle. We can see the pattern of deception in the way she campaigns against opponents.

To call all this Christian seems to me at least bordering on blasphemy.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | March 5, 2008 9:01 PM

Bill, your comments are well-taken, assuming you have applied the same language when many religious-right leaders constantly referred to GWB as "the Christian candidate."

Posted by: I and I | March 5, 2008 10:35 PM

Bloggingitright,
Thanks, I appreciate your clarification and apology. I've definitely had to do both before on this blog--it happens easily when we debate things we are passionate about.

I like Ashpenaz am disturbed by scriptural passages about dashing infants against the rocks, etc., and do not know how literally we are to take them. But I cannot agree with him that othger passages lead to the conclusion that a child is not fully human until it takes its first breath. I know I may be on the liberal side in term of accepting all scripture as literally true, but I think that in both cases we have to use our God-given consciences to discern what is right. I think that after some honest soul-searching, most people would conclude that it is wrong both to dash a child against a rock and to tear it apart inside the womb.

What saddens me, in addition to the millions of unborn children killed each year, is the effect of the lies of abortion on the collective psyche of our society. We can't justify slaughter of innocents for four decades while pretending it is otherwise, without it taking a toll on our souls.

Posted by: I and I | March 6, 2008 9:32 AM