NationStates Jolt Archive

it has come to my attention that so many of you don't want any mention of Christianity or "the scripture" anywhere near your government, I understand, but what do you do when Hillary starts up with "my interpretation of scripture" as her argument against something?

double standard?



Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton invoked the Bible yesterday to criticize a stringent border security measure that, among other things, would make it a federal crime to offer aid to illegal immigrants.



"It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation," she said of the measure, which was passed by the House of Representatives in December and mirrored a companion Senate bill introduced last week by Senator Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican and the majority leader.

"It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," she said. "We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress."

full article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/nyregion/23hillary.html?_r=1)

I seriously tried to find an article about it elsewhere but this is the most unbiased I could find (the only other places I found mention were on Rush Limbaugh's blog, and Bill O'reilly)

Yes, yes you are.

I've pounded in the stake and the bindings are fasted. Who wants to tend the fire?

No, no she's not. I missed it as well, but mostly because I don't care anyway, and the escalating insanity in the nation south of me (yeah, build that wall you idiots) is something I can only handle in small doses.

Well... she does have a wide Republican Christian base to win over, so every little bit of deception helps.

it has come to my attention that so many of you don't want any mention of Christianity or "the scripture" anywhere near your government, I understand, but what do you do when Hillary starts up with "my interpretation of scripture" as her argument against something?

You throw things. With considerable force.

it has come to my attention that so many of you don't want any mention of Christianity or "the scripture" anywhere near your government, I understand, but what do you do when Hillary starts up with "my interpretation of scripture" as her argument against something?

double standard?

I seriously tried to find an article about it elsewhere but this is the most unbiased I could find (the only other places I found mention were on Rush Limbaugh's blog, and Bill O'reilly)

Double standard, or single standard, as in, holding the Republicans accountable to their professed faith?

it has come to my attention that so many of you don't want any mention of Christianity or "the scripture" anywhere near your government, I understand, but what do you do when Hillary starts up with "my interpretation of scripture" as her argument against something?

double standard?





full article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/nyregion/23hillary.html?_r=1)

I seriously tried to find an article about it elsewhere but this is the most unbiased I could find (the only other places I found mention were on Rush Limbaugh's blog, and Bill O'reilly)

It seems that she is pointing out the hypocrisy of the republican congressmen who use christianity as an inspiration (or support gathering device) for a lot of their policies, yet discard it on issues like this.

it has come to my attention that so many of you don't want any mention of Christianity or "the scripture" anywhere near your government, I understand, but what do you do when Hillary starts up with "my interpretation of scripture" as her argument against something?

I seriously tried to find an article about it elsewhere but this is the most unbiased I could find (the only other places I found mention were on Rush Limbaugh's blog, and Bill O'reilly)
She's just doing what any good politician does: changing her stripes to suit the background.

She's just doing what any good politician does: changing her stripes to suit the background.
I guess so.

It just seems any time a Republican says anything about God, or sripture, there is a big outcry of "seperation of church and state" but, when Hillary says something it's almost ignored.

I would think that they would be pretty worried about her....but, I guess not.

It just seems any time a Republican says anything about God, or sripture, there is a big outcry of "seperation of church and state" but, when Hillary says something it's almost ignored.
Says a lot, doesn't it? :p

Double standard, or single standard, as in, holding the Republicans accountable to their professed faith?
but, if they aren't supposed to make decisions based on their faith, then why criticize them when they make a decision on something that isn't "in line with their faith"

what do you want them to do leave their faith out of it or use it for every government decision they make?

It seems that she is pointing out the hypocrisy of the republican congressmen who use christianity as an inspiration (or support gathering device) for a lot of their policies, yet discard it on issues like this.
but if you truely want seperation of church and state shouldn't you be praising them for seperating their faith and this issue?

I guess so.

It just seems any time a Republican says anything about God, or sripture, there is a big outcry of "seperation of church and state" but, when Hillary says something it's almost ignored.

I would think that they would be pretty worried about her....but, I guess not.
Not at all. Those who support her already, know that she's just trying to gain new converts to "The Cult of Hillary," not indicating that she actually believes anything the Bible says.

I guess so.

It just seems any time a Republican says anything about God, or sripture, there is a big outcry of "seperation of church and state" but, when Hillary says something it's almost ignored.

I would think that they would be pretty worried about her....but, I guess not.according to the posts here... ignored or rationalized away. After all, the Dems can do no wrong here... :rolleyes:

but, if they aren't supposed to make decisions based on their faith, then why criticize them when they make a decision on something that isn't "in line with their faith"

what do you want them to do leave their faith out of it or use it for every government decision they make?
If you really believe something you can't pick and choose the parts of it you want to follow.

If you really believe something you can't pick and choose the parts of it you want to follow.
I would agree.

If Hillary really believes that "the scriptures" shouldn't affect the law of the land, then why is she bringing it up now?

Speaking only for myself, I don't like it when Hillary plays the religion card any more than I do when Bush does--I think it's a weak argument at best, even when I agree with the sentiments, as I do in this case. It's also a bad precedent, because it does exactly as you say, Smunkee--it's furthers a condition where the question becomes "which politician can out-Jeebus the other?" and that's not good for our form of government.

It isn't a Hillary thing, it is a Democrat who is going to fail at running for president thing. For some reason, they always find Jesus immediately before they start campaigning (and they start campaigning immediatly before their popularity plunges like a wounded falcon). Kerry had some fun with religion, and Al Gore delivered one of the most surreal sermon/speeches I have ever read in a Black church while running.

but, if they aren't supposed to make decisions based on their faith, then why criticize them when they make a decision on something that isn't "in line with their faith"

what do you want them to do leave their faith out of it or use it for every government decision they make?
I ignore most things she says personally

Personaly this only further reduces the chanse that I would like her as my political leader (therefore vote for her)

She should not have to pander to the religious right (or religious middle of the roads) in order to get some votes. But like Eut said (cant believe I am agreeing) like most politicians she is changing to fit her suroundings in this era.

Speaking only for myself, I don't like it when Hillary plays the religion card any more than I do when Bush does--I think it's a weak argument at best, even when I agree with the sentiments, as I do in this case. It's also a bad precedent, because it does exactly as you say, Smunkee--it's furthers a condition where the question becomes "which politician can out-Jeebus the other?" and that's not good for our form of government.
Agreed as well

Speaking only for myself, I don't like it when Hillary plays the religion card any more than I do when Bush does--I think it's a weak argument at best, even when I agree with the sentiments, as I do in this case. It's also a bad precedent, because it does exactly as you say, Smunkee--it's furthers a condition where the question becomes "which politician can out-Jeebus the other?" and that's not good for our form of government.
OMG I agree with Nazz?!

we must be right then, for two people so different to agree?

OMG I agree with Nazz?!

we must be right then, for two people so different to agree?
Smunkee and the Nazz AGREE!

[ faints! ]

The last time I've checked it, the Bible was in the public domain.
Invoking your adversaries' beliefs to denounce inherent hipocrisy is expected in the political game, and this is also something that an intellectual can (should) freely engage in - after all, how many historians of religion are believers, and how many should there be?

The last time I've checked it, the Bible was in the public domain.
Invoking your adversaries' beliefs to denounce inherent hipocrisy is expected in the political game, and this is also something that an intellectual can (should) freely engage in - after all, how many historians of religion are believers, and how many should there be?
HILLARY is "an intellectual?" OMG!!! :eek:

The last time I've checked it, the Bible was in the public domain.
Invoking your adversaries' beliefs to denounce inherent hipocrisy is expected in the political game, and this is also something that an intellectual can (should) freely engage in - after all, how many historians of religion are believers, and how many should there be?


the question is "why should she care about their hypocrisy if she doesn't believe that 'scripture' should have any bearing on the law, then why is she upset when scripture doesn't have any bearing on this law?"

Errr... Isn't Religion a signiture of the Republicans? Is Mrs Clinton turning into a Republican, If so who will stand in the next Election against Bush?

Smunkee and the Nazz AGREE!

That's the twelfth sign of the apocalypse! Flee! Flee! End-times are at hand!

*heads for the hills*

the question is "why should she care about their hypocrisy if she doesn't believe that 'scripture' should have any bearing on the law, then why is she upset when scripture doesn't have any bearing on this law?"
Because she wants them to look bad.

Because she wants them to look bad.
ah, then she is petty and immature and nobody should vote for her anyway?

surely she (as an intellectual) could have figured out that this wasn't the most intelligent course of action, and that she would end up alienating both sides.

ah, then she is petty and immature and nobody should vote for her anyway?
Politicians are petty and immature!

Politicians are petty and immature!
only because crap like this gets ignored and people vote for petty and immature people.

only because crap like this gets ignored and people vote for petty and immature people.
We vote for them because often we have no other choice
NOT because I am ignoring them

only because crap like this gets ignored and people vote for petty and immature people.
I think she is holding her rivals accountable for their double-speaking, not that she is using the Scripture as the basis of her policy decisions.

We vote for them because often we have no other choice
NOT because I am ignoring them
Cast a blank vote instead?

I think she is holding her rivals accountable for their double-speaking, not that she is using the Scripture as the basis of her policy decisions.
I don't think you get my point....

Cast a blank vote instead?

Indeed. I always draw a picture of a duck on mine.

Cast a blank vote instead?
Sometimes I do

But in the end I have my prudent streak, and as of right now voting nothing is not prudent. So I suck it up and roast them when I can and do what I can to effect change when I can.

Sometimes I do

But in the end I have my prudent streak, and as of right now voting nothing is not prudent. So I suck it up and roast them when I can and do what I can to effect change when I can.
Then again, apathy is the worst enemy of any elected government.

I don't think you get my point....
That she is basing her view on the Scripture based on personal interpretation?

do you have some quote from hillary clinton blasting someone else for quoting scripture in a speech? what makes you think she opposes people bringing up religous moral arguments?

as a minority party member it may be a good tactic to throw religion into the faces of the majority party who thinks of itself as having cornered the market on religious morality.

or she may just be being a politician trying to attract more religious moderates to her side.

i dont see it as being any worse than when the president or another congressman does the same thing.

Indeed. I always draw a picture of a duck on mine.
Duck for president!




Today in the news a landslide victory for what appears to be a duck...

*snip*
Besides, whoever said she is perfect? Or that much better than Bush anyway...except that she has more brains than him.

Besides, whoever said she is perfect? Or that much better than Bush anyway...except that she has more brains than him.
I never said she was better than Bush (or worse for that matter) just that it surprises me, that it has gone almost ignored that she did this, when if just about anyone else had (esp. a Republican) there would have been a huge huge thing about it.

I never said she was better than Bush (or worse for that matter) just that it surprises me, that it has gone almost ignored that she did this, when if just about anyone else had (esp. a Republican) there would have been a huge huge thing about it.
True, but isn't that because they sometimes base their policies on Scripture?

I'm surprised that people are surprised at this.

We are talking about Hillary. On the one hand I don't recall her being an abslute seperation of religious thought and state advocate. On the other hand she has been known to say things that she never really follow through on. One example was her idle chat about wanting to find some compromise between the pro-choice and pro-life. Yet at the 2006 march on Washington DC by pro-life groups she sent not a single representative or aide to the people while her collegue Chucky, never known for having a pro-life thought in his life, sent an aide.

I can vouch that there is no danger of Hillary becomming a Republican.

I can also vouch that the attempt at cloning Hillary by the Republicans has produced a very strange woman indeed. Now she's claiming that Hillary is sending covert helicopters over her East Hampton estate to spy on her.

Besides, whoever said she is perfect? Or that much better than Bush anyway...except that she has more brains than him.

That'll be great, won't it? President Bush followed by President Clinton followed by President Bush followed by President Clinton. Exactly the kind of message that a meritocracy like America needs to be sending: You can grow up to be president, as long as your name is Bush or Clinton.

True, but isn't that because they sometimes base their policies on Scripture?
which should always be questioned, but why shouldn't it also be questioned when a statement is made about "why aren't you basing it on scripture?"

maybe you should get a copy of the congressional record. i expect that its done every single day and that no one notices except rush limbaugh and then only when its done by someone he doesnt like.

That'll be great, won't it? President Bush followed by President Clinton followed by President Bush followed by President Clinton. Exactly the kind of message that a meritocracy like America needs to be sending: You can grow up to be president, as long as your name is Bush or Clinton.
I'm changing my surname! :eek:

which should always be questioned, but why shouldn't it also be questioned when a statement is made about "why aren't you basing it on scripture?"
Is she suggesting to them that they should or that they are now acting against their own principles?

I'm changing my surname! :eek:

Go for Businton! Or maybe Cush.

Go for Businton! Or maybe Cush.
Bushton! :eek:

Hillary is almost enough to make me consider voting Republican. *prays* Please, dear God, don't let her be the Dem's candidate in '08! :headbang:

besides isnt her criticism right on point? the law that would make being an illegal alien a felony would also make it a felony to help an illegal alien... as in if you find and illegal alien on the side of the road robbed and beaten, it would be illegal to help him rather than turn him into the cops.

personally, i would have gone with a dred scott analogy but im not particularily religios

Hillary is almost enough to make me consider voting Republican. *prays* Please, dear God, don't let her be the Dem's candidate in '08! :headbang:
What does it matter? When I change my surname, I am going to take over the Democrats, then merge them with the Republicans. So it won't matter either way...

I could care less as to what the religious left use the Bible for it's the religious right I'm conscerned about.

I think what smunkee is saying, and I tend to agree, is that Hillary is from the party that tends to (and I know she definatly does) support a complete seperation of church and state, yet invokes the religious pull. There are ways to attack legislation intelligently, but instead she goes to something that has no base, and is only said to make people parrot the line. She attempts to make them seem like bad people because "OMG! If Jebus can't get in, then no one can!" The fact is, anyone who is an illegal immigrant would be a target. If Jesus was in illegal, yes, he would be targeted. This isn't shocking, witty, or even pseudointelligent. Smunkee is arguing that if republicans are attacked so much for a mention of God, so should dems. And she is right.

I think what smunkee is saying, and I tend to agree, is that Hillary is from the party that tends to (and I know she definatly does) support a complete seperation of church and state, yet invokes the religious pull. There are ways to attack legislation intelligently, but instead she goes to something that has no base, and is only said to make people parrot the line. She attempts to make them seem like bad people because "OMG! If Jebus can't get in, then no one can!" The fact is, anyone who is an illegal immigrant would be a target. If Jesus was in illegal, yes, he would be targeted. This isn't shocking, witty, or even pseudointelligent. Smunkee is arguing that if republicans are attacked so much for a mention of God, so should dems. And she is right.
:D thank you.

I think what smunkee is saying, and I tend to agree, is that Hillary is from the party that tends to (and I know she definatly does) support a complete seperation of church and state, yet invokes the religious pull. There are ways to attack legislation intelligently, but instead she goes to something that has no base, and is only said to make people parrot the line. She attempts to make them seem like bad people because "OMG! If Jebus can't get in, then no one can!" The fact is, anyone who is an illegal immigrant would be a target. If Jesus was in illegal, yes, he would be targeted. This isn't shocking, witty, or even pseudointelligent. Smunkee is arguing that if republicans are attacked so much for a mention of God, so should dems. And she is right.
Yet I think Hillary was questioning the hypocrisy of some Republicans in this instance. She is undermining the use of theologically formulated policy, not upholding it. I am not a Democrat, I am not left-wing, and I am not even American to begin with, so I have no stakes in defending her.

Yet I think Hillary was questioning the hypocrisy of some Republicans in this instance. She is undermining the use of theologically formulated policy, not upholding it. I am not a Democrat, I am not left-wing, and I am not even American to begin with, so I have no stakes in defending her.
but that isn't the issue. Immigration has absolutly nothing to do with religion, nor religion with immigration. There is no hypocracy when the two things are unrelated. She, however, demonstrates her hypocracy. She is against using religion in government, yet uses it when it is to her "advantage", if you could say that.

Ugh. Separation of church and state...what happened to that? Seriously.

but that isn't the issue. Immigration has absolutly nothing to do with religion, nor religion with immigration. There is no hypocracy when the two things are unrelated. She, however, demonstrates her hypocracy. She is against using religion in government, yet uses it when it is to her "advantage", if you could say that.
Wasn't she referring to depriving immigrants of aid though, and contrasting it with Samaritanism? Not immigration itself.

Don't all American politicians throw the "Gawd loves 'mericaw" crap around and associate themselves with "church" when they're on the campaign trail...?

OMG I agree with Nazz?!

we must be right then, for two people so different to agree?
I think we agree more often than most people realize--just like Eutrusca and I agree pretty often, as long it involves matters of personal liberty as opposed to partisan politics.

Something that I've seen in this thread that I just wanted to comment on, however, is the sense that Republicans are the party that runs on its faith, or that is the party of Christians. That's only half true--Democrats are often just as religious, and often make faith a matter of their campaigns. Bill Clinton was a master of that. (I didn't like it then, either, but I'm also a pragmatist--an open atheist can't get elected dogcatcher in the US right now.)

The difference is that the Republican party as it is now, dominated by voices from the extreme christian conservative wing, is openly looking to legislate their version of christianity. Democrats, even very religious ones, tend to step back from that point of view--they're less likely to support the legislation of theocratic principles. As a result, the Republican christians are more willing to claim the mantle of being the christian party, while Democrats, who are always a shaky coalition even in the best of times, which includes atheists, agnostics, and heathens of all shapes and sizes, are more ready to be an inclusive groups. I mean, if the Democrats were all atheists, we wouldn't break 10% in the elections, and we do considerably better than that.

I didnt read the discussion on this thread just the OP

First of all I was wondering if we hear the Democrats (Hillary in particular) going about separation of church and state much... I think you are confusing Democrat with the US liberals. As is often pointed out - The Dems aren't on the left of the US political specturm btw.

Also, noone likes Hillary and noone cares what she says.

Thirdly, It looks like she is using scripture to show the hypocrisy of the Republicans who claim to follow the scriptures yet do some rather unchristian things.

Last, I don't believe anyone complains that the Republicans are religious or that they talk about religion as you seem to be suggesting (religious Democrats are the norm if you haven't noticed - as we saw Kerry often showign how religious he was during the presidential race)... I think you'll find the actual opposition comes when the religious leaders try to make the entire cournty live by the bible by enacting laws based on their interpretation of the bible. SO, if you really think that Democrats are widely known for critisizing Republicans for talking about their religious beliefs, I would like to see proof of this because there would have to be a lot of it to give you such an impression no?

This is the classic case of liberals not doing what they preach. Republicans can't quote scripture but hillary can, please. This is why they dont and will never win elections.

This is the classic case of liberals not doing what they preach. Republicans can't quote scripture but hillary can, please. This is why they dont and will never win elections.


Please provide sources where Democrats whine about republicans quoting scripture. If it's so common it shoud be no trouble for you. I'll await your admission that you are full of shit.:)

Please provide sources where Democrats whine about republicans quoting scripture. If it's so common it shoud be no trouble for you. I'll await your admission that you are full of shit.:)
You know what I mean, they complain about who Republicans are too religious or put too much god in government, I cant quote anything persay, but it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. btw, I like how you put the smily right after you basically said I was full of shit:)

Wasn't she referring to depriving immigrants of aid though, and contrasting it with Samaritanism? Not immigration itself.
The way I see it, there is no reason to provide illegal immigrants with aid so long as we have laws standing that do classify them as illegal (this is a whole other issue that I will not debate on this thread). It remains true that religion still isn't tied into the issue. If she wanted to take issue with samaritanism, she could have chosen healthcare, education, welfare, social security...any of those. Those, I would argue, have a much stronger base as they deal directly with the people of this country.

This is the classic case of liberals not doing what they preach. Republicans can't quote scripture but hillary can, please. This is why they dont and will never win elections.
Hillary is NOT a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

The way I see it, there is no reason to provide illegal immigrants with aid so long as we have laws standing that do classify them as illegal (this is a whole other issue that I will not debate on this thread). It remains true that religion still isn't tied into the issue. If she wanted to take issue with samaritanism, she could have chosen healthcare, education, welfare, social security...any of those. Those, I would argue, have a much stronger base as they deal directly with the people of this country.
True, I was just noting out what I thought her reason to be. You could be right though.

True, I was just noting out what I thought her reason to be. You could be right though.
haha...i'm sure she could justify it. I would just continue to think she's an idiot and hope that she isn't the dem candidate.

You know what I mean, they complain about who Republicans are too religious or put too much god in government, I cant quote anything persay, but it doesnt mean it doesnt happen. btw, I like how you put the smily right after you basically said I was full of shit:)


No I don't know what you mean because it doesnt happen.

First you equate Dems to liberals - *loud annoying buzzer of wrongness* - as you say that it is a classic case (as if it happens all the time) yet you cannot think of a single example of the Dems critisizing the Republicans for quoting scripture.