Senator Clinton Defends Faith Based Solutions

[the iron horse]

Boston Globe:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma..._urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF

 

[nbcrusader]

Very positive comments

Hillary knows how to get red state votes

 

[strannix]

Hillary knows how to get red state votes

With respect, I don't know how unusual these comments are for Democrats, outside of a very vocal minority of church-state separatists. A lot of Democrats go to church, too.

If I could correct just one slander about Democrats, it would be that we see the government as the solution to all of society's ills. It's just not true. This is a natural issue for Democrats - using government money to augment the efforts of those trying to alleviate social injustice. It's perfectly consistent with the view of the government not as simply an ally in fighting injustice, not an enemy to be dreaded and feared.

By that same token, if I could correct just one hypocrisy on the right, it's that they are constantly preaching the evils of government spending. But once discussion turns towards giving that money to churches, they can't get in line fast enough.

 

[deep]

Very positive comments

Hillary knows how to get red state votes

and stop inroads to dem base

inner city churches and synagogues

gotta love a politician

 

[coemgen]

Of course she is supporting them, the Dems have to embrace faith matters to get into the White House again. I think she'll run.

 

[verte76]

Hillary isn't stupid. But as a liberal myself, she isn't my first pick as our next nominee. As you guys probably know, I'm a practicing Catholic, and I certainly do not oppose the churches getting involved in social services. In fact, I am active with my church's Altar Sodality, we cook for elderly parishioners, also for families who've just had babies because while that's a joyous occasion it's also really difficult. I've had negative experiences with some church people, there are a few bad apples, like the idiot politician here in Alabama who wants to ban books about gay *anything*. As a library worker I don't like this. I guess the question is, where do you draw the line? I'm not sure.

 

[nbcrusader]

With respect, I don't know how unusual these comments are for Democrats, outside of a very vocal minority of church-state separatists. A lot of Democrats go to church, too.

My comment was not to suggest that Democrats are godless heathens.

As with many issues, a party's plank tends to diverge from the other party's position. If the GOP supports faith based charity, Pelosi & company go the other way.

It happens in a politics first society such as ours. (and yes, both side do the same thing)

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I hope this means that Hillary will move the dems in the right direction or help them get the right perception, depending on how you look at it. I think their party is in need of a less secular appeal. Support for faith-based programs is a good place to start.

 

[verte76]

I hope this means that Hillary will move the dems in the right direction or help them get the right perception, depending on how you look at it. I think their party is in need of a less secular appeal. Support for faith-based programs is a good place to start.

Gosh, I've never liked the idea of Hillary as our candidate, but she's onto something here. I do recall that back in 1992 her husband got alot of NASCAR mom and dad type votes around here. I remember those letters they wrote that were printed in the newspapers. Yeah, if the Democrats can't get those voters back, they've got a problem. I don't know what to think of the people here. Two members threatened to sue each other in a dispute over supporting Kucinich. That was a wild one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that it would be a pity if both major parties moved into areas of faith.

 

[Do Miss America]

I hope this means that Hillary will move the dems in the right direction or help them get the right perception, depending on how you look at it. I think their party is in need of a less secular appeal. Support for faith-based programs is a good place to start.

You mean closer to a theocracy?

Our government by design is secular. There is a way to hold on to your moral and spriritual foundation with out bringing religion into your government.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

You mean closer to a theocracy?

Our government by design is secular. There is a way to hold on to your moral and spriritual foundation with out bringing religion into your government.

Why do you seem so opposed to faith-based programs that could make a difference in somebody overcoming an addiction? Aren't democrats supposed to support humanity by all means?

 

[verte76]

I think that it would be a pity if both major parties moved into areas of faith.

It has its risks, to be sure. I think some people exaggerate about the beliefs of our Founding Fathers, there's a famous picture of Benjamin Franklin getting his grandkid blessed by Voltaire. Someone around here was a big fan of Voltaire's, was it you? Don't mean to highjack the thread, just curious, I like the guy too. Damn this virus, I'm getting myself in trouble for sure.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I wouldn't say a big fan, I think the issue that I have is that if both major parties are moving in that direction they may drive eachother even furthur.

 

[verte76]

They might compete for that dubious distinction. This stuff is complicated and there aren't any simple answers.

 

[Do Miss America]

Why do you seem so opposed to faith-based programs that could make a difference in somebody overcoming an addiction? Aren't democrats supposed to support humanity by all means?

I'm not exactly against faith-based programs, I think they have one major flaw and that's that they aren't regulated like other programs.

That being said my comment was not about Hillary supporting faith based programs it was in response to your comment about moving the party away from the secular. I think the GOP has tried to move more to a religious party and they just come off looking like hypocrites, I would hate to see other parties do so.

 

[namkcuR]

No doubt she's doing it for votes.

I would much rather have Obama run.

However, sad to say, I don't see how a country that elected this moron not once but twice, can vote a woman or a black man into office only four years later. And if these suspicions of mine are true, that should be excruciatingly embarassing for the country.

And I am a hardcore supporter of separation of church and state. Believe what you want, but DO NOT EVER EVER EVER try to impose your beliefs on me using the legal system as a catalyst.

 

[nbcrusader]

That being said my comment was not about Hillary supporting faith based programs it was in response to your comment about moving the party away from the secular. I think the GOP has tried to move more to a religious party and they just come off looking like hypocrites, I would hate to see other parties do so.

There is a difference between (1) becoming a "religious party" and (2) broadening your appeal to people of faith.

This has nothing to do with theocracy.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree with NBC.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

No doubt she's doing it for votes.

I would much rather have Obama run.

However, sad to say, I don't see how a country that elected this moron not once but twice, can vote a woman or a black man into office only four years later. And if these suspicions of mine are true, that should be excruciatingly embarassing for the country.

And I am a hardcore supporter of separation of church and state. Believe what you want, but DO NOT EVER EVER EVER try to impose your beliefs on me using the legal system as a catalyst.

Seems like the major requirement to be a moron is that you're a white male. Thanks.

 

[namkcuR]

Seems like the major requirement to be a moron is that you're a white male. Thanks.

That's not what I'm saying and you know it. I AM a white male.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I wish I was a moron; morons are able to fly jet fighters doing vector calculations in my head and run companies and large states and then rise to the occasion and get elected twice to the highest office in the land. Considering that these are the prerequisites of being a moron we by comparison have no sentience whatsoever.

 

[namkcuR]

I wish I was a moron; morons are able to fly jet fighters doing vector calculations in my head and run companies and large states and then rise to the occasion and get elected twice to the highest office in the land. Considering that these are the prerequisites of being a moron we by comparison have no sentience whatsoever.

Blah blah blah. Ignorance breeds ignorance.

Hey A_Wanderer, I have a question, if I may be civil for a moment. Are you American? I'm honestly asking out of curiosity, because you seem to love America and be very interested in its politics, but your location says Melbourne.

 

[Do Miss America]

There is a difference between (1) becoming a "religious party" and (2) broadening your appeal to people of faith.

This has nothing to do with theocracy.

I agree there's a big difference. I agree with broadening your appeal. But I'm tired of the GOP claiming the religous and saying Dems are the secular.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No I am not American, nor do I have any particular love of America, I have never been there. I do keep my eye on what goes on because when dealing with FYM it is good to be able to converse on a wide range of topics, I watch the PBS newshour in the afternoon where it is shown on one of our broadcasters, there is plenty of good stuff on international affairs in there. What I am is a big fan of is free nations, peace and rationality and this happens to be the antithesis of what some in this world represent. My countries interests often intersect with your countries interests and as such when I defend things like the removal of Saddam or the GWOT I am defending actions which effect my country as well.

I am of course a right wing death beast (I thought that the liberal label worked but the term has different meanings in different countries; and I don't mean the conservative Liberal party we have here, I mean liberal as being one that subscribes to the principles of indivual liberty and believes that that is the ideal condition for mankind) and that entails having some semblance of pride in those ethnocentric concepts such as democracy and universal sufferage over the nihilistic worldview of radical Islam ~ a threat to these concepts and the nations that extoll them.

I do wonder though would you have as much curiosity if I as a foreigner hated America and President Bush? I suspect not.

Also here are some Aussie blogs that are quite knowledgeable on issues of the US and Australian domestic interests, just for some reference material you see; there are quite a few like myself out there in that big wide world of ours that are pro-US, conservatives, libertarians, liberals even the occasional leftie. Check them out

http://timblair.net/

http://chrenkoff.blogspot.com/

http://aebrain.blogspot.com/

http://www.whackingday.com/

http://silentrunning.tv/ (more of a group blog from the anglosphere)

 

[joyfulgirl]

Hey A_Wanderer, I have a question, if I may be civil for a moment. Are you American? I'm honestly asking out of curiosity, because you seem to love America and be very interested in its politics, but your location says Melbourne.

I think you'll find that most of the non-Americans who post in FYM are extremely knowledgable about American policies, much more so than most of us Americans are about their countries'

 

[Macfistowannabe]

We should be glad to have A_Wanderer on here, it has me distanced from thinking that foreigners hate everything about Bush.

 

[namkcuR]

and I don't mean the conservative Liberal party we have here, I mean liberal as being one that subscribes to the principles of indivual liberty and believes that that is the ideal condition for mankind)

So, you're saying you are against liberal when it means having that belief in individual liberty?

I do wonder though would you have as much curiosity if I as a foreigner hated America and President Bush? I suspect not.

Why is that? Because you think I'm an American who is looking for an excuse to give the cliched, 'You're not American, don't tell us how to run our country' speech? Do I need to remind you that I am only half-American(half-Turkish)? Having the perspective of seeing the way America has treated Turkey in the early stages of the war, I couldn't with a straight face give you that speech.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

A_Wanderer seems to be more of a libertarian than a conservative If I'm correct.

 

[A_Wanderer]

No it means that in Australia we have a Liberal party and it represents a centrist economic agenda with some conservative social elements. So if I come to the table and say that I am a liberal then people from Australia will assume that I am a conservative, people from the US will think that I am a leftist and people from the UK will think that I am a social democrat - it is not a useful label to use in international conversation.

I am pro-liberty, but think more along the lines of John Stuart Mill even getting into an Objectivist mindset. I do not adhere to any religious belief and I am contemptuous to the extreme at beliefs that seek to rob others of free thought or injur them for lack of belief. I see in radical Islam the very worst elements of religion; violence, bigotry and opression and for that I think that it cannot be allowed to gain strength - people should have the freedom to worship the way that they want but when that worship threatens the rights and lives of other individuals then it disqualifies that worship as legitimate expression. Liberty for all except those that desire to extinguish liberty in some ways. Again this is not for political application just running through an argument logically.

I mean to say in an approximation that I think that liberty; human rights, free speech, right to elect leaders, right of free thought etc. are important and I think that both the left and the right do not represent that; they each subvert it in their own ways. Now that the cold war is over I think that the US could be a force of good in the world without having to worry about the threat of communism at every turn. Economic development and political reforms are the only guarantors of peace in this world, one benefit of the 20th Century is that it demonstrates how easily blood can be shed when power is consolidated by those who are never held to account. Now of course the danger is that the US itself has consolidated power in those who are not held to account but I would disagree, in a free democratic society the people can hold their leaders to account at the ballot box, there are oversight comittee's for the executive and the independent judicial system provides an avenue for citizens to challenge the government; I think that that is the reason that the US has never become a totallitarian system (of course Hoovers FBI was unchecked power but reforms after the fact have in essence neutered it).

The only reason that I ventured that question was that there are many out there who will grill a pro-US foreigner like they are an aberation because they are so entrenched in their ideology that they believe that the rest of the world doesn't like Bush.