Hillary Clinton is the Most Religious Candidate Left in the Race

[Fish and Bread]

I've been trying not to get too political since we've revived the Liberal Catholic forum here (By my standards, anyway ).

However, I just have to say something here, because there is a story about religion in politics that's getting a lot of attention lately, and, as usual, Donald Trump is getting the facts wrong.

The Donald says we don't know much about Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs and whether or not she's Christian.

The fact is, she has been extremely public about being a Methodist Christian her entire life. It's not something new. This has been something she's spoken about publicly for many decades. She was born and raised Methodist, and has stuck with it the whole way through.

Trump is either horribly misinformed, or he's lying.

Here is a profile of Hillary Clinton's religious faith that I came across a couple months ago:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/06/3775910/hillary-clinton-faith-profile/

It doesn't cover the current "controversy" because it was written before Trump went off the rails *again*.

I forwarded this to family and friends when it was written. I guess we're all more informed than Trump. Now you are all more informed than Trump, too.

Actually, the candidate who has some question marks when it comes to religion is Donald Trump, as you can see in the article- not that I think we ought to have a religious test to become President. I do think he might need to be reminded of the old saying about people in glass houses, however.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Good post, Fish and Bread. Of course, Donald Trump is lying. You can always tell he is because his mouth is moving. Maybe he can read from Two Corinthians to all the Christians who are supporting him, that is if he can find the actual book in the Bible. Did he not say that he has never asked God for forgiveness and why should he?

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I have to say that I get a kick out his supporters who rant and rave over Hillary Clinton lying and cheating or calling her a hypocrite. Well, what do they think Trump is, a saint? SMH. Both of them cheat and lie and both are hypocrites. The fact is, the left wing and the right wing candidates in this election are feathers from the same bird.

 

[Cappadocious]

If it's Hill, it's Jill.

 

[Martinius]

Trump worships the god of wealth and power. None of the commandments mean anything to him, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is anathema to him. He will say what he must to attract the fundamentalist vote, but he seems very ignorant about God and the Bible. It amazes me that so many evangelicals and even a fair number of Catholics fall for his insincere posturing.

I am not a great fan of Hillary, but I would love to watch a debate between the two of them on Christianity and the Bible. Trump would be exposed for what he is, a charlatan.

 

[s_gunter]

Trump worships the god of wealth and power. None of the commandments mean anything to him, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is anathema to him. He will say what he must to attract the fundamentalist vote, but he seems very ignorant about God and the Bible. It amazes me that so many evangelicals and even a fair number of Catholics fall for his insincere posturing.

I am not a great fan of Hillary, but I would love to watch a debate between the two of them on Christianity and the Bible. Trump would be exposed for what he is, a charlatan.

That would be an interesting debate, for sure. I wonder though if it would have any effect, or if the die-hard Trump supporters would make excuses for him like they are currently doing.

I have to say that I get a kick out his supporters who rant and rave over Hillary Clinton lying and cheating or calling her a hypocrite. Well, what do they think Trump is, a saint? SMH. Both of them cheat and lie and both are hypocrites. The fact is, the left wing and the right wing candidates in this election are feathers from the same bird.

You use "feathers from the same bird." I've said they are mirror images of each other.

 

[LoAmmi]

Trump worships the god of wealth and power. None of the commandments mean anything to him, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is anathema to him. He will say what he must to attract the fundamentalist vote, but he seems very ignorant about God and the Bible. It amazes me that so many evangelicals and even a fair number of Catholics fall for his insincere posturing..

Remember he said that he didn't feel the need to ask G-d for forgiveness. I think that's the cornerstone of Christianity, right? You are absolutely perfect and don't need any help at all.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Here is another article on this subject:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_576ad918e4b065534f4891bc

 

[FireDragon76]

Not ne

Remember he said that he didn't feel the need to ask G-d for forgiveness. I think that's the cornerstone of Christianity, right? You are absolutely perfect and don't need any help at all.

I just see his lack of need of forgiveness as a sign of his narcissism. Narcissists have extreme difficulty thinking of character flaws without trying to put a positive spin on them. That's perfect in the business world, but it's still rotten in everyday life.

I don't care for politicians wearing their faith on their sleeve but I don't really see any redeeming character traits in Donald Trump.

 

[Martinius]

Here is another article on this subject:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_576ad918e4b065534f4891bc

Trump is recorded claiming that there is little information available on Hillary's religious life, but that is not true. This does not reflect on him or his campaign staff. At this point, his people should have a whole dossier on Clinton, and they should be briefing him so he doesn't sound so stupid. Another possibility is that the Donald is so all about himself and in his own little world that he doesn't want to know anything about his opponent, and doesn't seem to think it matters that he is ignorant.

 

[skalle]

I think it would be a universal on this subforum that Trump is an anti-Christian liar. But let's not pretend that Hillary is much better... what did Hillary do for the working poor under her leadership during her tenure on the board of Walmart directors? Did she do anything positive for Walmart workers, or did she do what she was actually brought on to do, which was to make profits? Exactly. She is no different than Trump. Not in my book. She's just so good at lying that she can hide it. Trump doesn't bother trying.

 

[Fish and Bread]

I think it would be a universal on this subforum that Trump is an anti-Christian liar. But let's not pretend that Hillary is much better... what did Hillary do for the working poor under her leadership during her tenure on the board of Walmart directors? Did she do anything positive for Walmart workers, or did she do what she was actually brought on to do, which was to make profits? Exactly. She is no different than Trump. Not in my book.

I don't see anyone here nominating Clinton for Sainthood. What I do see is some folks who think that she is a reasonably capable and experienced moderate leader; in election where the other person running is proposing ideas that are reminiscent of fascism, and where he doesn't seem to have the basic knowledge, skills, or experience to do the job he's trying to get elected to do.

It can be kind of awkward for me to state Hillary's case, because I'm a progressive and I honestly don't feel she is a progressive. She seems like what we used to call a moderate Republican, before the Republican Party purged their moderate wing. But what I do feel is that she is one of the best qualified people on the planet to be President, and she's not going to try to deport a whole group of people purely because of their religion.

And I mention it being awkward in the context of replying to this post because, truth be told- I don't think Clinton should have taken a position on Wal-Mart's board, and I think that when she did take it, she should have used the position to fight for their workers. However, a lot of politicians who aren't in office at one point or another take spots on corporate boards. The deal is that they make the company look good and add some prestige by just being a name on their leader-head, and they aren't really supposed to show up and do anything. It's extremely common. Does that make it right? No, not really, but it's typical. And, you know, if someone offered me a few hundred thousand dollars a year or whatever it was to list me as a board member, and it was totally legal, and the company was operating legally as well, I'd take it. Just being honest- most people would. I'm only human. She's only human.

We Democrats all had a chance to nominate Bernie Sanders. I voted for him. I tried. Those of you who were Republicans all had a chance to nominate someone other than Donald Trump. Maybe some of you voted for those people. You tried.

But now we're done to two, and one is clearly better than the other, if only because the other is so flawed that we can't risk him being allowed to touch the nuclear football and are worried what he will do to minorities and political dissidents and whomever he is scapegoating by the time he gets into office. The man has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law, but wants to rule with an iron-fist. Trump is a nationalistic strong-man leader. The Republicans used to, I thought at the time, *joke* that they wanted their own Putin, and now they've got one. The only difference is that Putin was in the KGB and knew something about the world before he took office, whereas Trump was in a reality show and knows something about picking beauty pageant winners and ripping off contractors.

She's just so good at lying that she can hide it. Trump doesn't bother trying.

So, what some want in a President is a guy who lies a lot, but either can't hide or doesn't bother to try to hide that he's lying? How's that going to work out when he's sitting at a table across from Putin and other international leaders? Probably not well for United States.

Look, I get that politicians lie. I'm not denying that Hillary lies sometimes. But a normal political lie is in no way comparable to what Trump does, which is lie in such a way as to dehumanize and deamericanize any individual who rubs him the wrong way, and entire whole groups of people, because of their race or religion, or just because he can. Trump is a bully and what he is doing is way beyond what's normal for a politician. I was a history major, I know- this is not a path we want to go down as a country. The people who vote for him, if he wins, will within a decade be either having to lie and say that they didn't, or be saying that they consider it one of the biggest mistakes and biggest regrets of their entire lives.

We can't let this happen here.

 

[scraparcs]

Trump is religious. His religion is Trumpism.

 

[The Hammer of Witches]

I've been trying not to get too political since we've revived the Liberal Catholic forum here (By my standards, anyway ).

However, I just have to say something here, because there is a story about religion in politics that's getting a lot of attention lately, and, as usual, Donald Trump is getting the facts wrong.

The Donald says we don't know much about Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs and whether or not she's Christian.

The fact is, she has been extremely public about being a Methodist Christian her entire life. It's not something new. This has been something she's spoken about publicly for many decades. She was born and raised Methodist, and has stuck with it the whole way through.

Trump is either horribly misinformed, or he's lying.

Here is a profile of Hillary Clinton's religious faith that I came across a couple months ago:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2016/05/06/3775910/hillary-clinton-faith-profile/

It doesn't cover the current "controversy" because it was written before Trump went off the rails *again*.

I forwarded this to family and friends when it was written. I guess we're all more informed than Trump. Now you are all more informed than Trump, too.

Actually, the candidate who has some question marks when it comes to religion is Donald Trump, as you can see in the article- not that I think we ought to have a religious test to become President. I do think he might need to be reminded of the old saying about people in glass houses, however.

Do you honestly think either of them are religious? She is no better than him.

 

[skalle]

I support neither candidate. I advocate for Jill Stein. I simply refuse to give any credence to the two parties that have done so much to destroy this country. Like you, I am a progressive, but let's put things in perspective: voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Bernie Sanders is a great candidate, but I believe he was gravely mistaken to throw in his lot with the Democrats. The party is so broken, so corrupt, and so right-leaning that he never, for one second, stood a chance. Some people are arguing that he moved the party in a more progressive direction. I don't buy that for a second, because as soon as Hillary has the nomination and starts debating Trump, she is going to swing right back to the right. She will say anything she has to in order to secure the office of the Presidency, just like Trump. As such, there is no telling what she'll do, and again, I have as much faith in her as I have in Trump.

People don't have to agree with me that Jill Stein and the Green Party are the best answer, but I do wish that people would free themselves of this two-party aberration and vote their consciences. Maybe then this country would stand a chance at becoming what it should be.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

I agree, and as a Trump supporter, I do find his alleged faith phony. But when Clinton is the most religious, that is pathetic.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Do you honestly think either of them are religious? She is no better than him.

She seems to have made a point of attending and being involved in extracuriculars at Methodist congregations her entire life, more or less, and is roughly in line with what her fairly mainline Protestant denomination teaches. She speaks like a religious person when talking about religious topics. Given all that, I'm not going to question her faith. I don't think she's *super* religious, and only God knows what is truly in her heart, but she's running for President, not Pope, in a country with a wall of separation between church and state, so I can live with some ambiguity in that area. I feel her behavior and policies are far more Christian than Trump's, in the most aspirational sense of the term.

I support neither candidate. I advocate for Jill Stein. I simply refuse to give any credence to the two parties that have done so much to destroy this country. Like you, I am a progressive, but let's put things in perspective: voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Bernie Sanders is a great candidate, but I believe he was gravely mistaken to throw in his lot with the Democrats. The party is so broken, so corrupt, and so right-leaning that he never, for one second, stood a chance. Some people are arguing that he moved the party in a more progressive direction. I don't buy that for a second, because as soon as Hillary has the nomination and starts debating Trump, she is going to swing right back to the right. She will say anything she has to in order to secure the office of the Presidency, just like Trump. As such, there is no telling what she'll do, and again, I have as much faith in her as I have in Trump.

People don't have to agree with me that Jill Stein and the Green Party are the best answer, but I do wish that people would free themselves of this two-party aberration and vote their consciences. Maybe then this country would stand a chance at becoming what it should be.

Most political scientiets feel that our constitutional setup inevitably leans towards a two-party setup, and that we'd have to switch to a parliamentary democracy to sustain more than two major parties. When third parties have emerged as significant factors in American politics, their agenda has either been co-opted by an existing party, leading to the new party's disappearance from the national scene, or the third party replaces the old second party and the old second party disappears, thus restoring a two-party system.

As we don't have instant run-off style voting (Which I would favor) or a parliamentary democracy in the US, we are left with major parties that wind up being defacto coalitions in some cases. Really, there's a progressive wing and a centrist wing of the Democratic Party that are fairly distinct in some ways, but both know that their only chance of winning the White House is to band together, select a common candidate, and try to band together behind him or her. Otherwise, you have two 25% parties that are umable to form a coalition the way you can in a parlaimentary democracy (In theory, they could band together to elect a House Speaker, but not a President). So, we sort it out in the primaries and then unite in the general. My progressive side and its candidate lost, so the moderate is our person if we want to stop Trump.

The "not a dime's worth of difference" argument can seem compelling, but the truth was, a lot of progressives bought that in 2000, voted for Nader the Green Party candidate, and it gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore, which turned out to represent a major difference.

I know Bernie Sanders gave a lot of serious thought, as the nation's longest serving independent congressperson, of running for President as an independent or third-party candidate. He chose to run as a Democrat instead, and was able to make a much bigger impact, because he showed that the DLC third way (For those in the UK who associate third way with Tony Blair- I am using the term exactly the same way ) stuff was over and that the party base had grown more progressive, and that I think has boosted some of his ideas like a higher minimum wage, increasing Social Security payouts, etc.. A lot of congressional Democrats have had their heads whip around from arguing over how much to cut Social Security with Republicans who wanted to cut it more than they did, to now almost every Democrat advocating an increase in Social Security benefits so fast that they may very have whiplash. We are making a difference and changing the terms of debate in Washington- its incremental, but its real. And if we elect the right people to Congress, we can make sure Clinton only gets good bills to sign.

I am ideologically sympathetic with Stein to some degree, but I actually think she may be more progressive than I am, and I am not sure about her experience level to be President. Isn't she just a former college professor? Wouldn't trying for a Congressional run first ), and working in government for a while, help boost her case? I'm also just going to be honest and say I am not going to seriously consider a Green unless she shows me she has a serious chance of winning first. That isn't going to happen this election cycle at the Presidential level. I will say, however, that Stein woukd probably off the top of my head be the third party candidate this time aroublnd that I'd be most likely to vote for if I was going to vote third party- though I'm not going to vote third party.

If Hillary Clinton picked Elizabeth Warren as her runningmate, would that prompt you to consider voting for Clinton over Stein? I know I'm voting for Clinton regardless, but being able to mark my ballot for Clinton-Warren would make me feel much better about it than something like Clinton-McAuliffe (With all due respect to Terry, who has been fighting hard to get the people of Virginia their Medicaid expansion against an intransigent Republican legislature).

 

[skalle]

Most political scientiets feel that our constitutional setup inevitably leans towards a two-party setup, and that we'd have to switch to a parliamentary democracy to sustain more than two major parties. When third parties have emerged as significant factors in American politics, their agenda has either been co-opted by an existing party, leading to the new party's disappearance from the national scene, or the third party replaces the old second party and the old second party disappears, thus restoring a two-party system.

Unfortunately, this is very true. Interestingly enough, the founding fathers railed against "factions" (read: political parties), but that is exactly what we ended up with.

As we don't have instant run-off style voting (Which I would favor) or a parliamentary democracy in the US, we are left with major parties that wind up being defacto coalitions in some cases.

Wholly regrettable, as far as I'm concerned.

Really, there's a progressive wing and a centrist wing of the Democratic Party that are fairly distinct in some ways, but both know that their only chance of winning the White House is to band together, select a common candidate, and try to band together behind him or her. Otherwise, you have two 25% parties that are umable to form a coalition the way you can in a parlaimentary democracy (In theory, they could band together to elect a House Speaker, but not a President). So, we sort it out in the primaries and then unite in the general. My progressive side and its candidate lost, so the moderate is our person if we want to stop Trump.

See, this is what disgusts me about the political scene. This election cycle should be about more than merely stopping Trump. The Democratic Party had a chance to put forth a candidate that truly cared about the good of the American people, and it utterly failed. Bear in mind that many, many people are voting for Trump simply because they can't stand Hillary -- and that includes former Bernie supporters, strangely enough. If we could rally behind a third-party candidate who appeals to Bernie supporters and isn't afraid to call out both parties on their nonsense, I think we'd be in good shape. The problem is this mentality that a vote for one's conscience is a vote for the opposing candidate...

The "not a dime's worth of difference" argument can seem compelling, but the truth was, a lot of progressives bought that in 2000, voted for Nader the Green Party candidate, and it gave us George W. Bush instead of Al Gore, which turned out to represent a major difference.

The Green Party is also growing in popularity rapidly during this cycle. Change takes time. Indeed, with 9/11, there is no telling what Al Gore would have done, so it is impossible to know what those differences would have been.

I know Bernie Sanders gave a lot of serious thought, as the nation's longest serving independent congressperson, of running for President as an independent or third-party candidate. He chose to run as a Democrat instead, and was able to make a much bigger impact, because he showed that the DLC third way (For those in the UK who associate third way with Tony Blair- I am using the term exactly the same way ) stuff was over and that the party base had grown more progressive, and that I think has boosted some of his ideas like a higher minimum wage, increasing Social Security payouts, etc.. A lot of congressional Democrats have had their heads whip around from arguing over how much to cut Social Security with Republicans who wanted to cut it more than they did, to now almost every Democrat advocating an increase in Social Security benefits so fast that they may very have whiplash. We are making a difference and changing the terms of debate in Washington- its incremental, but its real.

...which is why I say that it is time for a third-party candidate to take over. American ideals are changing. Those of the two major parties, however, are not, and the the great majority of the public is fed up. Nobody is excited for Hillary, and I would be just fine if those who genuinely support Trump decided to expatriate if he doesn't win. And again, once Hillary clinches the nomination, I fear she is going to steer back toward the right, destroying what progress Bernie made with the party. I think when progressives see that happen, they are going to flock to Jill Stein. Even if she doesn't win this time around, it will be a slap in the face to the Democratic Party that so many abandoned it.

I am ideologically sympathetic with Stein to some degree, but I actually think she may be more progressive than I am, and I am not sure about her experience level to be President. Isn't she just a former college professor?

She's an MD. Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard pre-med, graduated from Harvard Medical School, and worked practiced internal medicine for 25 years. And yes, she taught at Harvard Medical School.

Wouldn't trying for a Congressional run first ), and working in government for a while, help boost her case? I'm also just going to be honest and say I am not going to seriously consider a Green unless she shows me she has a serious chance of winning first. That isn't going to happen this election cycle at the Presidential level. I will say, however, that Stein woukd probably off the top of my head be the third party candidate this time aroublnd that I'd be most likely to vote for if I was going to vote third party- though I'm not going to vote third party.

Well, she's run for public office many times, including a presidential bid in 2012, if you recall. The problem with what you're saying is that third-party candidates will never have a chance at winning until people let go of the two-party monopoly. People need to go out on a limb and support who they feel is right, not who they feel will win. Unfortunately, it's a difficult case to make to many people, but I do believe it's getting easier these days, especially with the shenanigans surrounding this election cycle.

If Hillary Clinton picked Elizabeth Warren as her runningmate, would that prompt you to consider voting for Clinton over Stein? I know I'm voting for Clinton regardless, but being able to mark my ballot for Clinton-Warren would make me feel much better about it than something like Clinton-McAuliffe (With all due respect to Terry, who has been fighting hard to get the people of Virginia their Medicaid expansion against an intransigent Republican legislature).

In a word: no. I can compromise, but not to the level necessary to cast a vote for Hillary. I would be betraying my core beliefs if I did such a thing.

 

[Fish and Bread]

Unfortunately, this is very true. Interestingly enough, the founding fathers railed against "factions" (read: political parties), but that is exactly what we ended up with.

I remember George Washington arguing against political parties in his farewell address, but that was probably because they were already forming. Thomas Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican (Later shortened to Democrat- his party is the current Democratic Party), and John Adams was a Federalist (A party which eventually died out).

See, this is what disgusts me about the political scene. This election cycle should be about more than merely stopping Trump. The Democratic Party had a chance to put forth a candidate that truly cared about the good of the American people, and it utterly failed.

Well, the Democratic party took a democratic vote. I voted for Sanders, but I got outvoted. So, now we're down to two choices with a realistic chance of winning the White House, and I'd rather vote for the experienced moderate than the unqualified fascist. Then we can hold another primary in 4-8 years and see if we can find a progressive candidate who can get the most votes and win the Democratic nomination then- and hopefully the moderate Democrats will back the winner if that happens the way many of us are backing the moderate Democratic winner this time.

Bear in mind that many, many people are voting for Trump simply because they can't stand Hillary -- and that includes former Bernie supporters, strangely enough.

My prediction is that the number of Sanders voters who actually go vote for Trump is going to be under 1%. Other than on trade, Trump is the antithesis of everything Sanders stands for. People are mad now after a rigorously contested primary process, but most people will get over it enough that they are able to do the right thing come November. Remember, in 2008 there was a huge faction of Hillary Clinton supporters called PUMAs who swore they'd never vote for Obama in a general election- and most of them ultimately did vote for Obama in the end.

Now, Sanders could help this along dramatically by vigorously endorsing Hillary Clinton, campaigning for her, and emailing his supporters asking them to support her. He did promise at the beginning of the primary process that he would endorse the nominee, and Hillary Clinton was always likely to be the nominee, especially if Sanders wasn't, so it's not as if he made the promise thinking she couldn't possibly get the nomination. He knew it was very possible, and he made the promise, and I think people are going to hold him to it. I will think a lot less of him if he doesn't keep his word on this matter (To be fair, he hasn't yet broken it- there is no official nominee until the convention votes on one in late July).

If we could rally behind a third-party candidate who appeals to Bernie supporters and isn't afraid to call out both parties on their nonsense, I think we'd be in good shape. The problem is this mentality that a vote for one's conscience is a vote for the opposing candidate...

Realistically, if Stein gets a large percentage of votes in swing states, that could mean Trump becomes President. I'm not saying a vote for a third-party candidate is literally a vote for the opposing candidate, it obviously isn't, but, functionally, it can sometimes change which of the two major party candidates win. If you think Clinton and Trump are identical, then maybe this doesn't matter to you. However, I don't think they are identical- I think Trump is dangerous.

Indeed, with 9/11, there is no telling what Al Gore would have done, so it is impossible to know what those differences would have been.

Well, we know that Al Gore opposed the Iraq War from before it started and that he's been an advocate of fighting global climate change since at least the 1980s. So, it's not a stretch to think that we would not have gone into Iraq, and that he'd have tried to address global climate change in some way had he become President. Bush obviously did go into Iraq, and supported things like off-shore drilling and weakened environmental regulations and enforcement that exacerbated global climate change, while pounding his first on the table, smiling, and walking off saying "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter".

I think there are other differences that are important as well, I'm just pointing to the two most obvious ones.

She's an MD. Graduated magna cum laude from Harvard pre-med, graduated from Harvard Medical School, and worked practiced internal medicine for 25 years. And yes, she taught at Harvard Medical School.

Well, when conservatives were pushing Ben Carson, who's primary qualification seemed to be that he was a world renown surgeon, for President, I often pointed out that being a doctor does not qualify you to be President. I'm going to have to say the same thing about Jill Stein. These two are, on paper, no more inherently qualified than any of my personal doctors or doctors in my extended family. They need governmental experience. Run for a state legislature, then move up to Congress or a Governorship, and *then* run for President.

Being a good doctor may qualify you to be the Surgeon General (A cabinet position that deals with medical issues).

In a word: no. I can compromise, but not to the level necessary to cast a vote for Hillary. I would be betraying my core beliefs if I did such a thing.

Well, I would never tell anyone to betray her conscience. How you vote is of course your own business and you of course have the right to vote for whomever you want. I'm just having this discussion in the spirit of helping to explain why I am planning on voting for Hillary Clinton and not Jill Stein in the fall.

 

[Colin]

When I vote in elections I am not concerned about a candidate's religion .

I want to know his/her basic political beliefs .