www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Sen. Clinton/Other candidates talk about their faith

I vividly remember reading the newspaper of Hillary's comment when she was with Bill Clinton during the first Presidential campaign trail...about how Abortion is a "gift" from G-d. She made that comment to a reporter or someone inside of her Church.

I was shocked. So I haven't forgotten that. Huh. So of course I would doubt the authenticity of her genuine faith.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

If we want our kids to be learning that 2 man having sexual relations is ok, while flushing babies down the toilet, than we should elect Hillary or any of the other left wing loons the Democratic party has to offer.

John Edwards : "Terrorism is a bumper sticker"

Subdeacon,

You say Mitt Romney's shortcomings should be overlooked because he was born into Mormonism, are you sure that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards weren't raised with a left-leaning upbringing?

If not, how can you doubt the sincerity of their statements?

While I do not agree 100% with any of the Democratic candidates statements, neither do I believe the Republicans are any more sincere - you're "brilliant man" is flipping around the immigration issue, has flopped (twice) on abortion and the NRA, flipped on the Iraq War, and more. Realistically, he's no more honest or sincere than anyone else.

When faith leads you to "do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," as Senator Hillary Clinton said, a large question looms over what she said.

Is what she thinks right different than what God thinks is right, if such a term as 'think' is proper to Him? And is such a distinction important to her.

It is clear that Sen. Clinton believes that morality is self-defined. That is not a safe bet for her to make, as it generally leads more often to unwise actions. She also did not speak much of God, only once in reference to creation and environmentalism. Besides that, the name of Jesus was only mentioned once by Senator Edwards.

So when they speak of faith, it would take much more than this for me to be convinced that they are spiritually well formed in Truth and Wisdom.

Terry,

The question brought up wasn't one of the authenticity of Faith, but the sincerity of belief. If we are discussing the authenticity of the candidates faith, then Mitt Romney has no legs on which stand, let along Rudy or even McCain...

"You say Mitt Romney's shortcomings should be overlooked because he was born into Mormonism, are you sure that Clinton, Obama, or Edwards weren't raised with a left-leaning upbringing?"

Subdeacon Borislav did not say that Romney's religiosity should be overlooked, if that is what you mean with shortcoming. He was focusing on the issues Romney supports and the claims he makes in proposing a run for President.

Maybe his point was that Romney being Mormon isn't the issue, but how he judges issues and how he may enact policy. He seems right on policy, there's still hope that he will have a conversion of heart in faith matters.

Such a conversion of heart would be a miracle brought to him by the grace of God. We cannot be of the position to force or demand such changes in people; we are limited in our influence even in our teaching by word and example.

These are Democrat politicians speaking of their faith and you speak of sincerity? The forum's occasion is a reaction to 2004 and the belief that a factor in Kerry losing the election was that religious voters were put off.

Of that group John Edwards seemed the most sincere, Hillary Clinton seemed to be choking every time she said the word faith, as if it came unnaturally to her lips.

Well you can have them!

As far as Romney, he certainly does share the same beliefs as the current president. Romney believes one day he can be a God, and the current president already believes and acts like he is God.

Now for Guliani, he may be bright, but he certainly needs a review of the 10 commandments, especially the one regarding Thou shalt not commit adultery. After all what is good for the Democrats is also good forthe Republicans.

The Bushes have been exemplary family men and husbands, and I respect them greatly for this. Father and son both have wonderful wives....but since so few like our President anyway, despite this, I would deduce that family values are not something which really matter to us in a President as much as we would like to think they do.

We should not be fooled though. Presidents do set an example, and there might be a much more negative impact on the concept of marriage if President Bush was not president.

When President Clinton had his 'in the workplace' sexual escapade, it cascaded to society, making that type of sin acceptable, from adults down to middle aged children doing it behind their school bleachers. (Yes, this is a sad fact).

Alice

and you call the Democrats loons??? This is the loony right

In the newly released biography on Hilary Clinton, the following is included [seattletimes.nwsource.com].

There are worse things than infidelity. (Like being a single mom.)

They had a 20 yr plan to get them both in the White House.

He wanted a divorce. She wanted the financial security.

She feared she would be indicted over Whitewater.


Separately, she's also on the record as saying the Democratic party needs to soften their rhetoric, not their stance, on abortion to woo back the Catholic vote. We can see her doing just that.

Dear Alice:

I'll agree with you that both President Bushes have fine wives and good marriages. However, there is much more to a man's personal morality than the state of his marriage. The fact that so many people dislike President Bush is not a reason to conclude that family values don't matter to them. There are plenty of reasons why someone might dislike our current President. Now I know that you don't agree with me about these things, but many of us who dislike the current President Bush and see him as a moral failure do so because we sincerely believe the following: he has taken the sins of arrogance and stubbornness to heights achieved by few in the history of the world, he lied about reasons for going to war, he campaigned as someone who would be "a uniter, not a divider" and has been about as divisive as you can get, his administration is characterized by croneyism and a corruption that rivals that of the Nixon administration, he barely won either of his elections, but has acted as if he won by huge landslides (goes back to his colossal arrogance), etc., etc. I'm not impressed with the morality of President George W. Bush. As I said, I agree that he has a fine wife and a good marriage. That alone does not a moral exemplar make.

Ryan

Dear Ryan,

With all due respect, I was not making political statements or giving political opinions, but I was simply adding some thoughts in response to secret squirrel's statement about Rudolph Giuliani and adultery.

I did NOT want to get into the type of discussion which you have instigated, and I was very careful not to. I was simply adding some thoughts about sexual morality and leaders and the impact, or lack of it, that their private lives may have on society...nothing else.

I dislike these threads intensely. I will not offer any further thoughts on anything, lest they be misconstrued again.

Alice, Moderator

The president DID NOT lie to take us to war.

This is a common liberal talking point that I just can't stand.

Sadam USED WEAPONS OF MASS DIST RUCTION, thereby he HAD THEM.

Sadam violated 12 UN resolutions.

Sadam tortured and murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

Sadam sponsored terrorism, called for the destruction of Israel and was threat in the middle east and ultimately to us.

You can criticize how this war has been carried out, but not the original reasons for going to war.

I guarantee you that had we taken out Hitler, there would be liberals saying within a week that we should have not done this, because Adolf was not so bad.

Care to clarify? Which one of my points do you disagree with and why?