Today, there are two faith-related matters that religious conservatives find most troubling with Hillary: her church politicking is one, but first and foremost is her perceived stridency on the abortion issue.
The church politicking is a brazen, undeniable use of her faith for political benefit. Remarkably, she campaigned in 27 New York churches in the two months before the November 2000 vote, including six on Election Day morning alone.
But while values voters find her church politicking distasteful, they find her position on abortion ”” she may be the most uncompromising pro-choicer in the entire Congress ”” intolerable.
This is an enormous obstacle for her, and she knows it, as do leading religious voices in her own party.
“I think our party’s leaders ”” some of them ”” are overemphasizing the abortion issue,” said Jimmy Carter in November 2005. “I’ve never been convinced, if you let me inject my Christianity into it, that Jesus Christ would approve abortion.”
Not this religious voter’s vote.
Jim
How many churches did Pat Robertson appear in when he was running for President? I’ll bet it was more than 27 in two months. If so, this is a bogus issue. “Values voters” object to her values, not where she chooses to express them. By all accounts, the Senator is a very devout United Methodist whose social policies are driven in large part by her faith. Again, the conservative objection is to her flavor of theology, not to the fact she has one.
She has my vote.
# 2: ‘Again, the conservative objection is to her flavor of theology, not to the fact she has one.’
Did you mean ‘none’? Actually I think it has to do with her policies (think: ‘partial birth abortion’) – and personality.
I am not a one issue voter. But, abortion is not an “issue.” There is no issue. As there is no debate or question regarding abortion then this is not an issue. Murder is never open to question or debate.
My favorite quote so far is sufficent. “Here I stand. I can do no other”
Re #4: See the article elsewhere on this blog today on Walter Rauchenbush for a description of Liberal Protestantism, which is a theology whether you happen to agree with its premises or not. My point above was not just that “value voters” are only interested in a candidate with values that agree with theirs. That is perfectly appropriate.
My problem comes when “value voters” simply deny that anyone who disagrees with them has any values at all. Senator Clinton must therefore be a hypocrite to campaign in churches when she cannot share their beliefs. In fact, I think it is safe to assume that any church that would invite her holds very strong values on many (not all) of the issues that she holds dear, and finds her personal theology to be consistent with their collective theology. I don’t happen to be a Liberal Protestant, so I don’t have that same set of values, but at least I can recognize a theologically-based set of religious values when I see one. From her teens on, Hilary Clinton has held just such a set of values.
What a quandry people of conscience are faced with in something just short of a year.
The scenario of people who are absolute on their stance on abortion (of any description), sitting this one out, or supporting a third party candidate, (remember Ross anyone? …that worked out well, didn’t it?), and very possibly handing Hilliary the white house is offset only by a declared pro-abortion republican candidate. I saw a sign in a greasy spoon restaurant on an interstate once a bit like the choices facing us….’Choice of soup Take it or leave it”.
So how exactly does the republican party rip a plank out of its venerable platform? Because that’s exactly what they’ll have to do to nominate Gullani, or possibly they hope that we don’t notice.
Fully understanding the oft touted fallicies of ‘one issue’ voting (aren’t they just grand….they even get to define us… if you dare veer from groupthink), I agree with someone who has posted that murder cannot be devalued into merely a political ‘issue’.
So, being that I have no answers, just more questions, and feel decidedly checkmated this morning, here’s one more question: Could it be that our national moral cancer identified by Rauchenbusch in the last century have matastasized in this century to the point that we’ve been given up by God to judgment, (reedemptive or otherwise), and Hilliary is our just due? Because if I cannot, for the dictates of conscience vote for Gullani, I shall have voted for Hilliary by default. (eeeyeeeew, I just read that last line!)
(…think I’ll go listen to some depressing Elizabethan
Dowland lyric….and try to stay away from sharp objects and ropes for a couple of hours afterwards.)
er, sorry. make that ….Giuliani
(I was decieved by Yahoo)
Dale,
Not just her theology (or rather that she only pulls it out when she is courting voters), but I also strongly disagree with her economic policies (“I have a lot of ideas, but America can’t afford them all”), her reluctance to come out and say where she stands or at least be consistent in where she stands, her liberal abortion stance, and come to think of it, just about every other issue she expresses an opinion on.
Hilary is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, for whom political succes justified almost any tactic. It is not her “values” that are questionable but her ethics and her will to power. Those that respect no limitations on power employed for their causes are most to be feared.
Does anyone think she’ll have the Billy Dale vote?
She is as much Presidential material as my cat. She has no experience. She still quotes straight out of Karl Marx’s writings. She lies. She steals. And cheats. Lots of “The Ten” in there.
RoyIII wrote:
She has my vote.
You go for it dude. Right now you’re in slavery to the federal tax system until April 30th. I guess you’d like to pay more in taxes and give up more days of your life for the redistribution of your hard earned pay for the dems pork handouts!
I agree with Dale. She has a consistent set of values. They aren’t mine, but she’s got ’em. They are overlaid, in my opinion, by a dishonesty which makes her unsuitable to be President.
#7, I suppose I can’t persuade you, but: What the President has to do with abortion is limited almost entirely to the appointment of Supreme Court Justices. His personal opinions about abortion mean little; it’s the judical philosophy of the Justices which counts. Guiliani has promised to appoint Justices in the mold of Roberts, Alito, and Scalia, mentioning them by name. Clinton’s ideal Justice is likely Ginsburg; she will appoint Justices who will rule based on their personal opinions, not the Constitution. Supreme Court appointments last far beyond the four years of the Presidency. Staying home or voting for a third party could result in another generation of Constitutional chaos and perhaps the end of the Constitutional era. Please don’t do it.
Katherine,
Thank you kindly for adding a bit of sanity to my disparing rant of yesterday. You are of course, quite correct. And I shall give what you say due consideration.
http://www.strangezoo.com/images/content/128100.jpg
(That handsome fella is me, …..considering).
(but you’re still right.)
#13 Katherine You got it right. Putting questions regarding morality or the lack thereof, I am still looking for how candidates stand on vital issues of the day and since Hilary has flip-flpped on more than issue I wonder what she would do as a President.
P.S. Glad you are safe in Cairo. I mislaid your address. Our kids will still be in Cairo-Maadi for a few more months.
Thanks for your consideration, anglicanlutenist. I will never have the opportunity to vote for a perfect Presidential candidate. Such people aren’t politicians, generally.
Harvey, I’ll try to send you another private email through the website. I have registered with the Embassy but would like to make some American contacts.