30 May 15
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/hillary-clinton-gives-rare-glimpse-into-her-christian-faith/
We got a rare look, and I do mean rare, at Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs.
She seems to be driven to spread "social justice" in the name of Jesus.
Is this a violation of church and state? Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
Originally posted by whodeyHas she proposed the making of a law "respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise [of religion]"? If so where is a transcript of her doing so?
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/hillary-clinton-gives-rare-glimpse-into-her-christian-faith/
We got a rare look, and I do mean rare, at Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs.
She seems to be driven to spread "social justice" in the name of Jesus.
Is this a violation of church and state? Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
30 May 15
Originally posted by FMFOf course not FMF. She merely seems to be saying that she is letting her religion dictate social policy for the country.
Has she proposed the making of a law "respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise [of religion]"? If so where is a transcript of her doing so?
Bush was accused on these boards unmercifully for being a Christian and going to war with Saddam because "God told him to do so". So where is the same outrage? In fact, Obama said that he is a Christian and he went to war with Gaddafi. Did God tell him to do it? Will God tell Hillary to go to war with Assad and attack ISIS etc.?
The real question I have is, is it OK to let your religious convictions dictate public policy. Furthermore, is it possible to divorce yourself from them?
FMF: Has she proposed the making of a law "respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise [of religion]"? If so where is a transcript of her doing so?Why do you keep asking if her Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not?
Originally posted by whodey
Of course not FMF. She merely seems to be saying that she is letting her religion dictate social policy for the country.
30 May 15
Originally posted by whodeyI find it extremely distasteful to question ANYone's motivation when they support "doing the right thing". I mean, yes, we KNOW that the right considers it in extremely poor taste and of questionable virtue to actually help the needy, the poor, the homeless, our veterans and those in poor health, but really, "doing the right thing" should never be questioned as somehow "bad for America".
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/28/hillary-clinton-gives-rare-glimpse-into-her-christian-faith/
We got a rare look, and I do mean rare, at Hillary Clinton's religious beliefs.
She seems to be driven to spread "social justice" in the name of Jesus.
Is this a violation of church and state? Is she a fundamentalist wacko?
Social justice is a GOOD thing, no matter how you slice it. Why question the motives of people who feel driven to actually DO something about the injustices visited upon the lowest segment of society?
Originally posted by SuzianneIs it the right thing to do to help the thousands of Christians being slaughtered by ISIS, or should Hillary/Obama just turn the other cheek?
I find it extremely distasteful to question ANYone's motivation when they support "doing the right thing". I mean, yes, we KNOW that the right considers it in extremely poor taste and of questionable virtue to actually help the needy, the poor, the homeless, our veterans and those in poor health, but really, "doing the right thing" should never be question ...[text shortened]... driven to actually DO something about the injustices visited upon the lowest segment of society?
Now that we know that Jesus wants the state to redistribute the wealth of its citizens to help the poor, thanks to the religious theology of left wingers like yourself, should Hillary be giving more away from the Clinton Foundation that she is taking in for personal expenditures? Should all charities be required by the state to give more money than they take in or is just giving them a little enough?
30 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneBecause they might ask you to pay for the 'doing something' via taxes. The right strongly believes that all social work should be paid for voluntarily not via government.
Why question the motives of people who feel driven to actually DO something about the injustices visited upon the lowest segment of society?
Keep in mind that the democrats are center right and the republicans are far right.
Originally posted by whodeySo you are saying that ideal US President would be an atheist?
Of course not FMF. She merely seems to be saying that she is letting her religion dictate social policy for the country.
Bush was accused on these boards unmercifully for being a Christian and going to war with Saddam because "God told him to do so". So where is the same outrage? In fact, Obama said that he is a Christian and he went to war with Gaddafi ...[text shortened]... s convictions dictate public policy. Furthermore, is it possible to divorce yourself from them?
Originally posted by SuzianneCharity begins at home: Bill Clinton shakes down school-building fund for $500K
I find it extremely distasteful to question ANYone's motivation when they support "doing the right thing". I mean, yes, we KNOW that the right considers it in extremely poor taste and of questionable virtue to actually help the needy, the poor, the homeless, our veterans and those in poor health, but really, "doing the right thing" should never be question ...[text shortened]... driven to actually DO something about the injustices visited upon the lowest segment of society?
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/05/29/charity-begins-at-home-bill-clinton-shakes-down-school-building-fund-for-500k/
Clinton Charities Raked in Millions of Taxpayer Dollars
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-charities-raked-in-millions-of-taxpayer-dollars/
Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’
The Clinton Foundation’s finances are so messy that the nation’s most influential charity watchdog put it on its “watch list” of problematic nonprofits last month.
The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.
The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.
http://nypost.com/2015/04/26/charity-watchdog-clinton-foundation-a-slush-fund/
The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton’s Huge Speaking Fees
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/philanthropy/24491-the-philanthropic-problem-with-hillary-clinton-s-huge-speaking-fees.html
I think that is enough to prove my point. What has happened to actually helping the needy, the poor, the homeless, our veterans and those in poor health simply out of the goodness of ones heart and without expecting hugh sums of money for it?
30 May 15
Originally posted by SuzianneThat is a lie.
I find it extremely distasteful to question ANYone's motivation when they support "doing the right thing". I mean, yes, we KNOW that the right considers it in extremely poor taste and of questionable virtue to actually help the needy, the poor, the homeless, our veterans and those in poor health, but really, "doing the right thing" should never be question ...[text shortened]... driven to actually DO something about the injustices visited upon the lowest segment of society?
Conservatives give to the poor in terms of money and their time compared to liberals who vote for politicians that will force them to give more of their money to government to do it for them, the majority of which does not go to the poor.