4 edits
-Removed-I don't think candidates think they could win if they said they were atheist.
As for Hillary, she is puzzling. On the one hand she says she is a Methodist, but still supports abortion. Last I checked the Methodist church is against abortion. Then again, they changed their minds on gay marriage so perhaps they did the same with abortion while I wasn't looking. They are a fickle bunch
It was Hillary who said that the church needed to change their views on abortion, so maybe she views herself as the Martin Luther of the Progressive church as she leads them into the light of the democrat party platform. Maybe Progs can start a Party church that embraces gay marriage, abortion on demand, and state redistribution of wealth.
Who knows, maybe she will even write a new Bible like the Mormons did.
Originally posted by whodeyWhy do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not? [Bump]
I don't think candidates think they could win if they said they were atheist.
As for Hillary, she is puzzling. On the one hand she says she is a Methodist, but still supports abortion. Last I checked the Methodist church is against abortion. Then again, they changed their minds on gay marriage so perhaps they did the same with abortion while I wasn't lo ...[text shortened]... istribution of wealth.
Who knows, maybe she will even write a new Bible like the Mormons did.
Originally posted by whodeyIt seems that in most cases the larger the amount of money taken in by a charity the smaller percentage of the money is actually used for the charitable purpose. Why is that?
That is a lie.
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.
Originally posted by RJHindsHave you a link to statistics that support this claim ~ and I don't mean an opinion piece on a blog somewhere?
It seems that in most cases the larger the amount of money taken in by a charity the smaller percentage of the money is actually used for the charitable purpose. Why is that?
Originally posted by FMFThe only time there seems to be an issue is when religious thought contradicts Progressive thought.
Why do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not? [Bump]
Abortion is an example of this. Those that oppose abortion are told they can't influence public policy because of religious reasons. Why is that, or do you disagree with that?
Originally posted by whodeySo why do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not?
The only time there seems to be an issue is when religious thought contradicts Progressive thought.
Abortion is an example of this. Those that oppose abortion are told they can't influence public policy because of religious reasons. Why is that, or do you disagree with that?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWell if you believe that Jesus wants us to give all our money to the state to help the poor folk then religion is influencing the state via her religious beliefs. The same can be said of abortion and gay marriage.
So why do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not?
What if she feels Jesus wants her to attack ISIS to save Christians being slaughtered in Syria?
Originally posted by whodeySo you consider a politician expressing (Christian) beliefs a violation of the separation of Church and state?
Well if you believe that Jesus wants us to give all our money to the state to help the poor folk then religion is influencing the state via her religious beliefs. The same can be said of abortion and gay marriage.
What if she feels Jesus wants her to attack ISIS to save Christians being slaughtered in Syria?
Originally posted by whodeyI support freedom of speech including speech influenced by religious beliefs even where I disagree with the policies that are advocated. Third time of asking on this thread, we shall see if you ignore/sidestep it yet again: Why do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not?
The only time there seems to be an issue is when religious thought contradicts Progressive thought.
Abortion is an example of this. Those that oppose abortion are told they can't influence public policy because of religious reasons. Why is that, or do you disagree with that?
Originally posted by FMFSo you are OK with Hillary making policy decisions based upon what she thinks Jesus would do even though you may not agree with them?
I support freedom of speech including speech influenced by religious beliefs even where I disagree with the policies that are advocated. Third time of asking on this thread, we shall see if you ignore/sidestep it yet again: Why do you keep asking if Hillary Clinton's Christian beliefs and motivations constitute a "violation of the separation church and state" when you know full well that they do not?
Got it.