Liberals Gone Wild! - Today's Calendar Entry 1/16/09

Things that make you go hmmm...

Well said, Esther.

This comment is to let you know that I stopped by. Sorry for the generic comment, but I am trying to help as many people as possible to reach their Gather goals. Have a great day!

This doesn't make me go hmmmm at all. When people are young and in college they try out new things they try to expand their horizons. Besides the woman is in her sixties. I think it is safe to say she was in college nearly a good forty years ago. As far as all this seeming like a contradiction I don't think so nor can I see anything substantiating hypocrisy.

Clever, Lois. Please don't eat the praying mantis.

Praying Mantis are crunchy and good with catsup!

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Jennifer. "Always" means always. Not "except for my college days and for a while thereafter." To me it seemed the more religion was important, the more religious she became. The "ever bendable, posable" Hillary's flexibility is certainly notable.

I wonder if Bill would concur? ;)

Many people explore and experience new ideologies for the first time in college and in Hillary's case law school. I don't find anything unusual in that phenomenon. Instead what I see is a cultural difference. Many from the northeast, I'm not sure about Chicago where she is from, are reticent to discuss their faith in public, while those from the rest of the country seem far more open to it. What you see is Hillary pandering to a specific group of voters with statements that may or may not be true.

I understand exploring new ideologies. Actually I find that healthy and in many cases reaffirming. How can you be strong in your faith if you haven't explored the many options out there. Not really "shopping" for faith but being aware of where you stand amongst others. I call it "trying on shoes to see which ones fit." But your last statement, Ariel, seems to ring more true to me on Hillary.

Although I miss your golden retriever, this pic is pretty nice!

Mark-John! That's all I'm going to say!

I couldn't help putting the predatory praying mantis up there. It just seems to fit with the other pictures.

I'd have to disagree with you on this one, Jennifer. "Always" means always. Not "except for my college days and for a while thereafter." To me it seemed the more religion was important, the more religious she became. The "ever bendable, posable" Hillary's flexibility is certainly notable.
Cathi L., Jan 16, 2009, 9:22am EST

Cathi I think this can be truly be said of any politican be they liberal or conservative. For me their religious ideologies are not important for other it is.

Also nothing in the article said she refrained from praying in college just that she wasn't open about it. Maybe now she feels more comfortable. I don't know.

Oh no, Little Shop Of Horrors! Then Suddenly Hillary......dah dah dah tah dee.... =)

Bill must like religious girls. Monica spent lots of time on her knee's.. Of course I meant she was praying.. lol

OMG Phyllis!

Jennifer, I can see that as a possibility, that maybe she is more open in her faith in her later years. But I don't know if I buy it. What Ariel has said could apply here also, in that people from the north are less apt to be openly prayerful than those in the south. Here's the "but", she's tended to be a chameleon on a lot of issues, in fact, conservatives know her for it. Could she merely have become more mature and comfortable in her faith? Or could she have become more open about her faith for political gain? Or could she have become more religious for political gain at a time when she needed something to attract religious conservatives?

Everything Hillary says is a political statement. A way of advancing herself in the public's eye.

I think it's sad that she feels forced to bend to the will of the religious right in order to be accepted, but until this country grows up and moves past its theocratic stance, anyone in government will be impelled to declare their religiosity for fear of being ostracized as a heretic. The Inquisition lives!

Thank you for posting to this group whose only purpose is to thank you for posting to this group.

I think Dame Ruth's comments was particularly astute.

I can't believe that Hillary Clinton would be "forced" to do anything she doesn't willingly want to do. The flip side of that is seeing Hillary Clinton as very strong in her goals and her drive to get to those goals.

But suddenly, openly and publicly declaring to be a "praying person" feels very disingenuous on her part. I don't think we are so strident, as a country, on desiring our leaders to be necessarily religious, but to have the qualities desired in religion, honesty being a major player.

Itsnt it amazing how people such as her and Obama can manage to get themselves into the White House and so many people support them... but yet not Obama or Hillys hubby or Hilly went into the service... At least Jack Kennedy served for his country.. I think this should be a requirement before you can even become president of this country... Whether it is male or female... Then and only then can you make decisions about going to war.. At least you will know some of what the soldiers know...
How can anyone know anything about the service unless they have served.. Even at this though, if we are not at war and cannot send them into a war zone, these up and coming candidates would still not get the full idea of what its like...but at least they may be wiser on the subject..

You know I'm with you there, Vickey. Good comment.

A persons religion doesnt make a difference to me.

I see so many born again christians and no one doubts what their feelings toward their god and jesus is.

I see many people on gather that have found faith and again no one questions their religious beliefs.

I say religion is a personal thing and isnt a qualification for being elected president.

Liberals can believe in god as well as conservatives.

I think that if you dont like someone like Hillary you will critisize everything about her.

I agree that religion is a personal thing. It is not a qualification for being elected president. Can you imagine the scene if it became a qualification? Whoa.

I think Hillary has some very admirable qualities. I mentioned two of them above, her strength and her drive. I could not see her as a president, nor can I see her as an effective Secretary of State. I would have preferred to see her heading up education, but I don't think she would have gone for that.

I don't find it difficult to believe at all. Even in grade school we were taught to seriously question. It was normal in high school to read Marx and Gandhi, question freedom of sexuality and be right there in church praying on Sunday morning, with prayers interspersed all over the surrounding weeks. The more I thought, the more I was likely to pray. For her to have spent her life praying is very easy to believe.

Sharon, I agree with Vicky on military service. And President Bush's military service was honorably served. I can't see how it can be made a requirement, especially since we are not always at a time of war, but I see it as beneficial for a commander-in-chief to fully comprehend sending people into battle, from both sides, civilian and military.

I don't think anybody is questioning what is acceptable or not for religions. I believe the controversy is whether Hillary professed to being a "praying person" and "invoked God more than half a dozen times" disingenuously for political gain.

Have you seen that in her statements?

Lynn, thanks for your comment. I can buy experimentation throughout her education, or strengthening her spirituality through learning more about our world. But again, I believe the concern is her suddenly becoming openly prayerful in her faith to gain supporters? Or forcing herself to accept openly displaying her faith to not lose supporters?

I'm just not ready to accept that this strong woman would go against what she has done her entire life. I CAN see her acquiring new characteristics that would be desirable from a certain group of voting public.

A person's religion makes a difference to me. If they profess they believe in a particular religion or way of life claiming their deity to be the highest power yet do not live according to the teachings of that religion, they are not going to serve the people or office according to that oath either. The evidence is overwhelming. I can't think of to many politicians who don't profess some sort of god and yet they act with wanton disregard to everyone.

I think your comment is spot on, D.B. If they do openly proclaim a religion, they better be following the teachings of that religion, otherwise, to me that claim would be highly suspect, just like the politicians who profess some sort of god yet act with wanton disregard. You can't have it both ways.

Spot on? Why does that make me want to sing "Devil with the blue dress?"

Cathi as far as declaring a religion and following it...each person will define their religion in a different way than their neighbor.

John Knight on gather will openly tell you that to understand christianity you have to question everything about it.

I used to work with a guy who said you should never question any part of christianity but just accept it. He also said that since I drank and swore that I had a one way ticket to hell.

You ask 3 people how they define following their religion and you will get 3 different answers. But they all believe in the same god and the same teachings.

George W. Bush volunteered to serve in Vietnam following his flight training.
After his training at Moody AFB and Ellington ANG Base, George W. Bush and his fellow aviator Fred Bradley, sought service in Vietnam. In an article for the National Review, author Jed Babbin wrote that Bush and Bradley, “Both were junior lieutenants without a lot of flying experience. But the inexperience didn't prevent Bush — along with Bradley — from going to their squadron leaders to see if they could get into a program called ‘Palace Alert.’ ‘There were four of us lieutenants at the time, and we were all fairly close. Two of them had more flight time than the president and me, said Bradley.’ All four volunteered for Vietnam (Bradley doesn't remember whether he and Bush actually signed paperwork, but he specifically remembers both Bush and himself trying to get into the Palace Alert Vietnam program.) Bush and Bradley were turned away, and the two more senior pilots went to Vietnam.” Bush’s Squadron Commander, Col. (Ret.) Maurice Udell and squadron mate Col. (Ret.) Scott Woodfin recall that Bush lacked the 500 hours of flight time necessary to qualify for the “Palace Alert” program, which rotated individual pilots to USAF units in the South East Asia war theatre. The program stopped accepting applicants soon after Bush volunteered.

George W. Bush risked his life flying dangerous Cold War Air Defense Alert missions.
In joining the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, Bush flew with an elite unit that had been recognized in 1966 as, “The most combat ready of all Air Guard units,” through an Air Force Outstanding Unit award. Bush’s squadron mate, Lt. Col Campenni described their unit’s role, “In the Cold War, the air defense of the United States was borne primarily by the Air National Guard, by such people as Lt. Bush and me and a lot of others. Six of those with whom I served in those years never made their 30th birthdays because they died in crashes flying air-defense missions. While most of America was sleeping and Mr. Kerry was playing antiwar games with Hanoi Jane Fonda, we were answering 3 a.m. scrambles for who knows what inbound threat over the Canadian sub arctic, the cold North Atlantic, and the shark-filled Gulf of Mexico. We were the pathfinders in showing that the Guard and Reserves could become reliable members of the first team in the total force, so proudly evidenced today in Afghanistan and Iraq.”

Spot on

I don't know, it makes me think of the stuff you apply directly to the forehead!

But Lori, don't you agree that there are basic tenents within each religion? I grew up Catholic, rebelled against Catholicism by the time I was 18, became Lutheran around 20 and have followed either Methodist or Presbyterian (we've moved a bit) since 25. I know I don't agree with the many forms of Baptist. I know the differences in each form of Methodist and each form of Presbyterian. My grandfather was a Presbyterian minister. My aunt is an Episcopal minister and I'm familiar with the differences within that faith.

But I'm not even talking about the differences within denominations. I'm talking basic like the 10 Commandments and such. And it is in the striving to follow that is important.

But I do see what you are talking about, clearly. Interpretations can be very different within each individual, within each family, within each congregation.

And Sharon, I have been curious about your Goddess. Is there a Goddess that you worship? Or are you just kidding? I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable on Pagan rites.

Cathi I dont believe in God but from what I have heard from my Christian friends it goes like this.

Believe that Jesus is your savior. The rest is up to you.

I guess as far as the 10 Commandments...I dont see how Hillary or Barrack have broken them any more than anyone else and less than many others.

This part here is what I was trying to get at with the article:

I don't think anybody is questioning what is acceptable or not for religions. I believe the controversy is whether Hillary professed to being a "praying person" and [in her speech] "invoked God more than half a dozen times" disingenuously for political gain.

Have you seen that in her statements?

Cathi there is no controversy.

If Hillary says she is religious then accept that she has god.

Was she doing it for political gain? Who knows. I dont see anything that disputes her claims.

I hear politicians all the time saying God Bless...so should we assume that they are all full of it and saying that for political gain?

There are many preachers that are highly involved in politics so are we to assume that they too pray for political gain?

Should we assume that you either have religion at your core or politics but cannot have both?

Believe that Jesus is your savior. The rest is up to you.

But that is not so. Religions and Christianity are a personal relationship with God but you "salvation" is bought with a price. The Bible is the "law" of Christianity and the Constitution is the law of the people. It is impossible to live according to either and both are worthless if you believe that you can do as you will with no consequences.

I hear politicians all the time saying God Bless...so should we assume that they are all full of it and saying that for political gain?

There are many preachers that are highly involved in politics so are we to assume that they too pray for political gain?

The evidence is clear that to both the answer is yes. If you have "religion" at your core you would be a better politician. If you have politics at your core you are good for nothing. You have to uphold something and both documents put the good of the people first and "politics" is not a foundation on which you can build anything.

DBD is a perfect example of what I was talking about.

Everyone assumes THEY know how god intends for the bible to be intrepreted and how life should be lived accordingly.

The truth is that only god....if s/he exists...is the only person that can answer that question.

There is a difference between understanding the basic English language interpreting something. The original video clip shows Hillary chastising someone for using God as an excuse for doing/saying something wrong. She didn't say "God Bless" or something she expresses her feeling that what ever was said was wrong. Too short to be certain and I didn't look for the whole clip.

This entire topic can be summed up by "thou shall not use thy Lord God's name in vain". It is clear and straight forward just like thou shall not lie, thou shall not kill and on and on. "The Ten Commandments" or the "Law of Moses". Not too difficult to understand and no interpretation needed. The Bible is full of it's own interpretations that are written in a way to lead someone to a decision between right and wrong according to [it's own teachings] not mine.

"A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." Seems to be the same as what I said in my last paragraph.

Another post talking about a similar subject references James 1:27 to justify/prove their "point" but if they read the whole chapter it is contrary to what they are saying. The sad part is that if they actually read the book their actions would be justifiable before this alleged God. They feel the need to rewrite it based upon what others say it means as it warns against throughout. They say listen to these people and not those. The Bible says read the Bible for yourself.

Personally I don't care how you live your life or what religion you follow as long as I don't have to follow you and your beliefs don't interfere with me. That is what the first amendment is supposed to protect me from.

When it comes to a politician, their lack of the understanding of the English language and the religion they profess to follow is of a great concern to me. Both the Bible and the Constitution explain the intent by those who created it. If the words don't have any meaning they are worthless and both are considered laws to be followed one for Americans the other for Christians and if a CHristian adheres to their religion it is quite obvious that they won't be violating the constitution. But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed. If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion is vain.

Phyllis!!!!!!! OMG HAHAHA
VIckey well said I totally agree with you on that!

Thanks for sharing.