Hillary Clinton reinvents herself into a Christian fundamentalist

[Brian_Expat]

Hillary Clinton has reinvented herself as a Christian fundamentalist who prays several times a day and LOVES Bush's faith-based initiative. She'll make a fantastic candidate in 2008 -- for the Republicans.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF>http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachus...iatives?mode=PF

On the eve of the presidential inauguration, US Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last night embraced an issue some pundits say helped seal a second term for George W. Bush: acceptance of the role of faith in addressing social ills.

In a speech at a fund-raising dinner for a Boston-based organization that promotes faith-based solutions to social problems, Clinton said there has been a "false division" between faith-based approaches to social problems and respect for the separation of church of state.

"There is no contradiction between support for faith-based initiatives and upholding our constitutional principles," said Clinton, a New York Democrat who often is mentioned as a possible presidential candidate in 2008.

Addressing a crowd of more than 500, including many religious leaders, at Boston's Fairmont Copley Plaza, Clinton invoked God more than half a dozen times, at one point declaring, "I've always been a praying person." :eyes:

[Egalitariat]

1. She's just setting up the old bait and switch

She wants to be president. She's doing what it takes to get enough votes to win. Pragmatists understand this. Idealogues do not.

[sui generis]

5. well clearly then you are an optimist

see I can call people names too.

What we need to win the presidency is someone who can speak their mind, not play bait and switch, and someone with strong moral clarity and real leadership.

If we fail to be different from the status quo, people will just keep the status quo.

[Brian_Expat]

10. I think many Democrats WANT to lose

It's the only way I can explain the complete abandonment of their core positions to embrace Republican-lite stuff.

This "faith based initiative" thingy is the centerpiece of Bush's strategy. There's nothing "liberal" within it.

John Kerry also supported it for the election, and fat lot of good it did him, eh?

[Maat]

63. I quite agree, sui generis.

And while what she said currently jives with the Court's decisions, I believe that she needs to elaborate. While a faith-based initiative is not necessarily unconstitutional, it will be if it's program engages in preaching and coercion (which, from my observation, the majority of them do this - regardless of the rules).

I do not like what I feel is her duplicitous behavior.

[Brian_Expat]

6. Absolutely!

I mean, that approach was very effective in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections. We took back the House and Senate, not losing a single seat, and now John Kerry's been sworn in as president.

Thank goodness that pragmatism prevailed!

[Desertrose]

8. right.........and this is supposed to make me feel better?

She sells out to get in office and then.................??

Yeah, right. Heard and have seen this way too much with politicos.

No thanks, Hill, I'll pass.

Seems maybe pragmatism has gotten us where we are today.......??? Guess thats fine if you LIKE where we are....

[jrthin]

21. I consider myself a pragmatic

voter, and I would not vote for anything republican-lite. Dems don't get it, if they campaign their passion, they win; if they play to the phanton middle, they lose.

[Desertrose]

24. YES!!!

Haven't we had enough proof of that recently???

[Gay Ranger]

40. She is not fooling anybody...

and is only going to drive away a good portion of her base. To the right she will always be a Clinton and they would rather swallow razor blades than support her.

[barbaraann]

71. Republicans would rather swallow razor blades than support ANY Dem.

n/t

[Tacos al Carbon]

82. That's just not so

Do you really think that Obama had his landslide with NO Republican votes? Do you think that no Republicans voted for Clinton in 1992 and 1996? In the last election Republicans in every state voted for Kerry just as Democrats in every state voted for Bush. Republicans vote for moderate and conservative Democrats all the time, just as Democrats vote for moderate and liberal Republicans. Any candidate that gives up on getting any Republican votes may as well forget about winning national and most state-wide elections.

[eg101]

44. we don't WANT pragmatists. We want IDEALISTS

pragmatism should come into play when negotiating details of programs and bills. But when you vote, you should vote for politicians who have ideals. If you are on the right, vote for politicians who have RIGHTwing ideals. If you are on the left, vote for politicians who have LEFTwing ideals.

It is apparent that the Clintons, like almost ALL well known politicians ghave ideals centered around getting more power for themselves. There is your "pragmatic" politcian.

[UdoKier]

54. It's not prragmatic. It alienates at least half of democrats

and at least most of the activist base. She like her stooge Joe Lieberman, is simply continuing her effort to completely destroy the party.

[UdoKier]

52. This is far from pragmatic.

The progressive base WILL NOT turn out for someone pushing an extremist right-wing agenda - and "Faith-Based" programs are an extremist ploy to nullify the separation clause.

F--- Hillary and apologists for this kind of unconscionable stunt. She is only accelerating the death of the party.

[WI_DEM]

2. The Clinton's, Bill and Hillary actually do have a good rapport

with George and Laura.

[itzamirakul]

3. I've been emailing her all week about the Dr. Rice

confirmation process and now here she comes throwing another bomb into the fire.

WTF is wrong with this woman? I keep wanting to be on her side but she clearly is not on mine.

Well, here goes another email

[papau]

4. That is not what Hillary said or what the article said- indeed Hillary was

quite reasonable I thought in her speech.

And as a praying person, I get to ask "what is your point?

Are only the non-praying welcome in the Democratic Party?"

[Brian_Expat]

7. The Constitution is clear -- no government endorsement of religion

I'm tired of Republicans and Democrats alike giving money to religious groups who advocate discrimination.

The Constitution is clear -- no government money to churches or church money to governments.

[papau]

15. Freedom of Religion is not Freedom from Religion - and indeed the

monies do not "promote or fund religious services or training" -

so their is no Constitutional problem.

[Desertrose]

19. do you honestly believe that??

" ..and indeed the monies do not "promote or fund religious services or training" -

I find that one really hard to accept.....

[papau]

37. Yes I do believe that - and indeed there are auditors that run around

and confirm it for the Federal Gov.

[Maat]

66. Papau ... I don't care what the auditors proclaim.

This social worker received verbal reports from her clients - they do break the rules and prosletize. The employees just can't help it. So, all I'm saying is that I do not trust these programs one bit.

[papau]

72. Forced attendance at meetings to teach/prosletize - or random volunteers

who choose to not obey the rules.

I have seen the latter.

I have not seen the former.

[Maat]

76. You are right.

Well, I have seen forced attendance at meetings. I do not think that they had offially scheduled preaching or prosletization; however, I have seen employees/volunteers not obeying the rules, as you say. AND, some of those employees/volunteers were 'high up' within the church.

As I say, I am leery of these efforts. If I thought that the money was going to be distributed amongst Unitarian-Universalists, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Churches, Pagan organizations, Atheist, Humanist, Espiscopalian, other mainline, and the more traditionalist orgs., that would be one thing. But, that is not how it is going down, thus far. Via 'executive policy' decisions, so far, Boooosh has taken care of his friends such as Falwell and Robertson. And, of course, Catholic Charities, who I have seen abuse the sytem - through employees/volunteers. I haven't been pleased thus far.

[papau]

77. It is sad when the rules are broken - because the church gets good PR

just by doing good -

it really does not need to break the rules so as to sell a brand of faith.

:-(

[Brian_Expat]

23. Boy oh boy

No wonder Democrats are screwed.

Any funding of any "faith-based" program BY DEFINITION "promotes and funds religious services or training." Anyone who is involved in the programs that are to be funded can tell you all about that.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

45. No, it doesn't...

My old congregation was next-door to an elementary school in a poor neighborhood. Lots of working moms. We opened our doors twice a week to the students for an after-school program that offered activities and tutoring until 5:00 p.m. (another organization handled the other three days a week).

We didn't receive funding from the federal government to maintain this service, but if we had, it certainly wouldn't have been to promote religious services or training. We played games. We did math homework. There was no religious indoctrination going on -- the pastor would do a quick walk-through to make sure everything was all right, but that was it.

Democrats are being tone-deaf on this issue. If a church operates a soup kitchen, there's nothing wrong (and a lot right) with it receiving assistance from the federal government. But if the church requires its clients to sit through a sermon or to pray before receiving help, THEN there's a problem.

[Brian_Expat]

49. You could receive federal funding easily today

Just organize a separate group not run directly by your "congregation," with separate facilities, and you can do it.

If a church operates a soup kitchen, there's nothing wrong (and a lot right) with it receiving assistance from the federal government

Only if the soup kitchen is not run by the church, is not on religious property, and has no control over it by religious authorities. Otherwise, it's unconstitutional.

Republicans have been tearing at the Constitution for decades now. We don't need Democrats joining in too.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

55. I think you're missing the point...

The key distinction is whether the organization is proselytizing while it delivers the services.

That same church operates a food pantry, and poor folks in the neighborhood know they can stop by and get temporary assistance. People who have been evited know they can stop by and get at least a night's loding at a neiborhood motel. They're not preached at or required to say a prayer or attend a church service.

[asjr]

56. There were plenty of soup kitchens

during the Great Depression. I don't think those being served the soup asked the ladler what was their religion. This is the context in which I believe H. CLinton was speaking. Any institution that can help those in need is good. Not all religious people are fundamentalists.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

60. Exactly

And inner city churches (particularly) have the bricks-and-mortar infrastructure already in place.

[Maat]

65. I do not agree (most respectfully).

That is a rightwing talking point - 'the Constitution guarantee that there won't be an official church, but it does not guarantee freedom from religion.' I'm sorry, but it does - Jefferson made it clear in the Treaty of Tripoli (law as much as anything else was) that he intended a wall of separation between church and state. Besides, if you promote Christianity, you ARE promoting a particular church in my mind - using a broader definition.

And, our contract for counseling services was with Catholic Charities when I was a social worker for San Bernardino, Ca., and they were supposed to be refraining from religious services or training. I do not believe that they did; they asked interviewees whether or not they believed in abortion, and thus, the official position of the church, despite this being against the rules. And several of my clients talked about the counselor talking about Christ. So, I do not believe that faith-based orgs. abide by the rules. I heard stories about other orgs. as well.

[jrthin]

26. As another praying person, I say

pray all you want. But, please, let's keep government moral (which has nothing to do with religion) and secular.

[bryant69]

9. I'm not sure about your interpretation

Personally I agree with what she says, more or less. Why can't people of faith play a role in solving societal problems?

Now I don't know if she said anything about taking tax money for these purposes (the link doesn't work for me), which I would find questionable. Possibly that what the "false division" means.

Bryant
Check it out--> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Brian_Expat]

12. Government money for churches is illegal

Nobody's saying "people of faith" cannot "play a role" in solving government problems.

But can religious groups get government money to spend as they choose on social programs? No. That pesky First Amendment says so.

[bryant69]

16. thanks for explaining to me something I already said

But my point was, did Hillary call for government money to go to Christian groups?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Brian_Expat]

20. Yep. . .

. . . she said there's nothing incompatible with government money funding "faith based approaches" to social problems.

That would include, presumably, Bible study to cure drug addiction or mental illness as well as "curing" homosexuals with prayer and laying on of hands.

[bryant69]

33. see there goes your credibility right there

You tell me you think that Hillary Clinton would approve government funds to programs to "cure" homesexuals, and I just can't take you seriuosly. If you dislike Hillary that much (and many do. There's always plenty of people who hate strong woman.) that you jump to that conclusion based on one speech, I just can't take you seriously.

Bryant

[Desertrose]

35. You missed his point becuase YOU got bogged down

in where you *think* he's coming from.

I like Hillary...I am a strong woman and I can relate. What I can't relate to is selling out and that is what she is doing (if the article got it right).

Religions/faith have no business getting funds from the gov't. They do not mix well...haven't we seen that already??


Don't let the faux hot button issues distract you from what is really going on.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

48. You're presuming way too much...

For all the flap-doodle that we're hearing about this speech, let's remember that Hillary was saying the same thing four years ago, and eight years ago, it was her husband who did away with the provisions that prevented churches from playing a role.

Hillary Clinton blasts Giuliani fundraising letter

The key (as is pointed out in the article) is "constitutionally permissible" forms of faith-based initiatives.

[Brian_Expat]

50. Except that. . .

The key (as is pointed out in the article) is "constitutionally permissible" forms of faith-based initiatives.

Except for the inconvenient fact that there are no "constitutionally permissible" faith-based initiative.

Any initiative based on religion is inherently religious. Any government funding of that is therefore an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Period.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

58. Says you...

As I said in the other post, you're missing the key distinction of whether the organizat is proselytizing its clients. The example of the after-school program is one example -- kids have a safe place to stay and some help with their homework. No hymns. No prayers.

[papau]

18. The 1st amendment forces the church to set up an indepentant secular

organization to recieve the money and run the programs.

The First Amendment does not say "NO WAY" to giving that secular organization any public monies that are to be spent for good deeds.

[Brian_Expat]

25. No kidding!

The Faith-based funding scheme goes further and allows religious protheletyzing as PART of the social program.

Today, Catholic Charities are separate. Under the Bush-Clinton model, the Catholic Church itself could be paid government money to run a hospital that required attendees to convert to Catholicism and that cured mental illness by "exorcising demons" from mental patients.

[papau]

31. If true we agree it should be stopped - but I do not believe that is true

what has happen is that the Salvation Army prayer at dinner has been ruled by the Courts as OK in a faith based structure that recieves gov money - I do not like the ruling - but that is as far as it goes - and it was a Court - ant the law - that so ruled.

The law may have removed the need for a Secular Wall - replaced by threat of audit - but I am not even sure that has happened -could you point me to the cites that say fungibile cash is allowed to flow directly to the Church?

Thanks

:-)

[Drifter]

11. Can we impeach her ...

I am getting sick of her antics. I will not support her if she runs for anything again, and I certainly will not vote for her.

Cheers
Drifter

[jrthin]

28. Neither will I, and she needs

me; I'm a New York voter.

[soleft]

13. We need someone who's comfortable in their own skin

she ain't

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Oh please - when is Faith inconsistent with Progressivism

This is a Classic Bush-Rove-Dobson identification

Faith = Conservative
Atheism = Progressive

and it is heretical, sacreligious, blasphemous Texas bull pattie.

MLK was not a PR man - he was a pastor. Even Fred Rogers - was an ordained minister (had a pulpit at University and city Ministries across from the University of Pittsburgh- that was his "day job" for the first season of "Mister Roger's Neighborhood" ).

Next you will be saying that Habitat for Humanity is Conservative -- and that President Carter was a Conservative.

I proudly "daven" at Beyt Tikkun. And, I have worked with Father Charles Ownes Rice at Holy Rosary.

REAL FUNDIES ARE PROGRESSIVES

[Brian_Expat]

17. "Faith" is personal. Progressivism is not.

Mixing the two is imposing one's "faith" on others. Especially when the power of government is involved.

If "faith" is a basis for anything, then you can justify slavery, fewer rights for women, racism, homophobia or anything else under the rubric of "faith." Osama bin Laden acted out of "faith."

That's why "faith" has no role in the administration of the country. Those who serve can have "faith," but "faith organizations" are rightly excluded from government money, and vice versa.

[papau]

22. You are speaking to choir - we all agree - but the question is secular

org gets money despite it being started by or affilliated with a faith.

Not the same question.

[Brian_Expat]

27. You're wrong

Secular organizations like Catholic Charities already get money.

"Faith based funding" is direct payments not to secular groups associated with religious ones, but directly to religion for religious programs that use "faith" rather than science or research to "solve social ills."

Under the Bush-Clinton proposal, the federal government could fund snake handling Bible revivals designed to "help troubled teens."

[papau]

36. Do you have a cite for it's OK for gov to make checks out to the churches?

I may well be wrong, but I'd appreciate a cite.

Thanks.

[Brian_Expat]

42. It's in Bush's plan

His plan for "faith based funding" would eliminate the requirement that church religious activities be completely separate from social services. It's the primary thrust of his bill, in fact.

Jsut do a quick search for it. It even frightens right-wing fundies who imagine the government regulating church religious practice by leveraging massive funds that would flow into those organizations.

[papau]

57. Is there a bill introduced that has the administration wording? I am

with you on the fight to stop it as that is or should be un-constitutional.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

51. Prove It

[jrthin]

30. Excellent. Well stated. n/t

[Coastie for Truth]

64. I did my time in a Louisiana Jail.....

And whether you're talking MLK or Molly Yard (whose campaign for the PA State Legislature was run out of the basement of the Shadyside UNITARIAN Church on Morewood Ave in Pittsburgh), or Msgr Charles Owens Rice who ran numerous projects out of Holy Rosary Church in Homewood, or Rev Cecil Owens out of Glide Church in San Francisco, or the Anti-War movement.

I was there. I did my time in a Louisiana Jail - thank you.

I was in the basement of Shadyside UNITARIAN Church on Morewood Ave in Pittsburgh and Epiphany Church for all kinds of Progressive projects.

DON'T LET BUSH AND ROVE AND DOBSON HIJACK FAITH - AND DELEGITIMIZE CHANEY AND SCHWERNER AND GOODMAN AND MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AS THE STEAL THE BANNER OF FAITH

And please don't cast the Dobson-Falwell gross mis-interpretations of Scripture onto real churches, temples, and mosques. That is as bad the Dobson-Fallwell blasphemy and heresy, and out and out taking the Lord's name in vain (which I accuse Dobson and Falwell et al. of doing).

[JDPriestly]

29. Ultimately, the faith-based charity bit will go out of vogue

because churches are squabbling, unpredictable, disorganized places. They have a lot of volunteers and they aren't good at controlling them or at accounting for money. Sooner or later, some church loony will do something really crazy with government money, and people everywhere will get disgusted with it and recognize the folly in the whole idea. Remember the child abuse in the Catholic Church -- and they are much better organized than Protestant churches in this respect because they rely less on volunteers and fanatics.

Also, sooner or later, someone will accuse one of these religious groups of using brainwashing or high pressure techniques. Those methods will be used because that is how messianic fervor affects human nature. The scandals will be hushed up at first, but activists for the separation of church and state side will organize and seek out people who are harmed by faith-based groups. A controversy will flare up. Since this is just the kind of sensational story that sells TV programs, books and newspapers, the story will get play. Fear not. That's how the pendulum swings.

Half the country doesn't go to church regularly. It's not because that half doesn't believe in God. It's just a personality thing. Non churchgoers don't want faith-based organizations taking over everything because they don't feel comfortable with them. Eventually, the non churchgoers will win. Hillary is making a mistake to get on the faith-based bandwagon.

[Maat]

69. You speak the truth, JDPriestly.

I know. I watched these programs in action when I was a social worker, and they do rely on volunteers, who cannot, despite repeated information about the rules, resist 'spreading the word' and pushing the client to join.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

34. anyone have her email, she and bill listen to the people

if it looks like they may lose enough votes. they emraced free trade too. remind her she is a democrat. make her clrify the statement, that fait based can and is being abused and if you want any of this better do it right. or then it becomes and issue with seperation church and state.

or no

but to mass email her, she put out, was ohio as we were emailing boxer, bill made a statement about no fraud, and then next day hillary put out something similar to bill, we started emailing her. two days she changed what she was saying. oh oh she said she hadnt heard anything about fraud in ohio. like hell. adn people started emailing her. by her speech an 6 she "learned" about it.

so right here and now, lets let hillary know not going to fly.

mass email

[AndyTiedye]

38. She Wants To Keep Her Job When the Theocracy Takes Over

[eg101]

39. another example of an obsessed politician who will do ANYTHING....

....to get into power. I want politicians who DON'T want office.

Hilary/Bill sold out to corporatism and failed us (deliberately?) on healthcare.

A lot of the problems we have with America today can be traced back to Clinton.

And you can see Hilary is much the same as Bill

[TWiley]

41. If true, it is disgusting.

If I can verify it, then I will ask to be removed from her mailing list. I have been a long-time supporter of both, but recently I have begun to wane.

I can handle the blow job, but I have a difficult time with Bill on TV with both bushes pushing for aid for Sir Lanka.

Bill could have done this with the democrats. There is no need to get tied up with the evil bush family. His presence ads legitimacy to their evil deeds.

[leesa]

43. Shame on her. She simply DOES NOT get it.

[CWebster]

46. Official state religion

What underlies it all, aside from violating fundamental constitutional priciples, is it washes the culture's hands of social responsibility by defining it within religious context exclusively. It is part of the whole corporate government endorsement of welfare for the ruling class but social responsibility is parceled out to the quarter that has been asigned the moral responsibility--government no longer recognises it's role as caring for it's citizenry. It is part of the climate that is dismantling all "New Deal" policy, including social security. It is an attitude echoed in selfish libertarian thought that charity should not be a part of the social contract.
Our taxes pay for "religion" (and how diverse will that be?) to serve this function with the expectation that they will be secular in operation - like a privitized industry. There is a undeniable clash there in that religion is expected to forfeit it's identity, while the state is asigning religion as the sole moral identity in the culture.
It seems like an ideal business opportunity, ripe for exploitation: No taxes owed while recieving funds from taxes, and less accountability since the poor are the most vulnerable among us.
What a scam.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Are there no religions to assume the responsibility we all should shoulder for our communities?

If this isn't THE violation of gov and religion than what the hell is, since religion is providing a government service with taxpayer's money -in addition to paying off the RR.

[Cocoa]

47. I think you're making too much out of this

and Newsmax is, too. They are, along with you, blowing these pretty conventional comments about religion, of which I'm not sure how much is new, way out of proportion.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/1/21/112646.shtml


btw, your Boston Globe link doesn't work for me, can you fix the link...

[Brian_Expat]

53. Link works for me, and further. . .

. . . Hillary Clinton has no time to vote against Condi Rice or hold press conferences and events standing up for liberal values, but she's got time to hang out in Copley Square and endorse Bush's "faith based funding" initiative?

Someone's priorities are WAAAY out of whack.

[papau]

61. dead link has been replaced by link below

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives/

[Cocoa]

62. the dems aren't going to talk about religion in your terms

thank God, so to speak.

Praying makes her a fundamentalist? That's an intolerant, ignorant attitude and to the extent that the dems represent that attitude, there are people that simply can't vote for the dems.

BUT, the idea that that the dems represent that attitude is actually a lie, spread by Newsmax and the like.

You and Newsmax are both wrong, this speech is not a reason for anyone to be jumping up and down in outrage.

[papau]

75. I agree-here's a write up on Natioal Ten Point program that Hill spoke to

Hillary spoke to Natioal Ten Point program - here is a write up on what they do:


The Coalition is an ecumenical group of Christian clergy and lay leaders working to mobilize the Christian community around issues affecting Black and Latino youth -- especially those at-risk for violence, drug abuse and other destructive behaviors.

The Coalition’s goal is not to replace the local church, but to make the local church more effective in the work of rebuilding of communities. It also seeks to build partnerships with community-based, governmental, and private sector institutions which are also committed to the revitalization of the families and communities in which our youth must be raised.

The following programs have been implemented by the Coalition’s 52 church and parachurch members: street outreach programs; court advocacy and mentoring programs; economic development; health center partnerships; neighborhood crime watch support; male and female gang intervention programs; suburban and downtown to inner city church partnerships.<1>


National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation

The National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation is a non-profit organization whose primary mission is to help provide African-American Christian churches with the strategic vision, programmatic structure, and financial resources necessary to saving at-risk inner-city youth from child abuse and neglect, street violence, drug abuse, school failure, teen-age pregnancy, incarceration, chronic joblessness, spiritual depravity, and hopelessness about the future.<2>
THE TEN POINTS:

Adopting youth gangs.
Sending mediators and mentors for Black and Latino juveniles into the local courts, schools, juvenile detention facilities, and the streets.
Commissioning youth workers to do street level work with drug dealers and gang leaders.
Developing concrete and specific economic alternatives to the drug economy.
Building linkages between downtown and suburban churches and inner-city churches and ministries.
Initiating and supporting neighborhood crime watches.
Developing partnerships between churches and community health centers that would, for example, facilitate counseling for families and individuals under stress, offer abstinence-oriented prevention programs for sexually transmitted diseases, or provide substance abuse prevention and recovery programs.
Establishing brotherhoods and sisterhoods as a rational alternative to violent gang life.
Establishing rape crisis drop-in centers, services for battered women, and counseling for abusive men.
Developing a Black and Latino curriculum, with an additional focus on the struggles of women and poor people as a means of increasing literacy and enhancing self-esteem in young people.

[JanMichael]

59. That's a surprise? Bill couldn't eat a Big Mac w/o praising Jesus.

We had 8 years of this and now it's a shock?

[geniph]

84. Given e.coli and mad cow, I'd pray before eating a Big Mac, too

We seem to still require our politicians to yammer endlessly on about their faith in order to be electable. Just try to get elected on a national level if you're a known atheist or agnostic. Just try.

[realFedUp]

67. Churches can set up 501c3s

where everything is separate between the church
and the organization...accounting books
included. There is nothing wrong with this...what's
wrong with Bush's bucks giveaway is there is
no accountability for the taxpayer funds.
Hard to know whether these pastors are lining
their own pockets or passing out walking around
money.

This administration has no accountability.
Meme that.

[papau]

74. TenPoint Leadership Foundation is a 501c3

http://www.thebakerhouse.org/latest_news/Herald_H_Clinton.html

Clinton in Hub helps honor local mentors
By Kimberly Atkins
Thursday, January 20, 2005


Hillary Rodham Clinton last night praised local inner-city activists and declared that - despite the 2004 election results - no political party has a monopoly on faith-based initiatives.

``There is a lot that needs to be done and there is an unnecessary debate in our country on how to do it,'' said the New York senator and former first lady, keynote speaker at a Boston dinner honoring local people who mentor city youth.

``It doesn't matter whether it is inspired by faith, inspired by our vision, inspired by family or inspired by the threat of federal indictment,'' she told those attending the Ella J. Baker House dinner at the Fairmont Copley Plaza Hotel, which attracted some 400 people.

The Baker House, a Dorchester-based arm of the national TenPoint Leadership Foundation, was founded by the Rev. Eugene F. Rivers III.

The group's first annual awards dinner paid tribute to local leaders who have worked to assist inner-city young people. Award recipients were Boston police Commissioner Kathleen O'Toole, former U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern, Roxbury Municipal Court Judge Edward R. Redd and Sylvia R. Johnson, associate director of the Hyams Foundation, which provides grants to support local nonprofit organizations.

``Too often it is only kids who get in trouble that get the attention,'' O'Toole said. ``I want to give attention to the kids we see in the city day in and day out.''

[MissMarple]

68. Sounds clueless, this is totally beside the point.

"Faith based" initiatives are just part of the shadow and mirrors, they are not a real target, just another piece of obfuscation..

[Larkspur]

70. I'm waiting for HIllary to have picture of her taken carrying the Bible

to and from the Senate. She'd be mimicing Bill, who carried the Bible in public view.

[AgadorSparticus]

73. what else will she compromise on for the sake of her career?

Social Security? More unfounded wars? Reversing Roe v. Wade? That marriage amendment?

I'm flabbergasted that she thinks this will somehow help her career. I say let the red Kool Aid drinkers support her then. ugh...

[mtnsnake]

78. If this is what it takes to get a Dem in power, then so be it

Obama, Dean, Boxer, and everyone else better start praising the lord in public if they plan on getting anywhere in this fucked up country. Jesus christ what a goddamn mess this is.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. She's after "electability" DLC style.

Just another asskissing, pollwatching, cheap political hack with ambitions far exceeding her talents or ethics.

[Q]

80. Hillary is among those who seem to think the Bill of Rights is 'antiquated

...and can be ignored for the sake of political opportunism.

[Q]

81. Hillary is among those who think the Bill of Rights...

...is old, outdated and 'antiquated' and can be ignored for political opportunism.

[geniph]

83. I have no problem with Senator Clinton being personally religious

...she's always been a faithful Methodist, and apparently quite sincere in it. More power to her. In her personal life, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. I do, however, think that it doesn't belong in her professional life any more than it belongs in mine. Religion and the workplace don't mix, not unless you're working for a religious organization. Why, oh why, can't people practice their religion privately, and let everyone else practice what they believe without interference? Why does this country still require politicians to frequently trumpet their piety to the world?