www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Hating Hillary from Christianity Today

I ought to have my head examined for venturing into politics on this forum. A Disclaimer: I am NOT a Hillary Supporter, I am not voting for her. But I think sometimes the discourse I hear about her is very unchristian, and is very disturbing to me. So I offer this as food for thought:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2008/march/14.26.html

*Nathan throws a tomato in Lance's direction

Lol, just kidding.

"While pundits see candidates as punching bags, evangelicals are supposed to see candidates as, well, people."

Good point. As a person, Hillary does not escape the consequences of original sin. As a person, she would do much damage to this country if she spearheads a shift to socialism.

Her talk about corporations and their unreasonable profit is quite terrifying.

Terry

Terry,

Thanks for your comment. I think it is fine to be very critical of Hillary Clinton or any other politician. They serve us, and must be accountable to us, and we should vote our values and work to defeat people we think will introduce destructive policies. We need to remember that all our made in the image of God, and as such, have an intrinsic dignity. And if Hillary or anyone else we do not like wins the white house, we must pray for them every day, and keep them before the throne of God.

Okay Nathan- you wisenheimer! LOL!

Ummm I thought the early Christians practiced socialism in that they shared everything. So it is a bad thing then?

Converted Viking

I think it's fair to say that some of the earliest Christians practiced a socialism of sorts. However, it was voluntary, and not imposed by the state.

Acts depicts a small community which, instead of socialism, would be closer to the Communist ideal where each individual contributes to the whole. The USSR never had a communist society.

Athanasius the L pinned the difference between the community in Acts and a socialist state on the head. It would have been better for me to have called expansion of government control democratic socialism, as it does not involve revolution.

Terry

Dear Lance,

That was an excellent article and as a Moderator, I thank you for sharing it.

Although we may not 'like' certain traits of a person's personality-- (my personal peeve about Sen. Clinton is that she makes the same kinds of catty faces and smirks that some types of women like to make, and that I do not think that such visible behaviour is professional in the position which she holds, as well as, and even more importantly, to the one which she aspires to)--but, as Christians we should respect each person's dignity and the responsibilities which they have chosen to uphold in service to their country.

Name calling is the lowest form of degradation of another, and is something which we Christians should discipline ourselves to try not to do.

Alice

Thank you Alice.

I must admit, I have not always been good myself about name calling.

I really admired John McCain for his mild rebuke of those who were engaged in the name-calling of his opponents. Senator McCain showed a lot of class. I appreciated very much the way he spoke about the issue, how he has philosophical differences with Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton, but considers them honorable people who want to serve their country. He wants to stick to debating the issues.

As a Christian, I very much appreciate Senator McCain's remarks.

Blessings,


Lance

I'd say this much.

I do see Hilary Clinton, and for that matter Barak Obama, as people. They are people who hold to dangerous and false notions that would ruin the nation, and should not be elected, but people all the same.

Perhpas we as a people need to learn to be moe Charitable, but should never confuse Charitability with agrement.

I am also disturbed about the level of discourse. The modern style of spiteful and personalized politics (as opposed to the older style of spiteful and personalized politics :)) seems to have geared up in the Reagan administration (though there were bits in the Carter administration). While vicious attacks go back to the beginning of the republic (Hamilton was attacked as "the bastard son of a Scottish peddler" [which was, in fact, true :)]), by the Carter administration we reached "Carter" in a dismissive tone, devolving further to derisive use of "Ronnie" in the Reagan administration.

But the Reagan administration seems to be the point where policy differences led to real personal rancor, helped along by the attempted use of the criminal justice system in policy disputes. And now we have people today who think that the term "the Shrub" has a place in serious discussion . . .

I'd also put some blame on the Clintons while in office. The old dictum was to attack the man, but respect the office. This was made harder with an incumbent who himself seemed to not to respect the office, seeing it as a way to "get chicks."

Anyway, the overall behavior from both sides of the aisle, and their supporters, has become deplorable and indefensible (although I'll admit to having used the phrase "draft-dodger in chief")




hawk. whistling innocently while passing lance a head of rotten lettuce

Hilary Clinton does have a polarizing effect as well as having a reputation for, ummm, not being particularly pleasant and holding a grudge if she doesn't get her own way.

It irritates me that she claims "experience" by virtue of having been First Lady, but then claims the relevant papers aren't under her control so she doesn't have to release information. It seems that she should choose one or the other.

She supports the killing of young children on a massive scale.

I can't think of any kind words which could be said about that type of individual. Can one say a kind word about Hitler, Stalin, B2K, etc?

Only prayer and fasting can one cast out such a demon.

BTW, if you think I am a little over the edge consider this:
Source [ontheissues.org]
"Partial-Birth" Abortion [priestsforlife.org]

B2K doesn't ring a bell. Was he a dictator?