Quote of the day

posted at 10:30 pm on September 9, 2007 by Allahpundit

“Clinton’s prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or ‘the Family’), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to ‘spiritual war’ on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship’s only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has ‘made a fetish of being invisible,’ former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan…

Senator Brownback understood the temptation. He used to hate Clinton so much, he told us, that the hate hurt. Then came the Clintons’ 1994 National Prayer Breakfast appearance with Mother Teresa, who upbraided the couple for their pro-choice views. Bill made no attempt to conceal his anger, but Hillary took it and smiled. Brownback remembers thinking, ‘Now, there’s gotta be a great lesson here.’ He didn’t know what it was until Clinton got to the Senate and joined him in supporting DeLay’s Day of Reconciliation resolution following the 2000 election, a proposal described by its backers as a call to ‘pray for our leaders.’ Now, Brownback considers Clinton ‘a beautiful child of the living God.’”

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 1:57 AM

Explain how so?

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 1:58 AM

But, and I do not accept that abortion is a right as defined in your constitution (or any right at all)…
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 1:31 AM

I’m being very serious when I ask, is there any definition or mandate for or against any personal behavior in the Constitution of the United States?

Speakup on September 10, 2007 at 2:03 AM

I just gave you the example of Leonidas and his men going knowingly to their death to save their family and countrymen.

This was not motivated by the slightest Judeo-Christianity.

A primitive woman even in the days before fire giving risking herself to save her kids is another.

Someone looking at something they want and not stealing it due to custom is another. Nothing to do with Judeo-Christianity.

I realize you don’t understand this. I know you dispute it. This doesn’t make it untrue. It demonstrates your ignorance.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:03 AM

Explain how so?

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 1:58 AM

I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.
- Confucius

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:03 AM

I haven’t read the whole thing, but the preamble will suffice to my simple brain IF a fetus is a human (and that’s the only point of contention):

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is no justice if you kill babies (your own children, specifically). There is no welfare if you’re dead. There is no liberty if you’re dead. Etc.

Keep reading the constitution if you like.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:05 AM

thedecider, I’m going to do this once, but I won’t attempt the almost impossible task of trying to overcome biased ignorance forever.

Leonidas had no Judeo-Christian background. His culture had morality, but not Judeo-Christian, the source of all, as you said.

Jesus, however, later came along and said a man has no greater love than he lay down his life for his fellows. So this establishes the morality of this action hopefully even to your dense sensibilities.

Leonidas and his men did same.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM

A primitive woman even in the days before fire giving risking herself to save her kids is another.
It demonstrates your ignorance.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:03 AM

I’m afraid it demonstrates yours. Are you assuming this woman doesn’t believe in an afterlife or a higher power? Archeologists have proven that even primitive peoples had religious customs. I’m asking where this comes from in the absence of religion? You haven’t answered that.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM

I’m afraid that does not address personal behavior.

Speakup on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:03 AM

Fair enough. I do the same.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:09 AM

Are you assuming this woman doesn’t believe in an afterlife or a higher power? Archeologists have proven that even primitive peoples had religious customs. I’m asking where this comes from in the absence of religion? You haven’t answered that.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM

So you think that the woman who saved her children wasn’t going to save them until she thought. “Wait a minute, God would be mad if I didn’t save them, so damn it all I guess I better try anyway”?

LMAO!

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:12 AM

I doubt Mother Jones has the best knowledge and understanding to give accurate commentary on Christianity. This is a political PR piece.

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

By your fruits you will know them.

There’s also John the Baptist’s admonition to bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance.

I had the exact same thoughts as infidel4life and Freelancer. The New Testament has many, many warnings about those who claim to know Christ, but are not. The warnings are to not be taken in and harmed by these wolves in sheep’s clothing. It’s called discernment. It’s not an admonition to hate, but rather to be wise. (The command to not judge has to do with condemnation. That is God’s prerogative to pardon or condemn.)

I could claim to be an orange but it wouldn’t make me one.

INC on September 10, 2007 at 2:13 AM

even to your dense sensibilities.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 AM

You know, Christoph, your constant insults reveal your inability to debate a simple point. I have not insulted you or called you by any derisive name, yet this is at least the third post in which you have insulted me. This says more than any debate you can come up with – which, frankly, have been extremely lacking in detail or fact. At this point, I will leave you alone knowing that you have no effective counter-point other than personal attack.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:13 AM

the decider, you’re a total moron. Or a liar. I say that word on purpose.

You didn’t speak of religion or spirituality as you now do. You said:

“The only guide to what is/is not acceptable in modern society is that which comes to us from Christian teaching.”

Well, this is patently B.S.

My example of morality in this case is ancient Greek teaching before Christianity. So your point is idiotic. Really, really stupid.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:13 AM

Fourth. Your moving the goalposts is dishonest. Or you really are that dense in which case you have my sympathy.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:14 AM

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:12 AM

Perish the thought! I’m suggesting she was taught a morality that suggested these things should be of paramount importance. So, where did that morality come from?

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:15 AM

At this point, I will leave you alone knowing that you have no effective counter-point other than personal attack.

You can delude yourself all you want. You had no effective point from the beginning. A counter-point is hardly required.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:14 AM

As personal attack is your only defense or argument, you have my sympathy.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:17 AM

I know many people, MB4, who are atheist who are decent. Granted I know more who are Christian who are.

And I also know Muslims who are. Etc.

All morality does not descent from Christianity. That’s dumb. And would be news to the Jews, I’m sure.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Like Hitchens said: once again we see how the Christians love each other.

After repeatedly rolling my eyes when people call AllahPundit a troll, I think they’re finally right for once. Yeesh.

sandberg on September 10, 2007 at 2:17 AM

Your point is moronic from the beginning, thedecider.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 AM

Your point is moronic from the beginning, thedecider.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:18 AM

How so, Christoph? By the way, try to see if you can respond to this question with an intellectual challenge rather than the childish name-calling you have resorted to, to this point in the discussion.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:22 AM

You know, decider, up yours.

As someone who is not a Christian, you’ve basically said with your stupid point that all modern morality is based on Christianity that I am immoral.

Well, that’s retarded.

Yes, I’ve learned some lessons from Christianity. And a lot from elsewhere including before Christianity ever existed.

I’ve also rejected some of the more evil parts of the bible like hating gay people for example. So, in the end, my morality is on a higher level than your Bible.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:22 AM

Even animals will sacrifice their lives for their young. I don’t mean to enter into your argument but that isn’t necessarily an evidence of morality. But I too know many decent people who are not Christian. But as a society it would seem that religion does play a part in some choices regarding personal behavior

Rose on September 10, 2007 at 2:23 AM

Perish the thought! I’m suggesting she was taught a morality that suggested these things should be of paramount importance. So, where did that morality come from?

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:15 AM

Most likely it came from within her heart.

But in any case since Christoph’s example was of a woman in the days before fire pretty obviously it wasn’t from Christianity.

BTW, my own inner morality is starting to tell me that I should not pile on.

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:24 AM

thedecider, I’ve ripped apart your useless “point”, which, as MB4 pointed out, was absurd on its face.

In addition to that, I am attacking your offensive stance. It’s demeaning to all the other people who have exercised morality before Judeo-Christianity was brought to their attention or who exercise morality apart from Judeo-Christianity whether they’ve ever heard of it or not.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:25 AM

But as a society it would seem that religion does play a part in some choices regarding personal behavior

Rose on September 10, 2007 at 2:23 AM

It does, as do many things.

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:26 AM

Even animals will sacrifice their lives for their young. I don’t mean to enter into your argument but that isn’t necessarily an evidence of morality.

Perhaps not. But according to Jesus it is.

Anyway, standing by your fellows in battle and marching off to certain death to defend your country and its free ideas by just buying them a few extra days to mobilize… is a lot different than responding to an attack on your children.

And they taught stealing was wrong, etc. Not all morality is from Christ! And it’s really dumb to say so.

Not even Paul did that.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:27 AM

In addition to that, I am attacking your offensive stance. It’s demeaning to all the other people who have exercised morality before Judeo-Christianity was brought to their attention or who exercise morality apart from Judeo-Christianity whether they’ve ever heard of it or not.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:25 AM

It is also offensive to Christians (he actually said Christian, not Judeo-Christian) as it implies that they would otherwise be bad.

Now I am piling on. So now my conscious is twinging.

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:30 AM

I guess Allahpundit then is amoral. Or is he secretly a Christian learning his morality from the Bible?

Or does he, as Paul said, simply do the right thing (when he does) because it’s his nature? That — and some decisions on his part.

I vote for the latter.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:30 AM

You are right that a certain sense of right and wrong can exist without Christianity. But I have not heard of a Christian based society that practices cannibalism or puts their old people on ice flows to die. Jesus did say that giving up your life was an act of love, He did not necessarily say it was an act of morality. If you are equating love with morality than you are right but morality is more than love. It is having a high standard of personal behavior. Where Christians and atheists disagree is on what that personal behavior should be.

Rose on September 10, 2007 at 2:34 AM

Mayhaps he barfed at this

The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan

Hitler was powerful too. Evil is not empowered by the will of God but by Satan. Otherwise what value is free will? There are no choices if everything is God directed. That is more an islamic, than Judeo-Christian construct.

There is a true barf factor in the suppostion that this group is working on a mission for the Lord. Ancient non Christian Greeks would call it hubris

Allah, you should know better than to troll your own site.

Lee on September 9, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Direct hit by troll-o-meter

I’m not trolling the site. I just don’t think it’s necessary to sneer at the woman’s faith. You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

And you sneer back at atheism. What I don’t do is accuse you or anyone else of being insincere in their belief, which is exactly what some of you are doing now to Hillary.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:42 PM

Oy-troll-vey

Atheism is a neutral supposition about god. Profess Christianity and you profess to follow Christ and His teachings. Christ was rough on those who hurt the least of His little ones; those persons would be better off sunk with a millstone around their neck than face the wrath of judgement

Personally when she went after Billy Dale at the White House travel office I despised her. And when she had the White House phone operators all fired. And when she used our military to serve snacks to her buddies for a power trip. And when they sold the Lincoln bedroom for power. And when she copped a Southern accent. And when she and Bill staged the Normandy memory lane trip complete with Bill absent mindedly creating a cross in the sand I despised the whole stinking group of hypocrits. And when she started to set herself up as co-President designing a compulsory health care system with national id card. And when she ‘forgot’ about the documents from the Rose Law firm. And when she took the 100K for a futures play staged by a money launderer and pretended she was a fast study I wanted to – barf.

To me she is a pharisee

There is a great book, Without Honor by Jerry Zeifman who was General Counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. He describes how Hilary, a junior on his team, argued that Nixon had no right to an attorney for the impeachment process. Barf

entagor on September 10, 2007 at 2:34 AM

Yes, I’ve learned some lessons from Christianity. And a lot from elsewhere including before Christianity ever existed.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:22 AM

Considering you’ve never had the opportunity to live in a time when Christianity never existed, I’ll simply have to take your “comment” at face value and ignore how completely illogical your assumptions are. Further, considering that you are incapable of answering a simple question in intellectual terms, and without personal attack, I now know – as will all of cyberspace from this point forward – that your comments are to be taken with a grain of salt and simply give you the customary, “buh-bye”, without trying to engage a discussion which, in your case, leads to nowhere.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:36 AM

Speakup, I’ve been busy so haven’t gotten to your constitutional question.

IF a fetus is a person, and I say yes, then the constitution clearly prohibits abortion. From Amendment 14:

…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

That’s unambiguous.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:38 AM

Where Christians and atheists disagree is on what that personal behavior should be.

Rose on September 10, 2007 at 2:34 AM

Hopefully not on most things.

Do they disagree on murder?

If so which is for and which against?

Kennedy, Kerry and Guliania are Christians and, last I heard anyway, are for late term abortion being legal.

I am not and I am not.

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:42 AM

But I have not heard of a Christian based society that practices cannibalism or puts their old people on ice flows to die.

Very few cultures do these things. And whatever. I’m not saying that non-Christian cultures (or Christian cultures) are perfectly moral. That’s absurd.

I’m addressing thedecider’s categorically mind-numbingly imbecilic Dunce-cap point about all morality in a modern society coming from Christianity.

But for what it’s worth, the U.S., while not universally Christian (no population anywhere has ever been), is more Christian than most on Earth and permits abortion, pornography which is really sex for money with cameras rolling, etc. And these are legal. And they happen in your city. Probably within three miles of where you’re sitting.

In a previous era, the very religious south permitted slavery. So it’s a mixed bag.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Otherwise what value is free will?

entagor on September 10, 2007 at 2:34 AM

A man can do as he wills, but not will as he wills.
- Schopenhauer

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:47 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Hey Mr. USA expert go back to Canada Jag Off!

sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 2:51 AM

or Mrs.

sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Make me.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Christoph, Your right about the abortion and pornography. But it is the Christians who are fighting these things and being called prudes and other derogatory things because of it. Your also right about slavery but many Christians were against it and did whatever they could to try and end it. Not all Christians but many have been involved in trying to right social injustices. But, like I said before, I don’t think you have to be a Christian to do good things. The Christian religion is actually more about salvation. But that’s another issue and I have to leave now and do not mean to start another discussion.

Rose on September 10, 2007 at 2:52 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Ugh! Your ignorance continues to astound. The popular party of the South was the Democratic party. The anti-slavery party was begun – by all legitimate historical accounts – with Abraham Lincoln who helped firmly establish the Republican party. And, yes, Abe Lincoln was a religious man.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 2:57 AM

the Christians

The Christians? Or some Christians?

Anyway, I’m going to take offense again, although less vigorously because your point is overlooking something, it’s neither as completely off base or as offensive.

Did you not miss the part about MB4 and I most definitely not being Christians?

Do you oppose abortion more than me? I doubt it.

I choose my girlfriends (fortunately have a fantastic one and plan on keeping her) with this as a main caveat. If she doesn’t pass this test, she’s gone.

I had a website with a letter about what I was looking for in a relationship (long story… it was part of an exercise in a book about how to write a sales letter and I sold web hosting so I said why not buy an account off myself and put it on the net… then I did and found the woman I’ve loved for three years and plan on loving forever)… it made that point VERY clearly.

Some woman loved it. Others were deeply offended. I could have slept with some of those. I wouldn’t have minded, except I despised them. So I didn’t.

I’ve campaigned against this issue since I was an atheist child.

I’m no longer an atheist per se, but my hatred of abortion comes from my love of life, not the Bible.

The Muslims, atheists, and members of a WIDE variety of religions that I know would be surprised it is “the Christians” fighting against this.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:58 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Hey Mr. USA expert go back to Canada Jag Off!

sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 2:51 AM

When we see persons of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see persons of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves.
- Confucius

MB4 on September 10, 2007 at 2:59 AM

Of course Abraham Lincoln was religious, Dumb-ass, I’ve read about him for years and have books about him on my shelf 8 feet away.

You’re not proving anything but your colossal mental inadequacy.

In that war, Christians were fighting each other. But good was on one side and that was the anti-slavery side.

If you will, God was on one side while Christians were divided.

Christianity is not the source of all modern goodness.

It’s more of a force for good than for bad in the world, I earnestly believe. But your statement was stupid.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 3:00 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 3:00 AM

Once again, the personal attack. You’re point is, again, not made. You’ve revealed both your folly and your lack of ability to debate too many times tonight. No more. Just join the Democratic party and be done with it. Good bye.

thedecider on September 10, 2007 at 3:08 AM

Dude, I’ve both attacked your intelligence and done the completely unnecessary which is to say shown how lame your point is.

It was lame from the get-go.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 3:17 AM

You know, the American and Canadian soldiers who are fighting, killing, and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan who are not Christians, who are fighting beside brave allies who are not Christian, so you and I can sit here discussing this, would disagree with you that all modern morality comes from Christianity.

I guess, however, those soldiers aren’t good enough for you.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 3:20 AM

Like many others who claim the “atheist” title our AP likes to shake his fist and curse God occasionally and when he is not struck down, it reaffirms his belief that God does not exist because he would strike down “unbelievers” if he were an all powerful deity. He may and probably will deny it but I find it amusing that he is so obsessed with someone he claims he doesn’t believe in. If you’re an atheist, there is no reason you should wish to discuss it, especially with those who disagree. There is no point.

TBinSTL on September 10, 2007 at 4:01 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 3:20 AM Blah Blah Blah Mr. Know it all this country was 95% Christian (all denominations) until the leftist anarchist ideology of the late fifties and sixties. It then became neccessary to identify the shrinking number of Christians as the Moral Majority or the Silent Majority. The Christian faith has always been here in the U.S. and in control to some degree. You know nothing of the social edicts of days gone by here in the States. These have been eroded away by the constant barage of sex and violence that permeates all media today. Not to mention the school systems indoctrination of leftist idology. You are a spiteful person who seems to find joy in picking at the falts of this country. You are jealous and a weak example of a raving ranting nut case who seeths at the thought of people other than yourself living a good and meaningful life.

sonnyspats1 on September 10, 2007 at 4:21 AM

Which only begs the question – where does common morality come from? … The only guide to what is/is not acceptable in modern society is that which comes to us from Christian teaching.

Oddly, I remember a couple months in Philosophy class discussing this topic.

I’m curious how you’d support a claim that all morality derives from Christianity, when Saint Thomas of Aquinas separated types of morality and virtue into categories, and only one category (faith, hope, and charity) were supposed to be directly tied to religion and God… the rest were:

…the object of the intellectual and moral virtues is something comprehensible to human reason. Wherefore the theological virtues are specifically distinct from the moral and intellectual virtues.

Summa Theologica

Now Aquinas believed that some good definitively did come from God (although I have read the countervailing arguments, but copying a 500 page book here isn’t exactly kosher)… but even the Scholar/Philosopher/Saint didn’t believe that Christianity was the basis of all morality.

Whereas you’ve posited that “The only guide to what is/is not acceptable in modern society is that which comes to us from Christian teaching.”.

So, why did Saint Thomas of Aquinas fail to properly attribute God and Christianity as the only moving forces for morality? And how and why could someone failing in this manner achieve Sainthood?

gekkobear on September 10, 2007 at 4:21 AM

Like many others who claim the “atheist” title our AP likes to shake his fist and curse God occasionally and when he is not struck down, it reaffirms his belief that God does not exist because he would strike down “unbelievers” if he were an all powerful deity. He may and probably will deny it but I find it amusing that he is so obsessed with someone he claims he doesn’t believe in. If you’re an atheist, there is no reason you should wish to discuss it, especially with those who disagree. There is no point.

Right, if someone posts foolishness that you don’t believe in, there isn’t any point in commenting… like either your post, or this one.

However, I disagree with your premise; this is exactly the point of many comments. To discuss things you disagree with.

For example, if I were to post a Truther comment, or deny the moon landing, or claim the existence of Martians influencing the Global temperature… likely someone would respond. Should I then suspect that all who respond are obsessed with Truther spiel, or the Moon Landing, or Martians?

gekkobear on September 10, 2007 at 4:29 AM

You know, Allah, Rose was right.

You did throw the first stone with that ironically hateful quote from Hitchens.

I get the sense that your atheism gives you a comfortable perch, figuratively, on the deck of the starship Enterprise, with the logical Spock as your personal “Father Abraham.” This would seem to give you a clean place with which to safely view this messy Earth with its messy heritage and history.

Perhaps you and Hitchens will allow that some of us mere mortals have read on our own our messy history and the Bible and have accepted Jesus as both a historical figure and our God. Then we dare to call ourselves Christians.

Then we *try* to love others and rise above it all…

So can you ask Spock and Hitchens for me how it is we Christians are supposed to police anyone who says “I am a Christian,” and insure the apropriate love in his or her heart, in order to please the atheists’ desire for clean logic?

If you did just throw that hateful quote out there to gin up traffic, then shame on you: freedom of expression, yes, but freedom with responsibility.

silverfox on September 10, 2007 at 5:12 AM

I’m late to this game, but:

What I don’t do is accuse you or anyone else of being insincere in their belief, which is exactly what some of you are doing now to Hillary.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:42 PM

You’re clearly just talking about her “faith” (chuckle), because I don’t think anyone here would say Hillary is remotely sincere in general. Everyone knows what a politic player she is, thus the moderate anti-war tone and the fact that she still supported the mission so much longer, for fear positive developments could swing support back.

Anyway, I’m not sure why I’m going on about that, I think it’s a very safe assumption that you would agree Hillary is extremely insincere, even for a politician. So my first question to you is, why would her “faith” be any different? My second is, why is it that questioning her sincerity, with regards to her faith, is off limits, but it’s okay in other circumstances?

Allah, are you then saying that we should accept Miss Hillary’s rare and convenient southern accent as “sincere” now too?

And, need I remind you?…

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/News/Business/Barack_Obama_Hillary_Clinton_Selma_Race_For_Black_And_White_Votes__2997.asp

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. And I want to begin by giving praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon us as a congregation, as a people, and as a nation. and I thank you so much, Reverend Armstrong, for welcoming me to this historic church.

I come here this morning as a sister in worship, a grateful friend and beneficiary of what happened in Selma 42 years ago. I come to share the memories of a troubled past and a hope for a better tomorrow.

The shameful accent to pander to dem po black folks… but more importantly, read that language… have you EVER heard her talk like that before or since? No. She was pandering to a faithful southern black audience.

RightWinged on September 10, 2007 at 5:31 AM

Now, Brownback considers Clinton ‘a beautiful child of the living God.’”
When I think about Hillary, I also have feelings of religious insight.

Brother Brownback’s obviously not spending enough time in The Word … or maybe he’s not reading the right verses.

Ali-Bubba on September 10, 2007 at 5:31 AM

You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

“You will know them by their fruits…”

Matthew 7:16 NKJV

oldleprechaun on September 10, 2007 at 5:43 AM

I’ll admit I don’t like her or her husband and I’ll fight them tooth and nail, but I’m reminded that if I can’t forgive someone of their worst transgression, I should not expect to be forgiven my least.

So, I have no trouble forgiving her/him/them, even while I do my best to shut them out of the game and make sure they NEVER get another turn at bat.

james hooker on September 10, 2007 at 6:35 AM

Next , she’ll be tappin’ crack hos just like Falwell.

TheSitRep on September 10, 2007 at 7:01 AM

The question is, why wouldn’t she claim to be a Christian if it works in her favor, since she needs to offer no proof to support her claim and cannot be challenged on it?

Geoffry T. Spaulding on September 10, 2007 at 8:05 AM

The shameful accent to pander to dem po black folks… but more importantly, read that language… have you EVER heard her talk like that before or since? No. She was pandering to a faithful southern black audience.

I don’t know, RightWinged, that this is a good example.

You know, after our initial spat when we kissed and made up, we’ve held hands and walked side by side on most issues.

(Just pulling your leg in case you’re a homophobe — relax!)

I work in sales. I’m taught to be honest with customers, believe it or not.

I also have learned to build rapport with them and, unless I leaned heavily on “schtick”, which is what I believe she was doing, I wouldn’t try to pass myself off as having the other person’s accent exactly.

But I often without even thinking about it mirror pacing, inflection, volume, tone, and other qualities and this comes very close to matching the accent of the other person. It has been shown that this does improve communication and enhance mutual understanding.

Likewise, I often use terms familiar to the other person that I wouldn’t otherwise use… like regional terms.

And, again, I may well do so heavier than normal if it’s VERY clear I’m not really of the same background as that person, but I’m showing them in a possibly humorous way, or even serious, that I’m trying to be more like them.

I don’t think this is a great example of deception. I think rather it’s a good example of why Hillary is flexible in her approach and likely to be president.

There are other examples of lying and they would better prove your point.

Oh, to anyone whom I offended yesterday:

Good morning!

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 8:22 AM

As St. James said, “You tell me you have faith, but no works. I will show you my faith by my works. Faith without works is dead.”
Nanny-state socialism is not the work of God – I feel free to call into question her faith. If she claims to be a Christian the criticism should be welcome – after all, we are to admonish one another.

I don’t see how forgiveness plays into accepting her wickedness. It just means you don’t hold a grudge against her for it. Has she ever genuinely sought forgiveness?

Don’t play the sap, folks. Or as Paul said, “You suffer fools gladly.”

RiverCocytus on September 10, 2007 at 8:25 AM

How the heck did this change into another Christianity vs. Atheism fight?

I swear AP, sometimes I wonder whether you do this to bring some fun chaos into your well-ordered universe. Or you’re out baiting trolls for banworthy commentary.

Short form:

Christopher Hitchens should keep his toxic comments on religion in Christopher Hitchens’ own toxic mind. Hitchens is the man who believes Mother Teresa was some form of atheist while simultaneously calling her the Ghoul of Calcullta. That’s either self-depreciation or incoherent insanity, and Hitchens doesn’t strike me as a man who would attack his own massive ego.

I reiterate that any promotion of religion by Hillary is nothing more than the new strategy of the Democrats: religion is something that must be injected into campaigns in order to win elections. Jesus said to love and forgive our enemies, not turn a blind eye to their utter, obvious insincerity. When Democrats start thinking religion is to be sincerely believed and followed in daily life and not just brought up to win a District and then ignored until the next election, I’ll start taking them seriously.

Oh, and just a note, Christoph and thedecider: As amusing as your slapfights are, they never go anywhere.

Cristoph is right, there was life and morality before Judeo-Christianity, with the caveat that the moral and ethical landscape of 4000 years ago was quite different than the one today.

thedecider is right, Judeo-Christian principles do form the moral backbone of most modern (conservative) opinions, whether atheists own up to it or not. There’s a reason leftists refer to social cons as “the Religious Right”: They know it is the religious people who keep their moral relativism and demand for absolute, consequence-free license in check. Prae tell, what religion do you think they’re talking about? It obviously isn’t Islam.

BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 8:26 AM

Mr. Know it all this country was 95% Christian (all denominations) until the leftist anarchist ideology of the late fifties and sixties. It then became neccessary to identify the shrinking number of Christians as the Moral Majority or the Silent Majority. The Christian faith has always been here in the U.S. and in control to some degree. You know nothing of the social edicts of days gone by here in the States. These have been eroded away by the constant barage of sex and violence that permeates all media today. Not to mention the school systems indoctrination of leftist idology. You are a spiteful person who seems to find joy in picking at the falts of this country. You are jealous and a weak example of a raving ranting nut case who seeths at the thought of people other than yourself living a good and meaningful life.

↑ “not” raving

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 8:29 AM

I’m not trolling the site. I just don’t think it’s necessary to sneer at the woman’s faith. You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

You seem sincere about everything you post on this site, and I respect your intelligence, so I will assume this comment is your reasoned expression of the likelihood that Hillary is a person of serious Christian faith.

As a consequence, I find my numerous and long-term objections to her put into question. I find it inconceivable that a Christian Hillary will not be the next President.

JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 8:29 AM

This is no sneer, Allah. I would be honored to have my faith tested.

Nevertheless, she shows no evidence of sincerity. Any man may go to prayer – publicly – to display his so-called faith.

But the work of the heart changes the work of the hands, yes?

Would we call a man faithful if he says all of the right prayers and then goes and kills children? Would we not question his faith rightly?

And the woman who knowingly funds them?

“How long shall you judge unjustly? How long will you accept the persons of the wicked?”

I remember the story of ‘The Devil and Tom Walker’. No amount of genuflecting magically makes faith.

It is the burden of a public person.

RiverCocytus on September 10, 2007 at 8:38 AM

I don’t question the sincerity and strength of Hillary’s faith.

I question in whom she has her faith.

angryoldfatman on September 10, 2007 at 9:17 AM

I just don’t think it’s necessary to sneer at the woman’s faith. You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

Pppfffftttt! Big deal! Hillary “believes” in God. So does Satan. Next thing ya’ know, AllahPundit will be telling us that we have to love him too.
My collie says:

AP should stick to what he knows, viz. belief in nothing.

CyberCipher on September 10, 2007 at 9:19 AM

By the way, if you believe that you yourself are a Christ, then you would have no problems sincerely calling yourself a Christian. Hell, Allahpundit, you and Enrique could confidentally call yourselves Christians if that were the case.

angryoldfatman on September 10, 2007 at 9:38 AM

As a consequence, I find my numerous and long-term objections to her put into question. I find it inconceivable that a Christian Hillary will not be the next President.

JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 8:29 AM

Well, it might not be Christian Hillary. It might be Black Hillary, or Gay Hillary, or Big Labor Hillary, or any other opinion Hillary has donned to pander to somebody.

BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 9:40 AM

You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.
Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

What??? She is a fake, phony, fraud. Why should we trust her sincerity on anything other than her sincere devotion to Marxist principles?

Yes, I want a Republican to win and a Hillary Clinton presidency may be a disaster. Yet I’m not sold on the certainty that it would be.
You can start throwing stones now.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:38 AM

Ah, so if we dispute your theory we are not good Christians? And pardon me for asking, but didn’t you just throw a stone?

Cheap, cheap, cheap.

But I have not heard of a Christian based society that practices cannibalism or puts their old people on ice flows to die.
Very few cultures do these things.
Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:43 AM

Very few cultures do these things? What do you mean?

Cristoph is right, there was life and morality before Judeo-Christianity, with the caveat that the moral and ethical landscape of 4000 years ago was quite different than the one today.

BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 8:26 AM

Agreed.

I’d argue that the most significant difference between then and now is the concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness being inalienable rights endowed by our Creator.

This is where I have a problem with Atheism (although I do not “sneer” at it). If our rights depend on the whims of men then our rights are temporary and cannot be inalienable.

Buy Danish on September 10, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Speakup, I’ve been busy so haven’t gotten to your constitutional question.

IF a fetus is a person, and I say yes, then the constitution clearly prohibits abortion. From Amendment 14:

…nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…

That’s unambiguous.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:38 AM

That’s actually not a bad answer except that this section defines what the ‘state’ may not do and does not define what ‘persons’ may not do.

Speakup on September 10, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Brownback has been one of my Senators for some time now, and I used to think he was doing OK.

However, after seeing him routinely “suckered” by the likes of Clinton, Ahmadinejab (? sp: Ph:”I’m a nut job”) and others on the larger world stage, I have come to the conclusion that Mr Brownback does not have what it takes to serve in a national office.

Most of the time his motivations are good, but he is too easily led astray by his enemies because he cannot seem to recognize them as enemies: this is dangerous, and puts us all at risk.

I will not be voting for him again for any national office.

landlines on September 10, 2007 at 10:28 AM

If our rights depend on the whims of men then our rights are temporary and cannot be inalienable.

Buy Danish on September 10, 2007 at 10:19 AM

and rights given by God only last as long as it takes for the next scriptural interpreter to come along. God was OK with slavery too (even gave some nice commandments on how to sell your daughters) … until men decided it was immoral.

Damn those whims of men.

frreal on September 10, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Buy Danish as usual your arguments are incredibly weak and in this case the blockquote parts you cite, with the exception of the last one, hardly tie in at all to what you say next.

What??? She is a fake, phony, fraud.

Well, that proves it.

Ah, so if we dispute your theory we are not good Christians?

I didn’t say that. Or anything remotely like it.

Very few cultures do these things? What do you mean?

Both of these things are uncommon. (i.e., “Most cultures don’t…”) Is that plain enough for you?

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 10:41 AM

Christ, I hate getting to these things when there are already 150 comments. All my good sneering comes in the first 50 comments…

Incidentally, instead of calling AP a troll for pointing out the very obvious holes in your faith, you should might as well thank him. This is one of the more interesting philosophical discussions going on in America today – the split between libertarians and the religious right. And we get to participate in it day in and day out on this delightful blog. It’s all part of the great discourse that is American society. Invigorating, no?

I’m sure Hillary’s at least as good a Christian as anyone else here. She’s imperfect, as are we all.

Enrique on September 10, 2007 at 10:43 AM

That’s actually not a bad answer except that this section defines what the ’state’ may not do and does not define what ‘persons’ may not do.

Courts interpret things.

Do you think there is any precedent for the state allowing people to deprive others of life, liberty, or property without due process?

I could look into it deeper, but it’s silly. It depends on the meaning of person as did the slavery argument.

If fetuses are not persons then, yes, you can do near anything to them. If they are, then you can’t kill them.

There’s such a thing as criminal law. In every jurisdiction in the United States and possibly the world it is a crime to murder a person. So if the fetus is a person, this becomes a crime too.

If it isn’t it’s not.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 10:45 AM

I’m sure Hillary’s at least as good a Christian as anyone else here. She’s imperfect, as are we all.

I don’t see how this is relevant. Not one of us is a ‘good’ Christian. Who is good but God? I think it is fairly orthodox to say so.

Indeed, if she claims to be Christian then she is subject to admonishment, as I said. It does not free her from criticism, but rather introduces her to it. She would do best to be honest about her state of faith.

Is there something about carrying one’s OWN cross that is misunderstood? Did he get to carry it alone, or did the whole world spit on him?

And so it is with any who would claim to drink the same cup he did.

RiverCocytus on September 10, 2007 at 10:53 AM

Well put, RiverCocytus 10:53 AM.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 10:54 AM

I’m not trolling the site. I just don’t think it’s necessary to sneer at the woman’s faith. You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM

I have every reason to believe she’s not sincere. I have yet to see anything from her that identifies her supposed “Christian” beliefs.

I know you like to mention Hitchen’s “love for each other” comment to remind Christians not to question her faith. As an Atheist, can I question her faith for Christians? I’m not subject to that “love for each other crap” because I’m not a Christian.

You know what, AP, everyone has to endure this kind of criticism as a public official and even as a private citizen. So why not Hillary? Why not?

Miss_Anthrope on September 10, 2007 at 10:55 AM

I have every reason to believe she’s not sincere. I have yet to see anything from her that identifies her supposed “Christian” beliefs.

Like standing by and forgiving her husband — presumably monogamously on her part and their is no evidence the the contrary?

In short, Miss Anthrope, there is evidence both for her decency and for her perfidity. According to Christianity, that’s true of all of us, at least the second part.

Yet she shows at least some evidence of both.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Like AP I’m an atheist. I’ve also thought a good bit about religious faith is as experienced by the believer. I see Hilary, Obama, and Silky as all three as sincere as liberal Christians as any of the more conservative Christians are sincere here.

Conservative Christians totally miss the point of what liberal Chrsitianity is and what the problems with it are in the big picture. The problem with liberal Chrisitanity is its obsessive niceness which isn’t checked by any sense of reality. To be a liberal Christian is to be a Neville Chamberlain. We can’t afford Neville Chamberlains when confronted with muslims with nukes. (Obsessive niceness with any reality check also explains the socialist economics of the Democrats.)

So, I would suggest to Conservative Christians that they would look much less mean-spirited if stopped attacking the sincerity of liberal Christians. Attack instead liberal Christian beliefs. To attack liberal Christians, you first have to understand what the liberal Christian say, and you have admit that liberal Christianity is no worse an interpretation of Christianity than is, say, Catholicism. While some conservative Christians take the Bible as the sole source of Christianity, liberals and Catholics may also appeal to reason and tradition in interpreting the Christian faith. Yes, Liberal Christians feel free to disagree with their more conservative brethren on gay rights and abortion,but let’s be honest that they are at best minor points in the Bible. The liberal Christian has a variety of strategies open to dismiss the conservative Christian case and has some good Christian arguments for their side. Have the honesty and charity to admit this, and then make the argument why the Conservative Christian interpretation is better.

Anyway, given the existence of muslims with nukes, now is the time to start asking liberal Christians serious questions about our survival and not be overly engaged in arguments over gay marriage with them or petty sniping about their sincerity.

thuja on September 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM

thuja on September 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM

There is no such thing as “liberal” or “conservative” Christianity, there is only Christianity.

I understand liberalism perfectly. They support the destruction of children in the womb. That doesn’t jive with Christianity.

They support legal benefits for the sexual union of two persons of the same gender. That doesn’t jive with Christianity.

They support a government that is designed to take money from others and call the redistribution charity. That doesn’t jive with Christianity.

Modern liberalism and Christianity are incompatible.

BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 11:12 AM

My point is missed.

She may want that label, so she gets all of the slings and arrows that come with it. That’s the price.

She is a very insincere person, and publicly so. Has she no shame?

I judge, but am not judgmental. It is a logical fallacy to say that because I am flawed, I must not point out the flaws in another if they are present. If this were the meaning of Jesus’ teaching, then all would fall to sin and error and there would be no fellowship. Rather, it is a call to judge ourselves so that we may not come under judgment from God, which is impassive and perfect.

Say what is true about Hillary; she has put herself on the spot. She is insincere, prayer or no prayer, ‘Child of God’ or no. There’s no reason to sugarcoat it. She seems unaware of it, so let the Empress know she wears no clothes.

RiverCocytus on September 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Christophe,

Gawd, you’re an arrogant ankle biter.

What??? She is a fake, phony, fraud.
Well, that proves it.

AP says we cannot doubt her sincerity. I say we can. I am not “proving” her insincerity I am just expressing my right to question it based on mountains of evidence that she is a fake, phony, fraud.

I didn’t say that. Or anything remotely like it.

Really? Then why did you challenge us to “throw stones”? By using that phrase you are implying that if we disagree we are not behaving like good Christians. DUH.

Both of these things are uncommon. (i.e., “Most cultures don’t…”) Is that plain enough for you?

Sure, Christoph. Tell that to the millions of souls who died under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, just to name a few atrocities committed in one Century thanks to the culture of Marxism.

And please don’t come back and tell me that there are no ice floes in Cambodia.

frreal on September 10, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Righhhht. Why do you think it was specifically written to say that our rights are inalienable and endowed by our Creator? If you want to argue with that then you are arguing with a basic premise of our Republic written by our Founders, and not with me.

Buy Danish on September 10, 2007 at 11:20 AM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 10:58 AM

You may see that as “Christian” and I may not…but that comes down to difference of opinion about adultery nd whether to forgive, I guess.

There are other reasons to forgive:

You believe he can change, which can be considered a gullible decision when the adulterer is a repeat offender.

You get something out of forgiving, like financial or political gain.

I’m not swayed by the agrument that her actions were solely “Christian,” since she has definitely benefited on the political front.

There may not be the “hard” evidence you’d like, but that’s not always easy to obtain in these situations. This just leaves us agreeing to disagree.

I’m just a more skeptical person, I guess. Plus, I also have real-life family experience with this particular issue (no, not me).

Miss_Anthrope on September 10, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Allah, you should know better than to troll your own site.

I’m not trolling the site. I just don’t think it’s necessary to sneer at the woman’s faith. You have no reason to believe she’s not sincere.

Allahpundit on September 9, 2007 at 11:25 PM
________________________________________________

There is every reason to believe she is not sincere.
“You will know the tree by the fruit it bares.” Jesus of Nazareth
The process is called discernment.

lobosan5 on September 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

“forgive”, monogamy… no Christian values here.

Pfffft.

The point, Miss Anthrope, is she attends religious services regularly. She is in communication about religious topics with people of several parties. She has demonstrated the above Christian values demonstrated above. I assume she has done other good things at some point. I also assume she has sinned.

If she claims to be a Christian, I’ll buy that barring evidence to the contrary. She cleaves to a recognized Christian faith anyway.

If a prisoner on death row claims to be a Christian — and this Christian would have done far worse things than Hillary — I can believe it.

Not in all instances. Some are lying. But some are truthful and Christians.

This doesn’t mean they are good people although a Christian may disagree. I’m not a Christian. Frankly, I’d still consider the person a bastard and want their punishment.

But Christianity is a faith with its own rules, not yours, and this person could indeed be a Christian. May be a perfect example of one considering the oft neglected admonition to minister to prisoners.

You can be as skeptical/cynical as you like… but your not seeing any evidence of Hillary Clinton’s Christianity other than her going to church, forgiving, being monogamous, etc., doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

lobosan5 on September 10, 2007 at 11:31 AM

I guess your fruit don’t stink, lobosan?

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM

From what I’ve seen, Democrats and Liberal Christians argue that they are interested in giving to the less fortunate, and therefore they are living out God’s command to be charitable.
This to me is the same old tired argument for taxation. If they want to take the money that you earned and buy votes with it, they claim it’s for children, education, or the poor. And that is supposed to be the Left’s Faith in action. This position has the added benefit of allowing them to accuse fiscal conservatives in favor of tax cuts as being heartless and greedy.

Dork B. on September 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Hillary makes all of the potentially positive aspects of her private decisions public.

You may decide for yourself what this means.

To assume that considering her sincere prevents you yourself from being considered insincere in your faith betrays the reason for it.

If she has wronged you, forgive her. But that business is between you and her.

No points are to be gained by being sanctimonious to avoid the harder truths.

RiverCocytus on September 10, 2007 at 11:35 AM

From what I’ve seen, Democrats and Liberal Christians argue that they are interested in giving to the less fortunate, and therefore they are living out God’s command to be charitable.
This to me is the same old tired argument for taxation. If they want to take the money that you earned and buy votes with it, they claim it’s for children, education, or the poor. And that is supposed to be the Left’s Faith in action. This position has the added benefit of allowing them to accuse fiscal conservatives in favor of tax cuts as being heartless and greedy.

Dork B. on September 10, 2007 at 11:33 AM

Compulsory giving is not charity. Liberals fail to understand that.

BKennedy on September 10, 2007 at 11:37 AM

Christoph,

So much for me being diplomatic with you. You’re not taking disagreement very well, I see.

Just because she does all those things, doesn’t mean she believes in it either.

That’s the whole stinkin’ point, there’s no way to verify you’re right either. It’s called opinion for a reason.

Bored now.

Miss_Anthrope on September 10, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Of course it doesn’t mean she believes it. But it’s pretty friggin’ strong evidence.

Doing tends to be stronger evidence than saying.

In any case, what you said is:

I have every reason [emphasis yours] to believe she’s not sincere. I have yet to see anything [emphasis mine] from her that identifies her supposed “Christian” beliefs.

Yet those blanket statements are contradicted by your statement:

Just because she does all those things…

That’s the whole stinkin’ point, there’s no way to verify you’re right either.

Of course there isn’t. The point is you have “every reason” to believe she’s not sincere and you haven’t seen “anything” from her that identifies her supposed Christian beliefs.

Except you have. You’ve just discounted them.

Bored now.

Boredom always strikes when your point make no sense.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:49 AM

Uh.Huh…Riiight.

Those two statements do not contradict one another. The actions you describe indicate a “Christian” on the outside, but I’m talking about her real motive. And you’re damn right I’ve discounted them, based on the rest of her actions and comments. That’s my right

And I will continue to view her with suspicion because of her Socialist stance, not her religion. That’s the other thing you misunderstand. I don’t give a damn about her religious actions, except in the political arena. And again, since she is a public servant, that’s my right.

And no, boredom strikes me when I see no point in continuing a discussion that benefits nobody. But thanks for the insult!

Miss_Anthrope on September 10, 2007 at 12:02 PM

Well, since you’re no longer here, you won’t be read this, but for anyone following the thread:

And you’re damn right I’ve discounted them, based on the rest of her actions and comments. That’s my right

How do you discount that which doesn’t exist? Either it (at least some evidence for her Christian beliefs like going to church for example) exists and you don’t buy it… or it doesn’t exist? Which is it?

But thanks for the insult!

No problemo.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:10 PM

So, let me get this straight…

AP posts an inflammatory article against Christians, on a conservative site, just to drive traffic to his blog? Does this seem a little unethical to anyone else?

AP: You tend to post excellent articles on Islam and terrorism, but I wish you would stick to those topics. When you start bashing Christianity to drive traffic to your blog, based on your own personal views, it just makes you look… rather pathetic.

You need to refocus your articles. You certainly aren’t as neutral as you profess to be. And honestly, I’m considering removing Hot Air from my feeds because you’re polluting the conservative environment of Hot Air by attacking the majority of conservatives at this site.

dominigan on September 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

AP posts an inflammatory article against Christians, on a conservative site, just to drive traffic to his blog? Does this seem a little unethical to anyone else?

Umm, domingan, did you miss the parts where it’s “his blog” and he’s actually an atheist?

And where he defended Hillary Clinton for her faith?

And did you completely miss the fact his entire post was about Hillary Clinton’s claim to Christian faith and did not — with even one word — bash Christianity?

In short, you owe Allahpundit an apology.

I’m considering removing Hot Air from my feeds because you’re polluting the conservative environment of Hot Air by attacking the majority of conservatives at this site.

I am quite certain you’re not forced to stay here. By all means, close your mind further.

If you can’t hack a post about a Democrat who claims she’s a Christian, then you need to get a grip on yourself.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM

I’ll throw another log on the fire.

Here’s evidence of Hillary flip-flopping on being a “lifelong Methodist”:

Last week I decided that even if life is absurd why couldn’t I spend it absurdly happy? Define ‘happiness’ Hillary Rodham, acknowledged agnostic intellectual liberal, emotional conservative.

angryoldfatman on September 10, 2007 at 1:43 PM

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 12:37 PM

Ditto for MSNBC and Olberman
and Fox and Geraldo.

Their playground, their toys. Right?

JiangxiDad on September 10, 2007 at 2:08 PM

If she claims to be a Christian, I’ll buy that barring evidence to the contrary.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Heh. I don’t recall you giving Mitt Romney the same courtesy, but don’t take this as an invitation to argue that point all over again. I merely aim to illustrate your unequal application of giving people the benefit of the doubt.

The point, Miss Anthrope, is she attends religious services regularly.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 11:32 AM

Well that clinches it, now doesn’t it! For someone who falsely claimed that I made an assertion of “proof” earlier, you certainly use irrelevant arguments to “prove” your case, and give far more weight to symbolism over substance in the process.

dominigan on September 10, 2007 at 12:30 PM

I don’t see it as bashing Christians so much as saying, “Don’t you dare judge me!” (or Hillary in this case).

One thing I have no doubt that Hillary believes is that “the elite win power by the will of God” convincing the rest of us that we helpless and ignorant peasants require their Nanny State leadership in order to thrive.

Buy Danish on September 10, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Heh. I don’t recall you giving Mitt Romney the same courtesy…

The difference, Buy Danish, is one religion is Christian by its theology and the other one is a polytheist cult that teaches us “God” was once a sinning man who became god after going before a council of other gods who had the same pedigree, Jesus is not the only Son of God, but merely number one with Satan number two, etc., and etc.

Mitt Romney isn’t a Christian any more than Maliki is.

Well that clinches it, now doesn’t it!

No, it doesn’t clinch it you lying and/or intellectually challenged cow. It destroys her point about there being no evidence at all for Hillary being a Christian.

Christoph on September 10, 2007 at 2:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3