Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

[nate]

Hillary is making some really strange campaign decisions.  I think she is out of this race before Super Tuesday.

 

Religion has no place in our laws and the government has no place in our personal lives.  I hate shit like this because we end up debating it instead of the real issues like economy, poverty, government spending, etc.

 

We are going to spend the next year and a half talking about abortion, planned parenthood, the NEA and NASA.

[TobiasFunke]

Great point Nate

[Glen]

Hillary is making some really strange campaign decisions.  I think she is out of this race before Super Tuesday.

 

Religion has no place in our laws and the government has no place in our personal lives.  I hate shit like this because we end up debating it instead of the real issues like economy, poverty, government spending, etc.

 

We are going to spend the next year and a half talking about abortion, planned parenthood, the NEA and NASA.

 

 

This is so true we couldn't do a PCP about it.  Meanwhile, crap like the Patriot Act, TPP, and Citizens United keep dismantling our country and very few people care, and even fewer people do something about it.  This is why I like politicians like Sanders and Warren - they're bringing the issues up.  I have no faith that they would actually do anything (or be able to do anything) about them, but at least they aren't ignoring them.  

 

I dunno about Hillary being out of the race.  Right now she's the only egg in the democrat's basket.  They'll do everything they can to prop her up.  If she's out of the picture the republicans have a damn good chance of taking back the presidency and returning America to its proper glory.

[Glen]

Her quote is disturbing and I would love to hear an honest opinion as to how people think she is correct, joking aside.

 

As far as taxing churches, I don't think that solves this issue at all.  While I think that its time for to have the same freedom of speech rights as most other groups I also think that if you tax churches a lot of the good work that they do, the humanitarian works, will suffer due to loss of income.

 

I also wonder why other non-profits don't seem to have the same kind of restrictions on their free speech that churches do.

 

Regardless, I wasn't voting for Clinton anyway but her kind of thinking is what I see as the future of a push against the church in general.

 

I'll take an honest crack at it.  People seek to justify their beliefs through politics and want to see politics reflect those beliefs.  Religious people (and yes, I'm painting with a broad brush and making base assumptions here) want to see the laws reflect their beliefs.  Non-religious people do not want religion reflected in laws.  On a very base level it's about validation of beliefs.

 

Personally, I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist.  I don't profess to know the truth but I'm sure that that bible doesn't have it right.  I don't say that to be insulting to those that do believe in the bible; it's just an honest expression of how I feel.  As I feel that way, I bristle when religion is used as a basis for laws, or a basis for discrimination (even while recognizing my own hypocrisy at discriminating against religious people).  It's a fine line, and I understand that those I disagree with tend to feel the same about me.

[halobob]

I'll take an honest crack at it.  People seek to justify their beliefs through politics and want to see politics reflect those beliefs.  Religious people (and yes, I'm painting with a broad brush and making base assumptions here) want to see the laws reflect their beliefs.  Non-religious people do not want religion reflected in laws.  On a very base level it's about validation of beliefs.

 

Personally, I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist.  I don't profess to know the truth but I'm sure that that bible doesn't have it right.  I don't say that to be insulting to those that do believe in the bible; it's just an honest expression of how I feel.  As I feel that way, I bristle when religion is used as a basis for laws, or a basis for discrimination (even while recognizing my own hypocrisy at discriminating against religious people).  It's a fine line, and I understand that those I disagree with tend to feel the same about me.

Great post Glen.

[mtangelsfan]

I'll take an honest crack at it.  People seek to justify their beliefs through politics and want to see politics reflect those beliefs.  Religious people (and yes, I'm painting with a broad brush and making base assumptions here) want to see the laws reflect their beliefs.  Non-religious people do not want religion reflected in laws.  On a very base level it's about validation of beliefs.

 

Personally, I fall somewhere between agnostic and atheist.  I don't profess to know the truth but I'm sure that that bible doesn't have it right.  I don't say that to be insulting to those that do believe in the bible; it's just an honest expression of how I feel.  As I feel that way, I bristle when religion is used as a basis for laws, or a basis for discrimination (even while recognizing my own hypocrisy at discriminating against religious people).  It's a fine line, and I understand that those I disagree with tend to feel the same about me.

 

I get that and I agree partially with what you say.  However, I think people use whatever rationale they can to justify their beliefs in politics.  I don't see how religious people expressing their opinions are any different.

 

If she had made the argument you just did I would not find it nearly as disturbing.  There is a wide chasm between trying to keep politics and religion seperate vs. telling religious folk they have to change what they believe.

[Glen]

I get that and I agree partially with what you say.  However, I think people use whatever rationale they can to justify their beliefs in politics.  I don't see how religious people expressing their opinions are any different.

 

If she had made the argument you just did I would not find it nearly as disturbing.  There is a wide chasm between trying to keep politics and religion seperate vs. telling religious folk they have to change what they believe.

 

 

Politics has long ago abandoned nuance, or even having respect for opposing viewpoints.  Us versus them.

 

I'd wager that even though on the surface you and I are different both politically and in our views on religion, if we sat down and discussed our views on a variey of topics we'd find ourselves agreeing more often than disagreeing.

 

That said, I still reserve the right to poke a stick at you.  Agreement is boring for a message board.

[mtangelsfan]

Agreed!

 

On both points.

 

 

Jerk

[Crampknees]

She would have caught my attention if she said religious beliefs should be toned down in politics. Saying religious beliefs need to be changed is not so smart. I doubt she will ever be able to change peoples religious beliefs, even through law (Mao) but just told some people who were likely voting for her anyway, and not the other guy, what they wanted to hear. 

[RallyMo]

TinCan '16!

[Angelsjunky]

If she's saying that people shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want to believe, then I don't agree. We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, as long as it doesn't impede the rights and liberties of others.

 

If she's saying that our laws shouldn't be dictated by people of a particular religious viewpoint pushing their own religious agenda, then I agree. The United States is not and should not be a theocracy.

 

My sense is that she means the latter but kind of said the former.

[Jay]

My sense is she doesn't mean anything, just says whatever works best in the focus groups.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

As far as taxing churches, I don't think that solves this issue at all.  While I think that its time for to have the same freedom of speech rights as most other groups I also think that if you tax churches a lot of the good work that they do, the humanitarian works, will suffer due to loss of income.

 

The flip side of that is that some churches enter into businesses (such as day care) that private operators pay taxes on income for, giving them an unfair advantage. Because they call it a "ministry" it is somehow exempt. During my time in Oklahoma City one church that was running a day care operation tried to refuse visits from state health department inspectors, saying that they were exempt because it wasn't day care, it was "doing the Lord's work". The state saw it differently, got a court order to come in, and they found untrained workers, inadequate sanitation and a diet that would not meet anyone's standards for proper nutrition for young children. Some people still called it an attack on the church, rather than being concerned that their children were not being properly cared for.

 

Despite some opinions to the contrary, not all government regulation is unnecessary intrusion on personal freedom.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Vegas Halo Fan

[nate]

I just think there should be a baseline that allows churches to be tax free.

 

For example, a modest building and modest pay for the employees of the church should not be taxed.  People go there and worship for free, and only donate if they want to.

 

However gigantic cathedrals with stained glass, pastors paid hundreds of thousands of dollars and private jets should absolutely be taxed.  It reminds me of the non profits that have ridiculous expenses in order to stay as a "non profit."

[Spirit]

I'd be down for that if it's applied to all non-profits across the board.  All non-profits should only be allowed a modest building and employees could not have a total compensation package worth over, ohh ... say ... $80k.  That includes salary, bonuses, company car, etc. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by Geoff

[nate]

Absolutely

[Tank]

there's a part of me that cringes when i see some of these churches that have gone to extreme lengths in what they build. i'm also not a fan at all of pastors driving expensive cars and living in huge houses.

 

"for where your treasure is, there your heart will be, also." living like a boss while here should never be the goal.

[Mark68]

If she's saying that people shouldn't be allowed to believe what they want to believe, then I don't agree. We all have the right to believe what we want to believe, as long as it doesn't impede the rights and liberties of others.

 

If she's saying that our laws shouldn't be dictated by people of a particular religious viewpoint pushing their own religious agenda, then I agree. The United States is not and should not be a theocracy.

 

My sense is that she means the latter but kind of said the former.

This is my take on her statement as well. I think she means the latter as well, but it certainly wasn't articulated very well. She needs better writers.

 

My own beliefs are that there is too much religion in politics now. Look at the crop of GOPers who are jumping in front of each other in the line to get endorsements from religious groups. I am pretty much where Glen is religiously, except that I have a well-developed dislike of organized hypocrisy religion in general. Religious people are free to honor their god at home and at church.

 

When you feel that your religious beliefs trump my rights or the rights of others, I have a problem. If you don't like abortions, homosexuality, pornography, science, etc, you're free to. Just don't make me adhere to your beliefs.

 

Besides, aren't there adulterers who get stoned to death, slaves, women who are the property of their husbands, etc, in the Bible?

 

Boy, I'm certainly glad we aren't still forced to adhere to that.

[Vegas Halo Fan]

There is a big difference between saying that our laws shouldn't be based upon religious beliefs and saying that religious beliefs need to be changed. Hillary's remarks were certainly stated poorly. If that was a prepared speech, she needs new speech writers. 

[Blarg]

There is a big difference between saying that our laws shouldn't be based upon religious beliefs and saying that religious beliefs need to be changed. Hillary's remarks were certainly stated poorly. If that was a prepared speech, she needs new speech writers. 

 

It was the best Putin could scrape up on short notice.