it is the alliance with one of the most secretive, right wing, dominionist groups in the land: The Family.

Those people are dangerous in a way that is hard to explain... unless you know off them.

If she were a practicing catholic, or protestant, or holy spaghetti monster acolyte none would give a hot. (And we all say Ramen) It is the tie with dominionism that has people spooked, and rightly so.

You know the complaints are not about her having 'faith' but about her long term opposition to equality based on her association with The Family, and her praise of the leader of that group who has had much to do with the horrible things in Uganda.
Many in my family are people of faith, but they are not people of the Family sort and they have never used their religion to excuse bigotry toward gay people or any people. You insult each of them by lumping them in with Family types.

Hillary was associated with the Family?

People make mistakes.

Although I do believe a few here will nitpick endlessly until the day a candidate

declares him or herself an atheist. I wish them luck, not to mention

patience, with that, as they will likely be waiting a very long time.

and upwards of 10,000 lies." Mark Twain

Which is why it's a complete joke to me. Yet I am spiritual. But yeah God likes dirt mags so he made the bible, excuse me, his disciples made the bible, wait who made what?

-p

Much like The Iliad and other classics post-modern philosophy and economics are predicated on.

She's selling herself extremely short here in an effort to pander to people who will never vote for her anyway.

which was only accomplished by chucking the computer-linked network controller/ring into the fire.

I imagine you've leveled this criticism at those who hold the Iliad as the most important work in their lives?

Though I suppose I've met plenty of people - including on DU - who see the trojan horse as a role model.

Seriously, man. That echo is weird.

straight to the strawgiant, eh?

It smells not just of pandering and political calculation, but crappy political calculation at that. It bodes ill for the braniacs behind her campaign, presumably the same people who told her to run on "inevitability" last time.

Speaking of surefire campaign-sinkers, Look, there's Bob Shrum, even using the word 'inevitable' again ("this time, she's even MORE inevitable"...) ! Shocking!

Ha, I knew he was in there somewhere.

I expect to see a lot more tired-ass "conventional political wisdom" that was already worn-out 10 years ago, like this shit about all-powerful values voters.

RAMEN!

it's her association with vile wingnuts- the fellowship.

Makes me nostaligic for the days of the Woody Allen clusterfuck.

Oh, sure, everyone says they "read" the Bible.

Why does the most influential book on one's thinking have to be a religious text at all?

I suppose it would be asking too much to have a book by Kip Thorne, or Murray Gell-Mann, or Richard Feynman, or Stephen Hawking listed as the most influential? Or Carl Sagan, if you want science that's accessible?

Or how about something by Mark Twain?

You want impossible to read? Try Joyce or Pynchon or David Foster Wallace.

But the Bible? Aside from the mandatory lip service it is given, taken as something to actually read, the Bible is a mess.

The Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books. Sure, no one sits around reading Leviticus and Judges for fun. But people do read Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. and even set the verse to music. "To every thing, turn, turn....." The 23rd Psalm, Ecclesiastes 3, the Beatitudes are a "mess." ??? Really? Paint with a broad brush much? Even your hero Mark Twain, a fierce critic of the Bible, did not do that, and recognized the difference in tone between Old and New Testaments. Clearly he read it and had some appreciation for it. One doesn't have to be religious to appreciate the literary contribution and philosophical contributions of several parts of the Old and New Testaments.
BIBLE

It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
- Letters from the Earth

The two Testaments are interesting, each in its own way. The Old one gives us a picture of these people's Deity as he was before he got religion, the other one gives us a picture of him as he appeared afterward.
- Letters from the Earth

http://www.twainquotes.com/Bible.html

As for who has read it - how many people have actually read much of Shakespeare or Mark Twain for that matter, other than perhaps snippets they were assigned to read in school? And of course assigned reading is one assignment which all but the most diligent students tend to skip or skim. (I give you Cliff Notes). Got news for you - most people don't tend to read great literature, if in fact they read at all. Many don't.

But the whole thing, taken as a unit or a singular piece of literature to stack up against other pieces of literature? No, I would hesitate to say "hurray" if someone says that book (as opposed to some of that collection of books) is the single biggest influence on their thinking.

I don't really feel like debating the merits of the Bible. In terms of seminal religious documents, I'll take the Tao Te Ching over it any day. But that's irrelevant.

However, when "the Bible" is brought into the political arena, it becomes my business as a voter.

On the topic of HRC's statement, to wit, I think it was political pandering, and it bodes pretty fucking badly for whoever is advising her. I predict another lame Bob Shrum style campaign.

Interesting. It is ok to make broad negative pronouncements about it, but when challenged "I don't want to engage in a rational debate." Okay, fair enough. But don't expect us to take your opinions seriously then, as they are obviously based on knee jerk prejudice, not rational analysis. I assume that your opinion of HRC's statement is about as well considered, then, so I see no point in debating that with you either.

Said it is better understood as "a collection of books", as opposed to one.

So which part would you like to debate? What kind of "debate" would you like to have? A Theological one, the kind where you go "my invisible friend in the sky is the biggest and bestest because he is and that's why"? Those arguments, such as they are, are fucking pointless.

"The Bible is the best book because the best invisible friend wrote it"?

Likewise, fucking pointless.

Is it influential? Undoubtedly. But there are better books, in my opinion. AND as a long-time observer of the political process, I still think HRC's statement was pandering and political calculation.

Even worse, it's political calculation that plays to an imaginary reality on the ground- that of an all powerful "values voter"- which is at least a decade out of date.

apparently. You are too biased against it to be objective about the merits so - like you said, pointless.

Perhaps expecting her to say portions of the bible would have been too exacting, from a language perspective, still, the reason I'm talking about "The Bible" as a singular unit is because that's how it was presented.

If the Bible weren't such a mess, more people would read it instead of quoting it all the time. I was raised a Christian, but I never read the whole thing. I don't read boring shite. I read books that interest me. The Bible isn't interesting to most people, which begs the question, "Why do so many people follow what the Bible says if they don't even read it?"

When someone asks me what my favorite book is, I always say that I don't know. I've read so many that I can't say which one has influenced me the most. I have a list of books in my head that are my favorite, but I'd be hard pressed to say which one is my favorite. And that leads me to ask whether Hillary was being honest or was she saying what she was supposed to say? I don't know her, so I can't say for sure, but since she's a Clinton, I think it was the latter.

That's what I've observed Bill and Hillary doing over and over again -- when asked a question, they think of what people expect a 'good person' to say instead of what they really think. I really don't think the Clintons have minds of their own anymore, though. Over the years, they've become creatures that are political to the bone. All they think of is what the public wants, and they study how they can give us the least of what we want while making us think they're doing their best to give us all of what we want. That's why I can't stand either of them.

It bodes ill for her inevitable campaign, multiple meanings intended.

grandiose pronouncements.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/books/review/hillary-rodham-clinton-by-the-book.html?_r=1

I would not expect you to say anything else. Someone who is willing to make pronouncements without actually reading the article is not likely to admit they may have gotten it wrong.

pandering with "inevitability", because that worked so well for her last time.

I'm not really sure what it is, specifically, you think you're going to achieve with this thread.

If you actually read any of the FSM stuff, for instance, (speaking of "actually reading&quot I don't think you were able to understand the joke.

The question about what book influenced you the most came at the end of a long discussion of what books Hillary is reading and which ones were her favorites. The Bible influenced her the most because she grew up in a religious household. Read the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/books/review/hillary-rodham-clinton-by-the-book.html?_r=1

This is all much ado about nothing, which is why I made the OP about the FSM.

Okay, but some of us do. "Truthiness" is what got us George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

Some of us are believers, you know, and your blasphemy is disrespectful to us. The Dems are supposed to be a big tent. Why do Democrats disrespect believers around here? You know, a lot of people would be Democrats if the Dems weren't so disrespectful of the Ramen!

have read everything." But name one specifically? "What part of all of them don't you understand?" It could go something like that. Good thing they only asked Palin about newspapers.

Or "Animal Farm"? Or anything reality based that imparts a lesson be it personal or political?

Why does it have to be a religious book?

It just comes off as phoney when any of the pols claim the bible as their book.

It is a long discussion about what books Hillary is reading.....

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/books/review/hillary-rodham-clinton-by-the-book.html?_r=1


But the question was very specific - which one probably influenced you the most, and having grown up in a very religious household, she answered, I think honestly without thinking about the politics of it, "the Bible." She did not say it was her favorite book or even the one she reads the most today. This whole discussion is based on a false premise. Everyone needs to chill a bit, imo.

At the risk of appearing predictable, the Bible was and remains the biggest influence on my thinking. I was raised reading it, memorizing passages from it and being guided by it. I still find it a source of wisdom, comfort and encouragement.

“The Brothers Karamazov” made a lasting impression on me when I read it as a young woman; I intend to reread it this summer to see what I now think about it.

you'd be telling people to get over it?

Just as I am telling them now. Read the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/books/review/hillary-rodham-clinton-by-the-book.html?_r=1

Preys together!

Because the leap from the Bible to FSM is a bit of a non sequitur.

Clinton's obvious pander, or DU's conclusion that she is a secret initiate of The Family?

She's pandering to more than just the right-wingers who won't vote for her.

I am grateful that she left the Bible out of the rest of her answers, especially her recommendations to students. That's what marks her as better than the other side; her pandering goes only so far. It seems pretty harmless, too, since she's not prescribing any specifically biblical policies.

You are just asserting that it is, seemingly based on the assumption that any mention of the Bible in a favorable way HAS to be a pander. That's not really very logical.

...but the point will never be proven either way. I say that either way it needn't concern us overmuch.

just maybe. Either that or we are all secret rightwing trolls and leftwing wreckers or both.

they are basically a dim bulb. For the life of me I cannot find the outrage there. Opened my eyes to the agenda of some.