but I have the same problems you do with her association with "The Family".

I also have a problem with politicians who use their religious beliefs to pander. It makes me wonder if they're sincere in their beliefs or just willing to say/do whatever they think it takes to get elected. And if they're willing to say/do anything to get elected, they really aren't trustworthy.

They seem to need to do that to have any chance at all of being elected. I remember when it wasn't that way. Ike's religion was no big deal. Kennedy's was, but only because of anti-Papism on the part of many Americans.

Now that's a reasonable response. I'm not even a Christian (I'm a Luciferian Satanist) but I was getting sick of the equating of religious beliefs with Santa, assumption that all of us are fundies who take our holy book literally (my faith doesn't even have a holy book) and, in general, the smug superiority of some of teh anti-theists here.

But taking issue with Hillary's likely policies, which can be inferred from her association with "The Family", that's a reasonable complaint to have.

Went to one as a kid. Supposedly non-denominational. They kept the religion on a low boil until the last night, then gathered everyone in the chapel and pressured us to pledge our lives to Christ. Kids in tears, staggering to the pulpit, begging forgiveness. All prodded and amped up by the staff. It was obviously a well-rehearsed schtick.

Pretty silly.

Needless to say, that doesn't make Methodists bad people or the entire sect a bad thing. Just the usual religious nonsense, which some people integrate into perfectly decent lives, and some use to be obnoxious or spread superstitious silliness.

The Family, on the other hand, is a genuine power-mad conspiracy trip, amalgamating the worst frat-boy sense of entitlement with a religious conviction that wealthy white Protestants have an edict from their god to run the world.

Hadn't heard HRC was involved with them. Bleck.

Except it was an after-school "children's revival."

Refused to join the UMC as a teenager.

There's a lot of variety among UMC congregations. Most DUers active in the UMC are members of congregations that would not support the kind of thing that you and I went through.

Nonetheless, it is for me as it is for you the "Family" that is the issue, and you have it pegged correctly.

Hillary simply must explain why she was involved with them and whether she is still attending their functions.

Good to hear from another Jesus-pledging survivor. The pressure was so great I half-arsed it, ambling forward (anyone still seated was clearly a cold-hearted sinner). But I didn't buy it, and thought the tears and wailing was kind of scary. I was 12, I think.

I left with a ... poor impression of the organization.

But again, not a condemnation of all, of course. Used to work with a perfectly nice Methodist who built houses for Habitat.

Thanks for sharing the war story, though!

I was beginning to think that I was the only one who had a bad experience with the dark side of Methodism. I was about 8 or 9 when I pledged, though. It was a lot more difficult to resist. Things for me actually, it got worse. My Mom was VERY religious. But the new minister in her church is the type of Methodist who would build houses for Habitat. I think that the congregation needs someone like that even now.

Thank you for sharing!

but when I was a kid I attended the Methodist Church, they have great strawberry shortcake!

Methodism is a mainstream faith - absolutely no idea why any would have problems with that.

The Family - what are her ties, what has she committed to with them and for them. Why is she part of it? And if it's over, when was it over and why.

Oh, what I would give for real journalism again.

. . . during the deliberately bipartisan Senate Prayer Breakfasts.

Oh, yeah, and she made one statement praising one of them for his religiosity.

This is a clever tactic to spread this story by pointing to a post about an article or book that doesn't prove ANY association with Clinton outside of the very public prayers and that one statement.

There's no evidence at all proving that she's 'associated' with any of the sins of the members of that prayer group.

You're claiming a relationship that doesn't exist in any provable form outside of that statement and the public praying in the same room.

I've read that post. It slips away from any actual proof about Hillary's knowledge, agreement with, or involvement in anything improper, illegal, immoral, or whatever with a circular reference to a Mother Jones article from 2007 which still hasn't found any corroborating evidence of HILLARY'S 'association' with any of the participants outside of the praying and that one statement.

So, all that we have in evidence about Hillary is that she praised Coe once, and prayed in the same room with the other participants in the Senate Prayer Breakfasts.

You're free to have a 'goddamned' problem with that. That's you're business, but you can't prove any 'association' with the sins of the 'Family' or the 'Fellowship' or any other group beyond the public prayers that everyone is familiar with and one statement of praise.

That's a pretty weak thread for outrage; an even weaker one to raise this 2007 story that hasn't found anything more in seven years than the innuendo and tangential relationships they first described between Hillary and anyone else in that group to corroborate their claims of an association.

Certainly there should be something else to point to other than that one statement and the public prayers.

. . . but it falls way short of any association beyond the prayer group.

I'm wondering why this 2007 tale is being presented as news in 2014?

I also think it's rather pathetic that after seven years folks who repeat this tale don't have anything more than the MJ story and their own yammering about it to prove any association beyond that one statement and the public prayers.

. . . and it's sophistry or mind reading to suggest her votes were some sort of bargain with ANY of the participants. This is the worst kind of reporting and it's embarrassing to see folks bring up this 2007 story and provide nothing but their own biased logic to claim she did anything other than pray in public in the same room with the group. It's pure internet bullshit.

This story came out in 2007 and no one can prove anything more than that she occasionally voted with republicans? I'm sure the 'Family' is just fine with her support for gay marriage. The crap that flies around here as fact . . . You really believe an ultra-right wing group harbors Clinton while their right-wing army works overtime to discredit her?? Unfuckingbelievable.

that that group is.

. . . her participation had nothing at all to do with the 'secret' and shadowy wing-nuts and everything to do with Senate collegiality. She didn't join a cult, she participated in very public prayers which are sometimes broadcast on C-span. She didn't form any sort of conservative pact with the prayer group, just prayed in public in the same room with them.

Her participation was an 'endorsement' of praying, and nothing has been presented to prove otherwise.

Yes, it went beyond prayers. It was a regular bible study group. I never suggested there was a 'bargain', and I don't know who has suggested that. What her votes and positions have shown is that she likes the idea of religious involvement in the state, and she doesn't seem to care that all the people working for that alongside her are right wing, so that it ends up as right wing religious involvement, which she facilitates. Washington DC is a city; she could have easily found a liberal place to express her religion, but she chose these right wingers.

Are you claiming that the bit about the bible study group is made up? Is it that it doesn't meet your standards of evidence, so that you think it never happened?

. . . the bible group was a congressional thing. It was an exercise in bipartisan religiosity which drew other Democrats as well to pray with their republican counterparts without trying to score political points for it. That's the idea behind the bipartisan gathering, not the formation of some right-wing political cabal. That is the extent of any provable 'association' of Hillary with ANY of the participants.

You don't believe that she did anything more than turn up for public prayers, where they clearly claim she took party in many private meetings. OK, you think their sources were lying, and they fell for it.

why the hell would anyone CHOOSE to pray with those bigoted fuckwads? do explain from your Hillary perspective.

Denial. What a shock. NOT

. . . so that neither side would look like they were using prayer for partisan political purposes.

But, you should know this.

. . .and that's the reason it was a bipartisan group which wasn't just Hillary and some wingers, no matter how it's portrayed by her critics. It was an exercise in bipartisanship, for whatever that was worth. Doesn't matter if you understand or recognize that, or not. That was their goal, not some shadowy cabal. Whatever the wingnuts who attended did outside of those public prayers didn't involve any alliance with Hillary.

Do you remember the firestorm surrounding the Clintons at the time? How can anyone believe that she was part of some right-wing cabal at the same time the right-wing was savagely attacking her and her family? The idea is just ludicrous.

You know, the way to do that is to go to church. Or bible study groups that aren't made up of politicians or their spouses. Or pray with people other than politicians. Not to do your praying with politics intimately involved. I can't see how you can make that claim at all. It flies in the face of reality.

"Anyone who was there"? Does that include you?

I am uncomfortable with religion being jumbled with politics. Instead of praying, perhaps they should do their fng jobs. I

how about, she made a mistake? but no, people who adore and idolize can't bear the thought that their heroes make mistakes- at the same fucking time that they argue that "they're only human". contradiction abounds.

Ask anyone who knows Hillary if she's a member of "The Family" and they'll laugh their head off.

It's a waste of energy arguing with people who already made up their minds. It doesn't fit their preset notions, so they keep posting an article from Mother Jones. They despise Hillary, so they will believe any nonsense about her.

. . . the effort to smear her with this is made transparent by the dredging up of these old, already disproved campaign attacks from the 2008 election. They lost that effort to paint her as some sort of pariah back then, and now they want another crack at it. they should get some new material. This stuff is beat for anyone who paid any attention at all in that election.

Old, discredited news about the Senate Prayer Breakfasts. Someone didn't like to see Democrats praying with republicans and invented this nonsense about an 'association'. The language used is right out of some smear operative's handbook. Bush-league smear from some not very sharp folks.

I mean, on the face of it, it's ridiculous. They want us to believe that an ultra right-wing group harbors and 'associates' with Clinton in some subversive way, while the entire right-wing army of pundits, operatives, and media partners works to discredit her. The twisted logic is stunningly ignorant.

maybe we could keep the majority in the Senate. So far, I see a myriad of post on the "wicked" Hillary. Someone who is currently a private citizen and not runing for anything and not much on 2014.

Coming here is like visiting Hot Air, Free Republic, Newsmax, etc.

or pray with or have breakfast with people because they don't agree with us.

That is no way to enlighten people.

Refusing to have anything to do with people doesn't do a damn thing to change their minds, and allows them to pretend we are the monsters just as we pretend they are.

How do we expect to change their minds by never talking to them? And you don't have to change their minds in a five minute conversation. Give them something to think about, and in time they might, with several such contacts, soften their ideas.

and the association with the family sounds much like Rushtards, just jump on the wagon with the Rush thoughts and hammer them home, jump up and down like Rush. Guess I will start posting on the libertarian site how I feel about the Pauls.

Naturally, now that shes brought it up people are gonna ask questions. Certainly the most intriquing question is her 15 year association with an uber-rightwing "religious" group that is anti-labor and anti-LBGT. Does this group represent her true beliefs? Or is it just another example of Clinton political pandering?

Have you ever attended the functions of the family or are you relying on others for you information. This is not the first time a group is demonized wrongly. For years unions has been demonized by those who listens to sources who don't know, don't want the true information to come out and don't know what goes on in the unions. I also get amazed with the LBGT remarks. Is it a good thing people have evolved or is it the fact they hope no one changes their thoughts. Maybe it is time to for many to evolve on their thoughts. If you are religious or not, be tolerant of others. Whatever your sexual preference, be tolerant of others. I have known for years Hillary is Methodists, where were you when this came up in past times when she has talked about her religion.

It is not a benign non-political religious group. While I would expect the HRC personality cult to defend her actions no matter how despicable (much like the Justin Beiber fan club defends his drunken loutish behavior and drug use), to defend the Family on DU is quite astonishing.

mandatory that politicians let it be known that they are affiliated with some mainstream religious organization.
But, when an active political campaigner makes the point that the Bible is the most influential book they've read, that is a "horse of a different color". That suggest a conflict with regard to separation of Church and State issues.

If Ms. Clinton believes in the wisdom of separating Church and State then she should make it clear to the voters that if elected , she would Govern accordingly.

Do you spend money, it has IN GOD WE TRUST, is that a problem also.

It is an extreme RW, inner-circle power-brokering cult. That HRC associated with them for 15 years is no less troubling than if she associated with David Duke for 15 years and called him a mentor.

Off the top of my head.

Or me, for that matter. It took exposure to the rice paddies in '67-68 to turn me from a Young Republican into a flaming leftist.