This article has shead some new light on who to seriously consider in 11/08 for this Pentecostal-Evangelical. It affirms what a Hillary Clinton appointee shared with me about her faith in Christ and Scripture this summer.

As far as I'm concerned the Clinton's, Bush's, and the other politicians in Washington are all part of the same ruling class and deep religious convictions/values/or whatever are all part of their program to get elected and hang on to their office after election. Anyone ever known an agnostic, atheist or any religion besides a Judeo-Christian hybrid of sorts to win a prominent political office?

Oh my god --- pardon the pun --- this article makes me wonder if Hillary is just W with her own brain.

Haven't the past six and half years provided enough of an object lesson in the perils of faith-based governance?

It never ceases to amaze that the "girliest" of men among us, those who send others to fight illegal wars but who did everything in their rich daddy's power to avoid fighting in one themselves and, those who make their living sitting on their fat asses endorsing the former chicken-[deleted]s and otherwise mouthing off, are the first ones to point a finger at someone else for not being as "manly" as they imagine themselves to be. If these idiots are so manly, why aren't they out loading trucks, raking concrete and installing iron on high-rises? Sexual ignorance and repression has, over millenia created mindsets and monsters that tend towards various perverse expressions.Take the Catholic church and it's penchant for pedophilic priests.The exterminition of females primarily, as "witches" during the Middle Ages? Recently, Amish girls were murdered, the little boys spared. The Christian community lauded the Amish for showing the world, "dignity", by "forgiving" the murderer for killing little girls. Little was said about the gender-defined targets, or why he targeted them. What about Hitler, our favorite Christian? One shining example of "righteousness", and "manliness", and "power". One of most reliable monster- mindsets is the American-style, bland accessment of females as (secondary), sex-objectified, or politically or financially "profitable" to males, and thus also expendable, entities. We are told, that it is the "proper role" of females to support males. For carrying on the "bloodline" for "breeding". Males over the world are considered more "valuable", and, this is the sad lie. The "provocative, deceitful female " has been identified as causal; origin of everything that can be victimized without consequence. Bought and sold. Enslaved. Chattle. But mostly brainwashed. Pity that. Maybe Emily jilted or ignored Cho Seung-Ho? He wasn"t getting any, no doubt. Neither was Hitler. The language of beauty; of peace; of equality as "persons"and the culture that supports these concepts...will perhaps flourish again. We do not yet know when or where.

Separation of church and state is already dead what with Secular Humanism being the state religion. There is a move afoot to create a Humanist "Christian" organization. Why would they do this? If Hillary gets in power, it will be for despotism. She was a Maoist in college. She will declare that all Christians must join the official organization -- the Humanist "Christian" organization. Unofficial or unorthodox organizations can then be persecuted into submission. This was done by Emperor Constantine in 326 A.D., by the Third Reich, by the Stalinists and by the Maoists. George Barna, a pollster, has noticed there is movement among Christians to form small groups not associated with larger, more vulnerable churches....

A few things come to mind... 1.God life is an open book. 2.God teaches us that secrets are lies, why would one fear discussing the bible or church activities? 3.First (1) Commandment, we are not to put other Gods before him. By not discussing Bible Study who are they idolizing? 4.God truly intends for all of his children to embrace with others his way of teaching, Peace, Love and Joy; not to embrace the teaching of the world. 5.We are to openly discuss the scriptures so we can learn from one another and have a greater understanding on a multitude of levels. To understand why Jesus died on the cross, the 2nd coming, and why it’s important for each of us to live and follow the 10 Commandments? In closing, my Bible Study group last studied Daniel 8. God Bless You.

There is nothing wrong with one identifying with their inner belief system - my only problem is the religious Right in America explains the current state of the nation where compassion is preached for as long as possible - as long as it is translated into actionable policy that influences the lives of the struggling majority of people in this world. It is the same religious Right that has condemned the world to poverty through a uni-centric view of what constitutes good governance. In the process it has dominated all levers of power to influence even the amount of money that can go towards fighting child poverty in Africa. How can these people claim to stand for common good when what they do is force people to see life through their lenses or risk not receiving aid or even having existing financial support withdrawn. The current crisis in Zimbabwe has been largely fuelled by the belief on the part of the religious Right that conformance to their 'own ways' is the sine qua non for human development. They even fund strife all over the world with a view to creating conditions that are favourable to their view of mankind. Unless the dynastic tendency of American policy is stopped in its track this world can be assured of a serious confrontation.

Buddhamonkeydevil, the last one was probably Thomas Jefferson...

"why ever in the name of all that's biblical we're occupying the mid-east (in the wrong country), being a centrist means paying lipservice to religious interests" Clinton has indicated that she's felt the presence of the the Holy Spirit. For sure, after a thing like that, I don't want her or any other American President claiming the presence of the Holy Spirit in American government. No way, no how. And, I really don't see that. That's not what I see at all.

those in the US would do well to study the development of liberation theology which has even longer and deeper roots in Latin America in practice not to mention some interesting gramscian notions for an academic point of view(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology) in either case, I'm not going to vote for her :)

Is this surprising? An agnostic or atheist cannot get elected president in the U.S. This is politics, pure and simple. Hilary's private faith is quite likely different from her public faith. That's what wins elections in the U.S. Until that changes, let's debate the issues that matter, not who has prayer and pancakes with Hilary. Bubba

I generally do not question the veracity of MJ's articles but this is a bit difficult to buy. It is hard to believe that she wouldn't have been "outed" years ago.

Hillary's a cardboard cutout member of the non-thinking, deeply conservative ruling class and always will be. I don't doubt that she actually is religious... I think she's just that stupid and conventional. She's not alone though... all politicians talk relexively about "faith" this and "people of faith" that. If they were not robotic members of the dominant culture, it's unlikely we would ever hear about them. If a highly rational, intelligent, compassionate person with a deep understanding of science, history and a full understanding of homo sapiens' place in nature were to achieve any sort of public prominence, now that would be shocking.

Oh no! just what we need another bible thumper in the White House

This is but another HIT job on Hillary, and for MJ to publish such nonsense is quite below any standard I have seen over the years reading MJ. Anyone can do research on any subject and find differing opinions, but when religion/faith is involved, it is the one topic that gets the most wide rangeing opinions. Those of us that practice our faith in private, do not pay much attention to articles like this one, simply because they are based on opinion, not FACT.

As long as Hillary Clinton( in the event of election to the Presidency) recalls that she is meant to be America's "Commander In Chief" and not "Chaplain In Chief"(unlike Dubya), she'll do just fine! (Full Disclosure: my favourite film star Drew Barrymore has been quoted as saying( in Marie Claire, US edition, Nov 2000) that "I pray every night for a safe world"

I still hear her damning diatribes against the "evil right wing Christians." So this is just so much political B.S. (ie a political tool) to position her to pander/dupe conservatives with poor memories. May all who do such burn in their own deception.

I don't know how anyone else feels about this, but it scares the crap out of me. I'm all for people being directed by a "higher power" call it what you will, but this country was NOT created a Christian country; it was created to be a safe haven for any religion or lack thereof. The most disturbing thing about the "religious right," which is neither, like the bumper sticker says, is that they are all convinced that religiosity & faith means being evangelical Christian. They all believe that their beliefs are the only "true" ones. They aren't interested in allowing other religions to thrive. Their main purpose is to 'bring everybody to Jesus." And they are willing to use whatever means necessary, including lying, political mainpulation, brainwashing children, supporting dictators (including GW Bush) who torture and murder. Their real God is POWER. And so is Hilary's; she has been addcited to it for many years. Forget Jesus's teachings to love, forgive, take care of those who are needy or sick. Hilary & the rest of these people, who claim to be so pious and Christian are all just using him and his name. Pay attention to what these people DO, not what they natter on about endlessly. They're all basically hypocrites. Unfortunately, they have been in power for a long long time, and without an organized revolution, or horrific population destroying plague, they will continue to be in power. And that's the scariest of all.

I'm not buying any of this religious conviction from Hillary or ANY of these scumbags, no more than I believe that pro-Nuke-Iran and should-have-been-convicted criminal Tom Delay is a follower of Jesus. The point is that ANYTHING that can be used to ENHANCE the drift towards TOTALITARIANISM and public acceptance of that --- black and white thinking, terrorism vs. security, a religion which centerposes terror (Satan) vs. security (Heaven), economic fears, many other fear-based issues -- will be used. Religion -- hard line Calvinist extremism included -- can provide just one more working element in the formula. The formula is to REVERSE the ENLIGHTENMENT and destroy the work of Thomas Paine, Locke, and others who imagined a human race living in greater freedom.

I really believe that is article is a real stretch & totally misleading. I would like to know the author's own personal agenda.

We can speculate all day as to what kind of Christian Hillary is, but only God knows for sure. By the way, in the cartoon, Judas was the 3rd person to the right of Jesus.

Religion and politics is like firearms and alcohol. Hillary who is not an honest person embraces religion for her purpose. http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

I find this article very depressing. At bottom, I have respected Hillary, and believed she might well make a good president. But, if even half of what is stated in this article is true, a President Hillary Clinton would be even more scary than Dbaya - a smart "called by God" in the White House. God, if you're really there, help us! NMiller

This article adds to Jeff Sharlet's collection of hit pieces on evangelical Christianity. It's filled with misleading statements about theology, that After a glancing shot at Republican "pharisees," Clinton explained that, of course, her "very serious" grounding in faith had helped her weather the affair. The fact that Ms. Clinton feels comfortable talking about "pharisees" while simultaneously pointing out the sins of her political opponents shows that she missed the essence of Jesus' story about throwing stones. Then again, she is a politician. In an interview with the United Methodist Reporter, she expressed regret that her church had focused too much on social gospel concerns in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, "to the exclusion of personal faith and growth." The spirit, believe theological conservatives, matters more than the flesh. No, sir. What you're describing is a modified form of gnostic anti-materialism--albeit that Karen Armstrong, Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrmann deemphasize that aspect of the gnostic tradition in their current theological marketing efforts. Christian orthodox traditions (i.e. Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and most Protestant traditions) would criticize such a simplistic statement regarding the body as dismissive of the incarnation. Closer to an orthodox statement is to say that the body matters because the spirit matters, and they're inseparable. Thus the whole concept of physical resurrection--the human spirit, whatever it is, needs a body in order to exist. Anyhow, Ms. Clinton's particular tradition of Methodism (in particular, theologically conservative Methodism) emphasizes the importance of taking care of the body as a form of taking care of the soul. Thus, Methodists were social reformers in 18th century England--they thought it inconsistent to preach salvation without concern for the body; for example, reforming labor laws. The Methodists were also temperance activists in America--again, because the body was important. So--you're way off, especially if you're trying to inform people about what a "theological conservative" Methodist might believe, if, in fact, that term accurately describes Hillary Clinton. Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Ah, what's a conspiracy without a shadowy group controlling the government? Is this journalism, or a Dan Brown novel? I hardly think that the "Fellowship" is so secretive, especially when you moved into their house and reviewed their organizational records, after telling them that you write about religion. Of course, you didn't exactly tell them what kind of writing you did about religion--so who was secretive, Mr. Sharlet? For a group that's trying to take over the world, they sure are sloppy. Washington, and politics in general, is a whorehouse. I'm not the least surprised that the Fellowship wouldn't want to be used as a political football; thus, they ask their members not . [Doug] Jones [, Clinton's childhood pastor and spiritual mentor], though, describes his theology as neoorthodox, guided by the belief that social change should come about slowly and without radical action. It emerged, he says, as a third way, a reaction against both separatist fundamentalism and the New Deal's labor-based liberalism. I don't doubt that's what Jones told you, but it's incorrect. "Neo-orthodoxy" isn't an American invention, but a German one; it predates "New Deal" labor-based liberalism by at least 40 years and it does not directly entail any sort of politics. If anybody is the "godfather" of neo-Orthodoxy, it's Karl Barth, who was a noted opponent of Hitler; but there's nothing in Barth's theology that says that social change must be gradual. Frankly, Barth's theology is more concerned with an individual human encounter with God--be it in a socialist or a capitalist socio-economic system. He has more to do with Kierkegaard than Edmund Burke. If you had googled "neo-orthodoxy", that was easily discoverable. But it doesn't sound as sexy as conservative politics writ as theology. Liberal theologians may describe Neo-orthodoxy as theologically conservative because Barth rejects liberal theology's attempt to reconcile theology with science by modifying Christian doctrine to meet science's criteria of truth. To oversimplify, Barth says that science and theology are incommensurate. It's as wrong-headed to alter theology to please science as it is to alter science to please theology. As a result, Barth can retain the traditional confessions of the church, without rejecting science. So arguably neo-orthodoxy is theologically conservative, but that has little to do with politics. Under Jones' mentorship, Clinton learned about Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich—thinkers whom liberals consider their own, but whom young Hillary Rodham encountered as theological conservatives. The Niebuhr she studied was a cold warrior, dismissive of the progressive politics of his earlier writing. Good grief, man, either Mr. Jones is confused, or you didn't understand him. Conservative theology does not entail conservative politics. Dorothy Day was a theologically conservative Catholic, and a socialist. N.T. Wright is a theologically conservative Anglican, and a socialist. J.D. Rockefeller was a great supporter of liberal theology, but he hardly qualifies as a political liberal in today's parlance. None of those examples are necessarily contradictory. Thus, what Reinhold Niebuhr believed about social change didn't make him a theological conservative, although it might have made him a political conservative. I tend to think applying the labels "liberal" or "conservative" to Niebuhrian ethics is misleading. What's more, Niebuhr's skepticism about human institutions and claims of revolutionaries was there from the beginning. One of his first books was Moral Man and Immoral Society, which presents a fairly Marxist critique of American society, but also warns of the dangers of believing the hype of revolutionary politics. In Moral Man and throughout his writing, he expands the Christian notion of sin to include the egoism of social organizations, which will inevitably justify evil to perpetuate themselves, and to which individual consciences will abdicate moral responsibility in the name of the collective good of the organization. That criticism applies equally to the institutions of the political status quo as to revolutionary groups. How Mr. Jones got from that to an endorsement of conservative politics is anybody's guess. Niebuhr did support U.S. policy against Soviet expansion, but not because he believed America's self-righteous image. He saw the brutality of Soviet totalitarianism as the worse of two evils, and came to the conclusion that pacifism in that situation was morally irresponsible. At the core of Niebuhrian ethics is a sense of tragedy, that we can't live up to our ideals (specifically, pacifism), and that self-righteous attempts to hold on to unrealistic ideals may actually be an irresponsible surrender to evil. An example of a Niebuhrian ethical dilemma would be the life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer: although he was convinced Christian pacifist, he involved himself in a conspiracy to assasinate Hitler, because in the scenario of Nazi Germany to do nothing would be morally irresponsbile.

(This continues the previous comment) Niebuhr did support U.S. policy against Soviet expansion, but not because he believed the America's self-righteous image. He saw the brutality of Soviet totalitarianism as the worse of two evils, and came to the conclusion that pacifism was morally irresponsible. At the core of Niebuhrian ethics is a sense of tragedy, that we can't live up to our ideals (specifically, pacifism), and that self-righteous attempts to hold on to unrealistic ideals may actually be an irresponsible surrender to evil. Calling him a "cold warrior" is a gross distortion. Mr. Sharlet said: "Tillich, whose sermon on grace Clinton turned to during the Lewinsky scandal, today enjoys a following among conservatives for revising the social gospel—the notion that Christians are to improve humanity's lot here on earth by fighting poverty, inequality, and exploitation—to emphasize individual redemption instead of activism." Says Doug Jones, I assume. And he's wrong. Although I hardly consider Wikipedia authoritative, it's certainly convenient, and since I'm not getting paid to correct all Mr. Jones' errors, it'll have to do: "Tillich became an outspoken socialist in Germany following World War I, writing much on the relation of religion and politics. His main work in this field, The Socialist Decision, was published in 1933 but failed to achieve much prominence since it was quickly suppressed, confiscated by the rising Nazi party, and publicly burned (Adolf Hitler took power the same year). Although Tillich turned chiefly to psychological, ontological and theological themes during his time in the United States, The Socialist Decision represents the culmination of nearly fifteen years' intense preoccupation with the question of religious socialism. Unlike most Christian socialists of his time (and up through the late 20th century), Tillich raised not only a moral Christian demand for socialist policies, but analyzed the very roots of both Christian and socialist thought to find their common and reinforcing foundations. Tillich was also an early member of the famous Frankfurt School, along with thinkers such as Theodor W. Adorno, Leo Lowenthal, Friedrich Pollock, Karl Mannheim, Kurt Reizler, Carl Mennicke and Adolf Lowe. Tillich was, among these, the leading scholar of religion and politics." Tillich's apologetics may not require a socialist politics, but I think any conservative theologian who quotes Tillich to discount the social gospel really doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyhow, while Tillich echoes some interesting medieval arguments about the ultimately inexpressible nature of God and being, he's pretty much regarded by theological conservatives as an atheist, not someone you quote in an argument over political theology. Mr. Sharlet says: "Niebuhr and Tillich's combination of aggressiveness in foreign affairs and limited domestic ambition naturally led Clinton toward the gop." Which means that either Hillary is so dense that she doesn't understand Niebuhr or Tillich, or someone's making incorrect assumptions about her ideological motivations for being a Goldwater Republican. I choose the latter. Really, the idea that Niebuhr and Tillich would lead someone to be a Goldwater Republican is ridiculous, and about as ideologically incoherent as today's Chinese "Marxism". Mr. Sharlet said: "That's how it works: The Fellowship isn't out to turn liberals into conservatives; rather, it convinces politicians they can transcend left and right with an ecumenical faith that rises above politics. Only the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward." And Hillary, Yale law school education and all, got sucked in. Incredible. Or perhaps Hillary knows that people are studying the Bible and praying, not engaging in Machiavellian maneuvers. Do they hope they can change her mind about some things? I'm sure they do, and I'm sure that she'd like to change theirs. "This is in line with the Christian right's long-term strategy." Mr. Sharlet must have gotten his copy of the long term strategy in the mail. Where's mine? Mr. Sharlet said "Francis Schaeffer, late guru of the movement" Mr. Sharlet left out Rushdoony. We all make offerings to his picture on the mantle when those pesky progressives aren't looking. I'll leave it to Mr. Sharlet to make something sinister out of right-wing politicians realizing that Mrs. Clinton is human, too, and finding commonalities with her. Horrors! We all know that society is much better off when we dehumanize and hate the people who disagree with us, right? Mr. Sharlet said: "As Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council, command central for Washington's Christian right" Yes, Mr. Sharlet, it's a political lobby. They tend to be in Washington. No, Mr. Sharlet, they don't "command" anyone, except those politicians venial enough to abandon their principles when exposed to lobbyists. I tend to think that's a problem across the ideological spectrum, not anything that's specific to the Christian right. Of course, a sinister organization commanding its adherents fits much more comfortably with the biases of Mother Jones readers. Mr. Sharlet said "Clinton speaks instead the language of nondenominationalism—a sober, eloquent appreciation of "values," the importance of prayer, and "heart" convictions—which liberals, unfamiliar with the history of evangelical coalition building, mistake for a tidy, apolitical accommodation, a personal separation of church and state." Mrs. Clinton is not talking like a member of the nondenominational den of vipers, er, evangelical Christian church, down the street. She's talking like a theological liberal who believes that a properly constituted, "modernized" Christian faith is compatible with the exercise of good government, that there is no conflict between the two. That means downplaying theological distinctives, and reducing Christianity to a universalizable code of ethics, with an optional belief in the supernatural. That's liberal theology, people. Of course, it didn't work in the early 20th century, and it doesn't work now. It's nothing new, and it's not indicative of Hillary selling out to the fundamentalists that progressives love to hate. So. . . Mr. Sharlet's article is wrong about Niebuhr and Tillich, whether by way of Doug Jones' reformulations or Mr. Sharlet's interpolations. Mr. Sharlet repeats his tendency to read nefarious intentions into other peoples' religious belief and practices, because he don't find their politics suitable. He's a propagandist dealing in religious bigotry, and his audience apparently eats it up.

Hillary clinton is an opportunist, she will say anything for a vote!!!! The plus side is she's not the only game in town. Kucinich is my guy so far....

WHY IS MY SKIN CRAWLING? "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." Thoreau

She is entitled to her faith, just like all the Jews in the current administration. What is dangerous is when the Jewish cabal operate according to that most vile of all books, the Talmud, and get us into wars for Israel(the next one is with Iran). The right will never accept Senator Clinton due to her liberal social economic issues. She may be a Bible thumper at heart, but other issues trump that. Obama, the Muslim sympathizer, will never pass AIPAC's approval like Senator Clinton. Edwards, the hypocrite will never make it. It looks like Senator Clinton will be President. Get used to it.

The nation's two living Baptist ex-presidents Clinton and Carter are calling for a historic convocation in Atlanta next year, intended to improve the "negative" image of Baptists in North America and to unite the majority of Baptists into a loose-knit network to address social ills. Baptist Churches are independent and lay people(like the ex presidents) play as important of a role as a Pastor. "Priesthood of the believers." Hence, former President Clinton is an important figure in the Baptist movement. He demonstrated to us that Christ forgives us and remembers the sin no more, an example to all of us when we(I know it is with me stray. It is not surprising tht his wife is also religious. This is nothing new. When Jimmy was the first Baptist president, this was something new. Clinton was the second Baptist president. We are all human and he was a good example of how Christ forgives us when we fall. We just get up and keep on going. Praise the Lord.

Hilary has killed more people than Osama,I hope she finds peace , With all of her personal problems, how can she be a good president? The difference between her party and the Christian party is the Dems want to kill them before they can walk and talk , the rep want to at least give them a chance!

Holy Scheiß, no more bible bozos in Washington, please. If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, I'll freaking vote for him over this retard.

When Jesus says something that they don't like religious activists tell Jesus to take a hike. Jesus emphatically stated: tell the truth. When it comes to drug war propaganda, along with any other partisan issue Christian ministers refuse to comment on rampant lying by those in authority. It's been that way for two thousand years before Jesus and since. They learned from Jesus' crucifixion: it ain't gonna happen to them. As soon as they speak up against lying, they get falsely associated with the worst elements of those being lied about. Jesus was "friend of prostitutes and tax collectors" then. He'd be "friend of addicts and terrorists" today because he'd speak out longly and loudly about the lies that are the foundation of our "forever wars".

buuulll[deleted]!!!

If Clinton were religious to any degree, she would never be in favor of baby killing, and partial birth abortion in this country or any other! She favors it all around the whole world! That tells me EVERYTHING...she's a phoney with a capital P who stops at nothing to get elected!

I'm getting sick and tired of these double-crossing Christians. They're no better than those crazy Muslims who blow up anything, mainly their own people, in Irak and Afghanistan and sometimes New York. If god is the power broker they believe he is, let's fire him for obvious, dangerous and blind incompetence. Let's hire instead an intelligent,tolerant and open-minded atheist. Let's bring back the lions and open the Coliseums and give them Christians of all faith to eat.

I guess Clinton found relition on the campaign trail. Yeah just like Bush is a Christian

A strong advocate for abortion which is murder, cannot be on the side of Jesus Christ, although she use his name to get a vote,as long as she promotes abortion,"murder",she makes herself an enemy of Jesus Christ.

Whoever believes this one come see me so I can sell you the Brooklyn Bridge. There is so much "Blood" on the white house being the Godlees country we now live in., Abortion, Partial Birth Abortion, Stem Cell Liberalism is a mental illness look at our courts and the people let go and walking our streets. America has been sold up the river with all the illeagles, anchor babies overseas jobs cheaper and so on. We NEED to BEG for GOD"S MERCY one and all.

Hatemonger?

Sissy, what are you smoking to have the perceptions you do of Dems? Or you drinking the purple kool-aid? Years of experiencing Hillary affirm she is only into fraud, not faith.

I'll believe that she's Christian when she becomes pro-life - until that time, she's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Let her explain why she doesn't believe in the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." I don't believe that there is any footnote to that say - unless you can find a good excuse. Manipulate yourself out of that Lilith!!!!!

Pierre- Something worse than the Coliseum awaits you after death... unless you stop hating Christians.

Trying to portray Bush as a savior of the unborn is insane. He has done nothing to protect the unborn. In fact under his "leadership" government programs funding abortions in other countries has actually increased. I have real difficulty in understaning people's blind faith in this man who has done nothing for Christians other than give them a bad name. Do some research on the man. Look up his record on pastor Chuck Balswin's web site. http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/bushrecord.html

If Hillary Rhodam Clinton was so religious then why would she support the most

Bill Clinton in his own words Hillary has been out with more women then I have. She is also a Marxist and is vicious how many murders is she responsible for.

Unless one lives in a country where religion is outlawed, as it was in the Soviet Union, the is no such thing as a secret Christian. Make no mistake about it. Hillary is a Marxist. One of the basic tenets of Marxism is atheism. Hillary espouses Marxism and often quotes Karl Marx.

To ATK "baby killing" what are you twelve? Abortion hunny is what it is called. And to sit there and critisize Clinton for hers views that women should be able to choose what they want to do with their bodies is a little absurd. Get down off your high horse because if you were raped and got pregnant from it I am sure you would not want to give birth to that demon child.

Fern, You just gave yourself away as a paid shill - my only question is: do you get paid in pennies or koolaide?

This whole article has the effect of causing liberal voters to think less of Sister Hillary. Now who is a liberal voter going to vote for? Obama comes from the "Black Church" movement(some wrongly accuse him of being a secret Muslims, but those people are usual Jewish paranoid types), Edwards is not sincere when he makes a vain attempt to quote Scripture. Dennis Kucinich's little secret is that he is pro life. That only leaves a third party, such as the Green Party. Good Job, Mother Jones.

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT READY FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT. SHE WANTS TO BE PESIDENT NOT TO BE PRESIDNT BUT TO SAY SHE IS HE FIRST FEMALE TO BE PRESIDENT. SHE HAS A GOAL AND THAT IS TO GET EVEN WILL BILL CLINTON. GOD HELP US IF SHE GETS TO BE PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO NEED IT AND OLY GOD CAN SAVE US FROM SUCH A TIME THAT WORDS CAN NOT DESCRIBE. READ YOUR BIBLE MRS CLINTON ABOUT WHO SHOULD RULE THE NEST. THE WORD IN MINE IS IN MY KING JAMES BIBLE, IN MANY PLACES NOT JUST ONE. I WILL PRAY TO GOD NOT TO LET YOU BE THE PRESIDENT OF USA

Please learn how to spell, or use the dictionary. Thanks

"In her own way, she is a true believer." How can she be a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? She is Pro-Abortion. The killing of innocent lives is totally against God. Wake up Hillary, read your Bible again. God knew you before you were in the womb.

Poor fella! You really have no idea what it takes to be a man, do you? And just a word of advise: Try pushing against the "Statue Of Liberty", ad as far as you can move it, is as much as you will change the truth of Christianity with all your venom. God bless ou my friend.

Billary is only interested in power at the cost of all Americans. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton `?!? anyone see a pattern there?

I don't see what is such a big deal. We already knew she was religious ... so what? So what if she brings Jesus to the White House, maybe she can bring Superman, too. This country ... rather, this world needs fixing more than any one person can do! And I am not even religious, but I know that most people's faith seems to give them some sort of moral base, and what's wrong with that? We already know she is very intelligent. Hey, I was ready to vote for Barrack until he ditched his flag lapel pin ... that was just dumb ... he lost so many votes from that. I adore Kucinich and agree with nearly everything he says, but we all know he doesn't have a chance. Why not let a strong woman like Hillary in the white house! Remember, she's married to Bill Clinton, the guy who turned a huge deficit into a surplus ... until GWB turned it back the other way like the republicans always do. It's not like you men have done a great job ... okay, well a few of you have, but let a woman in there and ... Hillary is the best choice and the most likely to win against whatever republican wins the primary. If she wants to bring Jesus and Buddha and Mohammad and Krishna with her to the white house, is that so terrible? I just hope she can actually manage to get medical insurance for EVERYONE, remember when she tried that when her husband was in office? Yea, well maybe second time around it can get accomplished... hopefully. None of these politicians can fulfill all of their promises, one can only hope for improvement.

I grew up a fundamentalist Christian because my family and I needed the faith of God in our lives. After finished college, I realized I am gay. This changed my whole outlook on fundamentalism. My parents, my family and my friends all turned their back on me, but I had a new family who helped me to cope, the gay community. I had no choice because I am gay. I see the need for spirituality, but also the love and caring for the oppressed. Jesus helped those who were sick, was a help and friend to Mary Magdalene, fed the hungry, cured the sick, and instead of marching outside the church of Matthew Sheppards funeral with posters saying '[deleted]', would be insided the church, holding the mothers hand, comforting her.

i hate this

Sonny, out of all of those comments, you made a good point out there of our ignorance. Thank you, we all need God in our lives.

god help us all if hillary becomes president.

hillary clinton should be our president we need a change of leadership

"worse yet, this KausticKhristianity has been crrreeeeeping into Canada for some time now... & Harper seems to encourage it..." [BlueBerry Pick'n] My word! According to Macleans "He is the first evangelical prime minister since John Diefenbaker, and the first ever to belong to the relatively obscure Christian and Missionary Alliance denomination." Read: The Evangelical Sanhedrin and Republicanism by Ron Dart Vive Le Canada 8-09-2006 http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060808140819982 It discusses the history of Evangelicism in the US and Canada, from a Canadian point of view. Though it does not address Dominionism adequately, it is an excellent summary of recent Evangelical history.