I have now & then taken up the challenge of attempting to illuminate Field Marshall Rodham’s politics in a context of Christian tradition. The whole project has been, generally, a dead loser. None of it means anything to the lefties, who have been willing to ignore all of it — within the general context of lefty howling about “fundies” — because the politics that she espouses is so near and dear to their shrunken black hearts. At the same time, I have only once seen a conservative with the nerve to look the matter in the eye, although he didn’t do it very well all the way down to principles and then back up to implications…

Well, let’s look at the principals involved, and their implications, shall we? I mean… since we know the woman…(Shudder)… It’s not very hard to deconstruct what Clinton is saying here… From your usenet post:

“So, from an early age, my church said to me, ‘Yes, your personal salvation is more important, but you have a scripturally ordained responsibility reach out and help others as well.'”

Now, that’s Rodham, quoted from a campaign speech in ’92, and cited in David Brock’s “The Seduction of Hillary Rodham” at p. 6.

Look; what she says here, on the surface, is quite correct.  We are in fact under a scripturally ordained responsibility to reach out and help others.  No question.

Where she falls short of the mark, is where she conflates individual acts of charity, with government involvement.  Note again where I say we are under a scripturally ordained responsibility… we as individuals….not the government. Not even as one church or another. As individuals. Christ himself said:

” Give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s and give unto God, that which is God’s.”

There’s a rather thick line, drawn between charity and government. Confiscation, is not charity, and it is certainly not the act of an individual.  Charity is the realm of God, and the individual….not of government…. Whereas when Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks of a “charitable society” and “our responsibility to reach out and help others” she’s talking about GOVERNMENT taking that role. You got it close when you said:

To Hillary, the state is the device for this “redemption”, and that became the goal of her entire life.

Clearly, she has that part wrong.  She’s of the idea that charity involves giving away somebody else’s money, however you have obtained it. and there’s the crux of the issue; she has bent the religion to her own world view, which I view as being on a level plane with Islamo-Facists… who have done precisely the same thing.
As for the rationality of it all, where on earth did you think the idea of the individual came from in the first place?  Consider our discussion a couple of years ago, as regards Luther, and his call for an individual relationship with God.  One gets the idea, that she and Luther would not see eye to eye at all. Nor would she and Christ, truth be known.
As for the practicality of such concepts, consider charity giving under the Reagan administration, after government “services” work were cut and the taxes lowered . (No not as a perfect condition, but rather as a juxtaposition…) If I recall correctly, charitable giving went through the roof, indeed charitable organizations received far larger numbers and far more effective volunteering than they did when government was trying to run the show.

Trust me, my friend, when I tell you, that there will be far less confusion then you think on the matter.  Particularly unconfused, will be those who understand the principles of the religion they claim.

Perhaps if you understood better the religion she’s claiming, and its principals, you’d be better equipped to expose the nonsense she’s spewing. Indeed, she seems only to do well with this kind of nonsense, amongst people who don’t know what she’s talking about.

Finally, I think some attention must be paid to the efforts of her and her party to remove all vestiges of religion from public life.  All by order of the government, of course.  Those actions, it seems to me, do as much as anything else to give lie to her religious affectations.

Tags: , , ,

One Response to “Give Unto Caesar That Which is Caesar’s…..”

  1. Gentlemen, do not invoke a complex explantion when a simple one will do.  Mrs. Clinton is greedy, she covet your money.  Mrs. Clinton is motivated by greed.  She kept her cattle cattle futures money.  She kept her book royalities and she wants all of Exxon/Mobil’s profits. The woman is driven by lust.