Hillary Clinton and Diplomacy Through Religion

I’m far from an expert in the U. S. Federal government, but if I were to study one part of it more, it would be the Department of State.  Even though State does not have the budgets of others like the Department of Defense, it deals with intellectual topics that most others do not.

In lay terms, State’s goals have to do with guiding international relations in a direction that is in the interests of the U. S.  There is a constant debate as to what those interests are and how the diplomatic arm of government can achieve them.

The role of religion comes up often.  President Carter, it was said, got on well with religious regimes because leaders with deep faith understood each other, even if they did not have the same faith.  How well he got along with them is probably disputed.

Hillary Clinton is reportedly very religious, a Methodist.  What she worked on while Secretary of State might have reflected her Methodism.

Instead of the traditional State Department policy of dealing almost exclusively with national officials, or, their political opponents, she placed staff in embassies who were specifically tasked with reaching religious leaders in various countries.  These religious leaders are sometimes at odds with a country’s government so the practice is a delicate one.

Nevertheless, from this distance is seems like a good way to keep a finger on the pulse of a country.  Perhaps we will not be blindsided with 9/11′s and such under her new practice.

http://religionandpolitics.org/2013/05/08/since-hillary-clintons-tenure-the-state-department-pursues-greater-religious-engagement/

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to Hillary Clinton and Diplomacy Through Religion

  1. Avatar of Kevin Kevin says:

    Can people who lead duplicitous lives still claim to be religious?

    • entech says:

      I think it is almost a prerequisite. :roll:

      • entech says:

        Perhaps I was a little quick leaping in there. If you combine politics and religion a certain amount of it creeps in. But if you add ambition to either it is “almost a prerequisite”.

        If you add religion and politics and ambition together it must be guaranteed.

        Religion alone does not lead to duplicity, but it does help :)

    • Wanna B Sure says:

      Yes, the duplicitous can and do use religion as a tool. The non-duplicitous people of faith are off the radar.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Keven 2:14 “Can people who lead duplicitous lives still claim to be religious?”

      Entech’s answer, “..it is almost a requirement.” is hard to top. Certainly, Newt Gingrich and Mark Sanford see as a requirement they run out the god word when excusing their behavior and voters accept it. Perhaps in their subconscious, voters know the god is in the mind only and it can be made to say whatever the person needs it to say.

    • Brad says:

      “Can people who lead duplicitous lives still claim to be religious?”

      I have a better question: can people who are religious NOT lead duplicitous lives????

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        yes. Stay out of politics, and leave your neighbors alone.

        • Brad says:

          The thing I have found is that the more religious people are, the more duplicitous they are, AND the more involved in politics and their neighbors affairs they are.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Brad; Re. your; “..the more religious people are…”: I believe it would be more accurate to say; The more pietistic people are, the more duplicitous they are. Pietistic/pietism being the operative word. I know many truly devout, and very religious people who mind their own business, are never in anyone’s face, and don’t have a bad word to say about anyone. One could call them religious, but they don’t exhibit religiosity.

          • Brad says:

            “I believe it would be more accurate to say; The more pietistic people are, the more duplicitous they are.”

            Ok, fair enough.

      • Wanna B Sure says:

        I have observed duplicity on this blog site originating from some of the topics and it’s supporters. Nonbelief is not immune to it.

        • Avatar of realist realist says:

          Well, of course. My assumption is that posters here are human beings, although I don’t know for sure about some. :) Therefore duplicity along with other character flaws are always on display.

        • entech says:

          Of course, as we all know it is not possible to be a real atheist. So everyone arguing against religion is duplicitous.

          In fact some of the truly religious know from revelation that only they know the truth, the revelation is out there and available, everyone that wants to know knows. So they might say to deny me is to deny God, to deny when the truth is obvious, they would say, is in itself duplicity.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Merrian Webster: Duplicitious; “The belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action.”

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            “The belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action.”

            We have such a thing locally, although it may not fit the definition perfectly. Our Senators, especially the Republican one, and our Governor are in the news frequestly saying, “The diversion (a local flood control project) is going to be built for sure. The money is just about in place.” But, it’s not, never will be, but no one can admit it.

          • entech says:

            Actually duplicity, nearly printed this on out myself.
            : contradictory doubleness of thought, speech, or action;
            and then as an example; especially :the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action.

            Now I can’t speak for others, but I see a similar purpose, I cannot and don’t think it can be demonstrated that your (and all the others) religious beliefs are wrong but we do like to point out, sometimes more firmly than others, the possibility that you could be wrong. We do have some on both sides of the belief/non-belief continuum that are totally convinced of their position and put their view in the most forthright of terms, the antithesis of duplicity, obvious almost to the point of rudeness, in fact.

            To speak of being a believer but having doubts, using that approach when the person has no doubts and is an out and out disbeliever, to solicit help in confirmation when the intention is to spread doubt would be a perfect example of duplicitous behaviour. I do not see any of that here.

            Even my old buddy Henry, he who will give a little bend to an explanation to make it lean towards what he wants is not duplicitous, his intention is always clear and honest (I do accuse him of dishonest methods, but his intention is always clear and honest) he has a view of the universe that he consistently sticks to even though I continually try to point out that he is wrong and am only convinced one one thing, that he will never believe me.

            So tell me wanna where do you see duplicity? Could it be just that you felt the need to say something? You are always trying to find ways to put Jon (and others) down even when you often make yourself look a little foolish doing it.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            See to the last paragraph of your 1:41, especially the last sentence. Simply a clarification of a mis-application.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            The “look a little foolish” is from your perspective. That’s understandable. Anything or anyone who disagrees with you is “a little foolish” as evidenced by your high regard of your own very wordy statements.

          • entech says:

            OK, looking at 1:41 am. I see what you mean more than a little clumsy, possibly even misleading, but duplicity would imply intent. So to simplify;
            1st sentence: It would be hard to deny that many people do claim a revelation and intimate relationship with God. That it is all true and you only have to believe and accept and the revelation would be yours as well, is what they will say. You only give up your wanton and deliberate disbelief.
            2nd sentence: Given the point of view expressed in sentence 1 I would contend that there is an element of truth in what I say. What they say is:
            God has revealed himself to me.
            Denying revelation is denying God.
            The evidence is all around you, from Moses and the prophets to the created universe.
            It is a contradictory doubleness of thought to deny this, denial is a duplicitous act.

            I do not intentionally deny in spite of evidence, I am merely unconvinced. To pretend to accept for the sake of acceptance in the community, to pay lip service and attend sometimes, that would be duplicity.

          • entech says:

            Missed your 3:15 you poor little thing, would you like a box of tissues to wipe your little eyes.

          • Wanna B Sure says:

            Re. 3:31; Childish.
            I’m not here to defend those who actually are duplicitous. There are plenty that are.

          • entech says:

            Jon, your 2:59. Prime example of duplicity in politics, long unnecessary story here and just need a couple of points.

            State parliament has just given itself a pretty large increase (changed the rules to do it) after some bitter battles with nurses and teachers over tiny increases and demands for payment by results – if most politicians got paid by results they would have to give money back.
            As a sacrifice they have given up free interstate rail travel, probably used by one person, one time, in one century.
            The increase in pension donation from the tax payer has increased from 9 to 15%, they say it is not much only 6%, it sounds less that way, why don’t they it has increased by 66% from of the previous rate. The idea of percentage changes according to what they want to apply it to.

  2. Michael Ross says:

    “In lay terms, State’s goals have to do with guiding international relations in a direction that is in the interests of the U. S.”

    Nonsense! Its goal have to do with guiding the interest of the global banking cartel.

    “Hillary Clinton is reportedly very religious,”

    She is about as religious as her old man.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 6:29 “She is about as religious as her old man.”

      Here is where we get into David’s point about standards or requirements. You and I both know to make the claim one hears from the god does not require meeting any stanards or requirements whatsoever. Hillary and Bill can make the claim as well as Billy Graham and Mark Sanford.

  3. Doug says:

    This is off-topic, but, never the less, gave me a day-brightening smile:

    http://news.yahoo.com/f-king-religious-idiots-craigslist-182010851.html

    HILLARY IN 2016!!!

    • dan says:

      Brad, glad to see you get your kicks out of demonstrations of intolerance. The couple will be a good fit for California. Their economy is thriving, crime is at an all time low, all the elite libs are in harmony with nature… Lesson learned, you get what you ask for.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>