Hillary’s Use Of Religious Code Language

I remember watching Pat Robertson just before President W. Bush’s re election day. Robertson, not wanting to endanger his tax exempt status, said viewers should “pray” for the next election. Now, Franklin Graham is going around the country holding “prayers” for the upcoming election. Both, of course, are crude use of religious code language promoting Republicans.

Since use of religion is available to any politician, Hillary Clinton is using it. Her use of code language is more sophisticated but I’m guessing effective. She is using the word “love” often. It does not refer to love for some individual but a religious concept of groups “loving” each other.

Use of the term “love” has been substituted, to some extent, for the words, “justice” and “fairness.” These latter words were the old party of Bernie Sanders, Bill Clinton and the social justice branch of Christianity. The “nones” growth has shown there are endless variations in what could be called faith and the word “love” works in most. Also recall the word “love” was used by Justice Kennedy in his support of gay marriage.

It is often reported that Clinton is aiming at suburban Republican women. Her careful use of religious code language seems just right for that purpose.

Having said this, I am not in favor of using religion in political campaigns or in government. Some readers get angry with me for that.

Perhaps advocates of religion in government will be less enthusiastic when it is used for ends they do not like.

34 Responses

      1. Matt — You were once the size of a walnut and even smaller. So was Jinx, entech and wBS. Even Henry, Julius and I were that size.

        We were once sperm cells. So what?

          1. Wanna 9:23 We can recycle this argument again–I recall you place importance of the DNA that exists after fertilization. Others place importance on hearing a heartbeat–legislation has even been attempted using heartbeat and the indication there is a human instead of a fetus. In the end, there is no scientific definition of when a human’s life begins. It could be my definition, when a sperm cell is created, or, it could one of any number of religious definitions and/or opinions. Legally in the U. S., a human’s life begins when a birth acknowledged by someone with authority to do so.

          2. Wanna Be Sure

            Jon; yours in the only proposition before fertilization. all the others vary on the time after fertilization.
            It would serve you well to review the science, biology and sequence of reproduction. According to your “what if”, your nuts would be sacred too. Smilie face.

          3. Wanna 11:24 It would serve you well to review the science, biology and sequence of reproduction.

            Well, here’s a little science–or maybe something a little like science. The question is, what role does unique DNA have in the “reproductive sequence”. I put that in quotes because I really don’t know what the term means exactly. I’ll make a rough estimate that half of all fertilized eggs result in miscarriages. Each of these has a unique DNA. My “scientific” conclusion is, then, that while all fetuses that come to term have unique DNA, it is not a trait that is terribly important to nature in replacing humans that die off. It is just one of thousands of attributes necessary for a human being to come to birth, but it is not terrible important for the survival of humans.

          4. Wanna Be Sure

            @ 12;15; Not the sperm, but the immaculate preconception and your nuts. You may have to get some holy water from Matt to scrub them.

            @12;23; That you don’t know the sequence of reproduction ‘splains a lot. Actually, I think you do know, but you are being cute.

            There is a difference between what no one has control or knowledge of, and what is purposefully and intentionally done. For example; You may have someone expected to die of natural causes, or you may have someone in the same situation that you poison or shoot. Most medical ethicists would argue against the latter.

          5. Wanna 1:17 For example; You may have someone expected to die of natural causes, or you may have someone in the same situation that you poison or shoot. Most medical ethicists would argue against the latter.

            You surprised me with that post. You slipped into the mode of reasoning used by Matt and fellow right wingers here. To reason in that way, one first needs some substantial reason to say the clump of cells is that is part of the woman’s body is an independent human even though it cannot survive without the mother. Once religion of some philosophical reasoning takes you to that dark side there is no conclusion other than that abortion, even of a couple of cells is murder.

            Is it a fact that “most medical ethicists” argue that abortion is murder? I had not heard that.

          6. Wanna Be Sure

            Jon; for your information “The immaculate conception” is not about Jesus. It was about the barer of Jesus, Mary. (In RCC dogma). Consequently, your sperm baring nuts would be the immaculate pre-conception of you sacred sperm. Hence the term “Holy Balls”. You are closer to Matt than what you think.

            One eye open.

          7. Wanna Be Sure

            I didn’t say anything about abortion. It was about that which no one has control or knowledge of, and comparing it to something where one may.

          8. Wanna Be Sure

            Jon @ 1:50 ; ” Is it a fact that “most medical ethicists” argue that abortion is murder ? I had not heard that.”- – – – Again, you did not hear that from me.

        1. Matt Noah

          No, you were not once a sperm cell. Only upon the joining of sperm (a multi-cell entity) and an egg did a unique human being get created. Basic biology. Deny?

          1. Matt Noah

            Shirley, I am not joking. Every sperm is not a human being. Every egg is not a human being. Only when the egg is fertilized by the sperm is a human being formed.

          2. entech

            Matt video @ 5:19. This shows that a flash of light is produced when the sperm cell interacts (joins/penetrates whatever) with the membranes of the egg. It has nothing to say about the beginning of life certainly not making human life special because it was first discovered in mice.
            The result is captured when an embryo is activated by a sperm embryo (an actual sacred sperm would be illegal to use in America), further the strength of the reaction is an indication of how viable the egg is, that is the probability of there being a strong embryo and the likely hood of going full term. I am surprised Matt put this up ford consideration, I could be wrong as I quite frequently am but, as I thought in vitro fertilization was condemned.

            So tell us Matt, all of this immoral science, incomplete because actual sperm was not used is supposed to tell us when life begins? when a soul is created in a flash of light? or that such scientific study and experimentation should be banned, that a religious concept is more important than saving human life.

            Like so much that comes from you it is so difficult to comprehend.

    1. Chuck Z

      The fact that you would gleefully run and post something completely irrelevant to any topic on Jon’s blog, as a personal attack on somebody, says far more about you than it does him. It’s a shame that Jon allows personal stuff like this to be allowed.

      1. entech

        Come now defense is one thing but Matt must be the greatest poster of irrelevancies that exists and the most regular and consistent personal attacker.

        It’s a shame that Jon allows personal stuff like this to be allowed. Of course it is! nice to see you admitting to thinking censorship is a good thing.

      2. Matt Noah

        It’s understandable. I post a lot here and I have plenty of enemies since I am a Catholic, i.e. not exactly the friend of atheists and anti-theists in their opinion. It is patently true that many who post here have no spiritual belief system and I mourn for their loss. Faith is knowing when you can’t prove. Some post outright lies and I call them on it. I understand it upsets them.

        Thanks for the defense Chuck. There is more to the Forum story and I decided to answer “no comment” to the Forum reporter. The appeal is in the works.

    1. Jinx

      On the other hand, we see this exact behavior on this block whenever worm posts. Personal attack? Not at all, his aggressive and vindictive behavior across a variety of situations is a concern for everyone he tears into on this blog. Maybe chuckie and henrie need to do an intervention for their friend…..

      1. Wanna Be Sure

        @ 9;57; “…is a concern for everyone he tears into on this blog”. Naw, not at all a concern. He’s nothing more than a lightweight who can’t respond with substance to anything with substance. (At least in my experience, interest, and subject matter.). I can’t speak for others. I must say he is entertaining.

      2. entech

        “In the end, Mr. Noah overreacts to any perceived wrongdoing and then cannot let anything go. This ongoing pattern of conduct is detrimental to the game and our organization,” according to a US Club Soccer memo about the suspension, dated Wednesday, Aug. 24.

        The suspension came after an unspecified complaint launched a disciplinary investigation in June.

        In explaining their reasoning, officials with the national organization cited a long list of Noah clashes, several of which have previously been reported in The Forum. “Mr. Noah has had disputes with referees, referee administrators, club officials, tournament directors, facility managers, local park district officials and even his own employer. Whether he is right or wrong in his perceived grievances is irrelevant; it is the way he conducts himself in each of these interactions that is the problem. Every interaction seems to end up with a threat of filing a complaint and/or grievance (or litigation),” US Club Soccer said in the memo.

        This does seem to exemplify the Matt that we all look forward to entertaining and irritating us.

    2. Henry

      BS 7:06, you might need to get a life. The MN news story broke at 6:41 p.m. You linked it at 6:53 p.m. I can only picture you sitting on the Inforum site hitting the refresh button waiting for the next piece of juicy news on MN. However, the explanation must be simple, just a pure coincidence.

  1. Wanna Be Sure

    Interesting subliminal placing of the cross on the lectern in the picture of Hillary. Must be religious code.

  2. Juan Ruiz

    Religion has long been a part of politics. It’s in the presidential oath. LBJ on 11/22/63 asked “for your help…and God’s.” People seem to expect it.

Comments are closed.