Guilt by Innuendo

Last updated on: May 9, 2013 at 6:09 am by Faithful Democrats

Guilt by Innuendo 2013-05-09T06:09:27-06:00 Faithful Democrats

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Mother Jones has a disturbing article out about Hillary Clinton’s faith — disturbing not because of what it says about Hillary, as the authors seem to believe, but because of its vaguely insulting attitude toward evangelical Christianity.

Eric Sapp has already posted at Faithful Democrats about some of the problems with the Mother Jones piece. I’d like to expand just a bit on Eric’s post.

The apparent point of the article is to show that Hillary Clinton is (a) in league with a secretive, conservative Christian group on Capitol Hill, and (b) a Christian “true believer.” Both of these things are supposed to be cause for grave concern. And I don’t get it.

Although the authors, Kathryn Joyce and Jeff Sharlet, never bash evangelicals outright, they tweak them (and Hillary) through a series of snide and suggestive innuendoes. Here are a few examples:

The authors repeatedly point out that Hillary’s prayer group — the Fellowship, it’s called — is “secretive.” Who cares? It’s a prayer group.

Hillary’s observation that the Republicans’ immigration bill last year would have “criminalized Jesus” is dismissed as a “Jesus moment.” Literally, I suppose that was a Jesus moment, inasmuch as Hillary’s Christian faith appeared in her discussion of public policy. But why the ironic detachment? Is there something wrong with “Jesus moments”?

Joyce and Sharlet seem pretty concerned that Hillary’s involvement in the Fellowship — which includes mostly Republican lawmakers — helped lead her to collaborate with conservatives Sam Brownback and Rick Santorum. What a scoop, guys: relationships matter in politics! Somebody call the New York Times. Before that, though, a question: would anyone care if Hillary had deepened her relationship with those Republicans in anything other than a Christian context? Or is it simply bridge-building per se that drives these people up the wall?

The article repeatedly refers to Hillary’s prayer group as a “Christian ‘cell.'” A cell? Like in al Qaeda? Are they kidding me? The word is literally accurate, I suppose, and it’s actually common parlance for evangelicals, as Eric notes here. But the word carries dark and devious connotations to a general audience — and referring to the prayer group simply as, well, a prayer group wouldn’t get anyone’s blood boiling.

Now, to be fair, Sharlet has reported before about how some of the core members of the Fellowship do seem to have bigger aspirations than mere prayer. But there was nothing in the Mother Jones piece to suggest that Hillary is part of some grand conspiracy.

The authors point out that these prayer group “cells” are “sex-segregated.” In other words, there are men’s groups and women’s groups. So? Must we allude to the Jim Crowe South to express that trivial point?

The authors implicitly mock Hillary’s sense of “divine guidance” in public life, as if there’s something wrong with her believing that she’s where God wants her to be. I’m all for maintaining a healthy doubt as to what God wants us to do, as it’s all too easy to mistake our impulses for God’s will. But I’m not sure that knocking people who believe in divine providence — a group that includes many of the founding fathers — will get Joyce and Sharlet very far with most voters. (More on that at the end.)

Mother Theresa’s Missionaries of Charity — who worked with Hillary to set up shop in D.C. — are dismissed as a “conservative Vatican order.” Geez. These folks need to relax.

The authors content that Hillary is moving toward a “faith-based politics that, under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump individual rights.” OK, um, how’s that? Well, the authors cite a few examples — Defense of Marriage Act, federal funding of faith-based social services, etc. — that pale in comparison to Hillary’s support for abortion rights, civil unions, keeping the Ten Commandments out of the classroom, and so on. Where’s this dangerous, majoritarian moralism? Have any of Hillary’s positions been to the right of other centrist Democrats?

Evidence of Hillary’s paternalistic politics is supposedly found in the fact that she has written “approvingly of…lessons in Scripture.” Readers could easily gets so swept up in the innuendo of the article that it’s easy to forget something basic: Christians tend to like Scripture. That’s true almost by definition. What’s the problem?

My personal favorite: Joyce and Sharlet reveal an anti-southern bias. “Then, as now,” they write, “Clinton confounded secularists who recognize public faith only when it comes wrapped in a cornpone accent.” Cornpone is a generally derogatory term referring to the speech of unsophisticated, uneducated hicks. Do any religious right leaders sound like they just came out of the backwoods? Forgive me, but I’m having trouble thinking of any. More likely, of course, the authors simply equate “southern” with “unsophisticated” — which tells us more about them than it does about secularists.

The bottom line, it seems to me, is that Hillary Clinton is getting grief for daring to pray with conservatives. Unless the authors have a particular beef with religion — which, unfortunately, they seem to — they seem to be expecting Hillary not to build alliances across ideological lines. They seem to think the mere mention of Hillary’s work with conservative Republicans will bring shudders down the spine of any right-thinking Democrat.

The irony here is that any Democrat who fails to build such bridges will either lose the presidential election or be ineffective once in office — thus undermining the progressive agenda to which Joyce and Sharlet are so committed.

So let’s dispense with the guilt-by-association, demeaning mumbo-jumbo. Let’s let Hillary have her faith and get on with the campaign.

Featured Writers

Previous Post

August 28, 2007

US Senator Fined for Lewd Foot-Tapping

Next Post

September 13, 2007 The War in Iraq: Are You Getting Your Money's Worth?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category About Us About Us Action Center Advertise Ask a Theologian Ask a Theologian Blogs Books Campaign Blog Candidate Spotlights Commentary Donate Facebook Featured Writers Fellows Fellows From the Pulpit General Information Hillary Clinton Interfaith Blog Latest Media Center Media Center Media Center MyBlog MyBlog News Newsflash Newsflashes Our Team Reader Blogs RSS Sermon of the Week Shop Social Networking Static Items Support Talking Points Test blogs The Basics Theology Uncategorized YouTube

Select a Month November 2020 October 2020 February 2020 August 2019 July 2018 July 2017 March 2017 February 2017 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 January 2006 August 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was the first man created, according to the Bible?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Adam Jacob Moses Abraham