I am shocked, SHOCKED! to think that her opponents for the nomination are not supporting her.
Shame, shame…
Maybe I should start a new thread for this, but is it deeply offensive if someone mischaracterizes Jesus, Mary, & Joseph as homeless, & if so, why?
I think it’s fair to find the comparison a bit silly, but making the comparison is hardly at the level of taking bribes or trying to destroy an industry.
It’s not offensive to me…but IMO, it’s a pretty sad level of pandering to misrepresent them as homeless in order to garner sympathy for people who really are. It’s using them to make some kind of political point, which I find to be kind of distasteful, and making something up about them to do it seems even worse.
I’m not sure if you’re referring to me; I haven’t had time to read every post.
Anyway, I never said it was deeply offensive. It hadn’t even occurred to me until just now. The problem for me is that it’s a lie. By itself, no big deal at all. But I cited it as part of a pattern of dishonesty. See above for cites. And yes, now that you mention it, it probably is offensive to many. I’m just not one of those offended.
So if you tell a lie about Millard Fillmore, it’s a lie and you should lose some points if I’m thinking of voting for you for POTUS. If you tell a lie about Martin Luther King, that’s potentially a lie plus. Sounds like I might’ve changed my mind a bit there. Yeah, maybe it is offensive to some. I’ll look for your new thread, maybe someone can clarify this for me.
And then he signs a national syndication deal.
Yes! 
Sorry to bug you, but you know what? You’re right. That was a mistake and if I could withdraw it I would. :smack:
Nevertheless, it is exactly the kind of thing Jesus would have done, considering the goal (“to garner sympathy for people who really are” homeless).
Yeah…I hate when people use Jesus to garner support for policies involving compassion, helping the poor, etc. Much better when they just use him instead for policies of bombing other nations, oppressing gays, and fighting for the criminalization of abortion. :rolleyes:
It’s not the sentiment I object to, it’s the sneaking feeling I get that she thinks that conservatives DON’T care about the homeless, and she can make them feel guilty about it by saying that Jesus was homeless. Not to mention the smug implication that liberals are the “right” kind of Christians.
BTW, Christians have always helped the poor, inspired by Jesus’ actual words, not by some made up story someone might use to score political points.
Pretty much…BUT…not ALL Christians, which is the problem.
I think this quibbling over whether it’s a “lie” to refer to Jesus as a “homeless person”, because he wasn’t literally homeless, is kind of ridiculous.
Are we going to call St. Theresa of Lisieux a liar for referring to Jesus as a “beggar”, on the grounds that he wasn’t literally a beggar?
Christians have always used socially pejorative terms (“beggar”, “lowly”, “outcast”) to refer to Jesus, precisely in order to make the very same ideological point that’s being made here: namely, that Christians are supposed to care about the suffering of those who are regarded as the dregs of society.
If you’re going to lambast Clinton for “lying” or “pandering” or “misrepresentation” because of this remark, or even to characterize it as “pathetic” or “silly”, you’re going to have to include in your condemnation an awful lot of other Christian politicians and activists, from late antiquity to the present, who have said exactly the same sort of thing.
We certainly don’t want Hillary Clinton to start something like that. Because wouldn’t it be terrible if people were to use religion to further their political objectives? Thank God that’s never happened in America.
Hm. I’m not even a Xtian anymore, & I think that on some level some of the right are the “wrong” kind of Xtian. It seems hard to justify from Jesus’s teachings lowering marginal tax rates on the very rich while cutting welfare. Maybe it fits if your position is that society needs the church, not the state, to provide charity, but that sounds like jealousy over social credibility.
On what basis do you say it’s ridiculous? Can you cite an argument where a conservative was labeled a “liar” because s/he lied, and you stepped in to say it was ridiculous? It sounds like you’re trying to divert the conversation away from the real point. The point is that she lied. That’s it.
BTW what’s the difference between “literally homeless” and “homeless?” Is your point that travelers are “homeless” but not “literally homeless?”
Does this mean that since I’ve done some traveling I can come to SDMB and say “I know what it’s like to be homeless?”
Because, as I noted before, Clinton’s statement is just part of a long tradition of Christians using socially pejorative (but not literally true) terms to describe Jesus, such as “beggar” and “outcast”. If we’re going to call that “lies”, we have to apply the term to much of Christological doctrine in general.
Exactly. The entire Nativity story is meant to show how low his birth was, that he rose from nothing.
So? That may not be true of conservatives in general, but it is patently true for all practical purposes of conservatives in power.
cite?
Patently true? That should be easy to cite.