Joseph Knippenberg reflects on this: "This past Sunday, on the eve of the Republican National Convention, Bill Clinton preached a sermon from the pulpit of New York’s Riverside Church, long a leading pillar of liberal Protestantism. It was classic Clinton, and I’m sure the audience was moved. The sermon was part of a campaign—long urged by former Clinton aides Mike McCurry and John Podesta, and taken up by Riverside Church—for the Democrats and religious progressives to reclaim the language of faith from conservatives. Clinton always was, and still is, better at this than John Kerry. He knows his Bible—Old and New Testaments—and, unlike Howard Dean, he knows which is which." There is much more, read it. 
I daresay Bill Clinton DOESN’T know his Bible. He may know enough of it to cleverly use snippets to fool people into his point of view, but the problem is that most others, even in churches, don’t know their Bible to combat his "religiosity". How can anyone read the Old Testament and get "compassion"? The New Testament does go a little more this route, but the entire messege of the N.T. is that we, a fallen people, cannot possibly fulfill the whole of the law. That is why we need a divine Saviour,to do it for us with infinite consequences, not a welfare system to ineffectually care for people on a finite level (and ultimatly only for political expediency, in most cases). Jesus is much less interested in passing out wine at weddings or loaves and fishes, and much more interested in living waters of eternal consequnce. And the fact that Clinton uses religion to say what he says only shows me he has zero understanding of this concept...
I’m sure if Jesus were around in America today, the Pharisees would hire James Carville to show the American people how Jesus was running a "smear campaign" and Andrea Kramer would be on MSNBC decrying Jesus’ "red meat" approach to religion...
Well said. The problem with Mr. Clinton and these Dems (and, I dare say some Republicans) is that to them, their party - and indeed politics - are their religion. This is clearly evident in the text of Clinton’s speech (if not in the fact of the speech’s occurrence itself) where he, as one example, attempts - from an ostesibly Christian pulpit - to demonstrate that Republicans do not reflect the faith of Christ because we do not support economic welfare; ergo we obviosly do not care for the poor. What he fails to grasp (giving him the benefit of the doubt for not purposefully twisting scripture) is that the faith of Christ was not a faith to be found in politics, social reform programs, or political parties. Christ came to transform and win the hearts of individuals. Until Mr. Clinton can prove that the individual souls that compose the Republican party do not individually care for the poor, the orphaned, and the imprisoned, I’ll continue to place my trust in the Savior and the Holy Spirit - and not in the pseudo-religious moral platitudes of a lecher - to convict me and my brothers and sisters.