Hillary Clinton’s Ever Intensifying War on Faith
Our founding fathers understood that only a just and moral people were capable of the liberties that flow from limited government. In their view, our liberty would depend upon our faithfulness to and fear of God facilitated by the guarantee to freely exercise our religion.
Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton has a different world view. She states that “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” This was not just idle talk.
Americans are being persecuted and threatened for various beliefs pertaining to their “biases.” People with traditional values are being required to abandon their faith, convictions and conscience because laws backed up with considerable resources and political will consider the faithful to be nothing less than bigots violating anti-discrimination laws.
We now know more about the specifics of Hillary’s war against religion, thanks to the disclosure of an email exchange between Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, John Podesta, and Sandy Newman, the president of an organization closely aligned with Mrs. Clinton, “Voices for Progress.” In the email, the two discuss the need for a “Catholic Spring,” a reference to the Arab Spring. In the minds of these two progressive stalwarts, just as the Arabs were revolting against dictators, so must Catholics “demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.” The email goes on to query which organization could be called upon to “plant the seeds of a revolution.” The primary focus of the revolution are Catholic bishops enforcing the “dictatorship” of the pope and the catechism of the church.
Hillary Clinton has tried to divert public attention away from these revelations by blaming the Russians for the email leak. She wants to deflect the focus from the content of the emails, which reveal the disdain of progressives for the rights of the people to freely exercise their religion. Ironically, Hillary’s running mate, Tim Kaine, is steeped in liberation theology, which was inspired in part by the Russian KGB in order to create a rebellion within the Catholic Church in Latin America by way of influencing church doctrine with Marxist (read that atheist) dogma. Relatedly, Mr. Kaine’s so-called transformative missionary experience included abetting communist revolutionaries in Nicaragua. In reality, therefore, Hillary and the Russians are not so much antagonists as they are co-conspirators against the church.
Mr. Podesta responded in the email to Ms. Newman by saying that “we” created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for just such a revolution. I wonder who the “we” is? Mr. Podesta then suggests that Ms. Newman consult with Kathleen Kennedy Townsend on this subject matter, as Ms. Townsend wrote a book detailing how the organized churches in America (both Catholic and Protestant) are failing the faithful. The book was reviewed and praised by none other than Bill Clinton. Do you see a pattern here?
Progressives believe that our Constitution and our religion should conform to changing cultural norms. Our founding fathers and church fathers believed the opposite. Namely, the Constitution was written to enable the church, God’s witness on earth, to keep the faith without interference from government. The church was to serve as salt and light to a society of men prone to moral rot and shifting shadows of darkness, if left to their own devices. Our founding fathers believed in a creator who has endowed men with self-evident, unalienable truths. The rights based on these truths don’t change because God doesn’t change and neither does his immutable endowment to mankind.
First published at The Santa Barbara News-Press
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.