Hillary Clinton appears to have a far more credible claim to Christian influence than does Donald Trump. A substantial report by America Magazine examines her faith and its implications, with this as a starting point.
Growing up, Mrs. Clinton attended First United Methodist Church in Park Ridge, Ill., a white, upper-middle-class suburb of Chicago. She has said in speeches and in her memoir that she recalls her father praying each night before bed and her mother helping out in various church ministries.
The report goes on to discuss the limited information on how Christianity has influenced her life. For example, here is another quote from the same report as above.
Calling Mrs. Clinton “a child of the Methodist Church,” Mr. McCurry said she probably could not offer “a long dissertation on the Wesley Quadrilateral, but she knows her faith tradition and she knows that thinking because it’s very much what you’re exposed to when you grow up in the Methodist Church.”
Were I to stop here Mrs. Clinton would hands-down have more credibility as a candidate influenced by Christianity. The issue is that there is much in the public record that indicates Mrs. Clinton is far more influenced by the secular Progressive left. That is, when the beliefs of a majority of Christians, or even those of her Methodist denomination, conflict with secular Progressive positions, it is the Christian positions that are demeaned and discarded.
In the United States of America there are tens of millions of citizens who, due to their Christian (and other religion’s) convictions, oppose major Progressive policies. Thus, there is a clash between those who demand immediate and uniform adherence to each and every Progressive position and those who demand respect for their Christian beliefs. Where does Mrs. Clinton stand on this major question. She stands squarely with the secular (i.e., Christian godless) Progressives. Following is some information on Mrs. Clinton’s position on religious liberty.
Mrs. Clinton holds those who publicly disagree with her policy positions based on religious beliefs in contempt. Her “elevator speech” for the Presidency could be: “By electing me you will be able to continue destroying the lives, livelihoods and culture of those ‘irredeemable’ ‘basket of deplorables’ who dare to oppose our perfect morality!”
Let there be no mistake, those of us who oppose same-gender marriage are “homophobic,” who affirm inherent distinctivenesses between men and women are “sexist,” those who judge a person by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin are “racist,” those who are concerned about unlimited illegal immigration are “xenophobic” and those who recognize that radical Islam is the source of massive terrorism are “Islamaphobic.” And, the “you name it” covers any other mortal sins that the secular Progressive Left will gin up from now into the future. All of this “evil” will be stamped out by a Hillary Clinton presidency.
With regard to same-gender marriage, Mrs. Clinton is at odds with the Methodist Church’s teaching. At the 2016 United Methodist Church General Assembly:
the [Methodist] church did not repudiate its historic position on marriage, despite angry protests by “LGBTQ” Methodist activists. The slim majority thereby affirmed the United Methodist Church’s official Book of Discipline, which states explicitly: “We affirm the sanctity of the marriage covenant that is expressed in love, mutual support, personal commitment, and shared fidelity between a man and a woman.” The Book of Discipline also states: “The practice of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching. Therefore self-avowed practicing homosexuals are not to be certified as candidates, ordained as ministers, or appointed to serve in The United Methodist Church.”
It’s apparent that Mrs. Clinton included many of her supposed Methodist co-religionist “sisters and brothers” in Christ to be in her irredeemable basket of deplorables.
Mrs. Clinton supports the actions and legislative agenda of those who are directly attacking religious liberty. For example:
She has opposed all state versions of the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was signed into law by her husband, falsely casting them as bigoted attacks on the dignity and rights of LGBT people. The recent Indiana and Arkansas RFRAs — and the distinct-but-related “bathroom bill” in North Carolina — do not in fact legalize discrimination against LGBT citizens, but rather allow business owners to freely exercise their religion by not participating in activities they find unconscionable, such as same-sex wedding ceremonies. No one is permitted by these laws to deny service to a customer on the basis of his being gay, for instance, as is often insinuated by liberals.
Mrs. Clinton supports a minimalist definition of religious liberty in which it covers (for now) only what goes on in the sanctuary during a worship service. Here’s how she narrows “religious freedom” down to only that which occurs in the worship service, with associated commentary on the dire implications.
“We hold fast to the belief that everyone has the right to worship however he or she sees fit,” she writes. “Americans know that democracy ceases to exist when a leader or ruling faction can impose a particular faith on everyone else.”
In fact, she has actively worked against religious minorities for the sake of her other cherished causes. These are important parts of robust religious freedom, to be sure. But they are not the only parts. Liberals such as Clinton are famous for claiming that religious liberty is flourishing because all Americans are free to go to church and worship however they’d like while attending their services. But actual religious freedom includes the ability to exercise one’s beliefs in the public square, not just inside a church building. Among other things, it means being free from government coercion into actions that violate one’s religious conscience.
Finally, as a good Progressive, Mrs. Clinton is an extreme advocate for abortion on demand. Even after Planned Parenthood’s vile practice of trafficking in aborted baby body parts was exposed, Hillary Clinton doubled down on her support.
Abortion activist Hillary Clinton made her first speech as the Democratic presidential nominee to the nation’s largest abortion corporation, Planned Parenthood.
“I have been proud to stand with Planned parenthood for a long time and, as president, I will always have your back,” Hillary said. “We need to protect Planned Parenthood from partisan attacks.”
“I will be your partner in the election and for the long haul,” Hillary promised the abortion activists cheering her on.
“I want to start by saying something you don’t hear often enough: thank you,” Clinton said.
She is also at complete odds with the Methodist Church and most Christians on the question of abortion.
Clinton’s stance on abortion wholly conflicts with what most Christians think about abortion, and with her own church’s stance indicating abortion should be a rare exception. Hillary Clinton is pushing to repeal the ban on taxpayer funding for abortions and advocates for late-term abortion—she told Chuck Todd perhaps there could be restrictions “in the very end of….the third trimester,” while admitting to him “unborn people don’t have constitutional rights (emphasis mine).”
What’s clear is that, while Mrs. Clinton claims to have religious roots, her true religion is the secular Progressive movement.
One last comment is necessary. In the previous post I criticized Evangelical Christians for throwing their support to Donald Trump. I should point out that many Mainline Protestant denominations (e.g., the PCUSA) have been wholly owned subsidiaries of the secular Progressive movement for generations.