Hillary Clinton claims to be a defender of religious freedom. But her definition of it is limited mostly to worship. And even houses of worship appear to be targets of “compelling government interest” when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage, two progressive pillars of the Obama administration.
“As Americans, we hold fast to the belief that everyone has the right to worship however he or she sees fit,” Clinton said in an August 10 essay targeting Mormons. “I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years.”
However, Clinton publicly opposes the long understood definition of religious freedom and, like President Obama, reduces it to “freedom of worship,” which means that outside of church worship, the Christian must comply with the agenda of secular progressives.
For instance, among other offensive policies, Clinton supports the Obama administration’s mandate that religious organizations provide employee health coverage of sterilization and contraception, including drugs that cause abortions. Many religious organizations oppose the application of these provisions, but are forced to comply with them or close their organizations.
“[Clinton’s] own words suggest that even churches will not evade her understanding of the kind of ‘compelling government interest’ that she considers abortion and same-sex marriage to be,” said Thomas Farr, Georgetown University professor. “Last year she told an international conference that religious groups who oppose abortion are going to have to change,” he said.
Farr, who directs the Religious Freedom Project at Georgetown’s Berkley Center, said that Clinton’s focus on the “right to worship” relegates religion to the private sphere “with no capacity to influence public matters.”
“Her use of the term, and its deeper meaning, are quite consistent with her attacks on churches and religious organizations that oppose the progressive agenda of abortion on demand and same-sex marriage,” he said.
Clinton is also hypocritical in her self-proclaimed defense of “religious freedom.” Speaking of her term as Secretary of State, Clinton said she and the U.S. government made defense of religious minorities a cornerstone of foreign policy and stood up for Coptic Christians in Egypt, Buddhists in Tibet, Chinese Christians, and other minorities “because Americans know that democracy ceases to exist when a leader or ruling faction can impose a particular faith on everyone else,” she said.
But the State Department was “highly rhetorical” and “program-poor” said Farr. “Under her watch, the National Security Strategy’s discussion of fundamental American values virtually ignored religious freedom,” he said. The Clinton State Department “accomplished virtually nothing (other than a few fine speeches and reports) in the arena of religious freedom,” he added.
“While there are other reasons for State’s ineffectiveness under Secretary Clinton, one is quite clear: it is difficult to sell to others a product which you no longer understand, and in which you do not believe,” Farr said.
Clinton is not a defender of religious freedom as it has been understood in the United States since its inception.
“As religious aggression subverts the liberties of our nation, those who would stand for freedom of conscience will be placed in unfavorable positions.” Counsels on Health, page 506.
Comments
Craig Swift
Friday August 26th, 2016 at 01:15 PMHere is the ruling or so called mandate. It does not mandate or require religious organizations to provide contraceptives https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/02/2013-15866/coverage-of-certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act
They only had to fill out a form t get exempt and the mainly Catholic Organizations didn’t want to fill out a form?
This article is filled with misinformation from the Catholic News Agency.
the State Department was “highly rhetorical” and “program-poor” said Farr. “Under her watch, the National Security Strategy’s discussion of fundamental American values virtually ignored religious freedom,” he said. The Clinton State Department “accomplished virtually nothing (other than a few fine speeches and reports) in the arena of religious freedom,” he added
What does that even mean? What laws, rules or mandates did they want enacted by the State Department that promoted the fundamental values of religious freedom?
What product is she trying to sell Religious Freedom? Isn’t the best way of the government selling it is by staying mostly out of the way unless it’s threatened? Which is exactly what the State Department did under Clinton? So reading this article it’s saying they want to government involved but only by pushing their definition or brand of religious freedom and of course their brand and definition is correct and all other not so much? https://www.hopechannel.com/read/hillary-clinton-speaking-up-for-religious-freedom
Craig Swift
Friday August 26th, 2016 at 01:17 PMhttp://carnegieendowment.org/2012/07/29/secretary-of-state-hillary-clinton-on-international-religious-freedom-event-3752
admin
Friday August 26th, 2016 at 07:01 PMIt appears that this is one of Clinton’s speeches. When analyzed carefully, it makes no statements of concrete actions or policy decisions. Those pushing same-sex marriage and abortion cannot restrain themselves from impinging on the religious freedom of individuals and organizations as demonstrated in the history of these issues in the last few years. Government leaders and candidates, including Clinton are under enormous pressure from gay rights groups and from women’s groups, etc., to restrict religious individuals and organizations from accommodation in government policy. Hilary would clearly not be a sterling supporter of those religious freedom rights, similar to President Obama. Clinton’s history (as also Obama) is pushing in the opposite direction.
Concerning the IRS regulations, and whether it requires religious organizations to comply with Obamacare guidelines… The historic definition of religious freedom applies to individuals, not merely religious organizations. Therefore religious freedom extends to individuals operating in the public space including for-profit entities run by religious individuals. The IRS code does not provide exemptions for these individuals and their related entities in the final regulations of the Affordable Care act. The relevant quotation from the linked document is listed below.
“Some commenters requested that the definition of eligible organization be broadened to include nonprofit secular employers and for-profit employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage…
“The Departments decline to adopt these suggestions… The definition of eligible organization in these final regulations does not extend to for-profit organizations.”
Nancy C.
Monday August 29th, 2016 at 10:45 AMYou never comment on Donald Trump stand on this we should remember these are secular people no matter what party they represent, they will follow what the trend and majority wants.
Donald Trump flip flops he will also do the same things which he always does just to get votes and to me he is Americas worst and dangerous candidate. Wish I could hear more from you about Donald Trump what he stands for and will really do as president of the United States!
admin
Wednesday September 7th, 2016 at 09:44 PMIn our search engine, type “Donald Trump” and you’ll see the many things that we have said about him, and his dangerous views about religion, rule of law, etc. It’s interesting, someone recently said that we had little to say about Hillary (after one of our blogs on Donald Trump). Now its the opposite. Check our site. You’ll see what we’ve said. Blessings, Pr. Mayer