Article: “Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty”

 

Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty (Washington Post)

In a speech not long before she launched her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton made a stunning declaration of war on religious Americans. Speaking to the 2015 Women in the World Summit, Clinton declared that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”…

…They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”

Palmieri responds that Catholicism “is the most socially acceptable politically conservative religion. Their rich friends wouldn’t understand if they became evangelicals.” “Excellent point,” Halpin responds, adding that “they can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what the hell they’re talking about.” Podesta is included on both emails.

Albert Mohler comments here on how it is apparently the worst of the worst to be considered an “evangelical”.  So much for tolerance!

On a side note: the idea of subsidiarity is an amazing idea and represents of how the framers of the Constitution and many founding fathers viewed the role and responsibilities of the federal government compared to local and state authority.  Very libertarian and limited government oriented.

Response to NY Times Article on Ted Cruz and Evangelicals

  Response to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/opinion/the-brutalism-of-ted-cruz.html?_r=0 The question of Christian and evangelical participation in matters of public policy has been on my mind as of late.  To be honest, this question is nearly always on my mind.  How are we to participate?  What is our role in culture and politics? etc… Beyond these questions is the question- How […]

To Libertarians who Support the Obergefell Decision

If you are a libertarian please read this and give me your thoughts:

“As a philosophical matter, liberty is only freedom from governmental action, not an entitlement to governmental benefits. And as a constitutional matter, it is likely even narrower than that, encompassing only freedom from physical restraint and imprisonment.”

– Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in his dissenting opinion of Obergefell v. Hodges