It’s being called Hillary’s “clinging to guns and religion moment.” Â This week at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit, Mrs. Clinton flat out said “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” in order to assure that women can have an abortion anytime during a pregnancy.
This is not anything new. Â It’s just the latest in a long line of incidents meant to exterminate religion, Christianity in particular, in order to have a no holds barred free for all in human relations. Â What Hillary Clinton is doing is acting the tool for the “progressives” who have been at this stuff for well over a century.
The problem with Mrs. Clinton’s statement is that truths taught as religious absolutes do not change because they can’t. Â Religion is not an advertising campaign or a public relations effort where new realities are made up whole cloth. Â The teachings are passed down from generation to generation of followers. Â They are not coded, they just are. Â They are not biased at all, but based in love – even when that love is tough (such as living with the consequences of one’s actions).
There is nothing biased or coded about the religious belief that life is sacred from the moment of conception until natural death. Â It just is.
And that is what Hillary is striking at here. Â The idea that there even is a religious absolute, and that Americans should be allowed to conscientiously object to being forced to do something that violates religious conviction. Â There are those who believe that conscientious objection is not valid. Â Hillary is obviously one of them. Â This is not the first time she has spoken words to that effect, either.
A few years back, when she was Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton turned a phrase in another speech that raised hackles among the religious at the time, but not many others. Â She called freedom of religion “freedom to worship.” Â As if religion is something people do for an hour on the weekends rather than being the basis of how one lives. Â For people who are not religious, that makes no sense because they do not believe in submitting to a code of conduct that may not “feel good”, but for many Americans, love of a deity is the center of their lives, and they live their days according to the teachings of faith.
How this relates to abortion is really a matter of striking at dismantling the most ancient of religious teachings on life: the sacredness outlined above. Â For Mrs. Clinton, that has no meaning.
â€œFar too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws donâ€™t count for much if theyâ€™re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice â€” not just on paper,â€ Clinton said.
“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. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone â€” and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.â€
For those who want to hear the words straight from the horse’s mouth, they are at about the 8:30 mark:
And full participation can only be achieved with total and complete access for women to kill their children and frustrate the natural purpose of the female body no matter how much harm physically and emotionally comes to the woman, according to Mrs. Clinton. Â Why a person must violate his or her conscience and religious convictions to do this for others is never adequately laid out other than the implied “because I say you have to do it.”
Just because someone has a legal right to a practice or procedure does not make the action morally right or just. Â (Nor is it always in the best interest of the patient, but that isn’t up for discussion.) Â What Hillary Clinton wants to happen is akin to the request John D. Rockefeller, Jr., made of Pope Pius X in the early 20th century when he formally requested the Catholic Church soften the teaching condemning artificial contraception. Â (The pope responded with an encyclical condemning modernismÂ in 1907.) Â Hillary wants to change what cannot be changed.
It is true that there are many Americans who live without religion. Â By our laws that is their right – just as it is the right of the religious person to live by the tenets of faith. Â However, no one has the right to say to another “you must change your convictions because they are inconvenient to me and what I believe and because of that you are impeding the way I want to lead the country.” Â That just isn’t going to happen.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey has the observation that is really at the heart of the matter: ” itâ€™s notÂ just abortion, but also same-sex marriage and forced participation in it, euthanasia dressed up as â€œright to dieâ€ movements, and the rest….Â the masks â€” excuse me,Â veils â€” are indeed coming off. Progressivism is indeed a jealous idol, one that does not tolerate a God before it.”