Categories
Quick Analysis

Clinton Campaign’s Unsurprising Anti-Christian Stance, Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Governments concludes its review of the left’s  anti-Christian bias. 

The Catholic League reacted sharply to the Wikileaks revelation of anti-Catholic bias within the Clinton campaign:

“There was a time, not too long ago, when Catholics on the left could be expected to at least feign outrage over anti-Catholicism. But no more. Some find excuses for it, while others cheer it on. Few are principled in their discourse, so thoroughly politicized have they become… Sandy Newman, the left-winger who wants Podesta’s advice on how to ‘plant the seeds of the revolution’ within the Catholic Church…told Podesta he needed some coaching in this area—it was a little out of his league—and Hillary’s top aide said he was happy to oblige… The apologists also try to divert attention from the bigotry by saying that the guilty were ‘just talking.’ [Clinton’s running mate] Sen. Kaine wrote it off by saying the email exchanges amounted to nothing more than ‘opinions and mouthing off a little bit here and there… the conversations centered on sabotage. That’s what it means when political agents discuss how to ‘plant the seeds of a revolution’ within an institution… Their objective, which is right out of the playbook of Saul Alinsky (Hillary’s hero), is to sow the seeds of division within the Catholic Church. There is nothing noble about their campaign, and there is nothing meritorious about defending them.”

Speaking at a bishops symposium, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput at the University of Notre Dame  stated: “America’s cultural and political elites talk a lot about equality, opportunity and justice.  But they behave like a privileged class with an authority based on their connections and skills.  And supported by sympathetic media, they’re remaking the country into something very different from anything most of us remember or the Founders imagined. The WikiLeaks email release last week from the Clinton entourage says a lot about how the merit-class elite views people like those in this room.  It’s not friendly.”

The revelation that several key Clinton campaign figures engaged in bigoted anti-Catholic statements should not come as a surprise.

The fact of anti-Christian bias in the Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat Party is an established fact. The remaining question is why. In the case of the Catholics, the enmity of the left is particularly confusing.  Other than the issue of abortion (admittedly a key issue for some) the current Catholic hierarchy, particularly under the leadership of Pope Francis, shares many of the same inclinations as the progressive-left.

The chemical in the medicament which viagra cheapest pharmacy makes hard erections fairly easy is Sildenafil, the FDA okayed fighting constituent. It is a very toxic product, and causes the issue of erectile brokenness. look at this now generic sildenafil viagra Experienced Check Prices get levitra shoppers can find everything online from novels to computers. You’ll notice countless individuals who won’t be able to afford their purchase levitra online http://www.devensec.com/sustain/eidis-updates/IndustrialSymbiosisUpdateFeb_March2010.pdf prescriptions as a result of escalating prices. The Clinton-Obama wing of the Democrat party strongly believes in the necessity of a powerful and large government with the broad ability to force their goals on the citizenry, often through means not envisioned in either the Constitution or traditional American practice. Non-governmental institutions that have gained sufficient trust to legitimately question those goals or even the means used to achieve them represent a threat to the left’s view of overarching government supremacy.

The more well established those institutions are, the greater the left sees them as a threat. Consider that is has been the Obama-appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch who openly speculated on criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with his climate change policy, a concept which was given actual teeth when a number of leftist state attorneys general slapped nuisance subpoenas on independent think tanks for issuing research papers questioning much of Obama’s climate change views.

There is historical precedence for this in strong-arm and dictatorial governments. The Soviet Union mercilessly suppressed religion. Both Jews as a whole, dissenting Christian pastors, and even Free Masons who opposed the Nazi vision were dispatched to death camps. In today’s China, the tiny Christian minority is oppressed, along with practitioners of Falun Gong, a group with no political aspirations.

The Los Angeles Daily News describes Falun Gong: “Falun Gong (also called Falun Dafa) arose out of the so-called ‘qigong boom’ of the late ‘80s. Qigong is an umbrella term for a number of practices involving meditation, slow-moving exercises and regulated breathing. Qigong groups exploded during this time, attracting tens of millions of mostly urban and elderly Chinese. At one point, more than 2,000 different groups existed. Falun Gong differed from most qigong groups in that it combined exercises with moral and spiritual teachings. Adherents aim to cultivate ‘truthfulness, compassion, and forbearance’ and refine their ‘xining,’ or moral character.”

The group has no hierarchical structure, no established centers, and no administrators—hardly a credible threat to the state. But the very existence of a philosophy that wasn’t controlled by the government was beyond what the government was willing to tolerate.

The commonality in all these historical and current examples of anti-religious oppression is this: Advocates of an all-powerful government will not tolerate any countervailing centers of influence.   Religions, with their established moral codes, are seen as potential sources for thoughts that question the actions or morality of Big Government actions, even in the absence of any present significant policy differences.