Hillary Against Conservative Christian Values: Did You Catch It?

With the focus of the second debate being on the recently released tape of Donald Trump talking about his mojo, it was the opportune time for Hillary Clinton to slip in a subtle reminder to her non-conservative Christian followers that she would remain loose in her interpretation of the constitution by upholding legislation which has, for the most part, spit upon the Constitution’s theology.

Most, I would venture to say, did not pick up on the comment as it was presented lightning fast against Trump. The statement was (as a response to a question regarding the appointment of the next supreme court judge).


“I want to appoint supreme court justices to understand the way the world really works. I want a supreme court that will stick with Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, and I want a supreme court that will stick with marriage equality. Now, Donald has put forth the names of some people that he would consider, and among the ones he has suggested are people who would reverse Roe v. Wade and reverse marriage equality. I think that would be a terrible mistake.”

-Hillary Clinton, 2016 Debate on CBS (time marker 1:24:00)

The general Christian consensus

Roe V. Wade, established in 1973 has been a hot topic in politics ever since. The ruling basically allows for a woman to choose whether or not she wants to abort a baby and gives the woman the legal choice to do so. In the debate, Hillary was careful to site the case and not the issue. I would venture to say that no educated politician would go on stage and say “I support abortion”. Why? Because they would lose the votes of a great majority of the southern states who are rooted in the Christian belief that life begins at conception. Apart from the fact that the candidate would lose popularity amongst the bible belt, the person making such a claim would open the door to a number of attacks from the opposing party about how he or she views the concept of human life, the soul, and where one is to draw the line in establishing that fact.

Now, most of the Christian states have a strong movement to overturn the Roe v. Wade ruling (just look at the petitions and the movements which have revolved around the issue since it was ruled upon). What Hillary Clinton has done in her speech is to cater to the women voters who care about women empowerment. She is in all actuality stating that she does not want to have a judge who may side with conservative Christian values as that would upset the way that the “real world works”.

Upholding the illegal

It is not hate speech to point out the legality of the equal marriage ruling by the supreme court. According to the rules which dictate our country, the supreme court’s job is not to pass legislation, as we have branches for that and that is the whole part of having these branches so that justice and the power of law does not become corrupted, but to withhold it.

However, with the equal marriage ruling by the supreme court, they did just that. They went illegally beyond their bounds and established legislation which dictated what constitutes a marriage. Furthermore, the court has gone on to establish any speech against the ruling as being hateful and unconstitutional, resulting in several persons getting fined and/or incarcerated.

Regardless of where one stands on the topic, to state that overturning the supreme court’s ruling is a bad thing is ridiculous. Perhaps, and here is just a hypothetical thought, by overturning the illegal making of a law by the Supreme Court the American populace could vote on the issue according to the laws of the land and either establish it or deny it, but of course that would put the power into the people’s hand, and who wants a nation for the people and governed by the people?

How does Hillary’s response play to her platform?

If one looks at the continuous stance of “everyone is equal” which Hillary tries to portray, using a skeptical eye, that person will note that she does not believe that everyone is so.

Military lives are not equal, as she did not value them in Benghazi, the lives of the women who were abused by her husband are not valued as she has attacked them personally, and the views of the conservative Christian are not valued as by the statement above she believes their views to be a mistake.

I guess that the only real views which are of any value to the country are those of the swing vote, those of the women empowerment movement, the LGBT, and the liberals, anyone else is (as she so bluntly put it in a prior debate) deplorable and irredeemable.

To Top