Newt Gingrich: A President Hillary Clinton Would Remove “Our Father” from the Lord’s Prayer October 18, 2016

Newt Gingrich: A President Hillary Clinton Would Remove “Our Father” from the Lord’s Prayer

Newt Gingrich, one of the “thinkers” in the Republican Party (which isn’t saying much), said on a teleconference call for the Association of Mature American Citizens last night that a President Hillary Clinton would appoint Supreme Court justices dead set on imposing a religion of atheism on the entire country:


[Gingrich warned] the group that if Hillary Clinton is allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices, she could pick “fanatics who want to impose a secular America on the rest of us” and who might even go so far as to require churches to remove the words “our Father” from the Lord’s Prayer.

Claiming that recent WikiLeaks emails show that Clinton’s aides are “radically anti-religious” and “radically anti-Christian,” Gingrich said that this means that Clinton’s court picks would be “people who do not believe in the right of religious liberty, people who believe that the government should define what you’re allowed to say, even in church.”

Church/state separation groups usually have to protect government from religious intrusion, but the same principles go the other way, too. If a President ever tried to tell Christians how to pray, you can bet the ACLU and every other like-minded group would be quick to defend the churches. And so would a hell of a lot of atheists.

A “secular America” doesn’t mean the imposition of atheism. It means a country where religion isn’t promoted by the government. It’s about neutrality, not swinging the pendulum in the other direction.

But that’s where conservatives like Gingrich go awry. “Neutrality” is a dirty word for them because they’re so used to Christians always being treated better than everyone else. They can’t stand the thought of being treated the same way as everybody else.

Gingrich went on to lie about how Clinton would “almost certainly eliminate the Second Amendment,” something she has explicitly said she wouldn’t do, and something Democrats don’t have the courage to even suggest.

(via Right Wing Watch. Image via Christopher Halloran /

"The way republican politics are going these days, that means the winner is worse than ..."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."
"It would have been more convincing if he used then rather than than."

It’s Moving Day for the Friendly ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
error: Content is protected !!