Hillary’s Hollow Holiness

A Critique of Hillary Clinton’s article “MAGA’s War on Empathy” (10 min)

In January 2026, Hillary Clinton wrote an article in the Atlantic where she attempts to defend “empathy” against what she describes as a “hard-right” campaign against empathy. This presumed-to-be nefarious campaign supposedly “threatens to pave the way for an extreme vision of Christian nationalism that seeks to replace democracy with theocracy in America.” The partisan and hyperbolic nature of the article is rather transparent, almost absurdly so. However, I would like to cover a few aspects of this article that are of particular interest and that I believe will be largely ignored. Mostly, I am going to ignore Hillary’s attacks on Trump and approach the issue of empathy from a different angle. Plenty of conservative commentators will deal with those topics, and I don’t feel it is worth defending Trump here. At least directly.

Mrs. Clinton says this about Trump: “No one mistakes him for a devout Christian or a person of faith or morality.” Which, I would actually say, is (mostly) correct. I have never viewed Donald Trump as Christian. Nor even a particularly moral or upright individual. Even though a majority of what Democrats and the mainstream media accuse Trump of are slanderous lies motivated by envy and hatred, there is little doubt that Trump is an extremely flawed individual. If he were a “person of faith,” that faith would not be Christianity.

However, there is a huge flaw in Mrs. Clinton’s assessment here. It reeks of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. While she is right in pointing out the lack of genuine Christian faith in Donald Trump, she exposes her disingenuity in claiming Christian faith of her own. Fact is, despite whatever she might claim, Mrs. Clinton is not a Christian in anything other than a purely nominal way. While she can call herself whatever she wants, the “fruit” of her life exposes this label as nothing more than a facade. She’s using a Christian identity, not because it’s authentic, but to pander to a specific audience and falsely appear morally virtuous. She is justifying herself and then relying on the complacency or ignorance of others to take her self-identification seriously. Self-identification is notoriously unreliable (which I deal with further in this series). Mrs. Clinton’s attempt to present a Christian identity is manipulative and deceitful.

The useful aspect of this article is that her actions in falsely claiming to be Christian are very typical of pseudo-Christian Distrephists (Distrephism is what I name the “woke” religion and is explained here). It also reflects how many mainstream institutions (especially the media) deceptively dilute the meaning of “Christian.” The purpose of this dilution of the term “Christian” is to enable non-Christians the ability to claim social cachet in describing themselves as Christian. Mrs. Clinton does that here. She describes herself as Christian so that she can pretend to have some kind of authority in making her moral claims. If she described herself as an atheist, Humanist, or any other non-Christian religion, her claims of morality would lose considerable amounts of social persuasion and credibility. Especially when her argument hinges on her accusations that “MAGA,” and other “hard-right” Christian influencers, are directly opposing supposed Christian values like empathy and “neighborism.”

It is extremely important to understand what Mrs. Clinton describes Christians as and what their role should be, but we must first consider the context in which she presents these ideas. The context of this article was the killing of Alex Pretti and Renee Good by federal agents in Minnesota. Both were protestors who took part in the statewide protests against the large-scale (and highly controversial) Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations in the state. For all intents and purposes, the broader context is around immigration/illegal immigration as a whole. The shootings were just the triggering event for the article. According to her, these ICE operations are just jack-booted tyranny based on “President Trump’s abuse of power and disregard for the Constitution.” It was a “moral rot at the heart of Trump’s MAGA movement” and the “goal of surging heavily armed forces into blue states such as Minnesota and Maine” is because “Trump and his allies believe that the more inhumane the treatment, the more likely it is to spread fear.”

I will not cover these shootings in depth, as that is not the point I want to focus on. The shootings were extremely polarizing and have been used for propaganda by both Democrats and Republicans. Others have covered these in more depth, and I won’t repeat that here. What is more important is to understand the fact that Mrs. Clinton is using these shootings, and the broader issue of immigration and illegal immigration, as a framing device for her opposition to what she perceives as a “war against empathy.” While clearly politically motivated—given her past failed candidacy against Donald Trump and her firm entrenchment in the Democratic political party—I want to put all that aside. Even though I question her motivations in writing this article.

With this context in mind, Mrs. Clinton accuses “MAGA” or “hard-right” influencers of championing cruelty and demonizing empathy. This is presented as a concern for her, as she quotes, “Jesus tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves and help those in need. ‘Do this and you will live,’ he says. Not in Donald Trump’s America.” She appeals to this supposed love for our neighbor when she portrays the protests against ICE, “the people of Minnesota have responded with an approach you could call “’neighborism’—a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from. To my ears, that’s as Christian a value as it gets” (emphasis mine).

In reality, this manipulative plea for sympathy is a perfect example of the “toxic empathy” she so passionately criticizes. We know this is the case because her depiction of Christianity is superficial, distorted, and saccharine. Furthermore, its application is highly selective, aligning conveniently with prevalent Democratic talking points and, most significantly, the Distrephist religion. The religion which currently dominates both the Democrat Party and our mainstream institutions (academia in particular). Hillary Clinton is an extremely partisan individual, and it’s hard to disentangle the calculated political motivations from that which is genuine. However, in this case it is easier than normal.

I don’t actually doubt that she believes in what she is saying about empathy. Even when it has a manipulative and self-justifying character to it. What makes it so manipulative is the fact that she simultaneously misrepresents Christianity, creating a shallow, generically “good” pseudo-Christianity, while propping herself up as an exemplar of the values of this pseudo-Christianity she created. Take her claim that “neighborism” is “as Christian a value as it gets.” This just isn’t true. For one, she is describing protestors and activists who are protecting and shielding illegal immigrants. She even says that this “neighborism” is “a commitment to protecting the people around you, no matter who they are or where they came from.” The problem here is that Mrs. Clinton seems to have forgotten another essential Christian teaching. Let’s look at Romans 13,

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. Romans 13:1-7 (CSB)

Mrs. Clinton is pretending as if her so-called “neighborism” excuses people from law-abiding behavior. She knows this is about illegal immigration, even though she uses the deceptive euphemism “undocumented immigrants.” She says as much when she says that “Other recent presidents, managed to deport millions of undocumented immigrants without turning American cities into battlegrounds or making a show of keeping children in cages.” Ignoring the outright falsehood of “making a show of keeping children in cages” it is pretty clear she knows what this entire issue is about. Does neighborism mean violating Christian teachings on the necessity of law-abiding behavior? People who come to the United States illegally are breaking the law. Christian love for the neighbor does not, and has never meant, shielding criminal behavior. There isn’t a single example in Scripture of love for our neighbor involving lawlessness.

It isn’t just the misapplication of empathy for lawlessness that is a problem here, either. Mrs. Clinton clarifies that this supposed empathy is also why we must accept both homosexuality and abortion. Her pro-abortion stance is unquestionable. So is her promotion of Distrephism overall (see her campaign site here with her stances on major social issues). In response to Allie Beth Stuckey’s book Toxic Empathy (a book I intend on reviewing when I get the chance) she says the following:

“This is exactly the kind of mainstream Christian view that enrages Allie Beth Stuckey. The author of Toxic Empathy, who styles herself a voice for Christian women, has more than a million followers on social media. In between lifestyle pitter-patter and her demonization of IVF treatments, she warns women not to listen to their soft hearts. This commissar of MAGA morality targets other evangelicals whose empathy, she warns, has left them open to manipulation. Maybe they recognize the humanity of an undocumented immigrant family and decide that mass deportation has gone too far. Or they make space in their heart for a young rape survivor forced to carry a pregnancy to term and start questioning the wisdom and morality of total abortion bans. It’s all toxic to Stuckey.” (emphasis mine)

Her contemptuous and self-righteous tone comes through loud and clear. As does her attempt at emotional blackmail by her reference to a “young rape survivor” who is “forced to carry a pregnancy to term.”

First, Mrs. Clinton is being rather duplicitous about abortion. She talks about rape, but the fact is Hillary Clinton supports abortion regardless (See here). So she is using rape only to tug at the heartstrings and misrepresent her much more permissive stance on abortion. She presented it as if she would be okay with a “compromise” of a non-total abortion ban that had exceptions for rape. Mrs. Clinton is notorious for her non-answers and unwillingness to give straightforward answers about her stances (see here). So it is hard to tell, and given her general stance in favor of abortion, using rape is simply a dishonest misrepresentation. Especially when you consider the fact that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.

Second, abortion is simply murder. Christianity holds that life begins at conception. There isn’t a reason to believe there is any support for abortion in Scripture. Nor can you appeal to tradition, given the Roman Catholic Church’s official opposition to abortion. Pay close attention to the extremely selective and hypocritical attempt at framing this as an issue with empathy. She complains about total abortion bans and how they affect young rape survivors who become pregnant. Who actually believes we shouldn’t have empathy for them? That isn’t the issue here. What about empathy for the child? She completely ignores this aspect. Somehow her empathy for one person means a complete lack of empathy for the other person involved. Like the child she is trying to guilt you into murdering for the sake of another person! Where is the empathy for this child? The only person responsible for this evil is the rapist. Justice demands we punish the guilty. Not punish the innocent. The child had nothing to do with the actions of his/her father.

Not only is this not a Christian stance, this is not empathetic either. At least not without extreme hypocrisy and manipulative shifting of guilt and responsibility. In fact, at the end of the article she states, “When I see brutality like we’ve all witnessed in Minnesota, I ask myself: Can I really find empathy for people who insist on dehumanizing others?” (emphasis in original). Such a statement is rather rich coming from a person who consistently dehumanizes the unborn in order to rationalize one of the most selfish actions you can take. It is statements like these that are so lacking in self-awareness and rank hypocrisy that put her claims about Christianity and empathy in serious doubt.

The hollowness of Mrs. Clinton self-proclaimed faith is only made clearer when we consider the “faith” tradition she comes from. She describes herself as part of the United Methodist Church. A church she laments the “split by deep disagreements over gay rights.” This split created a “separate, less inclusive church.” Such language doesn’t come from Christianity. It comes from a religion entirely separate from and antithetical to Christianity. It just deceives people by using the name and title of Christian. This is exactly what Scripture describes as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” (See Matthew 7:15). Mrs. Clinton explains the politically convenient nature of her pseudo-Christianity, “Democrats need a big tent that welcomes people of faith into our coalition, even if we don’t agree on every issue. Don’t forget, liberal Christianity has a long and storied history. Progressive people of faith have led virtually every major social movement. Think of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. marching with Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel in Selma. That’s a spirit we should work to reclaim.”

Make no mistake “liberal Christianity” is an oxymoron. No such thing exists. It is a counterfeit that denies the very essence of Christianity. So-called “liberal Christianity” rejects anything about Christianity that conflicts with the modern neo-pagan, humanist zeitgeist of our age. That is why Mrs. Clinton’s “Christianity” can support lawlessness, support the dehumanizing murder of the unborn, the defilement of marriage through homosexuality, and any other cause championed by the political left. The main takeaway from this article is that we need to question whenever someone presumes the identity of “Christian” in an attempt to guilt us into following their lead on social matters. Hillary Clinton is not a Christian; she has no moral authority, nor does anything she says about Christianity have any value except insofar as it exposes how wolves attempt to look like sheep.

- Victoria Gratiae -