Rather than having withered away entirely as predicted by the enthusiasts of assorted forms of scientism such as technocracy and Communism, the twenty-first century has seen a proliferation of the spiritual impulse in ways that even the most imaginative of modernist forecasters could not have likely conceived. As such, progressivism does not necessarily embarrassingly shun or frown upon explicitly religious rhetoric to the degree that these kinds of activists did just a few short decades ago. Instead, the most cunning among the ranks of these professional deceivers invoke the phraseology of spiritual devotion and piety in the attempt to advance their sociopolitical agenda as well as discredit the worldview of their traditionalist opponents.
An example of this particular kind of political discourse is available in an article by Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons titled, “A potential Trump v Harris race puts two competing ideas of Christianity on display.” And to make sure the reader knows on what side the author comes down on in this debate, the essay is subtitled “Harris embodies our nation's founding ideal of religious freedom and models a Christian commitment to religious pluralism.”
Though the article markets itself as putting forth for consideration “two competing ideas of Christianity on display”, the essay does a urine deficient job of providing any insight into what exactly these differing worldviews actually consist of. Though the column is clearly in favor of Kamala's leftist interpretation of the faith, very little is done to explain why her particular ideological approach to policy is any more explicitly or traditionally Christian in nature than that of Donald Trump's.
The column insists, “Harris roots her personal Christian faith in the prophetic tradition of the Black church.” As evidence for the assertion, it is pointed out that Kamala Harris attended the Twenty-Third Avenue Church of God in Oakland, California and worked closely with her pastor at Third Baptist Church in San Francisco, the Rev. Dr. Amos Brown, as his campaign manager on his reelection to that city's Board of Supervisors. The article is also sprinkled with a number of quotes from a Harris address at the National Baptist Convention, USA annual meeting.
Interestingly, it sounds like Dr. Amos' political path seems to have mirrored that of Jim Jones to a certain extent. Both ministers served as pastors at notoriously leftwing churches in the same area and were elevated to a number of municipal boards hobnobbing with some of the same individuals prominent in the rise of Kamala Harris as well. Foremost among these was Bay Area political fixture Willie Brown, but perhaps more about that in a bit.
Interesting how in the case of Amos Brown, one does not hear the likes of Jim Wallis and his cadre of propagandists at Sojourners Magazine going on about the threat posed to our BELOVED DEMOCRACY by clergy such as Amos Brown getting involved in the electoral process and by doing so corrupting that sort of theology to the point where it becomes a dangerous kind of ideology such as Black Christian nationalism.
From the article, one does not really get much clarification as to what it is that Kamala Harris affirms in terms of explicit doctrinal commitments. Thus, the reader can only attempt to achieve an understanding of this by researching the individuals and institutions she has allied herself with in regards to foundational philosophy and ideology.
For example, the 2022 address from which Harris is quoted was given at the National Baptist Convention, USA. For those that are not aware, the National Baptist Convention is a predominately Black denomination. Nothing is inherently wrong with that in and of itself. However, are woketopians and tolerancemongers within and from without its own ranks going to verbally chastise that body's upper echelon and lower rank clergy for not doing more to reach out to appeal to fellow Caucasian believers as is repeatedly done in a variety of other denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the Presbyterian Church In America, and the Church of the Nazarene?
The point could be made that the oration marked the pinnacle of Kamala Harris' religious involvement. For the thing about a quick survey of the National Baptist Convention, USA is that the primary theological vibe that the denomination exudes is to rock the boat as little as possible.
From its Wikipedia entry for those curious but not inclined all that much to expend time researching what it is that the denomination believes beyond that, the National Baptist Convention is said to hold to classic Christian doctrines such as Trinitarianism and justification by grace. However, in regards to other issues not quite touching on ultimate orthodoxy but which rather begin to veer off the course of acceptability to increasing degrees, this Convention (even more so that its Southern counterpart) is becoming ever more wishy washy. For example, regarding the issue of female clergy, congregations and institutions are allowed to set their own policy.
For decades, it has been argued that denominations and churches need to exercise caution in allowing women to fill the ranks of ordained ecclesiastical leadership. For it says right there in I Timothy 2:12, “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Yet it says in Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”, meaning God is not a respecter regarding what most would consider externalities of an individual or the way in which basic personhood manifests in the physical world. Furthermore, few would disagree with the contention that historically churches have been pretty messed up places and have been under predominately and officially male leadership.
Yet the traditionalists hold that if that requirement plainly spelled out there in the text is overlooked or ignored for the sake of expediency or to avoid hurt feelings, how long until other profound moral warnings and cautions derived from Holy Writ are set aside in favor of similar reasons? As case in point is none other than the National Baptist Convention.
Not willing to come down officially on one side or the other in the debate on female clergy, the National Baptist Convention is now going as limp wristed in regards to the position on homosexuality. At one point in the recent past, the National Baptist Convention did take a stand against the official recognition of this particular form of wanton carnality in a statement defining marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman and enacted a prohibition against military chaplains officiating same sex unions. However, given that so many of this ecclesiastical organization's leaders are no doubt prominent Democrats or closely allied with elite functionaries of this particular political party, do not expect such a prolonged stand to remain in effect for much longer.
Already a number of congregations affiliated with the denomination have come out in support of homosexual marriage. In response, the best that its ecclesiastical potentates can muster is the reply pin a report posted at the Center For and Civic Culture at the University of Southern California, “The National Baptist Convention, USA Incorporated does not dictate to its constituent churches what position to take on issues because we believe in the autonomy of the local church.”
That autonomy should be valued and guarded in terms such as each congregation retaining control of who will be the pastor and the final say over what happens to church assets such as property. The disaffiliation process in the United Methodist Church has spawned a number of nightmarish situations with congregations suffering considerable financial hardship for wanting to disentangle themselves from the increasing carnal apostasy coming to characterize that particular denomination.
And this is what could be considered the high point of this theology that Kamala Harris has chosen to ally herself with religiously. For from this denominational convention marked by a broad swath of opinion though increasingly errant regarding cultural priorities, Harris has chosen to be a member of a congregation that without a doubt espouses subversive ideology.
Kamala's defenders might respond that just because she attended a particular congregation does not mean that she is close to those calling the shots. Such an excuse quickly falls to pieces when it is admitted in the article that Harris served as the campaign manager of Pastor Dr. Amos Brown of Third Baptist Church in San Francisco when he ran for election to the city's board of supervisors.
So what exactly is it that Dr. Brown advocates and teaches? In terms of his position regarding terrorism, Pastor Brown sides with those that killed nearly 3,000 Americans in the September 11th attacks. His depraved ratiocination blamed that atrocity in part on global warming and the principled refusal of the Bush Administration at the time to attend a world conference on racism.
Pastor Brown goes from a bad foreign policy which one might be inclined to overlook given the complexities of a subject outside of the expertise of a member of the clergy. However, the minister is probably even worse in regards to the moral issues that one would expect a pastor to provide moral clarity.
For example, Pastor Brown is an advocate of same sex marriage. On the executive board of the NAACP, he voted in favor of that leftwing front group agitating on behalf of imposing legislation in favor of sanctioning such carnality not just in California but all across America.
Along with looking favorably upon moral depravity to the point where he wants to bestow unnatural affections with the approval of church and state, Brown is a militant and unapologetic racialist. Dr. Brown insists that financial handouts ought to be surrendered to Black people for little reason other than the color of their skin in the form of reparations.
Those motivated by leftwing religious activism in their opposition to Donald Trump often emphasize as justification their insistence that the undeniable gruffness of the real estate tycoon overall coarsens civic interaction to the point where rude confrontation, bullying and intimidation become the default mode of engagement on the part of his most enthusiastic supporters found among the ranks of populist conservatism. Yet an esteemed figure as Kamala's own pastor who it is claimed exercised such an influential role in regards to her spiritual formation is no better and it could be argued in certain ways might even be worse that President Trump in terms of actual bullying and intimidation.
According to the articles, “Rapper Chino Yang speaks out over demands he repudiate his song criticizes SF mayor” and “Civil rights leader apologizes in Breed 'dis trash saga”, Amos Brown did far more than publicly criticize a musical ditty critical of the mayor of the Sodom by the Sea. The pastor allegedly accosted Yang in his own business, threatening to turn the wrath of the Black community on the musician unless an apology and repudiation for the recording was issued.
So if Trump is to be be condemned for allegedly whipping mobs into a frenzy in order to impose his political will on the country as a leader of a national movement, why is similar behavior on the municipal level on the part of a number that ought to know better given that those in such positions of authority claim to speak on behalf of eternal truths? However, Pastor Brown (and by extension Kamala Harris as a limited mind no doubt reliant upon others such as Dr. Brown to do the weighty intellectual lifting given that at times she can't seem to get beyond the wheels on the bus going round and round) himself may not be all that acquainted with what constitutes basic morality.
Of Harris, Brown is quoted by Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons as saying, “She is a role model for womanhood, and just human decency and dignity at its best.” Supporters of Donald Trump as well as those that voted for him simply because the alternative was even less appalling are forced to admit that there are aspects about him that are downright sleazy. Yet upon further inspection, Kamala is not much better and certainly not someone parents would want their daughters to pattern their lives emulating.
Those adhering to the concept of history as the record of the past that most accurately depicts what actually transpired are obligated to admit that what propelled Kamala Harris into public prominence was not so much her incisive intellect or stirring oratorical aptitude. Rather it was her adulterous dalliance with San Francisco political fixture Willie Brown.
Sadly, America is at the point of its moral decline where the ranks of both major political parties are filled with perverts and carnal reprobates. However, don't claim to be scandalized by how easily Donald Trump dumps spouses when your own candidate herself played a pivotal role in breaking unions all have been warned not wrest asunder.
Of her moral vision, Harris remarked at the National Baptist Convention, “As extremists work to take away the freedom of women to make decisions about their own bodies, faith leaders are taking a stand, knowing one does not have to abandon their ... deeply held religious beliefs that a woman should have the ability to make decisions about her own body and not have her government tell her what to do ... the government should not be making that decision.” But the government tells both men and women what to do with their bodies on a regular basis.
During the waning days of the first Trump administration as the COVID plague swept across America and around the world, Kamala Harris during her campaign as Joe Biden's running mate was quite vociferous in her refusal to submit to any theoretical vaccine mandate on the part of the government. Yet when her ticket came into the Oval Office, those wielding power in the regime as well as the institutions allied with them proceeded to impose an inoculation mandate that at its worst echoed Revelation 13 where those refusing to comply were threatened with loss of their very livelihoods and the right to enjoy assorted public accommodations such as restaurants and movie theaters.
Where was Vice President Kamala Harris in defending the rights of individuals to make decisions about their own bodies in that instance irrespective of what the government thought was best? She certainly doesn't mind getting uppity and mouthy when it comes to the murder of unborn children.
In the article, there is a quote by Kamala Harris in her remarks at the 2022 annual meeting of the National Baptist Convention, USA as to why religious leftists so thoroughly flocked to support her campaign over that of Donald Trump. She is documented as saying in praise of Black clergy, “...they understood and knew the importance of the collective.”
Thus, the outrage against Donald Trump is not so much about his carnal debauchery. In those terms of bedding someone other than his spouse, Donald Trump is no worse than Bill Clinton, the typical member of the Massachusetts Kennedy clan, Kamala's own husband Doug Emhoff, or even Kamala herself.
The outrage over the threat that Trump poses is that, despite these faults, he ultimately values people as individuals rather than as nothing more than a cog in the comprehensive totality. Donald Trump might verbally insult you in a disturbingly vile manner. But at least he usually does so with a specific name in mind.
At the end of the day, Donald Trump wants each individual to prosper as that will ensure that he himself will prosper. The adherents of religious collectivism posses no qualms about not only stepping all over you in the rush to elevate themselves. They will also denounce you as a selfish individualist if you don't thank them for seizing what you have earned to redistribute to their favored constituents who in many cases did not lift a finger to acquire such resources for themselves.
A priestess of Moloch, Lauren Jones Mayfield, reiterated this disturbing elevation of warped group proclivities over the concern of the individual in reflecting on a White House round table extolling the glories and virtues of infanticide: “For those of us who engage in reproductive rights activism because of our faith, not in spite of it, Harris honored our collective ... voice that celebrates the right for a patient to choose their best course of medical treatment with their doctor, family, and faith leader if it's so desired.”
Towards the end of the article, Graves-Fitzsimmons begins to summarize, “Rooted in the Black church tradition deeply informed and inspired by her interfaith family ... Kamala Harris' Christian faith is the antithesis of Donald Trump's Christian nationalism, in which the Christian faith is wielded as a tool to oppress, exclude, and limit basic rights of people who believe or pray differently.”
The author went on for at least several hundred words attempting to detail the variety of Christianity allegedly extolled by Kamala Harris through a variety of quotes pertaining to that political figure drawn from a number of religious sources and settings consisting either of quotes from Kamala herself or those favorably disposed towards her. Donald Trump is denied the same degree of gracious magnanimity.
If someone is going to accuse a mainstream presidential candidate of Christian nationalism wielding the faith to oppress, exclude, and limit the basic rights of people who believe or pray differently (acts deemed so intolerable by self-benighted elites thinking tolerance the highest virtue of them all that those expressing such iniquitous vices should themselves be denied tolerance) should not examples be provided regarding evidence of these transgressions deemed beyond the pale of acceptability?
Admittedly, there is an element within hardline Fundamentalist thinking particularly of a reactionary Reformed or Calvinist variety that would pose a threat to basic civil liberties as detailed in certain interpretations of RJ Rushdoony. Yet what has Trump himself done invoking the Christian faith to oppress the rights of people who believe or pray differently?
His own daughter apostatized against the family's brand of nominal Presbyterianism in favor of a strand of Judaism with its own tendency to apparently exclude those declining that creed's ultimate assumptions. Trump has appointed and allied himself with avowed Hindus such as Kash Patel and Vivak Ramaswamy. One-time Trump advisor Elon Musk hardly adheres to any kind of traditional religion whatsoever, having sired as many as fourteen illegitimate children. Perhaps Trump's closest Christian advisor is Paula White, appointed by the President as the head of White House Faith Office, is hardly a font of doctrinaire fundamentalism as she espouses wacky theological notions such as extra-Biblical prophetic revelations including being transported to the throne room of God for a direct divine encounter, prosperity theology, and being an ordained divorced female pastor.
So if Trump poses an existential threat to American democracy it is not because of a puritanical interpretation of the Christian faith. As was evidenced at his nominating convention, if anything he tends to be the type to encourage people to let their freak flags fly in a rather libertarian manner in terms of expressing one's understanding of ultimate truth.
Given that she lost the 2024 presidential election by a decisive margin, sophisticates will contend that it is a pointless exercise to elucidate any further upon any potential ideological danger posed by Kamala Harris. However, upon his loss to John Kennedy, even Richard Nixon predicted that he himself would fade into political obscurity with the press no longer able to enjoy its favored past time of kicking around that particular Republican any longer.
At the moment, Kamala Harris is receding from the proverbial stage of U.S. national politics. Yet there has already been talk that she may consider a run for the governorship of California at some as of yet undetermined point. As such, the radicalism she represents and more importantly the subversive activists advancing her particular variety of ideology could still potentially inflict considerable damage upon the nation. The eternally vigilant would be prudent to remain aware of this continuing philosophical danger.
By Frederick Meekins