Tuesday, April 21
Monday, April 20
Monday, April 6
Wednesday, April 1
An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 4
Given the amount of alcohol consumed in America during the 1800's, the morally concerned could not help but be moved by the social implications of such as manifested in the form of dysfunctional families, soaring rates of crime, and squandered economic productivity. It was believed in an era often characterized by an eschatological perspective best described as expectant postmillennialism that it was a Christian obligation to exert power and influence for the purposes of perfecting social institutions and elevating conditions for the greatest possible number. Composed primarily of an alliance of Protestant clergyman and reformist suffragettes motivated in large part by religious principles hoping to advance the plight of women, the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League achieved their ultimate objective in the ratification of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which on the national level forbade the production, sale, and distribution of alcohol.
Dobson admits at first Prohibition was a success since for a brief period the consumption of alcohol did decrease. However, consumption eventually returned to previous levels thanks to an elicit want met as a result of a network of criminal bootleggers and law enforcement unwilling or too overwhelmed to enforce these statutes. This resulted in the need to repeal the amendment, it was argued, in order to preserve respect for the law in its totality without which the entire political system could potentially collapse. With the advance of assorted forms of socialism across Europe such as Bolshevism in Russia and Nazism in German, the potential of revolutionary upheaval was a viable possibility.
Dobson is correct that one cannot hope to transform a culture through law alone without corresponding changes also taking place in hearts and minds. However, Dobson's viewpoint is disturbingly deficient in the role law ought to play as a bulwark standing for what is right irrespective of popularity and to protect the innocent from those capable of imposing their viewpoint on the basis of accrued power or brute strength alone. Dobson argues that respect for the law is based on moral consensus with this also serving as the foundation of legislation as well.
Yet such a position differs little from pluralism or relativism. Endorsing Barack Obama for the presidency a few years later despite emphasizing throughout Blinded By Might his reticence as a member of the clergy to endorse one particular candidate over another, it is evident that Rev. Dobson cared profoundly for what he considered issues of civil rights or what some might refer to as racial justice. But utilizing Dobson's reasoning, one would possess little leg to stand on in decades past opposing laws that upheld racial segregation, a practice now deemed deplorable by most Americans. For at one time did not sufficient majorities within distinct cultural regions of this country have few moral qualms against the practice and in certain instances even upheld the notion as inherent to the divinely established social order? One might even make the case that the philosophical critical mass for such a monumental paradigm shift to take place was not reached until a definitive pronouncement was set down in law or at least judicial rulings. In certain instances, the decision had to be implemented by force in areas where such ethical conclusions were not initially embraced.
By Frederick Meekins
Wednesday, March 18
Thursday, March 5
Monday, March 2
Why CS Lewis Called A Garbage Apologist
An atheist perspective.
Interesting how he condemns C.S. Lewis as stupid for insinuating others are stupid.
This atheist still doesn’t provide much reason for adhering to any criteria if everything is all blind chance.
Tuesday, February 17
An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 3
In the chapter titled “Seduced By Power”, Cal Thomas reflects in depth upon his response to a question asked of him following a worship service by a woman concerned about pro-life activists threatening to withdraw from the Republic Party over weakening opposition to abortion. To the inquiry Thomas responded, “You can't apply the principles of a kingdom not of this world to a kingdom of this world. The purists want to apply the principles of a kingdom that knows no compromise to a kingdom that is all about compromise (49).” One of the foremost motivations since the earliest days of human history has been power (defined as control, authority, or influence over others) and the desire to obtain it. The problem that arises for any religiously motivated individual or organization that gets involved with politics is that eventually the decision will need to be made what will be of ultimate importance: the values initially prompting such civic activism or the influence achieved as a result of diligently advocating one's message. In most instances, it is institutional perpetuation that wins out.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, Thomas details how this temptation to retain favor with those in power has compromised ministers across the political and theological spectrums. For example, in terms of prominent Democrats, Thomas points out how Jesse Jackson over the course of his career went from advocating a strong pro-life position to one accepting abortion in order to cultivate the favor of Democratic leaders as well as the party's key constituencies. Even a Christian luminary as celebrated for his integrity as Bill Graham was not immune to this tendency of human nature. Thomas references a “Today Show” interview in which Graham was asked about then-President Bill Cliton's marital infidelities. Surprisingly, the evangelist famed for such impeccable standards that it is claimed Graham would not enter a room without it being inspected to determine if there was a woman in it other than his wife in order to avoid compromising his testimony essentially, though upholding the principle that a leader should strive to live above reproach, dismissed concerns regarding the allegations. Instead, Graham seemed to brush the allegations aside, dismissively replying, “...we're living in a whole different world today” with overwhelming pressure on someone women were so apparently drawn to unlike anything the world had ever seen (52).
Such an urge to compromise is also fraught with numerous policy implications as well. As an example, Thomas references the case of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (58-59). Not a month into his presidency, Ronald Reagan nominated the relatively unknown jurist. The Chief Executive called Falwell directly soliciting the minister for support essentially sight unseen despite early concerns regarding O'Connor's views pertaining to abortion. Even though Reagan assured that the Religious Right would not be let down by O'Connor's jurisprudence and judicial philosophy, the highest praise Falwell could articulate regarding Justice O'Connor was that “she broke the (all-male) tradition in a dignified way (59).” But as Thomas astutely observed, “What is the difference between a male pro-choice judge and a female pro-choice judge (59).”
With compromise so easy and some might contend necessary in order to remain politically viable, the centrality of one's values over time slips in terms of their preeminence. According to Thomas, this tendency is probably most evident in regards to fund raising. Whereas it could be fairly said that the mainstream media of the late twentieth century trended towards the left of the establishmentarian center, the conservative movement of which the Religious Right was a significant component excelled at direct mail solicitation appeals.
Thomas' criticism of direct mail fund raising are valid in asking just what percentage of the funds raised went to the addressed cause and would a donation make an actual difference. Often one might accomplish more by donating to a local charity rather than a national organization. Corollarily, many of the funds directed towards national campaigns and organizations actually instead go to cover overhead. For example, for years it seemed that a classified ad ran in the conservative newsweekly Human Events seeking potential direct mail copywriters promising six figure salaries for qualified experienced applicants.
Yet additional criticisms are invoked by Thomas that he himself fails to live up to. Of direct mail fundraising letters Thomas writes, “If you were to do a content analysis of the fund-raising letters of the Religious Right, you would discover that they are basically the same, regardless of the organization (54).” Thomas observes of the epistles soliciting funds, “First they identify an enemy ... liberals in general. Second, the enemies are accused of being out 'to get us' or destroy the country (54).” Thomas proceeds to lament how he wishes that these letters could be positive for a change and to renounce their demonization of liberal icons such as Norman Lear and Ted Kennedy.
It can be a challenge to discern how Thomas' own editorial output in terms of published columns and broadcast commentaries are appreciably different. For as in the case of conservative or Republican operatives more directly involved in politics than Thomas chastized by the renowned pundit, Thomas cannot overcome the tendency to cast verbal aspersions in the direction of those with whom the renowned pundit happens to disagree. Nor can he resist the temptation to craft his rhetoric in such a way as to placate the influential with whom Thomas desires to curry favor.
Interestingly, Thomas has not totally renounced his career in advocacy journalism in favor of missions outreach and monastic withdrawal from public life. At times, it could be argued that the partisan positions he takes are lacking in rigor of consistency. For example, in a commentary titled “Electing a President or a Pastor?”, Thomas reflected upon the reluctance of politically active Evangelicals to support Mitt Romney over that candidate's professed Mormonism in light of former Texas Governor Rick Perry suggesting that he was their only viable alternative since he shared the faith of these concerned voters. It was Thomas' contention that such should not be a campaign issue because Christian voters were electing a president and not a pastor. As such, it was policy rather than doctrine that mattered in such a context. Yet such was not a courtesy Thomas seemed willing to extend to Romney's fellow Mormon Glenn Beck. Thomas was notably eager to overlook Romney's shortcomings in terms of professed ultimate religious commitments for the sake of the broader conservative movement and even the nation in terms of elected office. Yet the columnist was quite explicit in his remarks how this aspect of Glenn Beck's own worldview imperiled the spiritual well being of American Christians unable to discern between the gold and the dross presented by Beck spanning a variety of media formats.
Thomas mused in remarks published 4/11/11, “Beck is not only a Mormon, he frequently drifts into universalism.” But if Romney's most basic beliefs differ little from Beck's in terms of both public figures holding membership in the exact same religious body and that these do not matter since he is a politician and not a pastor, why should not the same distinction apply to Beck who in terms of national persona serves in the role of a commentator not that different than Thomas? Thomas concluded the remarks regarding Beck by observing, “They come and they go in this business...and eventually flame out ... Put not your trust in princes and kings. That goes for show hosts, too.” Such a remark prompts one to stop and ponder is what really concerns Thomas actually his own loss of market share?
By Frederick Meekins
Thursday, February 12
Thursday, January 8
Tuesday, January 6
Liberal Inconsistencies Remain A Perennial Holiday Nuisance
Over the past several years, the website and email newsletter Unsettling Advent has utilized these contemporary communication technologies as platforms through which progressives, who usually attempt to distance themselves from the rigors of Scripture as much as possible, at least during the holiday season attempt to wrap their policy idiosyncrasies in the veneer of the Christmas narrative in order to virtue signal how, for 25 days of the calendar year, they are holier than those not harping these trendy causes 24/7.
Upon stumbling upon this particular blog invoking the spirit of the Advent season, the reader hopes to discover some keen insight regarding the profundity of God coming to Earth in a humble human form so that any who might believe on Him regarding this mystery might somehow escape eternal damnation. But in the case of this particular holiday let down, all that the discerning are left with is the usual that religious conservatives are rotten scoundrels. In other words, a recitation of the exact same message that the leftwing media serves up day after day throughout the remainder of the year.
Interestingly, a number of criticisms aimed by these liberal religionists at their politically traditional counterparts just as easily (if not even more so) actually characterize this series of devotionals claiming to point to an enhanced spiritual awareness or, some might even say, New Age perspective.
Yet upon closer scrutiny, these exhortations end up advocating the sorts of deprivations of liberty and infringement of basic rights that these kinds of media outlets claim to stand against. For example, the first of the 2024 series opens with a focus on Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro.
As a counter protest to those demanding that the tyrant leave office following an electoral defeat, Maduro decreed that the Christmas season would start early that year on October 1. He no doubt hoped a little manipulative bread and circuses in the form of celebratory pageants and government handout payments would distract the masses from a smoldering political crisis in a part of the world were such disagreements often end in marauding execution squads and death camps.
In reflection upon the invocation of Christmas trappings to adorn an ongoing dictatorship, the author of the devotional laments with the allusion that King Herod would himself today likely employ such a Yuletide strategy as evidenced by that usurper's own innovation of false religion to buttress his own claims to power as evidenced by additions to the Temple, religious ornamentation, and by surrounding himself with theological functionaries. Religious leaders in the Latin American regime condemned the acceleration of the holiday season as an attempt to co-opt the sacred in pursuit of political ends.
The Unsettling Advent devotional concluded, “Today, Herod would hold up a Bible and claim people could say 'Merry Christmas' again because of him. Anything for power, When that happens, we should follow the Magi in going home another way.”
That remark is also no doubt a veiled barb aimed at Donald Trump. For throughout his campaigns to win religious voters disturbed to an extent over the ground lost to secularists in the culture war, he promised that under his administration no American would need to feel ashamed or afraid to articulate a simpler verbalization that has come to define on what side an individual stands regarding these battles the outcome of which will determine the very nature of American society.
It needs to be pointed out that Maduro is certainly not a creature of the Right. Maduro's political party is the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. That party is hardly a font of Trumpism or even a conservatism more reflective of the Buckleyite variety characterizing National Review in its prime.
Wikipedia describes the ideology of the United Socialist Party of Venezuela as being “left-wing to far left.” From Article 3: Values and Principles of the Party's own statutes quoted in the entry, “the United Socialist Party of Venezuela views itself as a socialist party with a socialist society the only alternative to capitalism.” Providing inspiration as to what constitutes that vain is listed scientific socialism, Christianity, Liberation theology, and humanist universalism in order to “build a political model respectful of life and mother Earth that guarantees human survival.” The statement of Values and Principles goes on to elaborate, “As a multiethnic and diverse party, it [the United Socialist Party of Venezuela] nurtures its roots of Afro-Indianism ... aimed at creating the new man and woman in a melting pot of hopes make our ... mestizo socialism loaded with Africanity (and) elements of indigenous peoples...”
Certainly not the sorts of sentiments known to elicit thunderous applause at MAGA rallies. If anything, those are the points of political philosophy and ideological rhetoric invoked by the fellow travelers of the Unsettling Advent devotionals in the pages (both electronic and print) of publications such as Sojourners, the Christian Century and Words & Way in the never-ending tirades against the amorphous interlinked bogymen of “Christian Nationalism” and “White Supremacy” often invoked but somehow never satisfactorily defined.
All of this raises a number of very fascinating questions or at least provocative observations. Those droning on incessantly about these threats of Christian Nationalism and White supremacy insist that these concepts prove to be such because of the danger these allegedly pose to our BELOVED DEMOCRACY.
So do the authors of the Unsettling Advent devotionals realize the irony that they are calling for the end of the kinds of policies in Latin America that they are actively agitating to see implemented here in the United States? Thus, can it be explained why that, if leftwing policies are electorally refuted in the Third World, that is evidence of a nascent democracy that the United States support must be channeled towards? But when free people in America through an election put the breaks on the lunge into a prolonged Progressivism, these same activists rend their garments in apoplexy that such an outcome portends the horrors of authoritarianism.
Day 2 of Unsettling Advent 2024 opened with the vignette of Luke 4:5-8 depicting Christ's tempting by Satan where the Old Deluder promised to give Jesus the kingdoms of this world if the Messiah would agree to worship the Devil.
Of the encounter, Andrew Whitehead of the Center For The Study Of Religion and American Culture writes, “Satan...came to him and tempted him. Jesus was tempted to bypass the struggle he was bound to engage in. Instead of doing so, he turned down the opportunity to gain the authority and splendor of the kingdoms of this world.”
The lesson we are to draw from this, according to Professor Whitehead, is that we as Christians must (as did Jesus) lay aside and not cling to self-interested earthly power. Of this, Whitehead writes, “...a religion that was born of a people acquainted with persecution ... has become the cornerstone of a civilization and of a nation whose very position in modern life too often has been secured by a ruthless use of power applied to defenseless people.” The sociologist goes on the observe, “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes and input of our neighbors is not the way of Jesus.”
It is of interest how those of the progressivist camp of Biblical interpretation have at times ranked foremost among those insisting that Satan is not to be understood an an actual malevolent aware intelligence but rather as a literary metaphor (something that those of this perspective actually have in common with a number of Satanic sects). However, it seems in this instance that this account detailing Satan's temptation of Christ is to be taken as an historic event when convenient to do so in the attempt to build a political theology not necessarily binding upon the conscience for the text cited.
In saying as quoted in the Unsettling Advent devotional, “My kingdom is not of this world ... But now my kingdom is for another place,” at no time did Jesus relinquish His authority to ultimately determine absolute truth and standards. In urging believers to surrender power, this particular Unsettling Advent devotional is disturbingly nebulous as to what exactly the devout Christian is being asked to surrender. And perhaps even more importantly, just what exactly is the worldview of those to whom this power is to be relinquished?
Whitehead writes, “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes and input of our neighbors is not the way of Jesus.” Earlier in the devotional he writes, “While power can be used and applied towards a common good (think about the civil rights movement ... ), many Christians are intent on gaining and defending access to power that only serves 'us', the in-group of 'right' Christians.”
Yet Professor Whitehead is hardly a dispassionate scholar concerned about definitions and where these fit together in describing observational phenomena. The book he hawks at the end of the devotional is titled “American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel & Threatens The Church”.
Dr. Whitehead most likely endeavored to support the thesis of his text with what he believes to be facts. However, the title is certainly on the nose as to what side he happens to be on in regards to the considerable ideological chasm now dividing Christendom.
An elected official no doubt esteemed by many espousing the anti-Christian nationalist policy preferences of the religious left, Barack Obama is credited with the observational truism that campaign victories have political consequences. While in a constitutional republic those losing elections are accorded a modicum of protected rights and a baseline of dignity, the outcome of an election dictates in what direction the ship of state is to be sailed for a given term.
Like it or not, the outcome of the 2024 election revealed that for the moment the majority of Americans are either some kind of conservative willing to put up with President Trump or at least no longer willing to put up with the radical shenanigans into which elitist liberalism has careened such as drag queen story hour, proto-pornographic library books for children, and racial malcontents looting retailers as the defacto response to trial verdicts failing to advance an ethno-redistributionist agenda.
So if democracy is to be understood as a synonym for the will of the majority, aren't Professor Whitehead and his patrons at the Unsettling Advent initiative now required to reverse ideological course or at least celebrate in theory the traditionalist conception of American patriotism that these intellectual effetes have outrightly denigrated for nearly a decade if not longer? Just as importantly, if one of the dangers that Professor Whitehead and his associates insist that eternal vigilance must be exercised in reference to is “Power and supremacy over others to enact our vision against the wishes ... of our neighbors” because such “is not the way of Jesus” do those part of the Unsettling Advent campaign that advocated mandatory compliance with the COVID immunization mandate and sanctions imposed upon those questioning this pharmacological vision bordering on the dystopian that echoed rhetoric disturbingly similar to that articulated in the past century in the most devilish of regimes intend to repent of their own efforts to undermine the most basic of liberties?
Despite the faults of the Unsettling Advent devotional series, the effort is to be commended for realizing that the cosmic themes of good and evil inherent to the Christmas narrative were not resolved in their entirety at the time of Christ's first advent. Rather such struggles will continue until finding their ultimate resolution in the events surrounding His second coming. Sadly, as scholars and thinkers for the large part denying or downplaying these texts detailing these events yet to transpire, The Unsettling Advent authors cannot resist the temptation to apply these most elevated truths to the mundane politics of any present moment.
By Frederick Meekins
Monday, September 29
Spirit Of Religious Deception Invoked To Advance Political Subversion
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
Tuesday, August 5
An Analysis Of “Blinded By Might: Can The Religious Right Save America”, Part 2
The movement began with considerable enthusiasm. The first World Christian Fundamentals Association meeting was held in May 1919 as an outgrowth of the Philadelphia Prophecy Conference, The focus was expanded beyond eschatological speculation and study in order to form an interdenominational association consisting of a variety of theological conservatives with the purposes of confronting “false teachers, damnable heresies, and the Great Apostasy (Fitzgerald, 115).” However, this effort to win back the faith and hopefully the nation along with it lost much of its steam when it hit something of a cultural brick wall in the form of the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial. The parameters of this pivotal battle in the ongoing war for the soul of America transpired in response to numerous meetings convened by the World Christian Fundamentals Association primarily across the South in opposition to the theory of evolution.
Inspired by a crusade against evolution spearheaded by famed Populist Williams Jennings Bryan along with the founder of the World Christian Fundamentals Association William B. Riley, in March 1925 the Tennessee legislature enacted a law making it a crime to teach evolution in terms of denying the Genesis creation account. Both sides were itching for a fight. Instead of rushing to the defense of an educator whose liberty had already been violated independently of an orchestrated campaign, the American Civil Liberties Union even had to advertise for a litigation guinea pig to challenge the law. Two Dayton Tennessee businessmen actually had to cajole teacher John Scopes to step forward as the test case. From the way the account is presented in “The Evangelicals: The Struggle To Shape America”, had the ACLU had its way the law would have been rendered unconstitutional as a result of a demure legal proceeding. However, to its credit, the World Christian Fundamentals Association realized that so much was at stake that Byran lobbied to get himself appointed as counsel to the prosecution.
The trial itself became a media event. With the legendary William Jennings Bryan a part of the prosecution, a trial lawyer as profoundly renowned in his own right Clarence Darrow stepped forward on behalf of the defense. The nation was enthralled by the festering spectacle.
Frances Fitzgerald writes, “For two weeks in July that year Dayton, a hill town of 1700 people ... became the news capital of the nation (135).” A Chicago radio station broadcast live from the town across the country. A swarm of journalists descended to cover the proceedings along with a litany of entrepreneurial sorts --- both secular and sacred --- to hawk their wears and to promote their particular understanding of the Gospel message.
Bryan could not be faulted for the sincerity of his enthusiasm. However, it could be argued that perhaps his pride got the better of him and the task before him one for which he was not sufficiently prepared. Unable to get the testimony of the defense's expert witness holding to the compatibility of Darwinism and Christianity admitted as evidence, Darrow in an unorthodox move called on Bryan of the prosecution as an expert on the Bible. The firebrand could not turn down such an apologetic challenge despite advice to the contrary.
Like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden detailed in Genesis 3, Darrow found a dangling string that when tugged could unravel the conceptual web holding much of Bryan's case together and in a sense ultimately the perceived rationality of the worldview he professed with such vehemence. Without a doubt, the faith held by Bryan was indeed sincere. Yet like so many of us, he was out of his element in defending it when under hostile assault. The line of questioning pursued by Darrow began by examining the miraculous elements at the heart of a number of the Biblical accounts and the attendant contradictions supposedly befuddling the most erudite of scholars.
For example, Darrow made a fuss how in regards to the account of Jonah that the sea creature that swallowed the disobedient prophet in the Old Testament was referred to as a large fish but as a whale in the New Testament. It is pointed out that Byran did not know this. Apparently it was not within his wherewithal to ask for a time frame of at what point in history it was discovered in terms of the English language that a whale was not the same thing as a large fish from the perspective of technical biology.
Like a wily serpent, Darrow knew now was the time to strike. In perhaps the most devastating move, Darrow manipulated Byran into acquiescing that that the six days detailed in the Book of Genesis did not necessarily constitute literal twenty-four hour periods but rather could have been epochs of indeterminate lengths of time. As such, the door had been opened to the possibility that evolution was the means by which God directed organisms from one level of advancement to the next.
Technically, the prosecution won the case. A sense of foreboding defeat, however, hung in the air in regards to Fundamentalism as a robust cultural influence and dynamic social force. The judge put a halt to the increasingly acrimonious exchange between Darrow and Bryan. Bryan's hectoring was stricken from the record. Reporters covering the trial spun the account as a victory of rational science over ignorant Biblical literalism. Though Bryan seemed as if he was rallying to continue the fight through other means such as the publication of his own unread closing remarks, he died in his sleep a mere five days after the trial prompting speculation that he was no doubt heartbroken over what had transpired.
Of this culture war defeat, Ed Dobson writes, “In the aftermath of the trial, fundamentalists withdrew from the public square and focused on building their own subculture of churches, denominations, schools, organizations, ... and associations (35).” Fundamentalists, probably even more so than with other of Christianity's interpretative branches, held rigorously to the notion of ecclesiastical and cultural separation derived in part from Scriptural admonitions to “come out of and be ye separate” and “touch not the unclean thing” found in II Corinthians 6:17. By adhering to such principles, it was believed that the church as a body and the individual as a believer could maintain doctrinal integrity awaiting the consummation of all things at the end of the age as the world waxed worse and worse while presenting the saving truth of the Gospel to the few of the remnant willing to embrace Christ as Lord and Savior.
For decades, from that point Evangelical conservatives for the most part pursued a defensive sociopolitical strategy. Such a sense of detachment was easy to maintain when the culture remained adorned in a broadly Christian veneer despite increasingly prominent assaults against the foundations. However, by the late 1970's and early 1980's, a number of developments had taken place some might insist were exacerbated in part due to such Christian disengagement such as the legalization of abortion, the removal of prayer from public schools, and a generalized disregard for traditional morality as epitomized by increasing rates of divorce, the broadening acceptance of homosexuality, and the expansion of salacious entertainment.
Dobson writes that Moral Majority was founded by Jerry Falwell as a nonpartisan organization to promote morality in public life. The name was derived from the term “silent majority” referenced by President Richard Nixon to categorize Americans who in no way supported the radical political movements of the 1960's and 1970's such as demonstrations against the Vietnam War that often degenerated into outbreaks of anti-American violence but who were often afraid to articulate their own policy preferences out of a fear of reprisals or an aversion to contentious confrontation (38). After assuring that the purpose of Moral Majority was not to take over America, Dobson proceeds to elaborate what exactly it was the organization did and did not advocate.
The Moral Majority platform consisted of the following. Firstly, despite positing an ethical system steeped in Judeo-Christian presuppositions, the Moral Majority held to the Separation of Church and State in terms that the organization did not require adherence to a singular theological perspective in the form of an established national church. Secondly, the Moral Majority was pro-life. The organization opposed pornography and drug abuse. Moral Majority believed that a strong national defense was the best way to deter war and ensure liberty. Relatedly, the Moral Majority for religious as well as human rights reasons articulated an indefatigable support for the nation of Israel. And while supporting equal rights for women, the Moral Majority did not believe that the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution was the most prudent means of doing so.
Along with such a statement regarding what the organization believed, the founders of Moral Majority such as Ed Dobson for purposes of clarification also provided a statement of what Moral Majority was not (39). Foremostly, Moral Majority was not a political party. As such, Moral Majority did not officially endorse candidates. While motivated by Christian principles, the leaders of Moral Majority were not out to explicitly elect born again Evangelical candidates nor to take over the government to the exclusion of other religions. While working to curtail the influence of pornography, Moral Majority did not advocate censorship. Neither was it the organization's objective to deprive homosexuals of civil rights as explicitly delineated in the Constitution. Likewise, neither did Moral Majority intend to castigate as necessarily immoral those with whom the organization disagreed.
The sincere believer would be hard pressed to find fault with Moral Majority's initial motivations and agenda. However, as Dobson and Thomas readily admit, the scope of the agenda aimed for was broader than any one organization could hope to effectively address. Even more importantly, the sorts of issues that Moral Majority decided to focus upon were not necessarily of the sort where significant change could be effected from the top down. Rather, for such profound societal change to take root, it would most likely need to be from the bottom up.
By Frederick Meekins
Friday, July 25
Friday, July 18
To What Extent Will Digital Eugenics Cull The Human Species?
To What Extent Will Digital Eugenics Cull The Human Species?https://t.co/JXqLjknQHO
— epistolizer (@epistolizer) July 17, 2025
Christian Response To Transhumanism
Christian Response To Transhumanism
— Issachar Institute (@issacharinstitute.bsky.social) July 17, 2025 at 2:08 PM
[image or embed]
Thursday, July 17
Installment Of F.I.R.E Study Series Illuminates Epistle To The Ephesians
In today's world of megachurch entertainment complexes, many featured exegetes phone in their pulpit responsibility in favor of jumbotron concerts and orations that at best give only glancing reference to the Word of God.
Such is not the case with Pastor Dr. Ken Burge, Sr. who brings a balance of deep reflection to the Biblical narrative as actually presented as divine revelation within its original linguistic and socio-historical contexts as well as how it applies to the Christian living here in the contemporary world.
Rev. Burge delivers this same sense of pastoral care in “Paul's Letter To The Ephesians On F.I.R.E: Apprehending & Applying God's Timeless Truths”.
This volume is part of his ongoing life's opus of construing various books of the Bible through a systematized study summarized by the acronym F.I.R.E..
This methodology consists of Familiarity (a knowledge of the text derived from intimacy with God), Interpretation (based upon a trinitarian understanding focused on Christ), Relationship (treating the Bible with a respect that goes beyond a mere thing to appreciate the text as a source of authentic power), and Employment (the process where students takes these truths that they have learned and incorporate them to their own lives).
In terms of the books of the Bible, none is more suited to this approach than the epistle of Ephesians.
Directly addressing the struggles and concerns of the early believers of Ephesus, one of the primary cultural centers of the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, Dr. Burge shows how these contextualized truths span the breadth of history to provide guidance to all believers irrespective of the era in which God has placed them.
A number of the perennial issues addressed include balanced domestic relations in the home, the reality of spiritual entities arrayed against the believer, and the role of servant leadership in the church.
Opening each chapter with an anecdote that draws the reader into the analysis, Dr. Burge's sermonic style provides homiletical seasoning to aide in the hermenutical digestion on the part of laymen perhaps reluctant to tackle the robust doctrinal meal provided by one of the New Testament's most prominent epistles.
By
Frederick Meekins
Thursday, July 3
Wednesday, July 2
Scanners Set To Discernment: The Progression Of Worldviews Leading To The Acceptance Of Extraterrestrials (Part 4)
Though the Italian Renaissance is recalled in the public consciousness for its more earthly manifestations such as art and poetic literature, the so-called Humanistic academic methodology of seeking inspiration by going back to original sources took a different route in the northern parts of Europe. For whereas the Italian part of the movement tended to look towards the Greco-Roman background of the Mediterranean past, scholars in the North tended to get back to the Biblical roots of the Christian faith. By reemphasizing Scripture rather than the organizational traditions that had accrued onto the religion in the centuries since its founding and textual codification, thinkers such as Martin Luther, Phillip Melanchthon, and John Calvin realized that the church was in serious need of reform if the Bride of Christ was to be made upright, forgiven once more, and prevented from taking additional steps into what they considered spiritual adultery.
What the Reformers did for the Christian faith was to reprioritize the emphasis back to the individual’s direct relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ with good works serving as evidence of salvation rather than a necessity in order to be granted it. This idea was fraught with a number of implications in terms of worldview. For starters, though the institution would still play a pivotal cultural role as the assembled body of believers and often the venue through which the Christian learned the specifics of the faith, in the minds of those adopting this renewed perspective, the church institutional would no longer be viewed as the dispenser of the means of grace. As such, whether for good or ill, other institutions such as the state and nation were elevated in terms of prestige and power.
Granted, a door had been reopened with the possibility of granting man more freedom than he could have ever before imagined while bringing him closer still to a truer and more direct relationship with his Creator and Redeemer. The thing of it was, when there was so much riding on the line in terms of sociocultural power (as well as formidable intellects and personalities psychologically vested in insisting upon that something so fundamental as their respective conceptions of God were indeed the right one) it became very easy for each side to lose sight of the loftier principles for which each originally stood up to defend. This resulted in what historian Glenn Sunshine wittingly refers to in “Why You Think The Way You Do” as "Killing For The Prince Of Peace" (103). It is easy to take sides in regards to these conflicts if one is devout dependent upon where one comes down along the Protestant/Catholic divide. However, if one strives to retain a sense of historical objectivity in regards to the total scope of this period, one has to admit at times the response on either side of this dispute was not exactly always the finest hour of the Bride of Christ.
For example, in Protestant settings where early founders made appeals to the sanctity of individual conscience to decide matters of faith, it was not uncommon to legally penalize those refusing membership in formalized state churches. The situation within Catholic lands and territories was pretty much the same as authorities there also felt it was a Christian obligation to make those unwilling to recant as uncomfortable as possible. Eventually, both sides would come to blows in a series of conflicts known as the Thirty Years War where, in the name of international intrigue and rivalry all wrapped up in the veneer of enthusiastic religious devotion, nearly a third of the population living within the Holy Roman Empire was wiped out. To this day in Germany, the conflict is remembered as being more devastating than World War I and World War II despite the heavy losses suffered during those particular conflagrations that would cast their respective shadows across the geopolitical face of the twentieth century (Sunshine, 107).
This particular spilling of unfathomable gallons of human blood at the commencement of the Modern Era would have a profound impact on the intellectually sensitive and astute of that time as well. Thinkers in the years following this historical tragedy wanted to avoid the same thing from happening again in the future but were not quite ready to turn their back on God or at least the acknowledgment that God got the cosmos started. Intellectuals of this particular philosophical inclination came to be known as Deists. Having seen their world shattered as a result of a heated dispute over insistence as to what side had the minutest details regarding God the most correct, the European intelligentsia set out in the hopes of establishing a number of assumptions or principles that all rational men could agree upon. At first, this did not necessarily result in blatant unbelief or an outright denial of fundamental Christian doctrines.
By Frederick Meekins