America: Another Step Down!

Years ago, I began a manuscript entitled, “Down, down, down!” In the proposed article/book (that never materialized), it was my intention to show how America continues to spiritually and morally decline—with no end in sight. I wanted to examine how ten or twenty different factors show that the country today is not at all like the country of a century ago. Or, even more, how the country today is far different from the nation of two centuries ago. It is going “down, down, down”!

We know that in some ways, the country is far better. Think of tobacco-use. Today, far fewer people use tobacco—thus there are fewer deaths attributed to smoking. And also, think of the plight of African-Americans. At one time, their situation was absolutely terrible. Today, this segment of society enjoys freedoms never before imagined. Yet there are very dark aspects to the present situation and this should concern those who claim to be Christians.

Nearly all of you know of Joe Biden, the Democrat runner for the upcoming presidential election. As you know, he is an ultra-liberal in his views. Even though he is a Catholic, He does support the killing of babies (through abortion). Actually, he is very far removed from anything Christian in nature.

And, by now, you probably know who Biden’s running mate will be. I refer to Kamala Harris! Probably some of you know very little about this middle-aged woman from California other than a few facts that the press and broadcasts choose to say. I was curious, thus I did some research of this woman who has broken upon the scene in the country.

The internet article says:

California’s Sen. Kamala Harris made history Tuesday as the first Black woman named to a major party presidential ticket. Though she was long rumored to be the frontrunner in the race to be former Vice President Joe Biden’s choice, the official announcement was no foregone conclusion. (https://patch.com/california/los-angeles/5-things-know-kamala-harris-bidens-vp-choice).

Kamala is from California, an ultra-liberal state that has a reputation in the country as being liberal where nearly every position taken is a liberal and evil position. We need to keep this in mind as we work our way through the announcement.

The scary thing about this is that Biden will be 78 years of age when he enters office in January (if he is voted into office.). With Biden’s poor health, we wonder whether he would be able to stay in office very long. In fact, notice this statement:

The announcement positions Harris, a centrist Democrat, to be the future of the party. If Biden is elected, he would be 82-years-old at the end of a four-year term, with Harris in the wings as his most likely successor in 2024. If Harris becomes vice president, her Senate seat would be vacated, and Gov. Gavin Newsom would appoint a replacement until the end of her 2022 term. (Ibid.)

Just how much of an impact would this pick for the vice-presidency (or eventually the presidency) be is staggering. We continue with this liberal announcement (one that should terrify and dismay the true Christian):

“It’s overdue. It’s tremendous. Kamala is not a stranger to making history so its poetic justice that she’d be making history here.” Angela Rye, a Democratic political strategist and former executive director for the Congressional Black Caucus told the Los Angeles Times. “Hopefully it signifies a tremendous shift in the Democratic Party by finally recognizing how important Black people, and most specifically Black women, are to the base. We don’t just mobilize the Black community but we mobilize the party overall.” (Ibid.)

Kamala’s mother comes from India and her father from Jamaica. This would make her half black, just as President Obama was. But the announcement gives us further insight into her position. She is praised by the very liberal Congressional Black Caucus! Angela Rye points out two of the radical points about this political race:

1. This would be the first woman as Vice-President.
2. This would also be the first black woman as Vice-President.

Whereas some 12.7 percent of the population are African-Americans, this election would change this point. Instead of the president or vice-president representing the leading ethnic group in America, Kamala would represent a minority group. Notice this announcement:

In July 2017, 41.4 million people in the United States were black alone, which represents 12.7 percent of the total population. African Americans are the second largest minority population, following the Hispanic/Latino population. Aug 22, 2019. (https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+blacks+in+the+united+states&oq=How+many+blacks+in+the+United+States&aqs=chrome.0.0.8413j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

Kamala, therefore, would come from a greatly minority group of only 12,7 percent of the population. This contrasts with 99 percent whites when the nation was young, some four centuries ago. This is quite a contrast! Obviously, this says nothing about the worth, value, or nature of a person’s ethnic background, but it does say something. It says that radical changes have occurred between the founding of America and the present make-up.

Notice now some of the information that our article gives us to as background for this female candidate:

1. There hasn’t been a Californian on the ticket since Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984. While Reagan shaped the Republican Party in his image, California has since become one of the most liberal states in the nation with a Democratic supermajority in the state capital.

It is interesting that California has been called “one of the most liberal states in the nation.” We say this with sadness since it is far different from what previously was the case. Not only is this statement a denunciation for the state as a whole but it is also a negative against a state that was once much more conservative.

Let’s continue to notice this announcement:

2. Harris is a first-generation American. She is the daughter of two immigrants. Her mother was born in India, and her father was born in Jamaica. Her parents were graduate students at the University of California at Berkeley when they met. Together they raised Harris in the Bay Area.

It is not a sin to be immigrants but we think that it would be better for the president to represent a more thoroughly American background. Instead, Kamala’s mother came from India and her father came from Jamaica. What is further shocking is that both of Kamala’s parents were educated at the University of California at Berkeley. I’ve visited this campus in the past and it rightly has a reputation of being an ultra-liberal campus! Not only is the university but especially this campus is known for its left-wing stance! We are not saying that two people or their daughter could not be conservative, but this background does strongly point in a deleterious situation!

We further find these comments:

3. Harris was a trailblazer long before Biden chose her to be his running mate. When she was elected to represent California in the Senate in 2016, she became the first Black woman to represent the state of California in the U.S. Senate.

Does it concern you that Harris was in the Senate in 2016? There are two senators from each state and for California to elect Kamala as a Senator is shocking indeed! The fact that a woman was elected to this important post again shows how destructive this position was/is.

In order to understand the background, we need to view the women’s movements of the past century or century and a half. Let’s look at the Britannica’s discussion (britannica.com/event/womens-movement). If you are a professing conservative Christian, this makes very sad and even tragic reading, but this must be done if we would see the background of Harris’ bid for the presidency!

Women’s rights movement, also called women’s liberation movement, diverse social movement, largely based in the United States, that in the 1960s and ’70s sought equal rights and opportunities and greater personal freedom for women. It coincided with and is recognized as part of the “second wave” of feminism. While the first-wave feminism of the 19th and early 20th centuries focused on women’s legal rights, especially the right to vote (see women’s suffrage), the second-wave feminism of the women’s rights movement touched on every area of women’s experience—including politics, work, the family, and sexuality. Organized activism by and on behalf of women continued through the third and fourth waves of feminism from the mid-1990s and the early 2010s, respectively.

This is important for us to know but we must pay special attention to the fact that the “second wave” of feminism in America was particularly evil: “the second-wave feminism of the women’s rights movement touched on every area of women’s experience—including politics, work, the family, and sexuality.” Is this something that women (and men) who regard the Bible as God’s Word want any part of?  This explicitly says that this movement pertained to politics, work, family, and sexuality!

What do we mean? The Christian is separated from politics (Romans 13:1-6). The Christian is careful to urge men to work whereas women generally (with few exceptions) are to work at home (cf. Titus 2:4-5; 1 Timothy 5:14). The Christian woman has a special and important role in guiding the family into the ways of righteousness—not as a leader but as a follower! (1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 2:4-5). And nearly all that we can say about “sexuality” is that women have grossly failed in their “tender sexuality”—especially since the so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960s! In nearly all of these ways (and many others) the so-called “women’s movement” or “feminist movement” has not only failed but led the way to more and more wickedness in America and around the world!

We continue with this “official” description of the feminist movement in America:

In the aftermath of World War II, the lives of women in developed countries changed dramatically. Household technology eased the burdens of homemaking, life expectancies increased dramatically, and the growth of the service sector opened up thousands of jobs not dependent on physical strength. Despite these socioeconomic transformations, cultural attitudes (especially concerning women’s work) and legal precedents still reinforced sexual inequalities.  (Ibid.)

We know that not all movement within the feminine gender element has been bad. As this feminist writer says, it is not at all wrong for women’s “burdens of homemaking” to be alleviated. It is actually good that “life expectancies increased dramatically,” especially because child birth was not as dangerous. Yet we must point out that many of the “cultural attitudes” that the author decries were actually good.

Further, there definitely should be “sexual inequalities” (another aspect that this feminist writer doesn’t like. God Himself shows that there is an “inequality” between the male and the female, with the woman needing to be in submission to the man (many scriptures in God’s Word point this out—e.g., 1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:33-37; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18-19; 1 Timothy 3:1-13; 5:14-15; 1 Peter 3:1-7).

The interested reader should definitely read over these passages carefully—and prayerfully—and not denounce, deny, or decry them. If we take a feminist or “women’s movement” perspective, people will just dismiss these passages and examples of out outdated code of ethics. If we have a “humble and contrite” spirit and tremble at God’s Word, such passages will sink deep into our heart! Let’s remember that we will need to give an account with the way we handle such passages, thus let’s not throw them away and choose to go along with the unscriptural and evil women’s movement in the country!

As we continue to read and discuss this feminist propaganda, notice the next point made by a renowned Jewish (?) feminist writer:

The first public indication that change was imminent came with women’s reaction to the 1963 publication of Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. Friedan spoke of the problem that “lay buried, unspoken” in the mind of the suburban housewife: utter boredom and lack of fulfillment. Women who had been told that they had it all—nice houses, lovely children, responsible husbands—were deadened by domesticity, she said, and they were too socially conditioned to recognize their own desperation. The Feminine Mystique was an immediate best seller. Friedan had struck a chord.

Thus we see that as far back as 1963, feminism was being pushed strongly on the American culture! This liberal book did much to destroy any remaining feminine emphasis in the country, and substituted a wicked “feminist” agenda!

By the way, we know that this same movement has had an impact around the world! Think of the number of nations with a woman as president! Think of the number of women who teach over the man! Think of the women who have authority over the male! Think of the countries that allow and promote women’s participation in public discourse and public leadership! We are not only speaking of America here but countries like Russia, China, India, and others in Europe that actively promote women’s participation!

Notice a further excerpt from the book above:

Initially, women energized by Friedan’s book joined with government leaders and union representatives who had been lobbying the federal government for equal pay and for protection against employment discrimination. By June 1966 they had concluded that polite requests were insufficient. They would need their own national pressure group—a women’s equivalent of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). With this, the National Organization for Women (NOW) was born. (Ibid)

Not only is NOW a radical leftist organization for the feminist agenda, but it has done much to destroy women’s character in the country.

The organization was not an instant success. By the end of its second year, NOW had just 1,035 members and was racked by ideological divisions. When the group tried to write a Bill of Rights for Women, it found consensus on six measures essential to ensuring women’s equality: enforcement of laws banning employment discrimination; maternity leave rights; child-care centres that could enable mothers to work; tax deductions for child-care expenses; equal and unsegregated education; and equal job-training opportunities for poor women. (ibid).

Step by step, the radical anti-feminine emphasis gained strength and changed the country in an evil way:

Two other measures stirred enormous controversy: one demanded immediate passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the U.S. Constitution (to ensure equality of rights, regardless of sex), and the other demanded greater access to contraception and abortion. When NOW threw its support behind passage of the ERA, the United Auto Workers union—which had been providing NOW with office space—withdrew its support, because the ERA would effectively prohibit protective labour legislation for women. When some NOW members called for repeal of all abortion laws, other members left the fledgling organization, convinced that this latest action would undermine their struggles against economic and legal discrimination. (Ibid.)

This excerpt shows how radical and anti-Biblical this organization was/is. Even their own members seemed to object to parts of it!  Thankfully, the ERA was finally defeated. But their efforts to encourage the killing of babies through abortion continued! In fact, by 1973, abortion became legal in America and since then nearly 60 million babies have been slaughtered in the United States alone. (Let’s keep in mind that hundreds of millions of abortions have occurred around the world in places such as Europe, Russia, China, India, and elsewhere!)

As the feminist movement continued in the 1960s, the organization became even more leftist in ideology!

NOW’s membership was also siphoned off from the left. Impatient with a top-heavy traditional organization, activists in New York City, where half of NOW’s membership was located, walked out. Over the next two years, as NOW struggled to establish itself as a national organization, more radical women’s groups were formed by female antiwar, civil rights,  and leftist activists who had grown disgusted by the New Left’s refusal to address women’s concerns. Ironically, sexist attitudes had pervaded 1960s radical politics, with some women being exploited or treated unequally within those movements. (Ibid.)

Much of this went on without the conservatives of the country greatly aware of it. As we can see from the above comments, only the liberal (actually, the radical liberal) elements of the country were involved. But slowly, through education, through the government, through entertainment, and in every other way, this feminist agenda gained momentum and overtook the country. This change of perspective served to destroy the more-Biblical approach!

We know that this short history of the radical women’s movement is hard for the Christian to bear. Yet it is truth and we should remember how this wickedness came, was promoted, and prevailed in such a short time. Notice this:

. . .The women’s rights movement achieved much in a short period of time. With the eventual backing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1965), women gained access to jobs in every corner of the U.S. economy, and employers with long histories of discrimination were required to provide timetables for increasing the number of women in their workforces. Divorce laws were liberalized; employers were barred from firing pregnant women; and women’s studies programs were created in colleges and universities. Record numbers of women ran for—and started winning—political office. In 1972 Congress passed Title IX of the Higher Education Act, which prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in any educational program receiving federal funds and thereby forced all-male schools to open their doors to women and athletic programs to sponsor and finance female sports teams. And in 1973, in its controversial ruling on Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court legalized abortion. (Ibid)

This shows how a number of evil elements began and were promoted by the anti-women activists. It shows how women began to be employed without discrimination. It shows how education became so women-centered, with more women involved in the process, in women teaching, and in women’s programs. Shockingly, today, more women actually attend and graduate from college than males! This also shows how women entered and ran for public office. It furthermore shows how women sports came to be promoted and prevail. (At one time, women’s sports would have been out of the question!) And it also shows how killing of babies (abortion) was tied to the women’s movement.

As we continue to survey the feminist movement, we should mention Gloria Steinem, another activist who opposed true femininity. Notice this description of the movement:

The eventual dwindling of the women’s rights movement was hastened by NOW’s singular focus on passage of the ERA. Owing to the efforts of women such as Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem, the ERA passed Congress in 1972. But its ratification by the states became a rallying point for the backlash against feminism. Anti-feminists such as Phyllis Schlafly organized a crusade against the amendment, warning—correctly or not—that it would, among other things, invalidate state sodomy laws, outlaw single-sex restrooms in public places, legalize same-sex marriage, and make taxpayer-funded abortion a constitutional right. Needing ratification by 38 states within 10 years of its passage by Congress, the amendment fell three states short. (Ibid.)

Although we must object to Schlafly’s open involvement in this opposition, we must be grateful for the way God used this woman in His fight against the feminist movement. It is amazing how God can use something opposed to His will in a way that would promote His will!

As we draw this message to a close, let’s mention several items about the women’s movement and Kamala Harris. Those of you who profess Christ should pay special attention to these points so that you will definitely know why this woman is not at all a viable choice for the vice-presidency (or presidency).

• A woman is not to be the “head” over a man (1 Corinthians 11:3).
• A woman is not to exercise authority over a man (1 Timothy 2:11-13).
• A woman is to be submissive to her husband (Ephesians 5:22-33).
• A woman is not to pray in public (1 Timothy 2:8).
• A woman is not to speak in public but is to be quiet (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
• A woman is not to speak in the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:33-37).
• A woman is not to be an overseer in the body of Christ (1 Timothy 3;1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
• A woman is not to be a “servant” in the assembly of God (1 Timothy 3:8-13).
• A woman is not to be an evangelist or preacher (Ephesians 4:11).
• A woman is not to be a public teacher (1 Timothy 2:11-13).
• A woman is to be devoted to one man (Titus 2:4-5).
• A woman is to be “domestic” or focused on her home and family (Titus 2:4-5; 1 Timothy 5:14).

Now let’s focus more directly on Kamala Harris:

• Kamala delights in exercising authority over the male.
• Kamala has been a senator for some years, a position requiring speaking in public and having authority.
• Kamala’s father went to an extremely liberal university.
• Kamala’s mother is not domestic.
• Kamala’s mother went to an extremely liberal university.
• Kamala cannot be a role model for either men or women (1 Timothy 4:12; Titus 2:7).
• Kamala is running to be the next vice-president of the United States.
• Kamala could very well be the next president of the United States.
• Kamala’s views and stance are very liberal and is thereby unworthy of any position of authority in America.
• Kamala is unworthy of any public position in the United States at all.
• Kamala would be running with Joe Biden who has long had a reputation of being an extremely liberal statesman.
• Kamala continues to have close ties with very liberal
• One report says that many “celebrated the impact Harris could have in energizing women and black voters.” This definitely has much of an impact on women that is very opposed to Scriptural mandates.
• It has been boasted that Kamala was raised in the Bay Area of California—a very wealthy and liberal area of the state.
• It has been reported that Kamala takes a very strong stand on killing babies—even to the point of birth!

All of this is sad, very sad, reading for the Christian, but the story must be told! How did such a situation occur when it could never have happened a couple of generations ago? How could anyone who is so liberal and holds such sinful and wicked views ever be considered worthy of the American presidency? How could anyone hold such liberal views be worthy of the presidency? How could a woman who utterly refuses to submit to Scripture in so many ways be considered as a running mate of Biden and as a possible (or probable) next president?

From our discussion above, we can perhaps better understand how Kamala Harris could even be considered as a running mate for the liberal and aging Joe Biden. We can better see how a woman could be chosen as this running mate and (we are convinced) perhaps the next president of the most powerful nation on earth!

Yes, we can better acknowledge this undeniable fact—but we cannot accept this, endorse this, or approve of this bizarre fact!

We call on Bible-believers to trust in God and call on Him to change the course of history by changing what seems inevitable in America! We do hope that you will not conclude from these facts that we agree with the Republican Party and all of their positions. Nor can we give an endorsement of President Trump, his past, his demeanor, or his character. Our discussion here is separate from these considerations.

Let us stand for God, His will, and His Word—even when this is not at all popular.  Let us also remember that many (or most) religious or professing “Christian” women in America do not hold truly conservative and Biblical values! No other foundation can last and no other foundation is worthy of our commitment!

–Richard Hollerman

 

See also:

patch.com/california/los-angeles/5-things-know-kamala-harris-bidens-vp-choice

britannica.com/event/womens-movement