I always laugh when I read a bio of a secular leftist, who claims to be an “anti-fascist”. I think to myself, “has this person ever read any history?” History is filled with the stories of big-government atheists using political power to force others violate their consciences. In contrast, conservatives support marriage, unborn children, parent’s rights, free markets, free trade, free speech and religious liberty.

Let’s hear about the latest evidence that Kamala Harris would be a terrible president for Christians.

This is from The Federalist:

On Tuesday, Kamala Harris voiced opposition to providing religious exemptions in any federal legislation legalizing abortion nationwide in the event that such legislation is brought to her desk as president.

The moment came during the vice president’s sit-down interview with NBC News’ Hallie Jackson.

[…]The NBC host specifically queried if “religious exemptions” were “something [Harris] would consider.”

“I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris said.

And it’s not just her words against religious liberty that are a problem. It’s her actions. Here’s a reminder of some of her actions, from First Things:

In February 2019, Harris introduced the Do No Harm Act in the U.S. Senate, the purpose of which was to dilute—if not neutralize—the federal 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and similar legislation in about twenty states. The purpose of RFRA was to give legislative protection to religious practices that might incidentally be forbidden by otherwise generally applicable laws prohibiting (or compelling) certain behaviors. RFRA was a legislative response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed a state law to prohibit the use of sacramental peyote in a minority religious ritual. RFRA laws carve out exemptions from generally applicable laws for some religious practices that are fundamental to religious belief.

For example, a RFRA law might protect a church from another law that prohibits consideration of sexual orientation for employment, promotion, or retention. Or it might protect a physician who participates in public health reimbursement programs from a law requiring such physicians to perform a broad scope of so-called healthcare services, such as abortion.

Now, I often run into people who claim to be Christians, but warn me that they don’t want to get involved in “culture wars” and that Christianity is just about “loving everyone” and they also think Jesus would attend gay weddings. And for fake Christians like this, it’s not going to be a problem that Kamala Harris stops Christians from acting like Christians. Because these people don’t act like Christians already. They just attend church and sing songs and do nice things, but they would never dream of obeying God if they had to pay some kind of price for it.

For these people – and for Kamala Harris – Christianity is just about singing songs in church on Sunday. It’s not any more important than going bowling on Tuesday nights with your friends.

More:

Harris sponsored the Do No Harm Act for the express purpose of emasculating RFRA laws. As she explained on the website introducing the act, it would prevent RFRA laws from “being used to deny” such things as “Healthcare access, . . . coverage or services to which persons are otherwise legally entitled,” or “Services that the government has contracted to be beneficiaries through a government . . . grant.” In other words, the Do No Harm Act would compel a Catholic physician to prescribe contraceptives or perform abortions if she participates in federal or state reimbursement programs. And it would require a parochial school that receives state grants, for example, to employ persons in open same-sex relationships as teachers or even ministers.

The full implications of Harris’s philosophical understanding of the scope and limit of religious freedom, however, are found in her apologetic for the Do No Harm Act. In a statement on her website explaining the purpose of the act, Harris uses a very narrow definition of religious freedom. “The freedom to worship is one of our nation’s most fundamental rights,” she writes. “That First Amendment guarantee should never be used to undermine other Americans’ civil rights.” The problem, of course, is that “the freedom to worship” is not a “First Amendment guarantee.” The First Amendment guarantees the “free exercise” of religion, which has a much more expansive scope than mere “worship.”

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise of” religion. Harris misquotes the clause, changing “free exercise” to “freedom to worship,” betraying a definition of religious practice that would remove it from any meaningful legislative or political protection. In doing so, she turns the free exercise clause on its head, driving religious faith to the margins of public life and religious exercise out of public life altogether.

Like I said, I don’t expect this kind of warning to mean anything to the “Shepherds for Sale” Christians. Their real religion is being liked, and Christianity has value only if it helps them to be liked. For the rest of us, who take the Bible seriously, a Kamala Harris presidentcy would be a disaster to our plans. To our ability to work, to keep what we earn, and to champion what God says. She would use the force of government to force Christians to choose between working to feed their families, and their relationships with God in Christ. And for a secular left fascist, that’s pretty exciting. They love that. They get a sick and twisted joy out of using power to force Christians to abandon their convictions.

Don’t forget how she pre-dawn raided the homes of pro-lifers, and how many pro-lifers have been pre-dawn raided by the Biden-Harris federal law enforcement. Why think that American Stalinists are any different than the Stalin of the Soviet Union?