Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category


I am always amazed at the lengths that atheistic secularists will go to banish any religious discussion from the public square. To these people, the 1st Amendment is always trumped by “THE WALL”. Fortunately, I actually read history, which, I suppose, puts me in the minority of my historically arrogant and ignorant countrymen.

It’s like it’s a magical incantation to these people. You remind them of our Judeo-Christian heritage, and up they jump, channeling Harry Potter.

“Separation of Church and State!”

As if that would work on us. It may work legally, from a Lawfare-giddy Judicial branch, but reality will have its say. It may take a few of us being keel-hauled to the hoosegow, but sooner or later, the revisionists will bow to history.

“Throughout his public career, including two terms as President, Jefferson pursued policies incompatible with the “high and impregnable” wall the modern Supreme Court has erroneously attributed to him. For example, he endorsed the use of federal funds to build churches and to support Christian missionaries working among the Indians. The absurd conclusion that countless courts and commentators would have us reach is that Jefferson routinely pursued policies that violated his own “wall of separation.”

Jefferson’s wall, as a matter of federalism, was erected between the national and state governments on matters pertaining to religion and not, more generally, between the church and all civil government. In other words, Jefferson placed the federal government on one side of his wall and state governments and churches on the other. The wall’s primary function was to delineate the constitutional jurisdictions of the national and state governments, respectively, on religious concerns, such as setting aside days in the public calendar for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving. Evidence for this jurisdictional or structural understanding of the wall can be found in both the texts and the context of the correspondence between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.”

— Daniel L. Dreisbach, The Heritage Foundation


simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams


Please read this article from Breakpoint: Normalizing Pedophilia.


I remember a very slippery slope when I was a kid. It was winter, and there was a waxed hood of a Frigidaire refrigerator involved. The ride down the hill included limestone outcroppings, frozen cow-patties, a vicious blackberry patch, a cedar tree, and a ten foot drop into an icy creek. The ride down was exhilarating…the sudden stop at the end…not so much. Frozen, broken limbs, and scratched up faces have a tendency to dampen the exhilaration.
That entire scenario reminds me exactly of where this culture is headed. 
I think the slippery-slope fallacy needs to be acknowledged, but there are times when the perils of a cultural course demand a begrudging nod. This would be one of those times.
This is another example of where carrying an idea to its’ logical end shows the absurdity of the idea, sans the philosopher Zeno.
When we confuse moral issues with civil rights issues, the logical conclusion is chaos, and legitimizing immoral behavior.
simul iustus et peccator,
Eric Adams
Rossville, GA

A very good argument for the conjugal view of marriage, from the Wall Street Journal Opinion page.

There is a reason why conjugal unions have been distinguished from all others since antiquity.


The U.S. Supreme Court decides next week whether to hear challenges to laws defining marriage as the conjugal union of a man and a woman. It does so after two different electoral outcomes. In May, North Carolinians voted to amend their state constitution to protect the conjugal definition of marriage, a definition that 41 states retain. But on Nov. 6, voters in Maine, Maryland and Washington state endorsed a revisionist view of marriage as the union of any two adults.

How should the Supreme Court decide? How should voters?

We can’t move one inch toward an answer simply by appealing to equality. Every marriage policy draws lines, leaving out some types of relationships. Equality forbids arbitrary line-drawing. But we cannot know which lines are arbitrary without answering two questions: What is marriage, and why does it matter for policy?

The conjugal and revisionist views are two rival answers; neither is morally neutral. Each is supported by some religious and secular worldviews but rejected by others. Nothing in the Constitution bans or favors either. The Supreme Court therefore has no basis to impose either view of marriage. So voters must decide: Which view is right?

Getty Images

As we argue in our book “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense,” marriage is a uniquely comprehensive union. It involves a union of hearts and minds; but also—and distinctively—a bodily union made possible by sexual-reproductive complementarity. Hence marriage is inherently extended and enriched by procreation and family life and objectively calls for similarly all-encompassing commitment, permanent and exclusive.

In short, marriage unites a man and woman holistically—emotionally and bodily, in acts of conjugal love and in the children such love brings forth—for the whole of life.

These insights require no particular theology. Ancient thinkers untouched by Judaism or Christianity—including Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Musonius Rufus, Xenophanes and Plutarch—also distinguished conjugal unions from all others. Nor did animus against any group produce this conclusion, which arose everywhere quite apart from debates about same-sex unions. The conjugal view best fits our social practices and judgments about what marriage is.

After all, if two men can marry, or two women, then what sets marriage apart from other bonds must be emotional intensity or priority. But nothing about emotional union requires it to be permanent. Or limited to two. Or sexual, much less sexually exclusive. Or inherently oriented to family life and shaped by its demands. Yet as most people see, bonds that lack these features aren’t marriages.

Far from being “slippery slope” predictions, these points show that the revisionist view gets marriage wrong: It conflates marriage and companionship, an obviously broader category. That conflation has consequences. Marriage law shapes behavior by promoting a vision of what marriage is and requires. Redefinition will deepen the social distortion of marriage—and consequent harms—begun by policies such as “no-fault” divorce. As marital norms make less sense, adherence to them erodes.

Conservative scaremongering? No. Same-sex marriage activist Victoria Brownworth, like other candid revisionists, says that redefinition “almost certainly will weaken the institution of marriage,” and she welcomes that result.

Yet weakening marital norms will hurt children and spouses, especially the poorest. Rewriting the parenting ideal will also undermine in our mores and practice the special value of biological mothers and fathers. By marking support for the conjugal view as bigotry, it will curb freedoms of religion and conscience. Redefinition will do all this in the name of a basic error about what marriage is.

Some bonds remain unrecognized, and some people unmarried, under any marriage policy. If simply sharing a home creates certain needs, we can and should meet them outside civil marriage.

Moreover, if we reject the revisionist’s bare equation of marriage with companionship—and the equation of marriage licenses with all-purpose personal approval—we’ll see that conjugal marriage laws deprive no one of companionship or its joys, and mark no one as less worthy of fulfillment. (Indeed, using marriage law to express social inclusion might further marginalize whoever remains single.)

True compassion means extending authentic community to everyone, especially the marginalized, while using marriage law for the social goal that it serves best: to ensure that children know the committed love of the mother and father whose union brought them into being. Indeed, only that goal justifies regulating such intimate bonds in the first place.

Just as compassion for those attracted to the same sex doesn’t require redefining marriage, neither does preserving the conjugal view mean blaming them for its erosion. What separated the various goods that conjugal marriage joins—sex, commitment, family life—was a sexual revolution among opposite-sex partners, with harmful rises in extramarital sex and nonmarital childbearing, pornography and easy divorce.

Only when sex and marriage were seen mainly as means to emotional satisfaction and expression did a more thorough and explicit redefinition of marriage become thinkable—for the first time in human history. The current debate just confronts us with the choice to entrench these trends—or to begin reversing them.

That debate certainly isn’t about legalizing (or criminalizing) anything. In all 50 states, two men or women may have a wedding and share a life. Their employers and religious communities may recognize their unions. At issue here is whether government will effectively coerce other actors in the public square to do the same.

Also at issue is government expansion. Marital norms serve children, spouses, and hence our whole economy, especially the poor. Family breakdown thrusts the state into roles for which it is ill-suited: provider and discipliner to the orphaned and neglected, and arbiter of custody and paternity disputes…

Continue reading at Opinion

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA

I was struck by the irony of this article written by an African-American Professor and Pastor. I will have some brief comments throughout, and at the end of this post.

 “As I reflect on the 2012 election, there are two groups that come to mind. The first group is conservative evangelicals who, despite their former beliefs and protestations about Mormonism, supported Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon. As I wrote about earlier, when I began to see this trend happening, there is nothing wrong with conservative evangelicals supporting a Mormon candidate. I even suggested that maybe some in the conservative evangelical wing of the Republican Party were evolving to some sort of ecumenicalism that would lead to a more inter-religious dialogue. This would not be the case, however, as many of them — who before believed that Mormonism was a “cult,” “non-Christian” — dismissed those ingrained beliefs and convinced others to do the same.

My thought is that many of them still do believe this and now will have to reconcile the fact that they rejected their own teachings about their faith. For many, it will cause some major theological cognitive dissonance. Before this election year, conservative evangelicals reminded their followers that they should support candidates who shared their beliefs and values. In short, they must support a Christian. That candidate, based on the conservative evangelical belief system, would have been President Obama. (Not hardly, sir. President Obama shares none of our conservative Evangelical beliefs and values. That’s exactly why most of us voted for Romney.)

However, they decided to support someone who they heretofore believed did not share their faith because of their own anti-Obama feelings. (And why do you think we have these anti-Obama feelings? The suggestion seems to be because we are all racist. So, his abortion record, Obamacare, the HHS mandate, his continual war on organized Christianity…none of these would be a good enough reason to oppose the POTUS?) I imagine some may be wrestling with this because, for many conservative evangelicals, the faith is paramount; one should practice it unflinchingly and waveringly against all manner of temptations. In this instance, the temptation of replacing Obama as president was too good to pass up. So not only did they not adhere to their own principles embedded in their theology, but they also shirked their Christian beliefs by acting in ways that were not “Christlike” because of their disdain for the president. But their efforts seemed to work because Romney received 79 percent of the conservative evangelical vote. (Note the irony here. Conservative Evangelicals are the ones who compromised their principles. Accusing your opponent of doing what you are actually guilty of is something Liberal Christianity has learned well from the Progs.)

via Andre E. Johnson: Toward an Irrelevant Faith: Reflecting On Conservative Christianity And The Elections.

Say huh? This author (nor for that matter, most Liberal Progressive Christians) have no clue for 3 reasons:
  1. Barack Obama is not a Christian, in any orthodox sense of the word.
  2. Conservative Evangelicals would never vote if we waited for a truly conservative Evangelical candidate. If there is such an animal, he ain’t runnin’, or he would be unelectable by the godless majority.
  3. Thoughtful Evangelicals voted for Romney while holding their noses. We ain’t happy, and we knew before we voted that Mormonism is a cult, and we know it still is now. We voted for a President, not a Pastor…and we will do it again. We’re murdering millions of innocent unborn persons every year, and we want it stopped. Romney was our last chance of that, at least in this cycle.

The people with the cognitive dissonance are those who claim to be Evangelicals, and voted for a Marxist, godless, Constitutionaphobic, unborn-hating, Technocratic Communitarian. Our nation is under the judgment of God, and has been “given over”. Those who so voted will bear the guilt. My conscience is clear…but we will all suffer the consequences now. Only a return to the moral absolutes of a Judeo/Christian worldview and Jesus Himself can save this nation…and that has always been true.

Ironically, the irrelevant faith being demonstrated is a humanistic religious worldview that offers no contrast with the moral values of an atheistic, materialistic culture. The decline of the Liberal Seven Sister denominations proves that a church that apes the amoral society offers no incentive to get out of bed for worship.

simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA


How To Save A Country

“What can we do at this point in time? Let’s talk about it on Deeper Waters.

I’ve been mulling things over a lot after the election. Actually, my wife would tell you it was extremely depressing for me. The way I see things, our country is heading into financial ruin and immorality is on the rise. To make matters worse, we have enemies in the Middle East who are closer to getting a nuclear weapon and who knows what havoc they can wreck on us or another country if they happen to develop one? Personally, we’re not in good financial straits as jobs cannot be found and I currently still lack health insurance. It’s not a good position to be in.

But sometimes, the darkest moment is just before the dawn. It is when things are their darkest that the light can shine the most.

I am conservative in my politics, morality, and economics. I do believe that good capitalist principles are the way to economically grow our society and provide the best way that we can all care for the poor. I do believe Romney would have installed such principles, but I also do not believe that would have been enough. It would have been a good buffer, but the change needed would not come through just that….”

Read more at  How To Save A Country « Deeper Waters.

An excellent post about where this ol’ train started derailing:

“The blame Romney game begins: If only the GOP had had a more aggressive candidate, a more pointed message, a better ground game in several states. The blame God game also commences: If only Superstorm Sandy hadn’t let Barack Obama break Mitt Romney’s momentum.

Maybe, maybe, yet Gov. Romney did OK given the state of our culture. Republicans lost this presidential election not just yesterday, but:

Fifty years ago, as increasingly liberal college faculties began to exclude dissenters from the new academic orthodoxy. The Daily Princetonian reports that 155 members of Princeton University’s faculty or staff donated to President Obama, and only two (one visiting lecturer in engineering, one janitor) to Romney. We’ve delivered generations of students to left-wing propagandizing, and the effect is telling.

Forty years ago, as state after state created no-fault divorce and marriage became a contract breakable by one party for any reason, rather than a lifelong commitment. Married women still vote Republican, but the increasing number of the never-married and divorced vote overwhelming Democratic, seeing government as a provider.

Thirty years ago, as the Moral Majority and other religious organizations bulwarked the Reagan administration. While the political approach was needed at the time, that success led some Christians to emphasize short-term fixes rather than long-time preaching of the Gospel and working to transform culture.

Twenty years ago, as the advent of talk radio left many conservatives thinking they had a weapon adequate to overcome the influences of liberal newspapers and news magazines. That proved untrue, because those print publications still do the original reporting and storytelling that frames national debates.

Ten years ago, when President George W. Bush (and almost everyone else, including me) settled for faulty intelligence. He led the country into an Iraq War that could not receive sustained public support once the truth came out and an even harder truth—that Islam and liberty do not go together—penetrated our theological illiteracy.

Five years ago, when Bush tried valiantly to push through a plan to deal with Hispanic immigration, but could not summon sufficient GOP support. Romney this year ran to the right on immigration and did even worse among Hispanics than John McCain did in 2008.”

via WORLD | Slow train coming | Marvin Olasky | Nov. 7, 2012.


simul iustus et peccator,

Eric Adams
Rossville, GA