When Christians drift away from a sound understanding of the faith, it usually begins first with them drifting away from what counts as understanding anything at all.
If you believed the earth was flat, that wouldn’t make it flat. More surprisingly perhaps, if you believe it to be round, that doesn’t make it round. If you believe that two and two make five, that doesn’t make it five. And if you believe the correct sum to be four, it is not four because you believed it. True belief is responsive to truth as it is without the belief. Belief does not create the object of its belief.
Now in ordinary affairs, like math, normal people understand this. But for a very long time, in religious matters, people have believed that what they believe makes it so. This is the central religious frame of mind, the frame of mind that allows every man his own gods, his own truth, his own views. The Christian gospel always drives out this way of thinking, and the receding influence of the gospel in our day means that this mentality has come flooding back. And when it comes back, it seeps into the church, even into the conservative parts of the church.
God’s Word is the projector, and we are to be the screen. By way of contrast, this mentality wants our words to be the projector, and any available flat surface to be the screen.
What does this have to do with drifting? It doesn’t start with the contents of the Apostles’ Creed. It starts with how young people start rejecting the church’s interpretation of the world, with all its worldliness. You can see it happening in discussions of movies, tattoos, music, skanky apparel, video games, and so on. The deadly thing in all this is when a young person sets up his own understanding of life, and his own desires, as the projector—instead of saying, with great eagerness, “what does the Bible say?”
“God’s Word is the projector, and we are to be the screen. By way of contrast, this mentality wants our words to be the projector, and any available flat surface to be the screen.” Concerning Obergefell, here are a few related points: 1) Many Christians can’t seem to understand that SCOTUS’s role is to interpret the Constitution, not the Bible. 2) Many, many other Christians are of the opinion that only religious beliefs or interpretations of the Bible that they personally agree with are entitled to First Amendment protections, which is what leads to Christians’ outrageous double standard when it… Read more »
The author of the article you mention deliberately set out to explore the “Medical, technological, and economic” influences that have affected how our society now thinks about marriage and sexuality and doesn’t really discuss the legal reasoning (or lack thereof) and precedent for the case as such, so I may not choose that article specifically as an example of the screaming silence on this issue. Having said that, I agree that the connections between Obergefell and Loving need to be explored. Why has this not yet been discussed by any prominent Christian theologians or political theorists? Someone could respond to… Read more »
Actually, he sets out to explore “how we got here”, as that’s what the title says the article is about. Of course, he then proceeds to pretend that there were no important court cases concerning restrictive state marriage laws that might have influenced the recent ruling just a tad, and then goes on to talk about “Medical, technological, and economic” influences, because he doesn’t want to admit the obvious connections and parallels between Loving and Obergefell. Sure, we lost our case against same sex marriage over there by Loving, but the light’s better over here, so instead let’s talk about… Read more »
Having said that, I agree that the connections between Obergefell and Loving need to be explored. Why has this not yet been discussed by any prominent Christian theologians or political theorists? ************************* Why? Probably for several reasons. One of the big ones is embarrassment. Christian leaders are deeply ashamed that up until quite recently, nearly all white American Christians were blatantly racist, and unashamedly so. For example, in 1959, 95% of Americans regarded interracial marriage as immoral. In 1967, when Loving occurred, it was still 80%. It wasn’t until 1997 that a majority of Americans no longer opposed interracial marriage… Read more »
Banning interracial marriage was a practical evil. There was a caste system to maintain. Calling same-sex unions marriage is not practical. It is stupid and makes our nation a laughingstock.
The bottom line is that an interracial marriage is valid, even if the government (or populace) does not recognize it. The only validity a gay ‘marriage’ ever has is that which the State gives to it, and by recognizing gay ‘marriage,’ the federal government has stripped itself of much of its remaining legitimacy, leaving little more than an appeal to naked force.
“Calling same-sex unions marriage is not practical. It is stupid and makes our nation a laughingstock.” Are you speaking from the church’s perspective or the world? If the world, do you mean now a laughingstock or in the far future when chaos ensues? For now, homosexual “marriage” is the vogue thing to accomplish across the globe…America looks like a leader. Except in a few countries. Hence Russia mocking our calling them anti-God. Other progressive countries hope to follow suit. Or am I misunderstanding you or your point? “The bottom line is that an interracial marriage is valid, even if the… Read more »
Andrew, “Are you speaking from the church’s perspective or the world?” Yes. The Racial Integrity Act was about preserving whites as a distinct caste. banning marriage between whites and “coloreds” was very practical toward that end. I would say America is a laughingstock in Eastern Europe and the nations of the Non-Aligned Movement, who represent the majority of humanity, and are emerging competitors to US interests. In terms of the church, Christians have to live in the culture and are subject to cultural pressures. If Christians were to have admitted the morality of interracial marriage, then they would have had… Read more »
Took me long enough, huh? It took a while for it to sink in and a while to let the RIA details (after a rereading) sink in, plus putting it all together with other thoughts elsewhere here on court cases, etc. I think I understand your point that summed up is “States have no right to declare an interracial marriage a non-marriage.” have…had…have… And on that hinges our key disagreement–of what the Constitution allowed before and after or along the way or original intent in the federal vs. state decisions. As for fleshing out that last paragraph, I’ve been learning… Read more »
I was somewhat vague: I mean that governments (American states in particular, but all states in general) do not have, nor have they ever had, the right to declare that an interracial marriage is not a marriage at all. Even if they wish to criminalize such unions, they must not deny that a marriage has taken place. I quoted from the Racial Integrity Act, to show that even though white-colored marriages were criminalized, their fundamental nature as marriage was not called into question. Similarly, no attempt was made to either criminalize or deny the legitimacy of interracial marriages between non-whites… Read more »
Gregory,
What Biblical passage(s) were used to call interracial marriages a sin? I have been doing a search and mostly I find that argument dependent upon natural law. If that is correct, then that is one way in which Christians would view these cases differently. Is that correct? if not, could you list the passages. Thanks.
Carole, I just linked to a website that provided scriptural verses against racial intermarriage, but on closer look I realized it is a genuine white separatist hate site. So I hope this edit function works! I will try to give the verses without linking to the site.
And these were used in the 50sand prior? Thanks.
I’m no expert, but I believe much of the opposition to interracial marriage was based on the doctrine of the Curse of Canaan, AKA the Curse of Ham, which supposedly was bestowed by Noah, after his son Ham saw Noah drunk and naked, and then blabbed to his brothers about it. In retaliation, Noah cursed Ham’s son Canaan to be a lowly servant. The idea, I believe, was that Canaan was the father of the black race, and their black skin was a mark of the curse. Today, Christians often claim that very few people actually believed in this doctrine,… Read more »
So could you explain your argument to me, please. What is it that you think we are failing to see? Isn’t the argument here generally that no one should be forced to serve, celebrate or participate in that which violates one’s religious beliefs either those correct or incorrect. I don’t expect Jewish bakeries to carry Christmas cookies anymore than a Christian bakery should have to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. Did someone argue that Bob Jones should be forced to sell their services to interracial couples?
I just explained my argument. Neither SCOTUS nor any other government body has the authority to force a wedding cake baker to bake a cake for a wedding they regard as an abomination. It doesn’t matter if they think gay marriages are abominations, or interracial marriages are abominations – no one should be forced to take part in a wedding they abominate or face being forced out of business. The First Amendment guarantees religious freedom, period. Not “religious freedom as long as other people don’t think you’re racist or homophobic.” Bob Jones University was the last major Bible college to… Read more »
Yes, of course I think we all believe that they will take the tax exempt status away. We all see that coming, and because of that and “peer pressure” so to speak, you are concerned that lots of Christians will deny what the Bible says about homosexuality, yes? I agree.
I thought you were making an argument or an opposing point to the general consensus here….sorry,
I am hammering a point home, which is that Christians brought this on themselves, because they sat silently by and did nothing for the last 48 years as the government forced people whose religion forbids interracial marriage to choose between their vocations or their conscience, between their tax exemptions or their beliefs. They sat by and did nothing in large part because they think people who oppose interracial marriage are hateful and bad, and therefore don’t deserve religious freedom. Well, now it turns out that the government thinks their own views on gay marriage are hateful and bad, and aren’t… Read more »
I see, but I am imagining that most of us agree with you. I guess that’s why I didn’t see the point of the hammering (another fine metaphor.) We, as Americans, not just Christians should all be watching for and protesting against the trampling of freedoms and rights regardless of whether or not we agree with the conviction. .No one should be forced to participate, cater to or celebrate that which their religion condemns. And we should have been rallying around that cry all along. I would hope that unbelievers who still believe in freedom, would rally around the right… Read more »
Nope; most don’t agree with me. Sadly, even at this stage, I’m sure that most evangelicals, and nearly all evangelical leaders, would still say that the government should punish florists and bakers and photographers who refuse to provide goods or services for an interracial wedding. The hatred of hate runs deep, especially among the most recently anointed haters, who are desperately trying to prove that they aren’t hateful, but just misunderstood, and, honest, they hate those hateful hate-filled haters just as much as the liberals do. But, it’s not going to work. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the… Read more »
Really, do you really think they believe that? I think cool shaming is working to be sure, but I don’t think being quiet on an issue because you are afraid of the backlash is the same thing as truly believing it.
Aren’t most folks on this blog at least arguing that the market, if allowed, would sort itself out. I see the majority arguing for BJU’s constitutional rights. I think if we don’t it’s like you say, we are all afraid of being called racist, not because we believe the government needs to morally straighten us out.
Please provide links to some of these people arguing for Bob Jones University’s right to be tax exempt while not allowing interracial dating or marriage. Because I’ve seen nothing like a majority on here saying that.
And even if they were arguing for BJU’s rights, it’s about 30 years too late for that.
Really? Maybe I just think everyone agrees with me?
The tax exempt status is another wrinkle on top of the bakery situation. Let’s assume that is not part of the equation. Do you think most here would argue for BJU’s right to refuse service?
Carole,
I think you two are speaking past each other because he is making reference to the majority of conservative Christians and you might be referencing the majority of Christians on this blog.
Have you listened to the Obergefell vs. Hodges oral arguments? They addressed the BJU connection and many conservative evangelical leaders have brought that point up, but never defending BJU’s right to discriminate. They either: 1) do not understand logical consistency at this point; or 2) are afraid to be called racist. Either way the silence is deafening.
I think you are right in that I am referencing the blog, but my point was that the silence is coming form the fear of being called a racist. Gregory claims it is because conservative Christians want the government to step in. I don’t see any evidence for that and most particularly not here.
Also I don’t understand why we on this blog are getting hammered, do you?
I honestly think it is a good deal of both.
I imagine that Greg perceives this blog to be one of the few places he can defend Bob Jones right to sinfully discriminate while being simultaneously understood and not condemned ipso facto as a racist. So he is focusing the troops…
It is likely the ONLY place. You can’t even discuss it with BJU folks without them not understanding a single word we’re saying. We are venting years of pent up befuddlement. And maybe we are working out our own thoughts by getting everyone else’s thoughts here. The silence wasn’t from fear of being called a racist. They flat out have not understood for the overwhelming majority. Only now will you see people daring to mention BJU because…well…because…um…well, it just might help us understand our fear, our cause and our strategy. And I’m not hammering. I think if the church /… Read more »
I think there is just a tone issue. One sounds like,
“let’s rally the troops and let’s look at how this isn’t the first time. This is a huge deal not isolated to gay marriage, but huge for religious freedom and constitutional rights…”
and the other is, “I told you so; now you’ll get what you had coming. Don’t you know what metaphor means etc”. I didn’t get the second tone and where it was coming from…that’s all. Thanks for explaining.
sinfully discriminate or might that be freely discriminate :) excellent, yes, Carole, focusing on the troops, making sure who would be reasonable understands all the reasoning, that we get it ironed out, forward march. McD, though, wouldn’t you say there is a slight difference this time with this ruling? By now the Civil Rights are in full force than when it was in Loving, and gaining incremental momentum…so now we have individuals already not being allowed to discriminate on a personal level? was that so with providing services? did interracial couples sue private businesses early on push that “freedom of… Read more »
Yes; I agree. The Obergefell decision was handed down to a nation in which over half the population approved of gay marriage, it was legal in 36 states, and small business owners were already being driven out of business for refusing to provide goods or services to gay weddings, and for over 50 years the population has been told virtually 24/7 by the government, media, schools, and churches that “discrimination” is the worst thing in the world and anyone who would ever do such a thing doesn’t deserve constitutional rights. Compare that with the atmosphere in 1967 when Loving was… Read more »
Actually, the IRS began the process of revoking BJU’s tax exemption in 1970. But it took 13 more years to finally be settled by SCOTUS.
Maybe I’ve asked this elsewhere…so you think Loving is far more important in all of this than Roe v Wade or the HHS mandate? Because it correlates/parallels more and will be used in the days ahead legally or because it is a more serious issue than even abortion? The comparisons of the speed we can expect this are good. Wonder if there will be much of a tax exempt stand. I linked an article somewhere, and I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere, of Baylor and other schools already changing what’s on paper/policies/handbooks to not have these discriminating statements on paper. And… Read more »
Great find. I’m reading it right now.
You said: sinful discriminate or might that be freely discriminate :) The correct answer is yes. It was a sinful policy. BJU will be judged by God for making it. If Christians are free under the 2nd Ammendment to righteously discriminate against Sodomites, then BJU should be free under the 2nd Ammendment to sinfully discriminate. I think Mohler was calling it an unconscionable policy because he rightly recognized it as sinful discrimination. I don’t think he was overtly faulting them for seeking to defend their 2nd amendment rights, but faulting them for the sinful policy. From what I remembered, he… Read more »
“You said: sinful discriminate or might that be freely discriminate :) The correct answer is yes” :D “It was a sinful policy. BJU will be judged by God for making it.” Well, we’d take up a lot of real estate talking that out. They did have their biblical principles (not uncommon to Christendom years before), and I figure they are responsible to their conscience and God more than to me. And it was the interracial dating policy–for everyone to abide by equally. It didn’t offend my roommates from other countries. They didn’t agree with it–well actually one had parents that… Read more »
If I were to think the best of BJU, I would ascribe them with righteous motives, the best intentions, and praise them for being courageous in following their conscience even when it is unpopular. That being said: 1) the conscience can be misinformed; and 2) good intentions aren’t everything, namely, the road to hell is paved with good intentions (not damning BJU to hell, just an analogy). Adultery is adultery regardless of intention. Forbidding interracial marriage is adding to Scripture at best. I don’t think everyone who ever argued against interracial marriage did so out of hatred, or a belief… Read more »
I didn’t see it as hammered. That’s why I’ve tried to restrain myself so it wouldn’t look like two of us. It’s been wonderful to read and to see the reactions in friendlier territory. At least no one is calling each other racist, evil, etc. etc., right? I would call it impassioned. With a touch frustration to make sure each other really “gets” each other’s point :) Thanks for putting up with it :)
I think it is a great point and really worth ensuring we all understand. I never react well to a sister being spoken to rudely though. I didn’t understand the need for the metaphor post when this is friendly territory.
Tone is hard to read on a screen. And yeah, sometimes it isn’t. You’ve held up well. I should go back to one of McD’s very first comments to me. Along with franklinb23’s “you seem” :) And I’m sure I snarked back. And…well, I lost it with that “eventual extinction” death wish. Oh, sigh. That was before the “partaking rightly” post. All of us learning to get along–koinonia and all. You do great. McD, FRIENDLY territory!!!!!! We’re down to our final points, except WHAT TO DO with all of this real estate that’s been used on this topic.
If you don’t want women to be spoken to rudely, then you should encourage them to not speak rudely to others. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Don’t you dare resort to that awful “now I understand I Corinthians 14:34” nonsense..I have been holding in quite the retort if you do.
KOINONIA.
On task, here are more detailed thoughts of the Alabama legal reasoning…
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/will-alabama-rebel-against-marriage-ruling/
Thank you. I didn’t know how to word that. Yes, they still belittle BJU even though turning reason on its head to want to use the SAME argument BJU used–for their OWN religious freedom. I am still not over this Mohler article. Unreal. http://www.albertmohler.com/2015/04/29/it-is-going-to-be-an-issue-supreme-court-argument-on-same-sex-marriage-puts-religious-liberty-in-the-crosshairs/ “That policy of Bob Jones University remains a moral blight to this day, even though the university has since rescinded the policy. Bob Jones University stood virtually alone in this unconscionable policy, but the Court’s decision in that lamentable case also set the stage for Justice Alito’s question — “would the same apply to a university… Read more »
This is a difference, right McD? Or am I wrong. Were people being SUED for not selling a cake to an interracial couple? BJU could still do as they wished just not have tax exemption…at the rate it’s going on the business level, I’m not sure colleges can count on it not being MORE than a loss of tax exemption. In answer to your question, most HERE? maybe so. maybe with some scorn of the view that they can’t comprehend was a widely accepted religious belief, but that’s better than ALL scorn…”it’s so stupid, they don’t deserve for us to… Read more »
“but I don’t think being quiet on an issue because you are afraid of the backlash ” One more time: They’re not being quiet about their belief that people who oppose interracial marriage should have the right to refuse to provide goods and services to interracial marriage because they’re afraid of a backlash. They’re being quiet about it, because they don’t believe that. The reason all these preachers and leaders are writing all these articles without ever mentioning Loving v VA is, as I’ve said over and over and over, because they WANT the government to punish people for opposing… Read more »
No, that can’t be true. I doubt that very much.
Then please provide links to where all these evangelicals have suddenly, just today, begun arguing that people who oppose interracial marriage shouldn’t have to provide goods and services to interracial weddings. Because I’m dying to see some of these articles you seem to think are everywhere, but which I can find no trace of.
So, please, provide links to all these articles by Christians demanding religious liberty protections for people who oppose interracial marriage.
That isn’t what I am saying. I agree that folks are silent about it. One because it is no longer a current issue, secondly I think a lack of courage is the real problem. Cool shaming works. The PC movement worked. I don’t think preachers are supporting the government. I think they are not standing up and supporting our rights. Those two don’t necessarily imply one another.
If you could pick one thing and stick with it, and not keep contradicting yourself from one comment to the next, that would be helpful. Until you can, I’m done.
Wow, I am at a loss to see your exasperation. I think we agree that there are not enough people standing up for our religious rights, even if the belief is wrong. We are just flushing out why. Is it because many Christians now want the government to morally punish, or is it because the PC movement is so loud and domineering that folks are afraid to speak up.
I don’t see my contradiction, but thanks for trying to clarify for me as I do think your point was a good one.
All the best.
Can you provide links to Christian leaders “praising” the government for the Loving case or the BJU case? And again tax exemption is another layer to the right to refuse service or the right not to participate, celebrate…
Perhaps there are many links; I will just be surprised.
Gregory, the argument that people should not be forced to act against their conscience is common, though poorly known by too many Christians. The argument can be made without having to refer to interracial marriage. I for one think it is seriously wrong to force men to act against their conscience. I would not force someone to marry an interracial couple, or provide them with services to that end. (I also think they are seriously wrong). As to your arguments from Scripture (not your arguments but the ones you reference), I don’t think every Christian needs to feel guilty about… Read more »
And how do you know that? Is that your intuition or do you have something that backs up your claim? I think the reason they are being quiet is because of fear.
The ilk is growing tired of you and the pony show.
Stop with your nauseating diatribe.
What do you got big dog?
Let’s hear it in all the full glory that encompasses the current problem and your big dog solution.
Throw down.
Loving?
I perceive you interpret language differently from our host.
Wittingstein all over calling each other a “Madman, heretic and fool.”
Rock on, Fred.
I woke up this morning to this longer conversation between Carole/McD/bethyada/ashv and was glad to find it. So, maybe your “ilk” is growing tired, but “mine” isn’t. Did you miss the “koinonia” post? Or maybe I’m sinning in my “koinonia” by mentioning it :) I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere and go back to contemplating the “diatribe” — “Actually, it’s an obsession with me, too. And actually throughout most of my adult life, I have wondered why people were missing this piece of the puzzle, or that it was a Christian taboo to speak of it. This is the first… Read more »
The thing is Andrew, what is the point beyond the point? We get it. Truly, we get it. We all should have been defending BJU’s constitutional rights despite what we believed regarding their exegesis. That is an excellent point. And now we are reaping what we sowed. Yes, G Mc is right.
Okay, so now what?
It’s a great point as far as it goes, but where does it go?
I think we should be defending smoker’s rights as well and businesses that wish to provide a place for them…but where does that lead us now?
we have so many evangel leaders that have shifted on SO MUCH, that though they may not say at this very moment that the gov’t SHOULD punish…that could change so much faster. we’ll see how much influence they have either way on the colleges they influence: http://www.bpnews.net/45121/christian-colleges-divided-on-response-to-scotus I would like to hope that this is going to be our “Here I Finally Stand” moment after years of incremental loss of rights and freedoms–and with such an obvious issue (wasn’t abortion an obvious issue? i am far more outraged about issues like that than this but that “only” affected doctors and… Read more »
I am hammering a point home, Yes, and its gotten to be a bit much given the real-estate devoted to it. How many comments on how many threads now? Nothing personal, but your defeatism is annoying. We got a team of men pulling a heavy load up the mountain side, working their butts off and you are the guy watching it telling us how it will never work, the mountain is too high, the rope is going to break, it won’t matter when or if we do get there…yada,yada,yada. Now this is a comment thread, not a mountain side. However,… Read more »
“We got a team of men pulling a heavy load up the mountain side, working their butts off and you are the guy watching it telling us how it will never work, the mountain is too high, the rope is going to break, it won’t matter when or if we do get there…yada,yada,yada.” ********* No; you have no such thing. What you have is a lot of guys who just keep walking around in circles at the bottom of the mountain. They haven’t even picked up the load yet, but instead just keep going ’round in circles, muttering to themselves… Read more »
I concur with your position on freedom of association.
However, like Mike Bull and padeo-baptism, you are bringing the same darn hobby-horse into every blog post; it is that basic violation of internet decorum that gets tiresome.
grace and peace.
The freedom of association is what this whole uproar is about. If you think discussing freedom of association in posts about freedom of association is riding a hobby horse, well, I don’t know what to tell you. Maybe try that dancing hamsters site?
And far from commenting on every blog post of Rev. Wilson’s, I don’t post a word on the majority of the ones I read.
I stand corrected. I apologize.
Thanks. Apology accepted!
Huh, and here I thought it was about screens, projectors, and what the Bible says. I guess I’m not paying attention.
But who is arguing against you? Where are you going with this? Would you like us to say, “you are right, we failed to defend our brothers when we should have, therefore it is clear we will fail again?”
Why are you hammering if we all agree? Please link the post where someone opposed your point?
1, Please link where Pr Wilson and other Christian Elders defended/praised said the government should, pull the religious liberties of BJU.
2, Do you think there is a difference when taxes are involved?
The crux is whether Christians should defend different states/localities’ ability to keep their historic laws, even when we believe that they’re mistaken. A parallel question would be whether states or counties within a state should be allowed to outlaw alcohol (as they are now), even if the national majority opinion is that alcohol consumption is not sinful.
yes, I also think a very good example is forcing bars to outlaw smoking. That hurt many businesses and had all the power of a good cool shame!
Just a historical observation: Everyone, everywhere in history has segregated themselves according to race and culture. This is not a recent white Christian problem. This is a human issue. The white, secular hipsters of Portland, OR do it as well as the Chinese (are you Han or Korean?), the Indians and their caste system, the African tribes, etc. The riches are embarrassing. I guess I keep getting thrown off by the sudden imergence of enlightened morality on gay marriage. In 8 years we have discovered a nation of bigots. I’m glad they white washed their tombs but then there’s the… Read more »
‘Ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil’ from within yourself, instead of having to find out from God what is what.
I find all the discussion here enlightening, and agree in whole that Christians need to be free to follow the dictates of their understanding of scripture. The Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution is an attempt to LIMIT the power of the federal government over the sovereign states and the people. If we are following the Constitution (as we should, though I believe we turned left long ago), the delineated powers of the Federal Government have been expanded far beyond their legal bounds. Obergefell is simply the latest iteration of Federal overreach. Pretending the fourteenth amendment or the “Commerce Clause”… Read more »
“though I believe we turned left long ago)”…”the delineated powers of the Federal Government have been expanded far beyond their legal bounds. Obergefell is simply the latest iteration…” “states have allowed incremental overreach to continue unabated.” this is all good to remember. we didn’t just happen to get here, and is it just because the opposition is so loud or because it’s such a “finalish” wake up call or…well, i just have questions that go through my mind as I think of the incremental overreach…should we have done more sooner? why not with abortion issues as you mentioned…have we given… Read more »
If I were a learned theologian or a statesman I would probably be able to give cogent answers to the dilemma we now face. But alas, I am only an observer from the media who privately wrung my hands as I watched freedom of speech and association as well as religious liberty being daily eroded. The overuse of the commerce clause has been the camel’s nose under the tent of liberty for decades. All kinds of mischief has resulted from the feds inordinate desire to keep its fingers on the pulse of the economy. The first order of America has… Read more »
Doug’s quote: “You can see it happening in discussions of movies, tattoos, music, skanky apparel, video games, and so on.” I am struggling to comprehend how it is considered drifting when a young person chooses a certain song or style of music, but it’s not considered drifting when an older person chooses music that is, apparently, offensive to God. I have recently noticed a local pastor here who went to the recent Rush concert, and in Doug’s own admission, he has in his playlist, “Money For Nothing”. “Look at that mama; she got it sticking in the camera; man, we… Read more »