Book Review of
As We Sodomize America -The Homosexual Movement
and the Decline of Morality in America, by O. R. Adams Jr.
BACK TO ARTICLES
Billy Rojas, Eugene, Oregon
Billy Rojas is a lifelong student and teacher of history, religion, politics and philosophy. He holds degrees in Philosophy and Intellectual History from Roosevelt University, and did graduate work in Higher Education at the University of Massachusetts. He has taught in Arizona, Kentucky, Washington, and for the City Colleges of Chicago assigned to the U.S. Navy (on the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise).
This means war.
There is a book that you really should know about. This is a 1998 /
2001volume by O.R. Adams, Jr., As We
Sodomize America -The Homosexual Movement and the Decline of Morality in America.
The book is 700 pages long, text, with still more pages devoted to bibliography
and other apparatus. Adams is editor of
American Traditions Magazine, which can be accessed at :
There are whole chapters on such topics as anal sex, rimming (kissing and licking the anus, ingesting fecal matter for 'fun,' and so forth), fisting (insertion of a fist up the rectum for sexual thrills), mud rolling (sex play with feces), and every homosexual's favorite pastime, sadomasochism --including bondage, torture and brutality. That is, a reader would need to be seriously mentally sick not to immediately recognize that describing such behaviors is to discuss pathological behavior and a diseased form of mentality.
There is much more in the book, needless to say. The whole thing reads like a horror story as Adams chronicles the rise and triumph of the "homosexualist" cause from the late 60s to the late 90s. It is a tale of irresponsibility and denial, of media manipulation and collusion of politicians with the media, of corruption in the churches, of brave champions against the forces of darkness, you might say, made ineffectual by the sheer power of the courts, of giant business firms completely compromised by homosexuals, and of the utter depravity of so-called conservatives in Congress who, while all this was happening, did just about nothing.
And not to recognize this obvious fact does no-one the least good. About religion, which for me is vitally important, including the role of the Bible in faith and culture, everything must be re-thought for the 21st century. Faith must be made relevant again but in new ways, with ecumenical spirit at the forefront, none of which Adams comprehends.
He has five versions of the Bible in his library. Except for the King James, none of them are versions that I regard as scholarly or with serious value because of doctrinal translations that, in places, miss the actual meaning of the original text. Thus I have the RSV, NEB, Oxford, New Jerusalem, a translation of the Peshitto Syriac (from Aramaic) and a translation of the Tanach from Hebrew by Jewish scholars. And a collection of Nag Hammadi texts, Dead Sea Scroll texts, and so forth, as ecumenical a collection of Biblical scriptures as anyone can put together. All of which is directly relevant to modern day actual Bible scholarship. This is important because of the many verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality and because of the Bible's place in our culture. But no way can I reasonably use the Bible as my sole authority for seeking changes in the law or to the Constitution. That kind of approach is doomed to failure from the outset and it really is foolish to think otherwise. But to leave out the Bible would be stupid beyond belief.
The book also is larded with extraneous comments on unrelated issues, capital punishment, polygamy, heterosexual promiscuity, and the like, all of which is unnecessary and does nothing at all to advance the main argument in the text --unless other religious conservatives are impressed, which obviously ( if unfortunately ) they were not. Book sales never seem to have gone anywhere despite the professional "look" of the book and its nice format. Also, in common with many or most (I am tempted to say nearly all) Evangelicals, Adams is "psychology averse, " and made no effort at all to understand the issue in psychoanalytic or related terms. This is a major weakness on the book, and it was utterly needless.
The index has some flaws, there is only one reference to Dr. Charles Socarides, for instance, even though there is a second reference actually in the book, and it is the most important. It turns out that Adams had access to Socarides' 1995 opus, Homosexuality --A Freedom Too Far. But he made almost no use of this absolutely essential book . Why not? I can only guess but must presume that it is because Socarides was a psychiatrist/psychoanalyst (and founder of NARTH), and because Adams regards anything to do with Freud the way he regards Darwin, as from the Devil. As far as I am concerned this attitude is extremely ill-advised. The good uses to which professional psychology can be put in the debate are incalculable. And more to the point, you are not about to convince the "great unwashed," nor the political and cultural elites, UNLESS your arguments are grounded in the behavioral sciences, especially psychology. Moreover, you also need to make good use of social science more generally, especially sociology, and it doesn't hurt to know relevant history, indeed, a discipline that can go far toward debunking the many homosexual myths that now infect our culture like a virulent epidemic disease.
Adams is oblivious to all of this. Instead his entire pursuit is that of a lawyer. That is anything but "bad" but it has decided --and serious-- limitations. But, not at all incidentally, he rakes the legal profession over the coals for how far it has become 'homosexualized' in the past few decades, to its horrible discredit. Not bad for someone who himself is a lawyer.
I sent Adams a copy of my proposed Constitutional Amendments, including the Amendment to treat homosexuality as a psychopathology and a demand for public figures to cease, entirely, making legal use of the claim that this mental disorder is a question of civil rights, which is a logical absurdity. I'd say that my views on such issues are quite close to those of Adams himself. In a private letter to myself, Adams said that I should cease with such ideas and focus on more productive things. It was rather obvious from what he said that he had, at most, skimmed the proposed Amendments and had not read the introductory chapter that put the entire project in context and explained its purposes. There was, for example, no acknowledgement that one of my main priorities is to end, for all time, all judicial activism, legislating from the bench, which is also a major theme in his book. For you see, I should read his book but the other way around does not apply. To be very sure, I wanted to read his book and am thankful he sent a copy and thankful even more that it is the kind of resource that it is. Few books are as valuable to my research.
Still, I am a published writer and former college teacher. As well, I have been a magazine editor. I believe that I have important things to say and important ideas to share with people. I take pride in my education and insights. Furthermore, I do not defer to anyone's judgment about what is and is not important unless someone is able to persuade me with damned good arguments based on researched evidence.
"Hopeless, simply hopeless," was what I thought when reading his comments. And I have the impression that it is similarly hopeless --on this issue even if no further generalization is warranted -- for Evangelicals at large. And for a large percentage of Catholics and Jews as well.
Anyway, the ironic part of this exchange is that, while his letter was adamant that we don't need any new Amendments; all we need are conservative Justices and appellate court judges. A position which he contradicted in his book. And in any case, we aren't going to get conservative 'savior judges," and we certainly have only gotten a very few, inn a qualified sense, since Adams book was published. Actually what we need is to capture the imagination of the public and of politicians who have consciences. And of any journalists or others in the media who might be sympathetic. We need new ideas, a new philosophy, and especially new leadership.
One thing a Constitutional Amendment to end homosexuality in America ought to be able to do, if it receives public attention, especially thinking about how it is written and all the evidence it supplies to the effect that homosexuality is psychopathological, is to finally start the kind of debate we have needed on the issue of homosexuality for many years. And in the course of things just maybe leaders will arise who can actually start to reverse each and every homosexual gain in the public policy realm they have gotten in the years since 1973. The time is also past due when the APA should have been discredited, and the ACLU.
Democrats of Republicans could possibly want and can be depended upon to oppose with al available resources. Therefore the objective must be to discredit each and every Democrat or Republican who acts on behalf of homosexual interests. Anyone interested in a good fight?
My Reply Comments.
Obviously, I do not agree with some of Mr. Rojas's ideas and comments. However, they are interesting, and all sides of a question should be considered, in trying to get to the right answer. My brief comments will be primarily limited to a couple of errors.
Rojas indicated that I did not sufficiently respect NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality). On the contrary, I very much respect the organization, its members, and the work they do to help homosexuals overcome their pathological addictions.
I have never proposed any constitutional amendment that would allow "Congress, with a majority or super-majority vote, ... to overturn any decision of the Supreme Court." Others have proposed such an amendment, including Judge Robert Bork, for whom I have great respect. But I do not agree with such a concept. This would allow Congress to change our Constitution. I do not believe that either Congress or the Supreme Court should have such a power. I believe that the Constitution should be changed only by the people and their representatives, in accordance with Article V of our Constitution.
I have the utmost respect for our Founders, and the Constitution they gave us. They considered themselves influenced by "Providence," and I believe that they were. All of the constitutional amendments I have proposed are in the books and articles on this website. And I have only proposed two amendments to our federal Constitution.
One amendment was to limit marriage to a union between one man and one woman, because of the conflicts that exist between state laws; and because I consider same-sex marriage a depraved pagan concept that should not be allowed in this country.
The other proposed amendment would require judges to be judges, and not legislators. It would also, in time cure prior erroneous constitutional decisions by which activist judges have, in effect, changed our constitution to their own personal views, instead of interpreting a provision according to what was intended by those who formed and enacted it. The reason the amendment would, in time, cure such erroneous decisions is because they would not be considered valid precedent, as they now are.
I do not agree that our Constitution needs any other amendments at this time. And certainly not wholesale amendments or a constitutional convention. I consider it a wonderful document as it is. All of our current problems were caused by activist Supreme Court justices, and those problems can be eliminated by curing that affliction.
O. R. Adams Jr.
BACK TO ARTICLES