***Scroll down for updates – important clarification below***
Woe to the people running for and holding public office with big skeletons in their closets.
Nothing is private or off limits or sacred.
If there’s dirt to dish, somebody, somewhere will find it.
If you run for public office, your private business becomes public, fair or unfair. You should know that going in.
But what do you do when someone accuses you of being a closeted homosexual who frequents public restrooms? Let’s say it’s true, and you’re married with children and grandchildren. Do you admit it? Let’s say it’s a foul lie. Do you sue for defamation?
I learned from Captain Ed and Patterico this morning that the radical (and little crazy) homosexual blogger Mike Rogers, who “outs” closeted homosexuals, publicly accused Republican Senator Larry Craig of cruising public restrooms for sex with men. Senator Craig denies the nasty allegations.
I find the whole thing disgusting, true or not. When I say I don’t care who people sleep with, I mean it…as long as it’s not in my face. Keep your business to yourself, and don’t define yourself by or try to turn your bedroom activities into a political cause. But that is what the homosexual agenda is about. Two to three percent of the population, people whose sexual orientation got mixed up somehow — genetically, environmentally, or how ever — want to flip the culture upside down, demand special rights, and tell the rest of us how to think. It won’t work with me.
Homosexuality, among a multitude of other things, is unbiblical, and as a Christian, I can’t ignore that. And my encounters with homosexuals in the blogosphere and political arena have been downright unpleasant, so that doesn’t help matters. And I’m impervious to charges of “homophobia.” Utterly meaningless to me.
Now if Senator Craig really is a homosexual, bisexual — whatever — that’s not my business, either. That’s between himself and his family. But here is where I depart with fellow conservative bloggers: If a person speaks out against laws, policies, lifestyles, etc., that you support and you find out he is doing the thing he speaks against, should you expose them as a hypocrite?
I suppose the equivalent for me would be a “closeted” Christian lawmaker pushing for IRS investigations of churches and Christian non-profit organizations, or criticizing the “religious right” as nuts. Let’s say this person goes to church secretly and shares the Gospel with strangers. Through various sources, I find a few people who’ve heard the politician’s testimony or saw him sitting in a pew in disguise or something. It’s a stretch, but you get the idea. Do I expose him or protect his privacy? If I think he’s harassing churches and being unnecessarily critical and anti-Christian, do I sit on the info, or blog it for the world to see?
The bottom line is that what Rogers is doing may not be classy. On some level, it might be awful. But if someone were preaching (real or imagined) at you or voting against laws helpful to your cause, and you knew for a fact they weren’t practicing what they preached, what would you do?
Update: Glenn Greenwald says:
As should be painfully obvious, the issue with Larry Craig…or Newt Gingrich’s multiple, overlapping broken marriages — isn’t to apply our moral standards to their private lives, but is to apply their own publicly claimed moral standards, as well as the core tactics of the GOP, to document that they live in utter contradiction to the sexual morality they relentlessly embrace for policial gain (an exceedingly simple concept which the intellectually honest LaShawn Barber patiently tries to explain to her fellow Bush supporters, as does Pam Spaulding, a little less patiently).
By the way, I don’t like Newt Gingrich.
Update II: I received a few e-mails from Christians who consider themselves homosexuals. At this point I need to clarify something. Being homosexual — attracted to people of the same sex — is not the sin. It’s the practice of homosexuality that’s sinful. Personal illustration: The Bible teaches that fornication — sex outside marriage — is a sin. My being attracted to men is not sinful, but having sex with a man I’m not married to is sinful. It’s a rough analogy, but you get the idea.
Later…Pink purge? Good grief…
A compliment, of sorts: “I read Ms. Barber’s blog because she’s intelligent and I agree with almost nothing she writes. Reading opposing views helps me flesh out my ideas and beliefs.”
Hey, if I can be of assistance…
{ 9 trackbacks }
{ 52 comments }
Your post is intellectually consistent.
Thing is, where can we find someone on the left who was against the tax cuts but who ran to the bank & deposited theirs as soon as it came to them? Anyone?
A less ridiculous scenario would be if you know that a self-avowed, tree-hugging, Kyoto-supporting environmentalist was driving a low-mpg SUV and flying in private jets to environmental rallies (or investing in coal-fired power plants and West Virginia strip mines).
I would say such broad hypocrisy in a politician MUST be exposed so that the voters can make an informed choice.
This Mike Rogers is doing the tried and untrue: attempting to make voters unhappy with Republicans-ALL Republicans-right before an election. So he smears this Larry Craig-whom I’ve never heard of-and I’m supposed to be upset because a member of the party of inclusion (Dem) tells me I should be upset? If Rogers isn’t a hypocrite for ‘outing’ Craig, when the Democrats purportedly believe that Homosexuality is not a crime or wrong in any way, it’s only because ‘hypocrite’ has changed meaning since I last looked in the dictionary. The silence you hear is the gay activists not castigating Rogers for outing a homosexual. ‘Not that there’s anything wrong with that’.
What I don’t get about the whole thing is that on the one hand, these “outers” celebrate homosexuality as a fabulous thing, but on the other, they use it to smear someone they don’t like. Logically, shouldn’t they be happy that a person, any person, is homosexual? *shrug*
Glenn Greenwood notes:….. ” with pointing out the wildly promiscuous recreational-drug-aided sexual behavior of Rush Limbaugh….”
Have I missed something? This is pure slander and totally unprotected by the First Amendment.
Mr. Greenwood has given the perfect example of why slinging mud is not a public service.
Homosexuals are dead-enders in nature. They do “queer” things to satiate their sexual lusts.
I have friends and relatives who are homosexuals. I enjoy them for every part of their humanity except their sexual predilections. When they close the door, they are in their own world and I stay out of it. In return, I do not want to be confronted with their sexual “stuff.”
The main problem I see today is the drive by some homosexuals to try to get society to accept them in every way on every day as just “normal” people. As such, these activists want marriage laws changed and they want to spread their lifestyle as part of “diversity” education and understanding.
I do not see that a Congressman who is quietly gay should be “outed.” However, he is a fool to think that he won’t be.
Glenn Greenwood uses the twisted logic to explain it: “…is to apply their own publicly claimed moral standards, as well as the core tactics of the GOP, to document that they live in utter contradiction to the sexual morality they relentlessly embrace for political gain…..”
Liberals without religion are helplessly caught with no moral basis for their elitist criticisms. I guess they just work off the UN Charter and group think at the cocktail bar.
But they sure do attack conservatives who happen to stray from the traditional moral standards. What a perfect set up! If you have no moral standards, you are above hypocrisy. If you have moral standards and you stray, you are a hypocrite!
Well, every Christian is an automatic hypocrite. In The Lord’s Prayer we remind ourselves that we continually “trespass” as do others. We do not claim perfection. We try to take responsibility for our short comings.
But there are the libs, calling us out, while dancing their superiority dance. We Christians know about sin and we are in awe that Christ is our redeemer.
But the libs have no need for the Savior, because really (to them), there is no sin. And then, they accuse us of being hypocrites every time we are less than Christlike. (They love to throw “what would Jesus do?” as a spear, rather than a prompt.)
If a homosexual is married and has children, that is an especially fragile package. If he is seeking sex outside of the marriage, he must take full responsibility for his actions. But it is no different than Clinton and Monica, Teddy and Mary Jo or Barney and the boys. They are all top leaders of the Democrat liberals.
I doubt they would survive the voters if they were Republican. We conservatives do not suffer moral fools gladly. That is why the Soros, Moore, Flynt, Begala crowd wants to “out” gay Republicans. They are the true hypocrites since it is all about power and politics to them and for them, anything goes.
The problem, heliotrope, is truth is a guaranteed defense against libel/slander charges — and the past indiscretions of Mr. Limbaugh are well documented (and he has publicly admitted to them).
MikeM said:
A less ridiculous scenario would be if you know that a self-avowed, tree-hugging, Kyoto-supporting environmentalist was driving a low-mpg SUV and flying in private jets to environmental rallies.
…
There are plenty of politicians like that, and while some get called on it (Pelosi comes to mind), many more don’t. “Limousine liberal” isn’t just a soundbite, it started as an accurate description somewhere…
I actually have found “Log Cabin” types in my local Republican party, and while I will fight any attempt by them to normalize or elevate homosexuality to the level of a marriage and a family, I certainly won’t shun them if they understand the evil of Islam (of all people, they ought to instinctively understand this).
Some of them are quite Libertarian and they understand the need for lower taxes and less federal government (other than national defense, which IS properly a Federal government matter).
Guess what, all you Demunist Commiecrats turned Dhimmicrats? Not every homosexual has to support your Pinko Commie agenda! Some of them even understand that their relationships, whatever status they may or may not merit, don’t rise to the level of a marriage and a family! (Gasp! Horrors!)
Note to devout Christian readers: Private life is not public policy. When we vote, we vote for the results on this earth, not the next. Render unto Uncle Sam what belongs to Uncle Sam.
Is Foley going to Hell? That’s between him and God.
Meanwhile, if we sit at home or even worse, vote the (American Independent / US Taxpayers / Constitution / whatever they call themselves now) Party over this, we insure the Demunists will bring us hell on earth.
I firmly believe that homosexuality is abnormal, and not to be lauded in any way. The acts committed in that “lifestyle” are abominations.
That said, I still maintain that outing Larry Craig is a despicable act, whether or not it’s true. This is a pure case of dirty politics.
- And so the mighty unwashed gaggle of the “secular Progressives†cult debunks yet another of their many self-proclaimed myths, “sexual preference tolerance†– the “We care†meme, and turns, as they generally do when seeking power trumps their incessant falsehoods, to suddenly justifying open Gay bashing as a political tool.
You are all free now to move about the blogosphere and call them homophobes at will. Let the festivities begin.
I’d like to respond to this:
“Two to three percent of the population, people whose sexual orientation got mixed up somehow — genetically, environmentally, or how ever — want to flip the culture upside, demand special rights, and tell the rest of us how to think.”
I think you’re wrong about this on both counts: First, gays and lesbians are not asking for special rights. They want the same rights, and the same responsibilities, that everyone else takes for granted. This is especially important for the many thousands of gay parents who are having children (by artificial insemination or adoption) with no legal protections for their children. You might also consider the moral hypocrisy of the anti-gay folks who claim to support family values while taking actions that could destroy the lives of gay parents and their children).
The second point – I agree that you are free to think, feel and believe anything you want to about gays and lesbians. The problem is when you act on those beliefs in ways that are hateful or discriminatory. In a pluralistic society, we have to agree to tolerate differences of opinion and beliefs. Look at Iraq’s Shiites and Sunnis for a sad example of what can happen when people refuse to tolerate personal beliefs with which they disagree. Whatever you believe about gay people, you never have the right to deny them the fundamental human rights that all people should be entitled to.
Rogers says he’ll out gays who don’t vote for the “Gay Agenda”. He assumes that all gays agree that whatever the specifics of the “Gay Agenda” are, they are good for everybody in the nation. If you are gay, you are not “allowed” to disagree. I can certainly see that someone could be gay, but not think that gay marriage was legislatively desireable – apparently Rogers can’t. Since the “Gay Agenda” today says that homosexuality is biologically determined in some way, he’s also saying that somehow certain people are biologically predetermined to be Democrats. Of course, since as someone pointed out, homosexuality is usually a dead end affliction, at least it isn’t likely to be passed on. That is, if it _is_ biologically determined. I’m not convinced, personally. I’d like a study to be done on sexual molestation of boys/young men at various ages and try to learn if there’s a correlation between that and later homosexuality. I suspect there is – not 100%, but a high percentage.
Once again, though, the issue is between what one chooses for oneself personally, and what chooses for the whole society. Liberals can’t seem to discriminate between the two – especially when it comes to the concept of sin. They really seem to believe that if a person believes that a certain action is morally wrong, then that person is a hypocrite if they _ever_ commit that moral wrong. You know, there isn’t much point in making laws about stuff that people never do!
Homosexuality is indeed an abomination, thus I can’t classify outing Senator Craig as a “despicable act.” Yes we my not “need” to know a polititians sexual preference, but when that preference is perverted and un-godly I want to know! I want to know so that I can make the correct choice! Call me “homophobic” all you want! If the accusations are true, the voters should know so that “we” (not some far-left looney blogger) can make a sound choice.
Thing is, where can we find someone on the left who was against the tax cuts but who ran to the bank & deposited theirs as soon as it came to them? Anyone?
I know a whole bunch of private citizens who did exactly this (well, they went shopping with their per child refund…but the point is they didn’t return it to the government or even donate it to a social cause they support–they kept it for themselves). So I’m willing to bet there are famous leftists who did the same thing; there’s just no ethical way to find out.
Bill C. is yapping about how Chelsea doesn’t deserve to get all of his money when he and the wife die, but you don’t see him giving it to the government or to social causes while he’s alive. And that Peter Singer guy at Princeton says every American family making over $20k/yr (!!!!) should give the rest to “alleviate global poverty” but he makes more than that and doesn’t give it to the UN.
I’m so sick of these people.
First, gays and lesbians are not asking for special rights. They want the same rights, and the same responsibilities, that everyone else takes for granted.
They already have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else–they just choose not to accept them.
My moral compass comes from the Bible. I don’t claim to live up to it, yet, I try to live by it. One of the principles that I live by is that the Bible is a mirror for me to look into and examine my life (James 1:22-25). If you get through examining your own life, then I guess you can start examining other peoples lives. I am not there yet.
It is not to say that I don’t have opinions about what is sin and what is not sin. What the Bible says is sin is sin and nothing less. But God did not gift me with the power of judging others, so I try and not use it.
That being said, it doesn’t surprise me to find that there are Republicans with secrets, all people have things hidden in their lives. Someday, all that is hidden will be revealed and I fear that day too. That someone would take pleasure in causing someone else pain (by revealing their secret) says more to me about the character of the revealer than the one exposed.
Paul gives a pretty comprehensive list of the sins of man in Romans 1, “…wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.” We can all find ourselves in this list if we are honest. And if we are honest, we recognize that Paul did not prioritize it, so we can take no pride that our sin lies further up or down the list from another. So, I take no pride that my sins are less than another’s.
The point is, homosexual behavior is no better at getting you sent to hell than gossiping, it’s just less socially acceptable in certain circles. But the amount of grace required for forgiveness is the same, and it too was paid for. And not by me….or you.
I’m assuming you mean to use the common mantra that “gay people have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that I do.” You’re correct to a point, but I don’t think I need to explain to you the pain and heartache that can happen when a closeted gay man marries a heterosexual woman. Most cases almost always end in divorce or adultery, such as the alleged case of Larry Craig. At least heterosexuals get to marry someone that they’re attracted to.
Yes. Glenn Greenwald is nothing more than the king/queen of sock-puppets. Oh, but his lemmings do love what he types (gives them that “intellectual Napolean complex” thing that fresh feeling), don’t they?
Heliotrope:
“Have I missed something? This is pure slander and totally unprotected by the First Amendment.”
Of course it’s protected by the First Amendment (and Rush has said worse things).
***
As to LSB’s post….
I agree.
Sexuality should not be exposed by third parties (unless it involves illegality, like rape or child molestation).
Hypocrisy should be. Especially when it comes to our leaders.
******
Radish writes:
“They [homosexuals] already have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else–they just choose not to accept them.”
Do they have the right to marry the person that they love …and have that marriage recognized by the state …so that they can enjoy the benefits of marriage that heterosexual couples enjoy?
Sorry, Radish. The “right” of gays to live their life exactly the same way as you do, does NOT mean they have the same “rights” as you. It’s kind of like telling a woman in the 19th century that she has a “right” to vote …if she gets a sex change operation and becomes a man.
Once again, LaShawn asks some poignant questions -questions that help me to “examine myself.”
Hmm, I don’t see the hypocrisy in a supposedly “closeted” homosexual lawmaker not agreeing with the homosexual political agenda or a “Christian” lawmaker who doesn’t agree with the Religious Right or believes the IRS should investigate the non-profit status of a church. How is that person a hypocrite? If a politician practices homosexuality but doesn’t believe in same-sex unions how is that hypocritical? I believe you have the right to privately watch pornography however I don’t believe you have the right to display pornography publicly – Am I a Hypocrite? Even if I indulge in privately viewing pornography but will not “vote” for the public viewing of pornography am I a hypocrite?
Mike Rogers and his ilk are flat out wrong for doing what he does.
As a Christian many times I am torn between expecting the laws of the land to reflect my religious bend and allowing the laws of the land to reflect the lack of morality expressed by the ungodly. From one Christian to another – where and better yet, how do we draw the line?
#24 Kman says of slander: “Of course its protected by the First Amendment…..”
Huh? Since when?
Greenwood writes: “….the wildly promiscuous recreational-drug-aided sexual behavior of Rush Limbaugh…..”
This is what I read: 1.) Rush Limbaugh is wildly promiscuous. 2) He uses recreational drugs. 3.) He uses the recreational drugs to aid his wildly promiscuous sexual behavior.
This is what I know: 1.) Rush Limbaugh was addicted to OxyContin and took time off from the air to kick the addiction at a drug rehab facility. 2.) The drugs were prescribed by his physician. 3.) He was charged with doctor-shopping in order to get his stash. 4.) The charge was not proved. 5.) Limbaugh agreed to periodic checks for drugs in exchange for the prosecutor dropping the on-going effort to examine his medical records. 6.) Limbaugh has made this public and posted all of the minutiae on his web site. 7.) Limbaugh is a single male over 21. 8.) I know nothing of Limbaugh’s private sex life. 9.) He is hated by the loony left. 10.) If he had a recreational drug enhanced promiscuous sex life, it would be on the front page of every paper in the country. 11.) Did I miss that?
Yesterday, I attended a forum conducted by John O’Neal who is the Director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. His topic concerned the fact that any one posting a comment on a blog is subject to the laws of libel and slander. He also noted that using a “handle’ does not protect the person, as the host of the blog must provide the identification of the commenter. He noted that the comment is voluntary and there is no application of the”shield laws” that often protect reporters. There is a case currently in the courts of a commenter on a blog being sued for the slander in his comments. Dr. O’Neal, who is a former President of the University of Virginia and once clerked on the Supreme Court predicts that award asked in the case will not be upheld, but that the case itself will be.
Should Mr. Limbaugh wish to sue Mr. Greenwood, I am confident that he could and that he could cause Mr. Greenwood significant financial pain.
However, you are correct that if what Mr. Greenwood states is the unvarnished and provable truth, then he would probably escape punishment.
How is what Mike Rogers doing different than what Nifong did to the three Duke lacrosse players? All four men are being tried in the court of public opinion. Their innocence really doesn’t matter–their reputations are destroyed.
I have to respond to Heliotrope: slinging mud is when you accuse liberals of having no morals except those gleaned from the “UN Charter and group think at the cocktail bar.” I could argue that my morals are stronger and more deeply held than yours simply because mine didn’t come from just a book, but through life, experience, and most of all, the example of my family. My morals are strong, absolute and I abide by them because I know that the survival of myself, my family and my country rests on my abiding them.
I know, for instance, that killing is immoral. As is greed, avarice and deception. Torture is immoral. So is spending money one doesn’t have. I would choose not to elect any person to office who agreed with me on these things, but then once in office, voted to practice them.
The issue with Craig isn’t that he is gay. As you say, as long as he doesn’t involve us in his “stuff,” I don’t give a hoot what he does in his closet, er bedroom. Dems aren’t hypocrites for pointing out a gay man votes against the rights of gay citizens. But a gay man who does so is practically the definition of ‘hypocrite.’
Take an example: you say you have gay friends that, as long as they don’t invite you home for a little ‘agenda’ session, you’re OK with. Fine. But what if you have a dear old friend, someone you have known since school, who is gay but you don’t know? What if they have kept the closet shut to you for many many years, and the issue has just never come up between you? Then one day, your friend is very very sad. It turns out that this person’s partner, whom they had been living with for 35 years and whom they had married in Mass last year, had passed away. Worse still, your friend’s partner had worked for the Federal Government, and had a pension which now, because their marriage was not recognized as legally valid due to legislation voted for by Larry Craig, would not be going to your friend. So now your friend is nearing retirement with the prospect of destitution. What do you do? a)commiserate with your friend but tell them it’s their own fault for being an homosexual. b) never talk to your friend again fearing they will try and recruit you. c) help your friend out as much as you can, and protest this obvious injustice by petitioning your congressman to repeal this law.
My guess, based on your post, is that you’d fall somewhere between ‘a’ and ‘b.’ That is, you’d console your friend on their loss for an appropriate time while biting your tongue to the moral condemnation you feel in your heart to their ‘lifestyle.’ Then, the friendship would get wired because of this tension between what you say and feel. Eventually you’d imagine some sexual come-on and you’d break off contact never to hear from them again.
Of course, in your private heart, you will know that an injustice has occurred, but you will remind yourself that you are not perfect, and that your ‘trespass’ will be forgiven. Occasionally, you will remember to pray for the soul of your former friend.
I would choose ‘c’ as you have guessed, and for the reason that to do otherwise would be immoral. Morality is about survival and helping other people – your family, friends, strangers, the poor – survive too. That is the essence of the message of Jesus, if I recall correctly, also: Help those with less then yourself survive .
If we want to live in a world without hypocrisy we have two options. One we can all be perfect. Two have no standards and wallow in our own filth.
Now about acts of homosexuality, I treat it as the same category and fornication. It’s wrong, and damaging to individuals who practice it. Unless you outing all homosexuals, on some general principle. What you’re doing is the most degusting form political blackmail. You will support even my most extreme political positions such and sexual instruction and gay marriage or I will tell the world and your family about how you secretly find pleasure.
No matter what your views on homosexuality that kind of blackmail is evil.
LaShawn, with all due respect ( don’t you hate when someone says that? you know what’s coming…) I think you have got the question wrong. First off, even if someone were homosexual, that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to change the marriage laws or that they are convinced that homosexuality should be basis for qualifying for hate crime legislation. The first issue stance more likely than the second…since not all homosexuals are for gay marriage.
It doesn’t necessarily parlay into a person being a hypocrite, and anyone familiar with people who are homosexual know that they aren’t all cut from the same cloth- some accept, some flaunt, some struggle, with their sexual orientation. They’re people.heh. (..but you know that, and that isn’t quite the point you were making )
The fact is that religious people have gotten into the bad habit of letting someone jerk their chain- a chain they shouldn’t be entangled with in the first place- of focusing in on specific types of sin.
I agree with your understanding of scripture- God speaks unequivocally about homosexuality: it is sin to engage in it; but I don’t think we are applying that truth in the way that gives the whole truth on the subject.
“Let’s say this person goes to church secretly and shares the Gospel with strangers”
um. You mean like Nicodemus? Not that I think it was analogous, anyway.
I think you made it because you are working out the questions here, and I respect that, just don’t think it works logically given the fact that homosexuals are very different in their views on gay marriage. It is possible to have the subset of a homosexual against legislation changes in marriage laws, still be a practicing homosexual and not be a hypocrite.
I think there are lessons to be learned from all this, but it doesn’t seem like they are the ones being talked about.
Heliotrope:
“It’s not slander; that’s why it is protected by the First Amendment.”
First of all, “slander” refers to spoken words, not written ones. But let’s assume (for argument’s sake) that you meant “libel”.
Second of all, as to factual assertions, all Greenwald needs is a reasonable belief that what he says is true.
Third of all, as to non-factual assertions, matters of opinion are not subject to lawsuits of slander (or libel).
Now, it’s certainly reasonable to conclude that Rush uses recreational drugs, if one has the opinion (as I do) that Viagra counts as a “recreational drug”, and that Rush uses Viagra (one can reasonably conclude from recent news reports that Rush uses Viagra, even if he actually does not).
As for Rush being “wildly promiscuous”, this is a statement of opinion, which (as I said) cannot be the basis for slander (or libel). There is no subjective measure of what it means to be “promiscuous” (much less “wildly” so), so Greenwald’s opinion cannot be deemed “true” or “false”.
*****
ZIPLA writes:
“Even if I indulge in privately viewing pornography but will not ‘vote’ for the public viewing of pornography am I a hypocrite?”
That’s not a proper analogy.
As I understand it, Craig and some of these other “closeted gay” Republicans have made statements condemning homosexuality — not making any distinction between “public” and “private” homosexuality, but condemning it and its practitioners wholesale.
Now, in a free society, everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if a public figure makes use of his public office to take a stand against a certain practice, he ought to be sure he doesn’t participate in it himself.
****
I’m intrigued by LSB’s comment that being homosexual is not a sin, but practicing it is. Personally, I think neither is a sin, but that’s just my opinion.
The point is, I’ve never heard someone make that distinction before. I wonder if others on the religious right agree (and does the Bible make that distinction)? Anyway, I’m intrigued, and hope she’ll expand on this in some future post. I’d like to hear more.
“If we want to live in a world without hypocrisy we have two options. One we can all be perfect. Two have no standards and wallow in our own filth.”
There’s a third way.
How about we each try to live up to the standards we set for ourselves, and stop spending our time making OTHERS live up to our personal standards?
You know — live and let live?
Since a perfect world is impossible, and a standardless world is undesireable, this seems to be the only alternative. In fact, I thought it was the world we lived in.
Thanks for the response, Ilona. First, the problem with a blog post dealing with this issue is that it’s only a blog post, and there are so many different sides to the issue. I can’t possibly cover all sides of this issue; in fact, I wouldn’t even try. Paying work to do, bills to pay.
I am not saying nor would I ever say that a homosexual who is against redefining marriage is a hypocrite. That’s Mike Rogers’s view, not mine. Like it or not, some homosexuals believe other homosexuals who oppose “gay marriage” are hypocrites.
Second, the example of Nicodemus doesn’t quite fit with my example of the Christ-professing politician who calls other Christians crazy and threatens to sic the IRS on churches. Nicodemus was a Pharisees who obviously felt great pressure to keep his night visits with Jesus a secret. But this is a different place and time. People can worship whoever and whatever they want in America. In this day and age and in this country, Christians shouldn’t and don’t need to hide who they are. No one is going to stone us or be stoned by us.
Having said that, Christians can choose to be overtly Christian or not. Their walk is entirely their own. But if I found out that a persecutor of Christians was a closeted Christian, you better believe I’d out him or her. In a heartbeat.
“It is possible to have the subset of a homosexual against legislation changes in marriage laws, still be a practicing homosexual and not be a hypocrite.”
I doubt that.
Look, there are heterosexuals who are personally opposed to marriage. You know what they do? They don’t get married. I suspect that if a gay person was opposed to being married, he/she wouldn’t get married either.
But I can’t understand why any gay person would campaign against the OPTION to get married. The only reason they would campaign against it is for fear for their political career or of being exposed. But it wouldn’t be their true sentiment.
“The point is, I’ve never heard someone make that distinction before. I wonder if others on the religious right agree (and does the Bible make that distinction)? ”
Kman, this is exactly the distinction made in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It concedes people may be homosexual for whatever reasons, but that they are called to a life of chastity.
Personally, I don’t get too worked up about hypocrisy. What if a congressman were perfectly aware his constituents overwhelmingly opposed gay marriage? Is he wrong to follow their preferences rather than his own?
Last, I’m interested in people’s reaction to this question: what if it found that a politician who opposes abortion had his fiance get one 20-30 years ago? Does that make him a hypocrite now? Can he have a change of heart? Does he have to pubicly “come out” about it or is it enough to quietly decide that Roe v. Wade was wrong after all and become a sort of born-again prolifer?
It’s about to become more complicated. As people are probably aware, the Calif State Supreme Court just recently decided that the proposition that banned same sex marriage in California was not unconstitutional. Those who hoped it would be decided otherwise commented to the press that there were some 1200 federal laws/benefits etc that would be affected by the decisions. Congress is probably about to have it’s consciousness level raised.
http://tinyurl.com/y9nolz
#32 Kman…..Please do not tell me you are a lawyer!
You are not clear on libel and slander when it comes to how the courts are sorting out “comments” on blogs.
Rush Limbaugh’s luggage was searched when he flew in from the Dominican Republic. He was found to be carrying Viagra in a prescription that did not bear his name. This is neither illegal per se nor uncommon among the tabloid famous.
Pfizer’s labs in England developed Viagra for hypertension and angina. It was not very effective, but it had the effect of overwhelming penile dysfunction. Ergo: it was marketed as such.
However, Viagra is also prescribed for pulmonary arterial hypertension and Raynaud’s phenomenon. As the prescription Limbaugh carried was missing but one tablet, it is a good bet that he was not using Viagra for pulmonary arterial hypertension. That leaves the possibility that he used it alleviate an occurrence of Raynaud’s phenomenon or on one occasion for penile dysfunction.
Limbaugh claims that the pills were prescribed for a symptom other than penile dysfunction. You may believe him or not, based on your bias.
If he used the prescription for penile dysfunction, does this somehow make him a hypocrite who needs to be outed? What is the standard? Suppose John Kerry is in need of a little Viagra boost to face the lovely Teresa: is that a fact worthy of national attention?
I don’t care how militantly you trash Rush Limbaugh; just tell the truth and get your facts straight.
“If a person speaks out against laws, policies, lifestyles, etc., that you support and you find out he is doing the thing he speaks against, should you expose them as a hypocrite?”
LaShawn, this is not the issue at hand. Mike Rogers is “outing” and accusing Republicans of being gay because they are against gay marriage. Last time I checked, the Senator has never tried to get married to a man.
Contrary to popular belief, you can be gay and against gay “marriage”
My response to someone with a similar comment as yours:
“First, the problem with a blog post dealing with this issue is that it’s only a blog post, and there are so many different sides to the issue. I can’t possibly cover all sides of this issue; in fact, I wouldn’t even try. Paying work to do, bills to pay.
I am not saying nor would I ever say that a homosexual who is against redefining marriage is a hypocrite. That’s Mike Rogers’s view, not mine. Like it or not, some homosexuals believe other homosexuals who oppose “gay marriage†are hypocrites. ”
Additionally to you, SJ, though the post may not be clear, I am fully aware that not all homosexuals want to redefine marriage. You should visit Mike Rogers’s blog and tell him that. – Admin
I see a lot of questions concerning his personal views and voting against them. Well the last time I check he is the elected Representative of the people in his district. So it would seem to me that to do his job correctly he would cast his votes in the direction a majority of chis constitutes would vote. The problem and apparently the confusion is when politicians vote based on their personal views rather then the views of the voters they represent they are not doing the job they were elected to do. We seem to forget ( and sadly so do the politicians) that those elected are supposed to represent the wishes of the majority in their city/county/district/state/nation. From your local politicians through the White House that is the job they all should be doing. If the group you are supposed to represent are opposed to gay/lesbian rights then that is how you should vote (regardless of your personal opinions). If they support gay/lesbian rights then that is how you should vote. We seem to have lost sight of this very basic fact.
Now on the issue of “outing” sorry it is wrong..a persons private life is just that private. And as far as is it hypocritical to vote one way but believe another..not if that is the will of the majority of those you are elected to represent. I think it is more hypocritical to put your own personal agenda ahead of the agenda of those whom you represent. I will not get into the issue of homosexuality and rather it is a sin or not..because honestly I do not care..as long as it is a private issue between consenting adults…in the end they be judged by someone smarter then me by far.
And a quick note to KMan You need to understand their is a difference between personal morality and societal morality. A society has a right to set certain standards on what is acceptable and what is not. A totally hedonistic person may not have any moral standards he is still held to a code of behavior that the society in which he lives feels is acceptable. You may have no personal moral view against bestiality or child abuse or a myriad of other issues but the society in which you live does..so in order to be a part of that society you abide by those standards…and before you go there all societal standards are not necessarily laws but standards of behavior to which you abide in order to interact with the society around you.
I’d be leary of claims about Republicans being gay without substansive proof. While it does not seem to bother Democrats to have gay represenatives, it does seem to matter to Republicans. A good percentage of them simply won’t vote for an openly or known gay. To myself, being a fundametal Christian, it points to an inherant moral flaw. And the Democrats haved learned this and are simply using these accusations as a means or eroding Republican voter bases by making these charges. They know it is an factor that matters to us.
More political games. None of this has to do with ‘respecting’ or ‘hating’ people’s sexual orientation, privacy, or whatever. It is pure partisan politics.
I call nonsense and tabloid mentality.
To wit:
* Republican bloggers say that Democrats are all about ‘outing gays’ because of one Mike Rogers.
* Liberal bloggers say that Republicans support paedophiles because of one Mark Foley.
* Conservative bloggers (Ms Coulter??) say that Democrats are ruthless ‘gay-bashers’ because they criticize one Mark Foley’s predatory behaviour.
* Conservative bloggers (Ms Coulter??) fail to call Republicans ‘gay-bashers’ when they criticize one Mark Foley’s predatory behaviour.
* Some liberals say that most conservatives hate gays because of godhatesfags.com.
* Some Republicans say that most liberals are immoral for being supportive of homosexuality.
And on, and on, and on, and on. Similar partisan ‘games’ play out using ‘race’ in the same fashion.
Does anyone see that all this is just so much political point-scoring by way of propaganda, cheap spin and inflated egos?
we have to agree to tolerate differences of opinion and beliefs.
Nice, GT…so you think that tolerance means “acceptance”…BZZT! Wrong. It means putting up with something you don’t like, and that doesn’t include keeping your mouth shut about it.
I suggest you and the rest of your DIMocrat ilk learn the meanings of words before using them.
#44 JohnD asks: “Does anyone see that all this is just so much political point-scoring by way of propaganda, cheap spin and inflated egos?”
Everyone sees it. That is what this post is all about. It is at the core of much of LaShawn’s blogs. It is age old and found in every society. It is called dirty politics. We are consumed with it. We would love to see it stopped. We do not know how to do that.
Do you?
“We would love to see it stopped. We do not know how to do that.
Do you? ”
Heliotrope, before I would even attempt to answer such a question, who do you mean when you speak for ‘we’?
I assume that “we” refers to civilized society as a whole. Practitioners of dirty politics are not a part of this group.
“Practitioners of dirty politics are not a part of this group.”
Hi Redbeard, thanks for speaking up.
‘Dirty politics’ is rather a redundant phrase isn’t it!?
In the five years that I have reviewed/pored over the ‘blogosphere’, I still shake my head in great disbelief that people can support such partisan-propganda and demagoguery on BOTH sides of the stupid aisle. I tend to tune out as soon as I hear: “They are WORSE than US”
But what gives me enormous respect and confidence in humanity is that civilized/good people have the ability to *not* engage in the ignoble art of the demagogue.
Yet sad it is to view otherwise intelligent people ‘debate’ in such a fashion.
#45 is a timely example of the kind of talk to which I am referring. The commenter openly states that GT is not only ‘DIMocrat’ (Democrat=stupid, I was the flavour of this intelligent wordplay).
This first insult was then rounded out with further claims that GT was illiterate and did not undertsand the meaning of words (like other ‘DIMocrats).
These insults and generalizations are arguably designed to stymie any actual debate raised from GT’s points/questions, and then , of course, stymie outwards towards the perceived ‘liberalism’ of GT.
Scale up the same talk to a public platform and pay the pundit – and #45 becomes the Michael Moore, or Ann Coulter.
Et voila.
The only way to improve dirty politics that I can see is to have the merciless *integrity* to call it when you see it.
Especially (if you like partisan politics) in one’s own ‘ranks’. Especially that! of course, there are those who cannot see.
As Percy Garriss opines in ‘Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid’:
“Morons. I’ve got morons on my team”
Regards,
John
KMAN, in answer to your question at the end of your post, yes, the Bible and God does make the distinction that there is a difference between inclination and behavior. You are not responsible for who you are, be it sex, race, place of birth, etc. It is actions that are either sinful or not. The question of whether or not homosexual behavior is a sin is clearly answered in the Bible, but the Bible also says that God does not wish for anyone to perish. Anyone.
A good example of this is stealing. Someone may be predisposed to steal (Kleptomania, for example), that does not make it okay for them to steal, does it? Of course our modern culture would answer otherwise, but the Bible says you are without excuse for your actions. All we can claim is God’s promise for Grace through the work Christ did for us on the cross.
JohnD,
It’s not an insult, it’s the truth. Tolerance does not equate to acceptance, much as the DIMocrats would have you think otherwise.
Apparently you believe tolerance means acceptance?
Thanks for the response, La Shawn. I agree that a simple blog post is hard put to cover all aspects of a large issue, and we usually focus in on certain aspects of the case at hand. I still think my Nicodemus reference applies, mainly because I rarely accept “this is a different place and time” in arguments about what is ethical in a Biblical sense, but it isn’t fully on topic to pursue the argument. I see his functioning within the Pharisee community as the same type of situation.
You are right about the views within the homosexual community – some do feel that it is hypocritical to practice something you hate… but then that gets into a discussion on sin and how ppl deal with that. In your response, though, you say the word “persecution”. I guess I don’t see this happening in quite this way “But if I found out that a persecutor of Christians was a closeted Christian, you better believe I’d out him or her. In a heartbeat.”
The dynamic of tension is just too great to make that a real case scenario. If someone is a real Christian, has Christ indwelling them, they can’t be a persecutor of their own and I would probably argue that couldn’t long persecute anyone, it is inimical to the gospel. The closest thing I can come up, in light of your example, is the idea of Schindler of “Schindler’s List”. If a seeming oppressor is closeted in order to help the oppressed (in this case the sympathizer with Jews in the Nazi era)…would you “sure ‘out’ them”? I know it isn’t exactly the same, but this whole idea of ‘outing’ just smacks of political blackmail to me. The entire leverage system for it is squarely within the fact society and Christians are unfairly weighting homosexuality.
So what is the guys sin..that he is a practicing homosexual or that he votes on the side that many of us believe is the right side of the issue: to maintain marriage,etc? That is, if the whole ‘outing’ has any substantial truth to it. Does this mean that any congressman who votes for marriage integrity in law and society must also not be divorced? Where is our standard? Upholding what is right in its concept, or dismissing an issue by ad hominem?
The real question as you raise it here seems to be more on whether such a person, who appears to be hypocritical, is worthy of holding public office.
Not whether we would rationalize Mike Rogers actions, which is how it reads in my mind. If we answer the actual question I doubt we would empower howlers like Rogers who do commerce in peoples shame.
but I appreciate the attention you brought to the issue… you do a stand up job in all your hard work on the internet!
#49 JohnD rues the state of politics: “I still shake my head in great disbelief that people can support such partisan-propaganda and demagoguery on BOTH sides of the stupid aisle.”
OK. But there it is. So now what? Will you be the Joan of Arc in this turmoil and lead us out of the swamp?
Is there any reason to believe that opposing and equally criticizing both sides of the “stupid” aisle will lead anywhere?
I will posit this: I have read Michael Moore’s diatribes and I find his works full of lies and cheap misconstructions of logic. Likewise, I have read Ann Coulter’s works and find her tongue to be acerbic, her wit sardonic and her metaphors ironic. But I have not seen a lie or a willful misapplication of logic.
It is Moore who uses the tools of the demagogue. Coulter is just an old fashioned street brawler.
#52 and #54.
Yes you are right.
Thanks for your responses.
Heliotrope, are you kidding? You have not seen a lie by her or a willful misapplication of logic!!!! How abouther book:
Regarding the War On Terror, on page 5 and 6, Coulter makes the accusations that “[i]n lieu of a military response against terrorists abroad and security precautions at home, liberals wanted to get the whole thing over with and just throw conservatives in jail†and “[l]iberals hate America, they hate ‘flag-wavers,’ they hate abortion opponents, they hate all religions except Islam (post 9/11). Even Islamic terrorists don’t hate America like liberals do.â€
Two of the sources Coulter uses to arrive at these scurrilous conclusions are New York Times columns by Frank Rich and Bruce Ackerman. On page 5, Coulter writes, “New York Times columnist Frank Rich demanded that [Attorney General] Ashcroft stop monkeying around with Muslim terrorists and concentrate on anti-abortion extremists.â€
REALITY: I checked the column Coulter cited and found that nowhere in the column does Rich even remotely suggest that Ashcroft curtail efforts against Islamic terrorists. In fact, I checked every post-9/11 Times column by Rich and found that Rich has not made any such demands of Ashcroft. This is one of Coulter’s lies that I e-mailed to Alan Colmes who interviewed Coulter last night (6/25/02) on Fox News’s Hannity & Colmes show. Colmes confronted Coulter with this. Coulter’s response: “that is an accurate paraphrase…†(For a transcript of Coulter and Colmes’s exchange, check the addendum at the bottom of this post).
Also on page 5, Coulter writes: “Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman recommended dropping the war against global terrorism (‘declare war at the first at the first decent opportunity’!) and instead concentrate on ‘home-grown extremists.’â€
REALITY: In the column Coulter cited, Ackerman does not advocate concentrating on domestic terrorists (as opposed to foreign-born terrorists, who are the focus of the column). In fact, Ackerman only mentions “home-grown extremists†in passing (“And I do not deny that other attacks may well occur — perhaps committed by home-grown extremists.â€)
These distortions of New York Times columns by Coulter are all the more incredible because listed in the Acknowledgements section, in her list of “long-suffering friends who give me ideas and editing advice, which I habitually ignore,†Coulter includes Frank Bruni, New York Times writer. It made me wonder: why didn’t Bruni catch the way in which Coulter blatantly misrepresents two columns that appear in his own newspaper?
The issues run much deeper. Page five is instructive not only because it illustrates how Coulter grossly caricatures the words of political opponents to make them appear irresponsible but also how she misrepresents the words of political allies to make them appear more acceptable. Notice how Coulter characterizes the words of Jerry Falwell regarding his infamous statements following the 9/11 attacks: “In the wake of an attack on America committed by crazed fundamentalist Muslims, Walter Cronkite denounced Jerry Falwell. Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty. Cronkite proclaimed such a statement ‘the most abominable thing I’ve ever heard.’â€
REALITY: Note how Coulter’s description (“Falwell, it seems, had remarked that gay marriage and abortion on demand may not have warmed the heart of the Almightyâ€) does not come close to accurately describing Falwell’s comments. First, Falwell doesn’t even address the issue of gay marriage, only “the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle.†Second, Falwell’s diatribe goes way beyond remarking that the activities described “may not have warmed the heart of the Almighty.†Falwell lists divergent groups (the ACLU, People for the American Way, pagans, homosexuals, abortionists, and secularists) and clearly lays partial blame on them for the 9/11 attacks.
Coulter goes on in her criticism of Cronkite’s condemnation of Falwell’s statements: “Showing his renowned dispassion and critical thinking, this Martha’s Vineyard millionaire [Cronkite] commented that Falwell was ‘worshipping the same God as the people who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.’ (the difference being liberals urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists). Indeed an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect. Heretofore liberals deemed voluntary prayers at high school football games a direct assault on the Constitution. But it was of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion.â€
REALITY: Slander contains over thirty-five pages of endnotes, but Coulter gives no support to these vituperative accusations. Apparently, Coulter couldn’t find a quotation from a member of the left, not even a fringe character like Noam Chomsky, to support her contention that one liberal—much less liberals in general “urged compassion and understanding toward the terrorists.†Similarly, Coulter’s outrageous statement that “an attack on America by fanatical Muslims had finally provided liberals with a religion they could respect†is nothing more than a groundless smear. This statement assumes: 1) That prior to 9/11, liberals didn’t respect religion; and 2) The one religion that liberals finally decide to respect is the religion of extremists who committed a horrific terror attack that killed close to 3000 people. Again, Coulter provides no examples of a single liberal who hated religion prior to 9/11 and then who embraced radical Islam after 9/11.
In addition, as someone trained in law, Coulter should know that it is pure sophistry to compare opposition to mandated sectarian activity in public schools with the religious rights of prisoners. Again, Coulter gives no example of liberals who thought it was “of urgent importance that Islamic terrorists being held in Guantanamo be free to practice their religion.â€
“Is there any reason to believe that opposing and equally criticizing both sides of the “stupid†aisle will lead anywhere?”
Actually, I must disagree with the above (skewed) framing of my point.
Nowhere did I suggest doing that, it would be ridiculous. There may be more demagogues on oone side than an other, there may not be, that’s a case for someone with maybe too much time on their hands. My point was the universal failure to call out dishonesty and dirty tactics in one’s own perceived ranks.
Your deliberate mangling of my point, and frankly nonsensical ‘Joan of Arc’ barb/insult, is part of what I’m talking about.
A better analogy would be a fundamentalist Christan who portrays themselves as a liberal democrat and supporting abortion.
Not everyone in the gay community supports the outing. The gay groups have been taken over by leftists that are supported by George Soros.
La Shawn, thank you for your clarification in Update II. I quote what you said in a post of my own.
>>The gay groups have been taken over by leftists that are supported by George Soros.>>
The leftists – communists of yore – have made it a practice to co-opt every politically active group they can whenever possible. Watch for it in _any_ politically active group, no matter how remote the likelihood that its original intent can be linked to Communism. They are like a virus that invades a cell and turns it into a cancer… It’s the activism they feed upon…
#60 “Watch for it in _any_ politically active group, no matter how remote the likelihood that its original intent can be linked to Communism”
Suek, do you really mean “any” politically active group?
How about:
http://www.libertarianrock.com/
http://cofcc.org
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/
http://www.libertarian-international.org/
http://www.protestwarrior.com/
http://www.ios.org/
http://www.lanuf.org
http://www.advanceamerica.com/
http://www.lp.org/
There are thousands more, but surely just a handful is proof enough? Not in our wildest dreams are _any_ politically active groups original intents linked to communism, that’s ridiculous?! Have you considered that you only list the one’s you don’t like? In the same way as an extreme leftist might only list the far-right-wing/Christian coalition or Nationalist websites as proof of the marching hordes of supremacists and theocrats?
Neither would be a true picture, and I reckon it’s dishonest to portray it so.
Regards,
JohnD
Comments on this entry are closed.