Hi again, AAA. I see you may be slipping a bit, into the level that you are surely better than. Both sides are too darn quick to jump on the flagrant disregards for others as displayed by both "sides". Haggard = bad. "homosexual prostitute" = bad (but who is "worse"?). And, to be fair, don't you think the unbridled attack on Clinton doing legal (yet reprehensible) activity was a bit much for what you call "private sexual activity"? These guys who use the clergy as a place for the persecution of others, and then get caught doing the same thing they are so violently against, is just not good, Rep or Dem, that's how I see it. "Those who live in glass houses...." comes to mind this time. c
I fully understand the issues here. A preacher caught with his pants down will always be a lead story for the mainstream media. I'm not defending him. I'm only pointing out how quickly liberals are able to shed their supposed core values when it suits them. Here is a man doing what liberals celebrate, taking drugs and having homo sex, and they attack him relentlessly. Clinton was disgracing the Oval office but that was no one's business. He lied to a federal court in a case where he was the defendant. Others go to jail for that. With him, we got lectures that it was his private business, and that Ken Star was a ridiculous blue-nose prude for bringing it up. Now let's consider the Democrats' hero in this affair. He is by his own account a drug dealing homo prostitute. He entrapped a preacher and revealed their secret life in a deliberate effort to destroy and humiliate him. Democrats are delighted with him. I remember a woman named Linda Tripp, to whom Monica Lewinsky revealed her affair with Bill. Lewinsky passed it on to reporters. She was hounded relentlessly by the media and activists, threatened, basically lost her government job, was reviled endlessly and became the most hated woman in America, at least among Democrats. I'm trying to find some consistency here and all I can see is political opportunism of the rawest order.
I don't think Liberals celebrate these two activities at all, and I am sure you don't either and have only said this for its sensationalist value. I don't know why you feel the need to attack those on the other side of the aisle as they attack those whom you are "not defending" However, isn't it interesting that the only people in leadership positions that have had their morally hypocritical lifestyles outed are conservative politicians and evangelicals, two bedrock constituencies of the current Republican party.
... Here is a man doing what liberals celebrate, taking drugs and having homo sex, Now, come on AAA, isn't that a bit over the top? c
Well this episode proves it ... nothing ruinous and self-destructive about gay sex. Especially when involving married men and meth. How dare anyone speak out against it! Another victory for the Democrats in the culture wars! VOTE PELOSI, The "Tolerant!" !!!
Hi steve So would you say that it is homosexuality that makes him a slimy bastard, devoid of character, and essentially a con artist? Or would you say it's mainly his drug use that makes him a slimy bastard, devoid of character, and essentially a con artist. Or, would you say that neither activity alone makes him a slimy bastard, devoid of character, and essentially a con artist, but that taken together, the two behaviours make him a slimy bastard, devoid of character, and essentially a con artist? If it is the latter, which activity contributes more to making him a slimy bastard, devoid of character, and essentially a con artist? Or would you say they contribute equally? btw... nice to have you back!
Disappointed in you, AAA. You know full well the difference between celebrating a behaviour and fighting for the right for a free individual to engage in that behaviour, regardless of what you might personally think about it. Kind of like free speech, right? I might not agree with Pabst and spect-hater who think that all blacks should be put in a 'black camp' and made to live separately from the rest of society, but I will fight for their right to state their muddled opinions. You seem to be going off level a bit these days. I was very disappointed when you conveniently forgot to respond to the post I made which highlighted the fact that you accused liberals of moral superiority in one post and then a few posts later, condemned certain legal, unharmful activities as 'immoral'. You seek to portray yourself as being a cut above the frothing, spewing bigots on the right. This post doesn't serve you well. By the way... there was a debate up here in Canada recently over whether Sikh RCMP officers should be allowed to wear turbans on the job. I am fully against it. So please don't lump me in with the PC multi-culti culture-of-victimization lefties.
Sorry if I didn't respond to your post, I do recall it. So much confusion here and so little time to address it all. LOL. I'm not sure I see an actual contradiction in accusing liberals of "moral superiority" and then calling something immoral myself. I think a lot of this gets swept up in the whole debate about tolerance, the Christian imperative of foregiveness and the ability to make moral judgments. In Christian circles, they talk of hating the sin but loving the sinner. I'm not sure that message gets through to the secular people too well. Basically, the concept is that you can label something as sin, but you have to recognize that we all are less than perfect and susceptible to error. We can say homosexuality is a sin, which makes liberals crazed with righteous indignation, but you have to realize that working on Sunday is also a sin, as is using the Lord's name in vain and a host of other things spelled out in the Bible. Christians are not saying anyone who does any of those things is a POS, only that their conduct is not in accordance with the Bible. Liberals , it seems to me, get this exactly backwards. They are puffed up with moral superiority, ever ready to lecture others about their moral shortcomings if they differ with liberals on pet issues. At the same time, they have a whole host of issues that, in the name of tolerance, they refuse to take a position on or worse yet, condone inappropriate behavior. I know a lot of Christians come across as full of supposed moral superiority themselves, and that fact accounts for a lot of the flack they receive. They are just was wrong as the liberals I criticized. A true Christian is extremely humble, because they realize that they are fully capable of doing something like Pastor Haggard did.
There is no problem with anyone making moral judgment about their own life. Where the problem comes is when sanctimonious types make moral judgments about the lives of others, then gets caught doing the same damn thing... Agree that true Christians are humble, and devote their life to dealing with the logs in their own eyes, and let God take care of the specs of dust in others... That is not what we see at the forefront of the Evangelical movements though... Face it, the Right wing Christians are not about "Live and let live" they are about telling others how they should live...