Mark Sanford v. Elliot Spitzer- the Hypocrisy (and faith) Factor
Friday June 26, 2009
Categories: Evangelicals, Homosexuality
Alec Baldwin wants me to move on and not pay attention to the Mark Sanford fandango. I basically agree. But over the last couple of days I have been wondering why the Mark Sanford affair rankles me more than, say,...
Filed Under: deep faith Mark Sanford, Elliot Spitzer, faith and hypocrisy, Sanford, Sanford affair, Ted Haggard
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
About Progressive Revival
Diana Butler Bass and Paul Raushenbush both stand firmly within the Mainline Protestant tradition and, along with guest bloggers of all religious backgrounds are dedicated to the revival of religious progressivism and its influence in American politics.
Contributors
Diana Butler BassDiana Butler Bass is a commentator and scholar in American religion. She is the author of seven books including A People's History of Christianity: The Other Side of the Story (HarperOne, 2009).
» Posts by Diana Butler Bass
Paul RaushenbushModerator of the Progressive Revival blog and the Associate Dean of Religious Life at Princeton University.
» Posts by Paul Raushenbush
Subscribe
Recent Posts
Most Popular Posts
- Psalm 109:8--A Prayer for Obama or Ourselves?:
- New Catholic Hardball: Trading the Poor for Doctrinal Purity:
- The Fort Hood Shootings and the White Privilege of Disassociation :
- The Stupak Amendment and why the Post Card Campaign would make it easy to Hate Catholics Right Now:
- Election 2009 Mixed Blessings:
- Burn In Hell Halloween:
- Pro-Football, Injury, and Clear Christian Conscience :
- All Saints Day: A Progressive Call to Remember:
- Halloween 2009 vs All Saints Day (Eternally):
- Sarah Palin - Flawed, Human:
I think that the two of them are equally flagrant examples of hypocrasy, given that Spitzer had spent a good deal of his career bringing down not only prostitution rings, but being very aggressive in going after their clients. He was also "Mr Clean", the anti-corruption guy. For him to be brought down for spending huge amounts of money on a high class call girl while on public business is anathema to everything that he was professing to fight against in the name of the public interest. Both of them (Spitzer and Sanford) were brought down particularly because of the non-practicing of what they were preaching to others.
I was more disappointed with Spitzer because I was, and still am, a fan of many of the things that he accomplished in other areas.
In the last few years I have become more aware of the dualism that most Christians in this country, and especially in the South, live with. The dualism is holding the right beliefs and saying the right words without seeing that faith is about God's transforming grace more than our belief systems. In my experience such as crisis as these men are going through is what is necessary to shatters their protective belief systems and open them up to God's grace as life transforming. Churches would serve the gospel far better, and their members, if leadership emphasized the radical teachings of Jesus, rather than domesticating him. The could also come closer to being the body of Christ if they focused more on what is found in the different ways of living the contemplative live.
OK - just so I have this straight now. My 24 year partnership - the last four years in legal marriage (my country recognizes gays as human, in contrast to the situation in the US) is an abomination before God because of our monogamous, true, loving and committed partnership. Can't have gays committing to one another.
This pig, however, can go around spending tax payers' money to boink any woman he cares to and according to crunchycon and the other christianists, it's just us liberals being unfair and judgmental to point fingers at him?
So, OK, got it - as long as you're a Bible-thumping Christian, you can screw anything in a skirt, cheat on your wife and be a pig, no problem, God loves you and forgives you. If you are true to your partner and are gay or transgender, God hates you.
Glad we got that cleared up.
"I was more disappointed with Spitzer because I was, and still am, a fan of many of the things that he accomplished in other areas."
I completely agree. I realize that Sanford must have been a tormentor of others, but for me, I had never heard of him until now. For me he is and was a nobody. I wish it could be true for everyone else.
However, I fully appreciated what Spitzer, whatever his motives, was doing in financial corruption cases. I wish we had an army of motivated financial prosecutors. I was disheartened when Spitzer went down.
Hmmm, I just had a thought.
If marriage is defined by the state as the union between one man and one woman, does the state "unmarry" or declare a mis-marriage, or dissolve the existing marriage when one of the married spouses introduces an external spouse? (Spell it out: being unfaithful, yknow it a sexual sort of way).
So is it the state's responsibility to unilaterally declare a mis-marriage in this event? Not that the couple could not seek refuge in the legal context of civil union going forward. But as for marriage, if the religious right were consistent, we would have the state instantly void a marriage right then and there when someone was caught in the act. Or, if Jesus were really being followed, the marriage would be void by the mere thought of adultery.
From the original post:
>And it is, of course, because
>of Sanford's hypocracy.
>Mark Sanford has made a career of
>moralizing against other people.
This does not make Sanford a hypocrite and, evidently, you do not understand the meaning of the word 'hypocracy'. Hypocracy is the act of saying what is wrong for you is OK for me. This is not what Sanford or Spitzer professed. When caught, both admitted that their actions were immoral nowhere did either of them even hint that it was OK for them to behave this way, but not for others.
Like so many of us, these men are simply failed human beings.
Bill Clinton was probably as close to hypocracy as one can get without actually crossing over the line. His justification of his act on the basis of the definition of 'is' and/or the claim of his supporters that oral sex did not rise to adultery is close. Still, I do not view President Clinton as a hypocrite. Like Spitzer, Sanford, and so many others, they are failed, sinful members of fallen humanity. In this, they exemplify us all.
Cheers,
Michael
Michael,
After that charming little apologia for this pig and the other christianists who deny me human status in the US, perhaps you have time to comment on the distinction between lies of omission and commission?
Had Sanford not made such a point of imposing his hateful, spiteful nastiness on other people, I doubt you would find this level of commentary on him.
To the great shock and surprise of the christianists, we have had it with their lies and perversions of justice. Now that the Bush dictatorship is past, I think you will find many more people speaking out when one of the mullahs is caught with his pants down.
This is a good thing.
From Webster's Dictionary:
1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not ; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Fits Gov Sanford pretty well in thus case. Of course it has a lot to do with his reaction to his own failures not matching what he's called for with others who committ the very same act.
hypocrite
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
Actually, I have a name. I don't always enter it in after I edit.
Your choice of the word "gloat" leaves me to believe, less compassion, and decernment was used in this article, than judgement.
Ellie Dee,
I think it is more a case of the righteous judging righteously.
Oh, right - I forgot - only fundacrites get to pass judgment on others.
In all seriousness, it is always the same game - whether, to name but a very select few - Vitter or Ensign or Sanford: First, we get the "Ah have sinned again' the Lawd, but He hath fuhgiven me, 'cause Ah'm a gen-u-whine Christin man.
Then we get: Mah wifey stands by me, come up onna stage dahlin', let them see yo' pretty face.
Next, the poor woman - who really wishes the earth would just open and swallow the jerk and his adultress du jour - has to say how much this has really strengthened their marriage.
Finally, conservative Christians pronounce it all "forgiven and forgotten and, anyway, BILL CLINTON was much worse...
The next one's just around the corner, no doubt we'll see the usual absurd theater played out once again before the summer is out.
OK, I can't wait to hear the conservative Christians defend him after today.
We should keep him as governor to demonstrate repentance to his four kids?
How many women was he sleeping with?
Heaven's above, at this point I so do not think we will need to fight over the question of his hypocrisy...just over his STD status...
Is the reason conservative Christians opposed gays having monogamous marriages simply this: Incapable of anything but adultery (serial adultery?), they see monogamy as a perversion?
Would explain alot....
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.