Oh the fundies and their biblical rolemodels. Gov Sanford is now looking to the great King David, adulterer, murderer, slaughterer of nations, and a “man after God’s own heart” as his new role model.
According to the Bible, King David committed adultery with Bathsheba and she conceived. David brought her husband back from war to sleep with his wife. But he wouldn’t, because the other soldier’s couldn’t sleep with their wives and he didn’t think it was fair. So David sent Uriah back to war with a note that he should be put on the frontline to be killed.
God wasn’t happy with David’s murder, so he confronted him about it. David said he was sorry, but that wasn’t good enough for God. So in his magnificent greatness, he murdered David’s new child. And David moved on to serve his great God by slaughtering other nations.
Anyway, with that context in mind, here’s Gov Sanford explaining why he won’t resign:
I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there.
I remain committed to rebuilding the trust that has been committed to me over the next 18 months, and it is my hope that I am able to follow the example set by David in the Bible — who after his fall from grace humbly refocused on the work at hand. By doing so, I will ultimately better serve in every area of my life, and I am committed to doing so.
Gov Sanford, you’re a hypocrite who’s only sorry he got caught. If you weren’t a Bible-thumper and were not using public funds to pay for your fling, then I’d say it was none of our business. But you’re on a political platform and in a religion where you think you are better and more moral than secular folks. Thanks for showing, like so many of your comrades, that’s your position is a bunch of bullshit.
You broke a legal contract with your wife. You stole government money to pay for your infidelity. You lied to your family, your staff, your government, and your voters.
Yet you won’t resign, because a storybook says a barbarian named King David didn’t resign when he killed an honorable man?
You, sir, are pathetic.
Erp: Interesting. Many years ago I helped my aunt sort out some of her late mother-in-law’s... 
Peter Cross: The Age of Reason is sometimes published and sold without Part 3: Examination of the... 
Mark D: Let Ed sell his plane and give the money to the Red Cross 
nomad: You’d love it, Custador. It looks and tastes just like it sounds. Nomnom. 
Matt: I find it very interesting that there are so many people out there with such sad lives as to sit... 
Tyrrlin: Wow… I’d like to buy apostrophes for most of those commenters. Apparently belief in a... 
Mathurine: I’m not so sure that they wouldn’t have. The father in the case is... 
JonJon: I agree. 
81 Comments
Southern Reichpublican stance on everything: It’s wrong if other people are doing it. If they do it, find a biblical way to apologise.
well he’s a sinner just like the rest of us…
vomit.
Exactly. “It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.” Plenty of other persons, including politicians, have succumbed to marital infidelity. But Sanford, like many other Republicans, took positions and made comments about Bill Clinton’s scandal, and Sanford, like so many other Republicans, talks about the “sanctity of marriage” while opposing gay marriage.
If it were another man, could you imagine the scandal? He would be forced to step down. But because it’s a woman, it’s acceptable.
Larry Craig said he was resigning, then took it back. He served the last two years of his term then didn’t run for re-election.
Even if there were no infidelity involved, and everything is legal, they would be calling for his resignation — i.e. Portland mayor Sam Adams.
I loathe the Republitards. I like what Bill Mahr said. That over the past fifty years, the democrates have moved center-right, and the Republicans have moved into the nuthouse.
Unbelievable. How such people get elected to preside over anything more important than a public restroom is beyond me. In my German city, there are a few splinter parties which never get elected because they’re complete nuts and morons, or both – but any of them is sane and well adjusted in comparison to some of the people who become governors and senators in the US.
“How such people get elected to preside over anything more important than a public restroom is beyond me.”
Ha ha, it’s a Larry Craig reference!
pure coincidence I assure you. But very funny now that you point it out. My subconscious knowledge may have made the association. Fascinating thing, this brain stuff.
America- leading the free world in demogoguery and hypocrisy.
I would say it was what he claimed was his religious belief that got him elected not what kind of person he was. Most of my family will only vote for ones they feel present themselves as the best chrisitan not who will do the best for whatever position they are running for.
I never understood why Christians think King David is some sort of role model. If anything, he is an example to avoid. He was okay before he was king, but once he became king he was a total disaster. He would screw up, people would die, he would tell God he was sorry. And that cycle just kept repeating. I think Israel would have been better off if King David had less faith and more brains.
I guess it may not have been so bad for King David, but he sure made things difficult for everybody else. Proof, in my opinion, that even though Christians say their religion is about God, God, God, it’s really all about ME ME ME.
Doesn’t matter. King David was glorified in the Bible (or in subsequent interpretations of it), so his exemplary status is automatically assumed. And he was powerful. Christians like a strong leader.
When I was in seminary, my Hebrew Bible professor asked the class what we thought of David (this came after we had read about his many, many, MANY whoredoms) and I said, “I think he was a bisexual whore.” (I’m not saying all bisexuals are whores…just this one)
I didn’t know you were ever in seminary? What denomination? (assuming you don’t mind disclosing. If you do, no worries).
With respect to the David issue, I think some fair points have been made.One area where it gets complicated is that there seem to be at least two distinct set of traditions about David, both of which got mashed together by an anonymous redactor. One set comes from the Northern Kingdom and is fairly negative in its descriptions of David. The other is from the Southern Kingdom and is fairly positive in its descriptions of David (i.e., man after God’s heart…). Hence, David as we see him in the Bible.
Add to which the fact that there is little actual evidence that David, if he even existed, wasn’t just a minor war chieftain of a very minor people at the time.
The biblical accounts make him out to be one of the most powerful and important kings of his time, and the terror of all the kingdoms round about. Oddly, those other kingdoms seem to have failed to notice or write down anything about his awesome majesty. :)
Ty, come on! Don’t you know that if it’s in the Bible, it’s utterly, completely TRUE? I mean, so what that no other kingdom of the period has any record of this super major king who was all that and a room of concubines? Gosh, what do you want, Ty, historical accuracy? ;-)
The Egyptians failed to write anything about all these miracles Moses was doing and a whole nation of slaves leaving the country. Are you in anyway suggesting that the exodus of the Isrealites is not an undisputble historical fact.
What? No it’s not. The fact that there is no Egyptian record of the exodus is fairly strong evidence that it didn’t happen. The only sources are the Old Testament and some questionable support from Josephus.
Oh come on, that’s becuase god wanted to test your faith. It’s in the Bible so it must be your interpretation of the evidence that is incorrect.
Please save my state from this idiot. I can’t believe more of the people in SC aren’t up in arms and demanding he resign, but I probably shouldn’t be. After all, he’s a god-fearing man. This is a red state and they will vote Repub no matter who’s running.
I don’t think he fears God at all — he fears voters. Just another slimy politician.
No no noooo, Debbie! That would leave Andre Bauer in charge! Thinnnnnk!
a fellow SCian
I hear that this Andre Bauer is a moron even dumber than Sanford. I’m a recent transplant to the state, so I know nothing of this Bauer.
I’m just as numb to it as you are. I would have actually been surprised if anything substantial had come of it. And if you look at the scandal in its entirety, the only reason it got as much press as it did is because his fellow Republicans in the state senate refused to cover for him because he stepped on too many toes in the federal stimulus debacle.
another SCian
“The Devil Made Him Do It.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_us/us_sc_governor_spiritual_boot_camp
Didn’t Rush Limbaugh claim Obama made him do it?
Yes.
Seriously?!
Srsly.
Limbaugh On The Sanford Affair: It’s Obama’s Fault!
Wow, that’s mind-bendingly stupid.
So THAT’S what ’stimulus money’ means.
Wow! This is soooooooo low. Hypocrisy in its best.
By his logic Hitler should not have been brought to justice, I mean, god committed genocide with a flood, so the Holocaust was cool, right?
Do as God says, not as he does. And do as David does, not as he says. And do as Jesus says, not as he does when he is who he says he is, which is who he was when he said to do as he said not as he did.
GOT IT?
I share your anger, Daniel.
This comment confused me, though:
If you weren’t a Bible-thumper and were not using public funds to pay for your fling, then I’d say it was none of our business.
I remember this argument when Clinton got caught with his pants down. It’s his marriage and his sex life; why should we care?
My opinion has always been this: If you can’t keep the promise you made to your spouse — the person you supposedly love and prefer more than anyone else — then why should I believe that you will keep the promise that you made to me when you promised to serve and defend your country — which is made up of millions of strangers you know nothing about?
Therefore, in my view, adultery is always a reason to question a politician, bible-thumper or not (but especially a bible-thumper), because it’s an issue of personal integrity.
Historically, it seems to make no difference. Adultery is very common, unfortunately. And men who do not commit adultery can have other faults.
I don’t disagree at all.
What’s striking to me, however, is the parallel between the vow to one’s spouse and the oath to office. If one is prone to break the former, why should we have confidence that he can keep the latter?
In my view, that makes the “it’s his business” argument hard to grasp.
It’s of course more complicated than that. If you know a man who is not the president or in any political position, you know, maybe he sells cars, maybe he sold you yours. Can you automatically assume he is a bad person through and through? That depends on your morals, I guess, and the cultural stereotype of car salesmen being less than honest anyway. When you were in the market for a car and did the research and concluded to buy a certain car from this man, did you get the feeling he probably cheats on his wife?
How much correlation does adultery have to the rest of someone’s personal and business dealings? Inasmuch as political officers hold their positions because and only because (in an ideal world) we voted for them to be responsible with the government on our behalf, so too when we enter into smaller business dealings have to come to a point where the car dealer is doing a decent job of demonstrating why you should buy their car and not someone else’s and dismiss any concern over their extramarital activities. Unless this is a deal-breaker, and you’re going around from lot to lot getting the personal moral judgments out of the way so you can buy a car from whoever what make and model doesn’t concern you least of all the price, so long as he’s faithful to his wife.
If it came out during the transaction instead and you backed off signing the contract, I mean if it made you feel icky and somehow condoned his behavior, that’s your prerogative, but it’s also a little stupid and hypocritical. If you found out he sold you a lot of junk add-ons to spiff out his commission on the low base price so he could take his mistress on a wild vacation or buy her some room service and massages at a slick hotel, you’d have a good reason to be sour on the deal, but I don’t pretend to think everybody is perfect and that always one breach that doesn’t affect me indicates other breaches that do. They might, and we might want to look at the rest of the story just to make sure, but it’s a leap to relate a personal affair to the way a person performs their job.
Can you automatically assume he is a bad person through and through?
I wouldn’t say someone is a bad person through and through for one mistake. Absolutely not.
How much correlation does adultery have to the rest of someone’s personal and business dealings?
Well, that depends on person to person, obviously. My point is a very specific one, though, because of the similarities between the vows of marriage and the oath of office.
Marriage vows: “I promise to X, Y, X, and be faithful to you, until death separates us” (or something like that).
Oath of Office: “I promise to X, Y, Z, and to uphold the constitution and serve and protect the citizens…” (or something like that).
Both of those promises are very, very weighty promises to make. And, if it’s easy for him to break the former weighty promise (obviously it is), then I think it should give us pause about whether or not he’s serious about the latter.
(which in this case, he seems to be more concerned about appeasing voters and saving his skin).
Anyway, I hear your point. One mistake doesn’t mean throw in the towel on the guy; I understand that. But the parallels between marriage vows and the oath of office are so striking to me that it gives me pause.
It’s a ceremonial construct. I’m not saying it’s not serious, but you are or seem to be confronting situations where people swear on bibles basically in a different cart than legal contracts or just being a moral person (whatever you think that might add up to).
The pomp and circumstance doesn’t really affect…. I don’t think it does. I guess some people do it because it’s an extra-fancy ritual that they choose to participate in, or in the case of swearing in the president, they don’t always have time to make a big party out of it and do it in a private office or an airplane. You don’t have to march across a stage to receive a legitimate degree. The ritual is to honor the peaceful transfer of the presidency and not so much, as you can tell when President Obama and CJ Roberts messed up the words, the oathity oath oath oath. To appease a lot of people who think it is the oath, he went over it again a few days later without the mistakes.
I don’t think people get married always thinking they’ll have affairs, maybe it’s a given, maybe it’s custom where they live or at their economic status, maybe it’s something they get tempted to do later, maybe it’s fun, maybe it’s more real to them than their marriage (some marriages are for show, did you know that?). I cannot get in their head and say why they broke the vows. I don’t deliberately assume because it was on a bible, and I think this is where we’re stuck, that they are in a similar position with respect to god- when they break one oath, might as well break them all.
The silly thing is where this is even required or presumed to be the case, that well if you cheat on your wife, you promised god you wouldn’t so it’s more serious than cheating on your girlfriend whom you promised. People who are dating do not dismiss affairs because they didn’t take an oath, they just decide whether that pattern is something they can abide or not and marry or part.
I don’t think taking an oath to office is like, because it’s god you’re almost always going to see someone swearing to, it’s more serious a promise. It’s more serious a position than being a landlord or a busdriver (is it really, I mean the president might screw up but he’s not running red lights at 60mph at night in the rain with you on board for a measly fare, like some busdrivers). I digress (as usual).
I think the oath is imaginary, god is imaginary. People make promises they break, it doesn’t mean they are in mind to break all of them or even most of them. They make promises to themselves, or promise verbally or silently, without contract or legal ramifications to their employer or their friend or strangers in their neighborhood that they take as seriously as a promise to god on a stack of bibles. Because not everyone is a good person, the legal system developed and some archaic rituals are retained for public protection and consumption in some pertinent roles in society. If you feel screwed over, you have recourse. Bill Clinton did not by his marital affair screw you over or break his oath of office. I don’t live in SC, so did this guy take my money? No. But I feel that the system should demonstrate an unwillingness to put up with that level of corruption. I don’t care if he had a girlfriend.
It’s a ceremonial construct. I’m not saying it’s not serious, but you are or seem to be confronting situations where people swear on bibles basically in a different cart than legal contracts or just being a moral person (whatever you think that might add up to).
Kodie, with respect, I said nothing about bibles, god, or the like. I never even hinted at it.
I’m only highlighting the paralel between the oath of office and the marriage vow because they are the two promises in question. A married politician broke his wedding vows (promises to his wife). He also made a promise to the citizens of SC (the oath of office). Whether or not he swore on a bible or to god doesn’t affect the merit of the argument, even if I did interject that into the conversation — which I didn’t.
One doesn’t need god or the bible in order for both of those promises to be weighty. In other words, rejecting god as imaginary, as you did in your argument above, doesn’t mean the oath to office or the promise one made to one’s spouse are 1) not important/weighty or 2) unrelated.
The argument I’ve been making is that if someone can easily break a promise to one’s spouse (NOT god), then why would we think it’s difficult for that person to break his promise to us?
Again, breaking the former doesn’t inevitably mean one will break the latter. But we should stop and think about it, right? That’s the crux of what I’m saying.
I don’t know what to make of the marriage relationship now. It’s a contract, you sign it and submit it to the office of your state government for public record. It confers rights and obligations. The words you say, and you are saying, ok, the president or some politician is only as good as his word now. And if he lies once, to someone who isn’t me, it stands subject to investigation that he might have lied in some way that affects my confidence in his ability to lead me.
Let me get this straight again. I promised my landlord, I would pay him a certain amount every month to live here and be respectful of my neighbors and the property, while he promises that not only will I get a place to live, he’s allowing my cat to live here as well, and generally promises his policy applies to all tenants, so they may have pets and also not disturb my peace. Yadda yadda repairs, may not install a waterbed or dishwasher, gotcha. That’s kind of serious. I agreed to the conditions, he agreed to the conditions. That’s a kind of promise I take seriously. But he cheats on his wife. (I am projecting a scenario). Do I think he’ll suck as a landlord? If he sucks as a landlord, do I think he probably cheats on his wife? I don’t always pay my rent on time and I like to sleep during the day and watch tv all night and maybe vacuum a little. Does he think I probably cheat on my boyfriend because my behavior is not to the letter of the lease?
I think just because you get married for some reason, you are a public case for judgment – you promised, to the state and everyone. It’s a ritual, a promise is still a promise even if you don’t get married, even if you don’t say the words out loud. If you aren’t married, are you saying a promise isn’t a matter of public approval? If they just handed the president a key and said, go to it, Pres instead of a ritual, would you feel like it made a significant difference vs. a marriage vow? If he was a bachelor, or simply in a long-term committed relationship with someone, maybe another man and they couldn’t get married or their marriage wasn’t recognized or they chose to forego the formality, would you hold that in a completely different regard to the oath of office then?
I’m not saying if someone seems like a dirty filthy liar, you shouldn’t ought to make sure they aren’t – where it directly affects your confidence in their ability to do their job for you, but I don’t make the leap to even get ready to judge. Baseless suspicion is someone else’s duty and I hope if anything is amiss, it will get reported sooner than later and we can remove the person from office. I think you are holding marriage in a much higher regard than any other promise outside of political oaths, which I don’t.
I think almost because society regards the marriage union as one of the most significant decisions and promises you can make, this has become a popular notion and a really big segment of the economy. I’d love to make wedding money doing something weddingy people spend a lot of money on. In that respect, I think people ought to try to keep promises moreso to get their money’s worth, it should be high in the mind. Love and honor, words you mean, words you eventually discard because of natural lust. Humans are funny. We were talking about the celibacy oath of the Catholic priests in another thread, and while it’s not impossible to be committed and faithful to your vows, it’s also constructed ritual to enforce the behavior in other people. It’s voluntary but almost culturally mandated as well, marriage and loyalty. Paying people money on time and not being an ahole is important and socially responsible.
As a break for all of you trudging through my posts, I have to be somewhere and won’t have time to write anything else for hours! Bon soir!
Kodie,
I understand what you’re saying and the comparisons you are drawing.
Let me get this straight again. I promised my landlord, I would pay him a certain amount every month to live here and be respectful of my neighbors and the property, while he promises that not only will I get a place to live, he’s allowing my cat to live here as well, and generally promises his policy applies to all tenants, so they may have pets and also not disturb my peace.
In my view, the promise that one makes to a spouse, i.e., “I will be faithful to you and prefer you above everyone else until death separates us,” are much more personal and in that way more weighty than one’s agreement to pay one’s rent. Analogously, I think the SC Gov’s oath of office is very weighty, in that he made a promise to serve the people of SC. Again, I think that’s weightier than the agreement to pay one’s rent.
Again, I’m not saying that if you break one, you’ll inevitably break the other, just that we ought to be suspicious of a guy who can preach the sanctity of marriage, violate that sanctity, use government money to do it, and then not doubt whether or not the guy is fit to hold office.
I think you are holding marriage in a much higher regard than any other promise outside of political oaths, which I don’t. .
That could be, which might be the most significant point of disagreement. I suspect, and I think it’s more likely than not that I’m right, that the Gov., given his Christian heritage, made very traditional wedding vows, i.e., promised certain things unconditionally and promised them for life. In other words, whether or not you (or me or the guy next door) would make those same views yourself, that does not undermine the seriousness and ‘weightiness’ of the vows that he made. Especially since he’s on a platform of the sanctify of marriage!
If he can violate a promise that in his own mind is a sacred promise before God (which I think is fair to say of him), then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to at least be skeptical of him. I’m not saying we rush to judgment; I’m just saying there are good reasons to question him.
while it’s not impossible to be committed and faithful to your vows, it’s also constructed ritual to enforce the behavior in other people. It’s voluntary but almost culturally mandated as well, marriage and loyalty
I don’t disagree. But, if one doesn’t want to say, “’til death do us part,” then don’t say it. If you don’t make that promise, then you can’t break it.
Where do you draw that line between personal and profession, though?
Is it as valid to say, “He regularly speeds, therefore how can we trust him to uphold any laws ever?”
One thing humans are exceedingly good at is compartmentalizing.
One thing humans are exceedingly good at is compartmentalizing.
I don’t disagree. But I think my comments to Kodie above apply here. Marriage vows and the oath of office are both weighty promises. If one doesn’t flinch at breaking the former weighty promise, then it seems like it wouldn’t take much to break the latter. In other words, it’s an integrity issue, and I, for one, don’t want politicians who lack integrity.
I see your point, but upholding the constitution and doing one’s job on one hand and getting your jollies off with a stranger woman… well… there’s also the component of lust, natural impulses, affection, intimacy, etc., which – I hope – are not as destructive when it applies to one’s job and do not affect one’s capacity to do it properly. Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
Would I trust the liar and perjurer? Probably not. But if he does his job well, and it doesn’t seem to affect it – compartimentalizing and all – then, whatever. To each their own.
If, however, a politician evades taxes or commits fraud or whatever – things more clearly associated with one’s duty – then, by all means, never get the man elected and give him or her even more chance to steal.
I see your point, too, Siberia.
I’m arguing, though, that this,
getting your jollies off with a stranger woman
and this,
however, a politician evades taxes or commits fraud or whatever
are correlated because of this,
natural impulses
If one so easily succumbs to lust, to the point of breaking an oath, should we stop to consider whether or not that person might easily succumb to another natural impulse, such as greed, to the point of breaking an oath?
“If one so easily succumbs to lust, to the point of breaking an oath, should we stop to consider whether or not that person might easily succumb to another natural impulse, such as greed, to the point of breaking an oath?”
By this argument, all people who get divorced should be viewed with the same distrust.
“If one so easily succumbs to lust, to the point of breaking an oath, should we stop to consider whether or not that person might easily succumb to another natural impulse, such as greed, to the point of breaking an oath?”
I think you would need to provide evidence that ANY of those things are linked, in ANY way.
People succumb to lust all the time, and then fail to succumb to their desire to shoot their neighbors noisy dog, or steal from work.
When I obtain a drivers license, I am promising to obey the laws of the state regarding use of my motor vehicle. Laws which I, and most other people, regularly break in minor ways. At the same time, I’ve signed non disclosure agreements on a number of occasions that just said, “Don’t talk about this thing,” and I’ve never broken one.
I still think you are conflating things without actually showing that they have any relation to each other in actual practice.
I think you would need to provide evidence that ANY of those things are linked, in ANY way.
I think I would say that this is a case in point example of such a link.
People succumb to lust all the time, and then fail to succumb to their desire to shoot their neighbors noisy dog, or steal from work.
Yeah, that’s true, and it’s a good point. Maybe I am seeing more here than is actually here. I’ll have to think more about it, I guess.
One other way of putting it, Ty, what do you think?
Let’s say that the Secretary of the Treasury went bankrupt personally, for whatever reason. Would it be a good idea to question whether or not that person should be in the business of helping to manage the country’s economy?
As I see it, a politician is (or should be anyway) in the promise-making and then promise-keep business. So when that person, a public official, makes a mess of promise-making/keeping in his own personal life, it raises questions in my mind about the promises he has made in public to the public.
I had those same concerns about Clinton, and he worked out just fine with respect to keeping his word to the country (and he still does a lot of work for our country, for that matter). But I have serious doubts about this guy; I don’t trust a guy who preaches the sanctity of marriage and then violates that very sanctity. I think there’s an integrity issue there that’s bigger than a simple love affair.
Of course. And when he does, jail him and strip the property right back of; if he doesn’t, well, good. Investigate him? By all means. But lust and greed are different things, are they not? One doesn’t necessarily lead to the other… or even (necessarily) coexist in the same person, come to think of it. Adultery isn’t exactly a crime, either, so perhaps there’s that as well; perhaps the immoral politician we’re talking about might be balked by the threat of a very real punishment – jail – whereas he isn’t quite as balked by his wife’s feelings – which is dreadful, I agree, but alas.
I wouldn’t trust the person anyway, but I’m paranoid.
“I think I would say that this is a case in point example of such a link. ”
Uh, how is this an example of how giving in to the compulsion of lust is linked to giving in to the compulsion to greed? I think you keep asserting that, but the link has not been demonstrated to actually exist.
“One other way of putting it, Ty, what do you think?”
I think he’s a lying scumbag, and if I was his wife’s brother I’d probably bounce his ass off the floor a few times and feel really good about doing it.
I’m not questioning whether this guy is a douche. He clearly is. What I’m questioning is your automatic linking of one kind of personal failing with any other kind of personal failing.
I’m lazy to a fault, and will often say I’m going to do something and then procrastinate myself right out of fulfilling what I claimed. I’ve been doing it for forty years now, so I’m pretty sure it’s a major personal failing.
But I’ve never cheated on my wife, I don’t steal, and I almost never knowingly lie.
I dislike the idea that a person might say, “He claimed he was going to hook up the swamp cooler last weekend, but he totally didn’t do it. How can we trust that he doesn’t cheat on his wife?”
Which is sort of what this discussion is doing.
At least IMO.
@brgulker
If human beings had evolved to be extremely turned on by bribery and greed and corruption, then you might have a point. The purpose of a male is to mate. If the purpose and evolutionary course of a male was to be corrupt and dishonest, then you would have a point.
As is, your point is an illusion because you have not thought it through.
I agree to some extent with brgulker here. It’s not that I won’t never vote an adulterer president – I prefer him to be adulterer than to commit tax fraud- but it’s additional information to decide.
Ty,
What I’m questioning is your automatic linking of one kind of personal failing with any other kind of personal failing.
I’m trying not to do that by showing how in my mind, there’s similarity between making a promise to a spouse (vow) and making a promise to the citizens of the state (oath of office).
I agree with you in that I don’t think we should prejudge and that one personal shortcoming doesn’t necessitate others. I understand that being a procrastinator (as I am quite often, like you it seems) isn’t linked to infidelity; I understand your point, especially because the two behaviors have nothing to do with each other.
My point was not that fill-in-the-blank shortcoming inevitably means that someone has other shortcomings but was much more specific than that. If someone fails to keep promises to the one he’s pledged his life to, then perhaps he might have trouble fulfilling promises to others.
I understand that it may not be convincing to you, and I’m more than happy to let it rest, but I just want to make sure that I communicated clearly.
I don’t think everybody gets married with the idea they are in awe of their solid union, and work together like a soulmate partnership. I really don’t. I think that’s a romantic ideal, but the fact is almost everybody seems to find someone who will take them and a lot of those take a lot of money and throw it at one day and invite people to the ritual exclamation that they’re filed by the state. They might even stand up in a church or other religious area, officiated by a clergy and not someone who actually represents the state. Some of these people may even take it to deep deep heart, they are madly religious and/or earnest in their vows. I think the vows and at least some of the religious portions of them are a lot to live up to, and though some people can, not everybody will even partially mean any of them.
Faithfulness is one part of the vow. It’s not a legal requirement, some people look the other way even. Or forgive.
Love, honor, cherish, maybe even respect. Oh dear lord, this cracks me up. And the in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, for richer or poorer until death do us part.
How many people keep all of those vows? They are two humans trying to figure out who gets control of the remote and who takes a day off when their kid is sick. That’s reality, bub. What to do when they can’t afford their house, whether and how much to give allowance, if it’s time to fix the roof or get a new washing machine, and whether to name their baby, get this, Farmer or Elizabella.
You are really stretching the point of even making a vow, projecting your own values on everybody else. Yes, I really came to that conclusion. The office of a politician, who is in charge of carrying forth the duties and obligations of his office may be crooked or he may be honest. He may be mostly honest and only a little crooked. Meanwhile in his personal marriage side of life, he may never stray, but he gets mad when she shops too much and they run out of beer or she won’t let him watch football because there’s a Melissa Gilbert marathon on E! True Hollywood Stories.
We are all in the promise-making business. Whether or not we are governing as a true politician, we are microcosms of that promise, to abide by laws and with all our personal flaws, most people do right by their friends who elect them to be friends because they are a good person to know and don’t cheat them. We accept each other as not perfect and get on with our lives. We enter into agreements every day – I pay you money, you provide this service or product. I agree to the price, you provide certain guarantees of quality.
You are holding marriage, not just your marriage, but all marriages, up to an idealistic level, based only on words, words you meant when you said them to your wife, I presume. But anyway, when I do my job, I do my job. Some people do what they got to do, and some people push a little harder and are really stellar examples of how to go. Some people suck at it, this is usually the quality of person you get for the wages you can pay. Not everybody is keeping their end of the bargain, but apparently most of us are adequate.
I do think keeping promises is important to the best of one’s ability, but I think there’s a problem when you project idealistic notions onto other people’s relationships. Fact is, almost everybody finds someone who can stand them at all, and they get along ok. That’s the bottom line on those vows. Even politicians are people, but I believe for the most part, they are business-like people who do their job well enough, and also who may take credit for another person’s idea, smile and shake your hand when they really hate you, treat their staff a little too much like servants, feel entitled to perks they are allowed to take advantage of, and sit at their desk sometimes playing FreeCell.
I think you’re making an apples and oranges comparison here. Just because a person commits adultery doesn’t mean that that person will, by extension…actually, I kind of see your point. At any rate, I see your counter argument and it would be rooted in the dereliction of duty that Sanford committed when he ditched the state for five days so he could get his freak on in Argentina. By the same token, I don’t think a person’s sexual proclivities are a predictive factor in how a person will govern. I do think that if a person lies about their sexual proclivities, then they will lie about other things–in other words, it’s not the adultery that bothers me, it’s the lying, the abuse of power, the virtual embezzlement of state funds to commit the adultery, and the facile bullshit that he employs in order to justify his adultery.
I’d have a modicum of respect for him had he said, “Yep. I cheated on Jenny, and I’m going to be in Argentina this weekend; Lt. Governor, the show is yours.”
I think you’re making an apples and oranges comparison here.
I was trying to show how I wasn’t :)
By the same token, I don’t think a person’s sexual proclivities are a predictive factor in how a person will govern. I do think that if a person lies about their sexual proclivities, then they will lie about other things–in other words, it’s not the adultery that bothers me, it’s the lying, the abuse of power, the virtual embezzlement of state funds to commit the adultery, and the facile bullshit that he employs in order to justify his adultery.
That’s what I’m saying (kind of). One is free to have sex outside of one’s marriage, and that doesn’t directly impact that person’s capacity/ability to govern. It means they made an immoral choice, in my view, but that immoral choice probably doesn’t impact whether or not that person can be an effective legislator.
What concerns me, however, is not the person’s capacity to govern but rather the person’s integrity. If you can lie to your spouse repeatedly and without much hesitation — and your spouse is the one you promised your undying, unending love to ( — then why would we be naive enough to assume that this same person would have trouble breaking a promise to us — we who are complete and utter strangers to him?
To be fair, I’m not always saying that is the case. IMO, Clinton was (and remains) a faithful civil servant; he never broke his oath of office (at least that I’m aware of). I’m not arguing that anyone who commits adultery will inevitably break the oath of office, just that we ought to be skeptical of those who do break the former because of the similarities between a wedding vow and an oath to office.
Well, politicians lie daily. Half-truths, quarter truths, and outright lies are the stock-in-trade of politicians–I mean, come on; if we think that Obama told us the “truth” when he was running for the White House…well, I’ve got some swamp land in North Dakota I’d love to sell you. I’d say we need to be skeptical of every politician.
lol
and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!
I’d say we need to be skeptical of every politician.
I agree.
I’d say one should be skeptical of anyone who willingly wants power. But then, that may be the paranoia talking.
“If you weren’t a Bible-thumper and were not using public funds to pay for your fling, then I’d say it was none of our business.
I remember this argument when Clinton got caught with his pants down. It’s his marriage and his sex life; why should we care?”
I forgot how Bill Clinton flew to Argentina to visit Monica. Thanks for reminding me.
Did you not read the rest of what I posted? Twice I’ve mentioned that even though I was suspicious about Clinton, I ended up being wrong about that suspicion…
Yes I read it. Your analogy was flawed.
In the first part:where you quoted someone else, “If you weren’t a Bible-thumper and were not using public funds to pay for your fling, then I’d say it was none of our business.” We have 2 things, a violation of a personal oath to a spouse, and a demonstrated abuse of power.
In the 2nd part where you tried to draw an analogy to Clinton, all you have is a violation of a personal oath to a spouse.
Sure both politicians can’t be trusted, as apparently all divorcees can’t be trusted. One of them proved that they aggregoiusly abuse their power for personal satisfaction.
I don’t know who coined it, but kudos to whomever stuck the words “Christian” and “apologist” together. Ridiculing adults who believe in fairy tales and mythology is fun, don’t get me wrong, but watching them trip over their own so-called morality time and time again… f’n hilarious.
And it shows how much faith is open to interpretation:
Sanford: “But the Reverend said I should have an angel on my body!”
Well I’ve had Angel Delight (banana flavour) on my body does that count?
Christianity is great. Do whatever you want as long as you say you’re sorry afterwards.
The “wise” Martin Luther said it best:
I think either he should resign or the SC legislature should remove him from office. As much as I like to see a religious phony exposed, I think the bigger issue is that he put the state at extreme risk. What if there was a natural disaster? Or a terrorist attack? My understanding is that the authority of the governor must be explicitly handed over to the lt. governor. Sanford did not do that.
He is just selfish. He was probably bonin’ his Latin honey during Father’s Day weekend. Do you really think it took five days to end this other relationship? He could do that over the phone. And now he thinks he doesn’t have to resign because he thinks he’s okay with his God. When you are governor, it’s not just about you, chief.
Also, I think transferring authority to the lt. gov would have taken all of five minutes. But Sanford was too busy getting busy to do that.
Flat-ass boggling unbelievable. The last dodge when hypocrisy is exposed.
A linked trick xians pull – a devious, slick and nasty one also done on this particular blog (and the pastor lying for jesus) – is to use the word “mistake”, a wrong use of the word if I ever hear it to distort and twist a deliberate, underhanded action to make it sound like an accident.
People will actually fall for this one. Don’t swallow that deliberate semantic trick.
The mistake lie always makes me laugh. I call it the wardrobe malfunction of excuses.
If Sanford makes any more comments about how he should stay in office (which personally I don’t care about), they should be coupled with an admission that he was wrong in what he said about bill Clinton and wrong to vote for impeachment. If eh can’t do that, I don’t see why we should take him seriously.
Sanford lied about number of trysts
I wonder if he has a WWDD bumper sticker on his limo; “What Would David Do?”
The answer to that is, cut off a couple hundred Philistine foreskins and then dance so badly that his wife hates him forever afterward.
Yes, he is getting more like King David everyday. Maybe next one of his sons will try and kill him to become governor.
About that story of King David.. I was recently reading up on that – the death of his bastard child with Bathsheba wasn’t his only punishment – all of his wives/concubines were raped in broad daylight, as well.
Also, he knocked Bathsheba up again shortly after the whole ordeal.
One Trackback
[...] Maybe I need to rethink this whole Christianity thing. I have been doing a lot of soul searching on that front. What I find interesting is the story of David, and the way in which he fell mightily, he fell in very very significant ways. But then picked up the pieces and built from there. [...]