RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Parramore writes: "The question of why religious conservatives are so likely to be caught in the act is eternally compelling. From the Pentecostal televangelist Jimmy Swaggart's love for prostitutes to abstinence-preaching Senator David Vitter's extracurricular romps."

Dinesh D'Souza visits 'The Opie & Anthony Show' in New York City, Sept. 27. (photo: Cindy Ord/Getty Images)
Dinesh D'Souza visits 'The Opie & Anthony Show' in New York City, Sept. 27. (photo: Cindy Ord/Getty Images)

Why Does Sexual Hypocrisy Flourish on the Right?

By Lynn Parramore, Reader Supported News

20 October 12


orty years ago, conservatives awakened to the fact that their agenda was getting little traction in American public life. So they hatched a plan to turn things around. Pooling their considerable financial resources, they would invest in the marketplace of ideas and fund books, professors, journalists -- anything to promote, amplify, and disseminate their right-wing worldview. In short, they would buy the American mind.

Quite a bargain, that. One of their most successful investments was the support of an eager young man who got his start writing for the Dartmouth Review, a conservative newspaper founded in 1980 by disgruntled students who thought that the college's daily paper was way too liberal. Dinesh D'Souza was carefully groomed to flower into what he is today -- a vitriolic, one-sided, outrageously craven wingnut who will say anything and everything as long as it supports the most rancid right-wing agenda. You might think of him as the inhabitant of the deepest, darkest spot in our political discourse, the Mariana Trench of American intellectual life.

If you look back over recent decades, you will find this creature surfacing in any number of conservative crusades. Stirring up jingoistic anti-Obama fantasies, for example. Or protecting traditional marriage from gays.

Which is why it has been amusing to hear D'Souza, until today the president of an evangelical college, explaining just how he came to be sharing a hotel room with a woman who is not his wife and introducing her as his fiancée. Apparently D'Souza was in the process of ending his marriage of 20 years, but had not quite gotten around to signing the divorce papers when he shacked up with his lady friend at a South Carolina conference. He has since "suspended" his engagement.

Frankly, as far as scandals go, this one ranks low on the excite-ometer. It would have been more fun if he had been caught sharing a men's room stall with Larry Craig.

But hell, we'll take it. The question of why religious conservatives are so likely to be caught in the act is eternally compelling.

From the Pentecostal televangelist Jimmy Swaggart's love for prostitutes to abstinence-preaching Senator David Vitter's extracurricular romps, hardly a year passes when some big-time right-winger isn't found to be coloring outside the box. Now lefties really don't care if Vitter, fondly known on the web by his fetish moniker "Diaperman," likes to get his kicks wearing adult diapers and paying someone to powder his butt. In fact, we might encourage him to let his freak flag fly and march in the diaper fetish parade. As long as the sexual activity doesn't hurt anyone, who cares? It's the fetish for moralizing, sermonizing, and finger-wagging that sets our teeth on edge. Particularly when it ossifies into laws that make it impossible for many women to manage their reproductive lives or prevents loving partners from getting hitched. Not only do public pieties fail to prevent personal improprieties, they seem to have an unusually strong correlation. When legendary conservative Strom Thurmond was promising never to force southern whites to admit blacks (not the word he used) "into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches," he neglected to mention that at the age of 22 he had admitted one into his bed and impregnated the family's 16-year old black maid. His daughter was a secret until his death in 2003.

So what is that? Why condemn what you desire? Part of the answer can be found in the style of religion you embrace if you are a right-winger. Monotheistic religions like Christianity are especially patriarchal and tend to be built on the denial of the feminine and a special abhorrence of those flesh packages known as "bodies." If you're only going to have one god, that god is probably going to be male, and so you've got to suppress the female element of spirituality so that He doesn't have any competition. Women are associated with the processes of nature, which can be scary, and you've got to do something about that, too. They give birth, and anything that is born must die, which is an unpleasant thought, so to get rid of that you just go around pretending that life is eternal and that everything really springs from the Great Celestial Father. Pretty soon you have concocted possibly the most unnatural idea in human history: The Virgin Mother.

Polytheistic religions don't tend to operate this way, which is why you can see male and female gods frolicking with abandon on the walls of ancient Egyptian temples. Which is also why the Second Commandment in the Bible tells you not to ever, ever look at them. In fact, you're really not supposed to look at or think about bodies at all. They are inconvenient encumbrances to your eternal life, and the sooner you get rid of them, the better. Anything that upsets the fragile order of this strange system where males are celestial beings and women are nasty creatures whose bodies reek of dirty sex -- like gay love, for example -- will have to be squelched at all costs. Holding all these contradictory thoughts in your head deforms the mind into a labyrinth of twists and turns and on top of that there's a phantom floating around in there.

Thanks to Freud, we know that humans are often haunted by something called The Return of the Repressed. The more you try to deny the undead incarnation of your repressed desires, the stronger he becomes, and he will hunt you down. Before long you find yourself in a park restroom in Florida asking an undercover policeman to fellate you for 20 bucks. And your boss John McCain is pissed.

D'Souza himself provides a curious perspective on the subject. In a meditation on the high standards of conservatives in which he deplores the adulteries of both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, D'Souza imparts this gleaming nugget of insight:

"Even hypocrisy is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos or nihilism."

Let's call this Conservative Chaos Theory. Without hypocrisy, the conservative mind would explode from the sheer force of its eternal contradictions and Dinesh D'Souza, along with his phantom, would be sucked into the void. Hypocrisy is the glue that holds it all together. Tolerance for others is corrosive to hypocrisy and must be avoided come hell or high water. In that South Carolina hotel room, Dinesh D'Souza was taking a stand against moral relativity. Maybe even the General Theory of Relativity. Anything which denies the absolutes and standards that protect the insecure human from the knowledge of his mortality -- and ultimately, his insignificance in the great design of things. People, this is courage. And I submit that it is not easy to take a stand while you are lying down.

This is why, friends, that you will very likely soon turn on the news to hear that yet another promoter of God's word has been caught with his pants down.

In motel rooms across America, these men are bravely resisting chaos.

Amen. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+160 # erogers 2012-10-20 10:23
What a bunch of hypocrites. Our Founding Fathers got it wrong. The word "of" should have been the word "from". That would have given us Freedom From Religion. A much better phrase then Freedom of Religion. If the right has its way, this country will become a cesspool theocracy run by religious zealots. In our case the hypocritical right wing christian zealots. I cannot bring myself to capitalize the word christian.
+121 # bingers 2012-10-20 12:00
The only way to ensure freedom OF religion is to have freedom FROM religion.

I think is should disqualify you from running if you EVER talk about religion.
+35 # AMLLLLL 2012-10-20 15:42
There is absolutely NO wording in the Constitution (1st Amendment) 'freedom of religion'. The wording is such that you have both:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.."

This is kind of why Christine O'Donnell got in trouble in her debate;she thought that 'separation of church and state' should have been a phrase rather than what it is: a tenet.
-4 # The Voice of Reason 2012-10-23 19:01
When they wrote the Constitution, they were well aware of the religious promise in Isaiah 9:7 that God Himself would come and bring a divine government: 'Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.'

The Founding Fathers did not want the U.S. to be the Pharaoh of that day, and since there were too many divisions in Christianity to pick an 'official' state religion, they devised the Establishment Clause, and granted the free exercise of religion for that day when God fulfilled His promises.

That day has come friends.

And as you might imagine, that government has nothing to do with partisanship, bickering, selfishness, greed, oil, war, alcohol, or anything else we see being practiced in the world today.

Impossible? It is not a rehashing of the old, but a completely new system, less than 200 years old. Only volunteers can join. Whoever doesn't want to can continue on their journey to wherever it takes you.
-12 # bestreader2012 2012-10-20 18:23
Political Conservatism is not synonymous with Christianity. Many Christians are still supporting President Obama because they see Obama as a better choice even though they do not agree to 100% of his policies.

Hypocrisy is wrong, regardless of who does it. Jesus dealt harshly with those leaders who were hypocritical and self-righteous.

We should address hypocrisy but not to condemn Christ and the Christian faith because individuals of the Christian faith or claiming the faith have fallen short of what is expected.

God formed women from the rib of man to make it clear to us that woman and men are equal partners. God gave us the freedom of choice. We can either accept or deny God. In either case, there are consequences.

Every man will be held accountable for what he has done or not done. Knowing the fault of man, Jesus provided a way of forgiveness. The Bible reminds us that “the wages of sin is death (eternal separation from God) but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

We have a choice in what we do and say. With this freedom comes accountability. God reminds us that every man and women will be either justified or condemned by his or her words.

Regardless of whether we deny God, He still is and will judge all things both good and bad. No man is perfect, some worst than others. God will level the playing field. Every man and women will be held accountable for their choice to honor God or not.
+11 # CL38 2012-10-21 22:56
Isn't your philosophy convenient.

Isn't that special???
+18 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 10:57
Why on earth would a God care if you believed in her or not? Do you care if an ant believes in you?
-1 # The Voice of Reason 2012-10-23 19:15
On the other hand, objective studies of prior civilizations show that sexual excesses and drunkenness usually precede that society's demise.

It doesn't matter what your political party is, our society's middle name is 'drunken orgy', or something similar to that. It's also 'war monger' and 'greed factory', which are also evidences of a decaying and decadent society. Not that I'm complaining, mind you. Just making an observation.

So ... do we really think that we are too drunk to fail? What is it about the people of this drunken orgy generation that is different from the past and definitely won't lead to collapse like other societies? Birth control? Night clubs? The massive economies?

And I'm not saying it will be the cause of our downfall, but it has been seen in history to be negative indicators. Are we that strong, or are we that blind?
+24 # carpepax 2012-10-22 11:10
I've got a better one. How about simply "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" and forget the mystical mumbo jumbo and the jealous father figure you're supposed to fear.

These "Christian" men caught in the act of what they speak against from the bully pulpit are using the faith of others as cover to hide their human desires. Hiding in plain sight while pointing at you or me for distraction. When caught, they claim human frailty and shame when the only shame they feel is for getting caught.

I'm ready for there to be no more people holding themselves above others in the name of "divine preference."
+18 # David Starr 2012-10-22 11:57
@bestreader2012 : Quoting: "God formed women from the rib of man to make it clear to us that woman and men are equal partners." How does this make them equal partners? More than one woman came out of Adam's rib? So, was there poligamy? Given Christian history/mytholo gy, women have really gotten a bad rap. In the Adam and Eve story, Eve is portrayed as a tempter with the apple, thus she is to "blame" for "original sin." Traditionally in this belief, women have not been equal partners but looked at as second class, inferior, docile and vixens.

Quoting: "Every man and women will be held accountable for their choice to honor God or not." Defintely an ultimatum. Invoking fear in people to get them to convert doesn't sound like freedom of choice. If a religion is based on appeals to fear, then people would join, if they didn't know any better, generally out of not wanting to go to hell. How can that sincerely "honor" God? More fear than sincerity. That sounds rather totalitarian to me.

Meanwhile, I wonder what Krishna, Lono, Pele, Odin and Zeus "think" about this?
+6 # dovelane1 2012-10-23 16:08
bestreader -
My opinion is something that is true for me personally. My conviction is something that is true for everyone - in my opinion.

The difference between a fact and an opinion/assumpt ion is that a fact can be proven, but an opinion has not yet been proven to be a fact.

The belief that god made woman from Adam's rib is an opinion, or an assumption, yet you state it as a fact. You state that god is male, which, to my knowledge, cannot be proven.

In fact, your whole note is a collection of opinions, none of which have yet been proven to be fact, and yet you state all of them as if they were facts.

I don't have a problem with anyone having any opinion they want to have, but I wish you and all the rest of the religions in the world would stop stating opinions as if they were facts.

Just because you happen to believe they are facts does not make them so. Looking at them as opinions might also make a person a bit less arrogant in the way they promote their beliefs.
+17 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 10:55
Let's face it.......the republican party is nothing more than a sect.
+4 # carpepax 2012-10-23 09:50
And when they get that feelin', they need sectual healin'. Sectual...heali n' baby whoa whoa oh oh.
-1 # The Voice of Reason 2012-10-23 18:52
There is no amount of internal reform that can save Islam or any other religion from the corruption of its priests. Only a new Messenger from God. Can you imagine the turmoil and chaos that would produce today??

No religious leader would accept Him, the ultimate corruption, and they would hasten and conspire to execute or imprison Him. Imagine, the One they claim they await is the very One they condemn to death.

So ... can anyone of you come up with a better book, or even a better passage or just a decent thought that can guide the whole of humanity to a better world?

Still waiting ...
0 # dovelane1 2012-10-25 23:44
VBoice - Don't know if you'll read this or not. Anne Wilson-Schaef has a book titled "When Society Becomes An Addict" that, to me, explains all of the problems you mention. Her basic theory is that we live in a culture that promotes addictive behaviors as the norms we learn to live down to. Some learn these behaviors more than others, but few are not affected.

All of the problems you mention are symptoms of addictive behavior. All addictive behaviors are neurotic in one form or another. Addictions, though understandable, are not always easy to cure, but they are curable.

Before you pre3ach religion as the ultimate salvation for people, I would like to see a world in which there were no addictive norms being presented as the way people are supposed to live.

No addictions, no neurosis - my guess is we would not have any of the problems you are talking about.

There is also a book out titled "Toxic Faith," in which the author details how addictive in nature many, if not most religions tend to be.

All addictive behaviors are based on fear. Love is the antithesis of fear. The problem is that most people are afraid of love, or perhaps afraid of the vulnerability that comes with love.

There's an answer for you, but I doubt if you'll even give it the time of day, so assured are you in the "rightness" and "perfection" of your belief system.
+98 # pernsey 2012-10-20 10:25
"Let's call this Conservative Chaos Theory. Without hypocrisy, the conservative mind would explode from the sheer force of its eternal contradictions and Dinesh D'Souza, along with his phantom, would be sucked into the void. Hypocrisy is the glue that holds it all together."

LOL this is so true, I couldnt have said it any better myself.
+84 # Barbara K 2012-10-20 10:47
Rather hard to figure out. They are hypocrites about Everything.
+48 # X Dane 2012-10-20 16:11
They sure are,... so many of those "God fearing" people are so repressed, because they Have to suppress the most life affirming natural thing: a healthy sex life.

The church has made it dirty by calling it SIN.....Childre n are born in SIN?? When you are lucky they are born out of love.

From what I have observed The south seems to be heavily religious, and very repressed, So it is not so strange, that in the SECRET of their own parlors, they are also the BIGGEST consumers of PORNOGRAPHY in IN THE COUNTRY.

Maybe Kings College should take a look at D'Sousa's computer??? they may find more interesting stuff there. I would not be surprised if they did.

I bet it kills him that Obama has a good marriage, a charming and smart wife and two lovely daughters. When he made that contorted sick movie about Obama, I am sure he looked high and low to find some juicy dirt on him.
+97 # bingers 2012-10-20 10:50
Not all conservatives are hypocrites, most of them are just ignorant or stupid and don't realize everything they believe in is a lie. D'Sousa isn't in that bunch, he's an inveterate liar and does it on purpose.
+42 # Javaparty 2012-10-20 15:34
I agree - D'Sousa is an opportunist but he also has a deep rooted complex. He's the epitome of the foriegn born "American" trying to be more patriotic than "white" America.
His tpye don't have beliefs, they see opportunity and use it. The right picked their token "intellect" and are using him a great deal to destroy the very liberal society that welcomed D'sousa and his family into the country.
+13 # CL38 2012-10-21 23:06
"Not all conservatives are hypocrites". My thought in response to your comment is this: because people don't realize they are hypocrites doesn't make them less hypocritical. Hypocrisy damages our world and country and impacts all our lives.

It's clear we've reached a point of no return. Voters have GOT to take responsibility for educating ourselves about the issues and political candidates.

We can't afford politicians who pedal racism, misogyny, homophobia, fear and division.

We're in this together. We live or die on this planet, depending on our choices and intelligence in handing global warming, etc. Is the politician we're considering voting for a global warming denier?

We can't afford politicians who are not true leaders. We can't afford to hire people who peddle discrimination, fear and hatred of women, who believe that they represent the 1% at the expense of the rest of us.

We have a responsibility to know what candidates REALLY stand for, not what they say they do and to get involved in every way we can to make a difference.
+41 # lisamoskow 2012-10-20 10:55
This is true with the Indian gurus also.

Sex leads to reproduction--s ometimes. Not having sex NEVER leads to reproduction.

So behaviors leading to sexual intercourse, whether biological or social, are passed down. Even rape--sadly--an d especially if the Paul Ryans would have their way.
+98 # Cabell 2012-10-20 11:01
There is another aspect to this... Why don't we hear about right-wing rogue FEMALES cutting loose like this? Because the entire right-wing ethos is based on the COMPLIANCE of the 'other.' And that usually means a subordinate... A child, a woman,.. Regimentation of what are natural desires do not make them disappear, just squeezes them into another, unhealthy shape.
+97 # 1984 2012-10-20 11:47
Your reasoning is consistent with what I have experienced in my divorce legal practice. Radical christians, usually so called born agains, are taught that the man is IT, the head of the household who cannot be challenged. They render the wife and child to being the man's property. This in turn has enabled them to rationalize what we call sexual abuse and violent abuse, as being their right to do these things.
+38 # AMLLLLL 2012-10-20 15:44
Have you just described Romney or what?!
+22 # Celeste 2012-10-21 09:37
This is all true, however no one has taken up the most significant insight revealed by Ms. Wolf; and that is the idea of the God-head itself constructed to encompass ONLY (and exclusively) that which is masculine... as if equal quantities of essence and substance are not drawn from both the woman (Yin) and the man (Yang) to make Creation/life possible.

The denigration of women extends into 3 areas: pornography, the way the Earth--as Great Mother is treated, and the ensuing overall disrespect for life that makes wars, unending, possible. Due to the gross ideological imbalance that results from worship of only one side of the Divine Source, war is funded instead of the things that nourish, support and sustain life.
+5 # CL38 2012-10-21 23:08
Very well said. thanks for your reminder.
+4 # Celeste 2012-10-22 10:03
Thank you.
+78 # katela 2012-10-20 11:06
D'Sousa's is just astonished that he got laid at all--ever.
+65 # bingers 2012-10-20 12:01
Quoting katela:
D'Sousa's is just astonished that he got laid at all--ever.

It truly is amazing, isn't it? But then you've got Gingrich....
+27 # AMLLLLL 2012-10-20 15:48
That's right! one of his wives (I've lost count) asked him about this hypocrisy and he told her people should do what he says, not what he does... that's how you end up with a wife whose hairdo looks like the LA Rams helmets..aside from the naked Gingrich picture (eeeeeewwwwww) there's the crunching of that hairdo on the pillow....
+68 # DaveM 2012-10-20 11:12
It's not a new phenomenon. Shakespeare wrote "methinks he doth protest too much" about a suspicious character. The Bible refers repeatedly to those who make a big show of how "pious" they are, and calls them hypocrites, among other things.

One can, it seems, make an educated guess about a politician's "private life" by paying close attention to what he or she rails against. "Law and order" candidates take bribes. And the Anti-Sex League uses "family values" as a code for "we want to stop you from doing what we do".
+30 # Art947 2012-10-20 13:27
An excellent point, DaveM. In NY we have a congressman who is ALWAYS the first one to rail about terrorists. He was also a major supporter of the Irish Republican Army -- the "terrorists" who did so much damage in Great Britain.
+10 # Celeste 2012-10-21 09:42
Interesting shift of genders there, Dave... the quote comes from Hamlet,in a shrewd "play within a play" mock-up of the very crime that took Hamlet's father's (the beloved king) life. By simulating the murder, Hamlet's mother, seated in the audience is visibly stirred. Hamlet notes it, and states to his pal & witness, Horatio:

"The Lady doth protest too much..."
+65 # mebemo 2012-10-20 11:24
Brilliant. Thanks for pointing out the psychological roots of so-called "conservatism." What we are seeing in the world today, and particularly in the lurid mirror of American political culture, is nothing less than the struggle of a new, loving consciousness to emerge from an obsolete, destructive and fearful one. Love vs. Fear. Soul vs. Ego. Spirituality vs. Materialism. Dalai Lama vs. Ayn Rand.

Watch this space...
+50 # wwway 2012-10-20 11:49
It is my observation that those who moralize fervently are the ones who 1) are committing the act themselves 2) affected in some way by the actions they rail against 3) figured out there's a living to be made by doing it. 4) don't actually believe what they are saying but it gets them what they want.
Most recent example is a tea party leader in our community who goes around saying "God Bless America" and his close friends and family know he's a devoted athiest...but it works. Wolf is sheeps clothing.
+47 # FrustratedinFla 2012-10-20 11:53
Thank you Lynn, for a well articulated and engaging look at the ugly (and most human) side of some hateful hypocrites.
+17 # Ronv 2012-10-20 12:18
When a religion expects its believers to accept that the bastard Son of a virgin-shagging God is, Himself, a God, then you can bet that its followers will promulgate misogyny and that its leaders will have mistresses while promoting abstinence. The purpose of that faith is not to set an example, as can be seen in the stomach-turning papal treatment of young boys, but to provide a philosophy to help its adherents to not feel too badly about their abhorrent behaviour. It is an ointment for the conscious of the mad. The fact is that Christianity is no worse than other religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism which until the 1950's condoned the handcuffing, torture and rape of children or Hinduism which has been responsible for crimes so heinous that it is just not possible putting them in print here without this posting being censored. Wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a religion whose followers only accepted the equal and fair treatment of everyone, taught us to truly love each other unequivocally (or, barring that, at least be respectful of one another), and encouraged us to avoid situations which were nothing more than excuses for abhorrent behaviour? Fundamentalist FSM might fit the bill - wearing a pirate suit and saying "Har, har, har" when things are bad might just be the answer!
+1 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 02:46
Ronv, kindly give us some background re your very ugly assertions about Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism. As Buddhist philosophy and the vast array of Hinduism's forms are not generally as well understood in the West as Chritianity, I would like to know, besides the deplorable human failings and hypocrisy that we all encounter from time to time on the shadowy margins of human behavior, what you are talking about.

The object of religion/ philosophy is to cultivate the best in us not the worst. Aberrant behavior by a person of any religion is a matter of individual choice, not something encouraged by most religious systems I can think of.

As a person born in Eastern Tibet, I do not even know what you are referring to in you remarks re Tibetan Buddhsm. What have you been reading?!

That aside, doesn't the Shadow live and struggle in all human hearts? Isn't the measure of our humanity the degree to which we are able to integrate and transform our own darkness without projecting it onto others or behaving in destructive ways?
+42 # Taymee 2012-10-20 12:24
there are three major things to consider here: 1. sex is a need, a natural human function. As I stated in a previous analogy, as with all needs, the more you repress the greater the splurge. Consider the far religious right as sexual dieters- like any dieter who suppresses the urge to buy a chocolate shake, eventually they will wind up with a gallon of rocky road and a spoon in a dark isolated room.

2. What we hate most in others is also what we hate the most in ourselves. Whatever it is you find the most abhorrent in other people is most likely a trait you possess but hate.

3. There is a level of self hatred involved in both denying yourself what you enjoy and in giving in finally and doing what you think is wrong. This attitude goes hand in hand with many church's teachings that man is a sinful creature- that we are born of original sin- that we all fall short, etc. Many churches focus on the bad that is man rather the good that God- and this style both appeals to and creates those who would feel that level of self hate.
+2 # CL38 2012-10-21 23:14
Radical religious 'leaders', usually men, project man's denied inner evil onto women; this becomes the rationalization for disrespect and hateful attitudes toward women.
-102 # Robt Eagle 2012-10-20 12:37
Absolutely NO hypocricy. The only thing that Conservatives want is NOT to pay for any reproductive (abortion, contraception, etc.) From tax payer dollars. Everything else is smoke screen BS from left leaning media and BS artists.
+65 # Taymee 2012-10-20 13:07
oh sorry, guess we forgot to send you the headlines of the far right saying things like, bullying homosexual children is good because it discourages the behavior, forced reprogramming of homosexuals is a good idea, and lets not forget any and all laws regarding prostitution I guess you missed the number of politicians who signed the DOMA who are themselves actually divorced sometimes several times. Those same politicians paying prostitutes, participating in homosexual activities, etc. THAT is where the left is finding fodder for the hypocrisy cannon. 'Cause this stuff happens, that you yourself are only interested in not to pay for contraception (regardless of the fact that it SAVES tax payers money, different discussion) does not change the fact that the political leaders are doing a lot more than that.
+62 # MEBrowning 2012-10-20 13:15
Then why, Robt Eagle, has the right wing worked so hard for so long to shut women's health clinics down — even those that do not receive government funds? Absolutely NO hypocisy? Pot, meet kettle.
+43 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-20 13:29
no Viagra also?
+37 # ruttaro 2012-10-20 15:25
Because viagra is about putting the man back on top. It all nicely fits into the conservative mind of how the human world should be ordered. In their world, women are to do th ehusband's bidding, stay quiet, walk three steps behind, barefoot, pregnant and heading to the kitchen to get him a beer and sandwhich. Oh yeah, and go to Church with him and the family and pray with great emotion showing how grateful she is to live so wonderful a life.
What is going on is that not only does the hypocrisy allow for keeping the standards, but only men can have the luxury hypocrisy offers. Their standards echo through the fundamentalist world; Christian, Muslim, you name it. Listening to the fundamnetalist Christian conservative about women and sex and all I hear is domination and control. It is the woman who betrays the man, who draws him to hypocrisy, violating the code he loves so much. And it is the woman who is stoned, beaten, impoverished, jailed, killed whether in the Bible, in the Koran, by the Taliban, or the USA where for her sins she has to keep the baby, no longer the man's baby but the price for her waging of sin.
To the bimbo D'Souza Sex is sin, dirty, female entrapment..... .and worse of all, freedom.
Domination and control.
Robt Eagle does not want ot pay for abortion and contraception hence repreduction rights. But viagra? That's what keeps the Conservatives holy for that is what God wants: men on top!
+18 # Celeste 2012-10-21 09:55
Great rant! I would add that the Catholic Church (Church of the Roman empire, essentially) set up the foundation blocks for misogyny by:

1. Making the natural sexual attraction (between man and woman, or man who acts like a woman) into the Original sin!
2. ONLY allowing males a position of status or authority within the church hierarchy
3. Brutally burning women healers, mid-wives and those with any independent streak or spirit as witches in a misogynistic campaign of carnage that lasted centuries.

Has the church ever apolgized for this reign of terror? Note how the lack of ownership of "The Shadow" allows the same spiritual sickness to continue, now posing as the Holy War (torture, again, included) against Islam and any unfortunates who manage to get caught in its drift-nets.
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:12
Oh honey, Judeism beat Christianity to the misogynistic punch.
+56 # Art947 2012-10-20 13:37
That is unadulterated BS, Robt Eagle! No one asked them to pay for these procedures when they VOTED to force vaginal ultrasound on pregnant women. Where is their justification for the onerous facility requirements that they are legislating? The only BS that I see is from the "bulls" on the right who are so unsure of their manhood that they believe they need to enslave women.
-8 # CL38 2012-10-21 23:17
That's your denied, repressed projection onto Democrats. Republicans are not hypocrites, Democrats are the hypocrites.

Read Republican John Dean's book, "Conservatives without Conscience".
+1 # dovelane1 2012-10-23 16:19
Sorry. I meant to hit the thumbs up, so it should be two less than indicated.. I think people misunderstood your comment.
+6 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-22 07:20

Just as you are morally outraged and opposed to any taxpayer money going to abortion and contraceptives; I am also morally opposed to initiating wars, the death penalty, and drug laws.

Since you feel it is appropriate to stop government funding of the items you are morally opposed to, how about no funding for the items I am morally opposed to?

Somehow I am willing to wager $10K of Mitt's personal gambling fund that you won't respond on topic.
+2 # David Starr 2012-10-22 12:25
@BradFromSalem: Almost always he hasn't.
A lot of finger-pointing accusations with no content. That's the jist of it.
-6 # Robt Eagle 2012-10-22 14:48
Brad, sorry I didn't respond sooner, I have a life...was in Kansas City this weekend at my son's Naval Academy room mates wedding. My son, the Navy SEAL, was best man and it was a fantastic wedding with lots of USNA class mates in uniform. The bride and groom waited until my son returned from Afghanistan to get married so he could be there, pretty cool. OK, so you need a it is, get a life! You are morally opposed to war, yet you enjoy the freedom you have to right your opinion because people have died so you can write what ever you'd like. Your freedom is not free, it was paid for by the blood, sweat, and tears of those who served and are serving in our military. Your moral code would vanish if not for young men and women dying to protect that freedom you think is your right, but you do nothing to earn it. So enjoy it, but at your peril if you re-elect Obama.
+2 # bingers 2012-10-23 07:29
Congratulations to your son. And thanks for his service.

I was no SEAL or Ranger or Green Beret, simply a rifleman who was nearly killed at the start of the war in 'Nam.

Are you aware that, just like in '08 the military donations in this race favor Obama 2 to 1?
+1 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-23 09:14

Thanks for the response, but you missed my wording;

"I am also morally opposed to initiating wars,"

I understand that sometimes we have to meet violence with violence in order to preserve our country where democratic institutions can grow. Did ever wonder why many founders were against maintaining a standing army? Its because of two things. They are an expensive drain and they make the decision to enter into a shooting match easier.
I am not advocating the total dismantling of our military, but its time we began to downsize somewhat.
0 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 02:55
So, all the blood and death in Iraq and Afganistan makes us in the US freer how?
+3 # kyzipster 2012-10-22 07:50
I love how conservatives wrap their logic around their own BS. 'Absolutley NO hypocrisy.' OK. I'll just take your word for it. LOL!

Bush Presidency an undeniable failure? 'He was too progressive.'

Thankfully you're only convincing yourselves in your pathetic echo chamber.
+1 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:15
So how much did the neo-cons pay you to post this stupidity?
0 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 02:49
Perhaps this calls for a very thorough and honest examination of conscience.
+41 # jwb110 2012-10-20 12:39
The Catholic Church in it's history has had a great many backlashes to "fix" based on Dogma. There was a time when Christians by the thousands were committing suicide to get to heaven. Hence "suiciders" cannot be buried in halled ground. The POV of sex as something to be avoided led to a decline in numbers of Catholics to fill the ranks hence rule about marriage and its fulfillment. To condemn Jews to hell the business of money changing was put full force into the hands of that community and then became the butt of Fascist complaints in the last Century. Genocide on both sides.
The principal problem in all of this is that Liberals are not rabid dog enough to be anything but "understanding" of the foibles of the human condition. Money should be spent to "out" these hypocrites. This is a war for the rights of all Citizens of this country and the mendacity of the Conservatives should be made visible as a part of winning that war.
-45 # James Smith 2012-10-20 12:44
I doubt the incidence of the religious reich engaging in some extra-marital bump and tickle is any more prevalent than with anyone else. It just makes more titillating headlines when they are caught.

Yes, they are hypocritical, but who is not? Honestly, how many people have you known that were not hypocritical in some area, most often sex?
-34 # James Smith 2012-10-20 14:05
So some of you don;t like that post? I haven't noticed anyone proving any of it is not true. Anonymously clicking a box is much easier than actually proving something, isn't it?
+26 # ruttaro 2012-10-20 17:58
Proof is not possible. How would we get the data? But I won't disagree with you especially on the point of hypocrisy. Myself? I find it impossible to live in the modern world without having to live within some hypocrisy. For example, I try to buy ethically, for example, but the gas I put in my car adds 12.6 pounds per gallon of carbon into the atmosphere. I want to bring carbon emissions down, protect the planey's cretion and other species, etc. Yes, I take steps to reduce my footprint but even the CFL bulbs I use ligth up because of some fossil fuel driven energy source.
But here is what I think the point is; the example from me is my being entrapped in the structures of modern life. To choose to "bump and tickle" outside of marriage while publicly venting about God's laws, the commandments, righteousness and moral superiority is not structured; it is choice. If a conservative politicain had a gay affair but never backed or spread vitriolic, anti-gay jaws or venom while heading off to church, we might re-elect him but no one would accuse him of hypocrisy. But when you get guys like D'Souza or Craig, Venter, etc. who speak loudly about moral rectitude, claim to lead a God centered life, condemn others for their transgressions (think Newt) while doing that which they condemn, I think you can see the difference. And it makes me laugh to hear their first line of defense: I'm a sinner but Jesus forgave me. If they were only as charitable to others.
+3 # bingers 2012-10-23 07:35
Fantastic response, and don't forget Henry Hyde, the scumbag (and my representative at the time) who ran the impeachment against Clinton after having a lengthy affair which he downplayed as a "youthful mistake" (he was in his late 40s and early 50s at the time). Lies and Hypocrisy are all the Republicans have.
+7 # kyzipster 2012-10-22 08:02
You don't even seem to understand the hypocrisy here. Democrats don't base their politics on the 'morals' of religious extremists and Republicans successfully paint liberals as immoral, gay, pot smoking baby killers living on food stamps. When a liberal gets caught porking a prostitute, there's no hypocrisy to point out.

This situation is of the conservative's making. It was inevitable after they crawled into bed with the Christian fascists who want to legislate behavior in the bedroom. They are dependent on this voting block to win elections, they are dependent on their culture war because their economic policies only favor a very small percentage of the population.

As society moves forward, accepting diversity and moving away from ancient, archaic, repressive religions dominated by a white male hierarchy, the GOP will continue to lose votes. The vast majority of us look into your bubble and ask, 'what the F is wrong with these people?'
+3 # Celeste 2012-10-22 10:07
Excellent post.
+1 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 03:06
Yes, James Smith...Can anyone honestly say that they do not have a Shadow, that there are not dark corners in their own minds with which they need to work? How much difference is a denial of the natural dark and light of the human heart from the hypocrsy under discussion? Isn't becoming a complete human being the integration of the entirety of our being, with kindness to the fallability of ourselves and others?
+30 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-20 16:29
Below is a link to a comparison by The Daily Beast; I don't know how accurate (Repubs come out worse), and I don't care, because it only counts office holders (mayors and up), and not televangelists, church leaders, hate-jocks, and priests and bishops and all the other moralist ranters who shape the Republican party.

But you miss the point. It's the Ted Haggards (anti-gay Colorado televangelist caught with a male prostitute) that represent the hyperbolic hypocrisy of the right's claim to be the moral standard bearers of America.

Case in point is the Catholic church telling John Kerry he's barred from communion when, probably for centuries, the church has been a virtual crime syndicate, managing a protracted, coordinated program of criminal obstruction to protect the child rapists and sexual offenders in its ranks — tantamount to perpetrating an institution of rape. THESE are the people telling American Catholics not to vote for a Democrat. SO don't tried to feed us some false equivalency about how both sides are hypocritical. Only the right is guilty of THIS LEVEL of mind-blowing, jaw-dropping hypocrisy on this issue, AND YOU KNOW IT.
+1 # dovelane1 2012-10-23 16:30
James - I prefer the term "trade-offs to the term hypocrisy. In trying to survive the madness, there will always be trade-offs. I do them consciously, trying to make the best decisions I can, given what I'm dealing with, and given the info I have at the time.

One trade-ioff is that, if I survive, I get to make comments on RSN. Hopefully that is appreciated by you and others, just as your comments are appreciated as well. ;-)
+49 # Gordon K 2012-10-20 12:47
I think it's important to emphasize that the hypocrisy is the issue, not the sexual behaviors, per se. The Democratic equivalent here is when a liberal, pro-labor politician is caught having employed an undocumented immigrant so as to avoid paying a fair wage and Social Security.
0 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 03:10
Thank you...This is what I was trying to express above. You have done it more succinctly.
-43 # Gnome de Pluehm 2012-10-20 12:49
Fascinating! I thought that sex scandals were usually the province of Democrats and money scandals the province of Republicans.
+7 # smendler 2012-10-20 14:10

Somebody is getting too much of it
They're not getting it legitimately
Government has a right to know who's getting it, and how much
+37 # davidr 2012-10-20 13:02
Hypocrisy is one thing, cynicism another.

One who pretends marital faithfulness in order to "keep face" in public is guilty of hypocrisy.

One who pretends marital faithfulness as false evidence of moral authority to exercise power over others is a cynic.

Insofar as religion is a struggle to understand the world, there will be hypocrisy. We form an abstract, idealized vision of what is right and true, but we want to avoid reckoning our own falling short of it.

But insofar as religion is a method of organizing and exercising power in society, there will be cynicism. We form doctrines and practices by which one group coalesces and asserts itself versus others. What is right and true in such case is flatly what confers power. That is cynical.

D'Souza is an arch-cynic. To paraphrase his quote cited in the article, "While I transgress the standards I espouse, at least I have standards." Nope. Those aren't standards, Dinesh. They are pious averrals that mean nothing to you except as they may secure your (paid) position in right wing politics.
+7 # Okieangels 2012-10-21 09:50
"One who pretends marital faithfulness in order to "keep face" in public is guilty of hypocrisy.

One who pretends marital faithfulness as false evidence of moral authority to exercise power over others is a cynic."

However, I think most of these people fall into both categories. They want to save face AND be seen as some kind of "authority."
+14 # Celeste 2012-10-21 10:11
Words like cynic and hypocrisy are FAR too kind when it comes to relating what these modern Pharisees DO to other people's lives. Women may bear children they can neither support, nor easily love... children they did not wish to bear. Gay teens commit suicide, chaste wives cannot de-thaw in the bedroom once married due to the scar tissue of Original sin lurking in their psyches to allegedly damn their souls, and so on.

Few premises are more important than maintaining a FIRE WALL between church and state.
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:18
Religion was invented by some physically weak male who wanted to be the leader of the tribe/clan.
+40 # Billsy 2012-10-20 13:03
One particularly interesting theory is that many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives know themselves to have little self-control, thus preferring the comfort of inflexible customs and laws. There is also the addictive bliss of their righteousness, a mental state almost as addictive a alcohol or drugs to them. I have witnessed a similar condition among some members of the military. They feel safe and comfortable within the rigid structure of military life. Ultimately we are all human beings beset by our own frailties. IWhether or not it's true, I certainly don't want to ge governed by a self-righteous intolerant gas bag. They've turned the GOP into a travesty of its former self.
+25 # Dave_s Not Here 2012-10-20 13:10
You should take a look at all the "male enhancement" aids and products being pitched at Its truly laughable.
+11 # bingers 2012-10-20 17:00
NewsMax itself is laughable. What a steaming pile of bullshit!

I love their push polls.
+14 # kitster 2012-10-20 13:12
hypocracy and christianity are the two sides of the same coin. it doesn't matter to what political ideology the bearer embraces. in fact, hyprocracy and religion in general are kith and kin. reactionaries and the right just equate the two more often.
+12 # James Smith 2012-10-20 14:03
You're right. It's reached the point where the words, "hypocrisy" and "christianity" are semantically equal.
+23 # wipster 2012-10-20 18:01
Quoting kitster:
hypocracy and christianity are the two sides of the same coin. it doesn't matter to what political ideology the bearer embraces. in fact, hyprocracy and religion in general are kith and kin. reactionaries and the right just equate the two more often.

I'm not religious in the slightest, but I do think you need to clarify your statement in order for it to be accurate. The "religion" of Christianity as historically and currently practiced is often very hypocritical, as evidenced by the dreadful things done in the name of Jesus. But the teachings of Jesus, recorded as they selectively are in the New Testament, are not hypocritical at all... just the people who claim to follow them and then do the exact opposite, now that's the very definition of hypocrisy.
+5 # Celeste 2012-10-21 10:15
+1 # bingers 2012-10-23 07:41
Quoting kitster:
hypocracy and christianity are the two sides of the same coin. it doesn't matter to what political ideology the bearer embraces. in fact, hyprocracy and religion in general are kith and kin. reactionaries and the right just equate the two more often.

I partially agree. It's like he difference between an honest cop and one on the take or a bully. The good cop is one of society's best, a bad cop is one of the worst. Just so, the same is true of religious people.
-72 # Joeconserve 2012-10-20 13:19
Mr. Parramore and the rest of you obviously do not understand the essence of life. Here's a brief summary for you

1. God is the source of all life. Without God’s continuous desire to hold us in existence, we would cease to be. We would not be dead; we would cease to be! We can proceed down any explanatory path (evolutionism, creationism, etc.) as to how we came to be, and each one could be the right one. As humans, how we got here is up to us to discover, but we can never discover why we got here. That can only be revealed to us.
2. Humans have an eternal soul given to them as a gift from God.
3. The rules of conduct for carrying out one’s life (i.e., The Ten Commandments) must prevail.
4. Humans have free will. But humans can only adhere to or violate the Ten Commandments. They cannot choose another source of life or change the point at which God gives the gift of a soul.
5. God has an eternal paradise waiting for those of us humans who adhere to His commandments.
+25 # mebemo 2012-10-20 14:06
What gives you the idea that Divinity (or "God" if you prefer) is male?

I agree with you that all life depends on a mysterious Source of Vitality. This has been recognized by many different cultures, including but not limited to biblical Judea. What makes you think they're the only ones who got it right? Why not be nourished by all the streams that flow?
-31 # Joeconserve 2012-10-20 14:49
God has no need of a gender. Tradition through the ages uses the term so I do.

Because of free will you can believe what you want. You will find out at the end.
+15 # mebemo 2012-10-20 22:22
Are you threatening a "non-believer" with Hell? Just try loving people instead of being an arrogant theological ninny.
+3 # David Starr 2012-10-22 12:17
@Joeconserve: If God doesn't have a gender, what is he really? We're all familiar with God as depicted by Michelangelo on the Sistine ceiling. Did Michelangelo "see" God? If he "saw" God as he did, would what would that mean regarding gender? Why the use of the male gender in the first place?

Quoting: "Because of free will you can believe what you want. You will find out at the end." You sound rather arrogant and patronizing. How can we take your word for it, acting as a self-appointed spokesperson for God? A religion that needs fear and revenge to "convert" peoples doesn't sound like a purely good religion.
+2 # David Starr 2012-10-22 12:03
@mebemo: Rather strange questions: What does God look like? And if God's gender is male, does that mean he has a penis? As a supreme being, what would he do with it, since he wouldn't have natural human functions? Would it be simply an appendage with no use?
+26 # carpbear 2012-10-20 14:20
Joeconserve: You said, "The rules of conduct for carrying out one’s life (i.e., The Ten Commandments) must prevail" and "God has an eternal paradise waiting for those of us humans who adhere to His commandments" then I trust that you don't equate your conservative political philosophy with "God's will" and thus violate the commandment regarding taking God's name in vain (Ex. 20:7); and you don't make material possessions or accumulating wealth or power a god, thus violating the commandment about "having no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:4-5); and you do no work, nor do you shop or go to restaurants on Sundays (or Saturday, if you're Jewish) so as not to violate Ex. 20: 8-11.

I'll trust you've never had an extramarital affair, which would violate Ex. 20:14; you NEVER take what isn't yours, including theft of time or supplies from your employer or even taking money from your wife's billfold, which would violate Ex. 20:15; and you never make statements you know are false about Democrats, liberals or even President Obama, which would violate Ex. 20:16.

Now, I know you're not going to turn around and say that these no longer apply since Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, because Jesus said in Matthew 5:18: "I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished." You see - I, a gay, Christian socialist, have actually STUDIED the 10 Commandments.
+15 # davidr 2012-10-20 14:50
Can't carry a photo of your kids in your wallet either -- sorry, graven image -- it's the law.
-21 # Joeconserve 2012-10-20 14:54
You, too, may believe what you want. There are three outcomes of any choice. Accountibility, responsibility and consequences. Good luck.
+14 # carpbear 2012-10-20 15:49
I gave you the Scriptures, Joeconserve.

Take it up with God if you don't like what God said.

Or, you could actually try READING the Bible -- preferably in the original Hebrew, and the Koine Greek.
0 # bingers 2012-10-20 17:05
Quoting carpbear:
I gave you the Scriptures, Joeconserve.

Take it up with God if you don't like what God said.

Or, you could actually try READING the Bible -- preferably in the original Hebrew, and the Koine Greek.

He'd probably understand it just as well as Englisn, to wit, not at all.
+17 # bingers 2012-10-20 17:03
You mean like Anthony Weiner sending an email of his junk and Democrats and Republicans hounding him out of office despite it being stupid, not illegal, or of David Vitter who committed a felony calling his madam to set up a date from the floor of the Senate and every Republican coming to his defense?
+4 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:26
Or the $2 BILLION spent on trying to hound President Clinton out of office.
0 # ruttaro 2012-10-20 18:07
How about D'Souza's choice? What is the outcome of his choice? Not as you would want us to believe. He apparently has only a good outcome. Obviously he is not being held accountable since he believes his hypocrisy demonstrates he has high standards; thus responsibility means nothing since he was responsible to his standards. And consequences? Looks like it boiled down quite simply to having a nice frolic in the bed.
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:24
Unfortunately, you republican/cons ervatives still have not taken responsibility for what you did to our country by electing gwbush. I have found that people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions are usually the most religious.
+2 # David Starr 2012-10-22 12:21
@Joeconserve: You do have a nerve acting like you're above the rest of us based on belief or nonbelief.
+29 # Tortuga 2012-10-20 14:37
Joeconserve, who are you to instruct "the rest of you" as to the essence of life?

These are your precepts for running your own life and not for taking inventory of others. Or is that how you employ your Free Will?
-17 # Joeconserve 2012-10-20 14:55
It's up to you what you believe.
+15 # bingers 2012-10-20 17:06
Quoting Joeconserve:
It's up to you what you believe.

Can't argue with that, some of us believe facts, some believe myths.
+17 # Nominae 2012-10-20 18:45
@ Joeconserve

Can you see the problem in saying: "it's up to you what you believe", after having previously presumed to *school* everyone online regarding what they *should* believe ? Point by point ?

In formal logic that is called a "hit and run" tactic. While very popular on elementary school playgrounds, it is considered cowardly when applied during the course of adult discussion.

Intellectually, organized religion [as opposed to inner spirituality] can't come up with a story that would pass the straight-face test with a cognitively challenged third grader.

But adherents of organized religion are so deeply steeped in fear that they will regurgitate whatever outrageously inane madness has been carefully spoon-fed to them as they grew up.

If it gives you comfort, fine. But read the part of the Bible that admonishes the reader (paraphrasing) if thou would talk to the lord, go thou to thy closet (closed place), and take not thy conversations out into the streets.

Bon Appetit !
-19 # Joeconserve 2012-10-20 21:33
I gave you my view of reality. If you don't like the view that's your choice. That's what free will is all about.

I've been teaching Christian doctrine since 1965. Last year I completed a four year course on Biblical History. I have written a book on the impact of Christian philosophy on my understanding of what reality is all about. I have visited religious places all around the world. I attend Mass three times a week. Thus, my comments are based on study and experience.

None of you concentrate on what makes a person. None of you will accept the idea that there is a God. A God who can be called the first cause. A God who needs nothing. A God who created us out of his love. That those persons who come to understand that God wants us to give back love in the same manner.

Have you ever read "The Arab Mind" by Rapheal Patai. How about "The Theology of the Body Expalined" by Christopher West or the writings of Aristotle, Plato, St. Augustine? Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia and experienced the hatred of the Western Civilization. Have you walked through Auschwitz or seen the Black Madonna at Jasna Gora. How about witnessing the effects of an IED explosion in Iraq? Did you ever put your eyes on the Pieta in the Vatican? Have you ever been out of the United States and seen how the world lives?

What have you done to justify anything you want to advocate? I think you are like the king who has no cloths.

Bon Appetit!!
+15 # ruttaro 2012-10-20 22:51
This boggles the mind. You ask the question "What have you done to justify anything you want to advocate?" From what you say you have done, all I can conclude is that you saw reality through your own lens and conclude that God wants us to love him back in the same manner. Nothing you say proves anything. This is your interpretation and it is as shallow as it is self-congratula tory. "What have you done..." you ask. Have you seen hunger in a world of extravagence and opulance? Have you seen suffering of children while Christians go to Church? Have you witnessed the death of a child from malaria because her family's poverty could not afford the medicines due to Western economic policies? Have you walked where the marginalized exist, their lives deemed valueless because they are not productive in a world of plunder capitalism? When I went to Mass, I could not help noticing the sparse contributions to the last collection, the one for the poor. The pious were as blind and heartless then as now. You say "A God who needs nothing" but then "wants the same love back in the same manner?" Then I guess he needs something. If God loves all of us on the condition we love him back, well then if he decides I don't love him enough, maybe justifies unleashing a plague on me. But how does a loving God allow innocent children to suffer the same plague? Are they just collateral damage? Is that any less cruel than an IED? Or a drone killing a child? The hatred of Muslims?
+10 # Celeste 2012-10-21 10:33
Excellent counterpoints, although anyone who perceives God, in the archetype of the father ends up identifying, consciously or otherwise, with patriarchal precepts.

Just as American his-tory has been written from the perspective of the dominant culture leaving massive amounts of others' truth (and experience) out of the narrative, The Abrahamic religions (along with their followers, who form a seamless thread that profoundly impacts the halls of academe and what is studied therein) leave out the Feminine Dimensions of Creator & The Cosmos. These glaring omissions don't make the larger Truth any less viable.

Other models apart from top-down, male headed hierarchies have existed and prompted far more egalitarian societal models. That this info is kept largely hidden (or socially marginalized) is akin to the manner by which right wing Arizona zealots have made it their business to remove ethnic studies from their bleached white school curricula.
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:36
So let me understand claim to be such a "good" Christian, so good in fact that you teach it continue to disobey......
+1 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:27
Thank you, that's very big of you.
+14 # Old Uncle Dave 2012-10-20 15:58
Yo, Joe - The Ten Commandments are not the law any more. Haven't you read the New Testament? Jesus said the commandments were of the old covenant and he was here to bring a new covenant with only one law. Love one another.
+13 # ruttaro 2012-10-20 18:25
Problem with your logic is that it rests on the existence of God without any proof. To accept your "truth" we have to believe that something exists. "God is the source of all life"? I could say that coincidence is the source of all life and proceed along your argument with no trouble at all until we get to that thing called eternal paradise. Even if there is an eternal paradise awaiting humans who adhere to His commandents means no one is there because no one would be there. Unless, you allow for some adherence some of the time and then there is the problem of those who seldom wander and those who wander a lot. What if I lie? Go shopping on Sunday? Someone else kills? Or after hitting his thumb with the hammer says "G-D-it?" What is meant by adhere, after all?
So if paradise awaits we imperfect humans varying in our adherence to the commandments, it doesn't sound like that high a bar to pass so what's the point?
Frankly, if there is a paradise, that is where dogs must go. They deserve it. They sure are a lot more superior in their conduct than we are and they seem to adhere to those commandments of yours a hell of a lot better than we do. Hmmm...makes me think that maybe we made all this crap up?
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:39
Let's not forget that Christianity had one of the greatest propaganda machines.
+1 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:20
You are a very good example of what it is to be religious.
SPIRITUALITY is the search for enlightenment/knowledge.
RELIGION is the search for reward.
+16 # Gord84 2012-10-20 13:27
Freud called it a defence mechanism "Reaction Formation."
+21 # karlarove 2012-10-20 13:38
As Carl Jung once said "The problem with the unconscious is that it is unconscious".Th e famous taunt from childhood "it takes one to know one" was said in response to mean things kids would say. Until each and everyone of us understands what is in our shadow, nothing will change. "Even hypocrisy is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos or nihilism." This is just his way of rationalizing what he does, because he thinks he is different and special, and above laws. Much of what is written in the bible is metaphor, and when Jesus said to love your enemy as yourself, he meant that enemy is a part of me. I've noticed this hypocrisy in the rich and the poor, and it comes from a paucity of spirit.
0 # dovelane1 2012-10-26 00:07
The irony about the idea of "loving your enemies as yourself" is that we respond to everyone based on whether or not we learned to love OR hate ourselves.

A quote I really like states that life is 5% what we make it, and 95% how we learned to take it. Our attitude, how we have learned to take things, determines how we respond to life.

This is not to say that people can't change, but the hardest thing for people with a poor self-image to do, is change.

My guess is that religions attract people with poor self-images, and gives them a way for them to think they are okay. Trouble is, most of them never believe it. Under the facade of light and cheer, they still don't like themselves very much, and they usually end up taking it out on others they have learned to not like very much as well.

One would think that if God really did forgive people of their sins, they would treat people that are different from them better than they do. I don't know if that is true for all spiritual belief systems, but I believe it is true for patriarchal belief systems.
+34 # carpbear 2012-10-20 13:47
Here I am, a card-carrying, dues-paying, active member of the Democratic Socialist Party in America -- and gay, on top of that; and I'm boringly monogamous and have been for 23 years of my relationship, am committed to my relationship, pay my bills, actively give back to my community and I don't expect to be placed on a pedestal simply because I exist.

Obviously, I can't be a Republican or a Tea Partier or I'd be screwing everything that moved (both literally and figuratively)!
+32 # cordleycoit 2012-10-20 13:52
In Colorado we had Pastor Haggard and the bloody aftermath to that triangle. Two dead in a church shoot out. The killer had been sexually abused. Of course the religious right covered covered that story up like cats in a sandbox.
+26 # luckyUS citizen 2012-10-20 14:14
What I find interesting is that these conservative men always say that they are separated or getting a divorce like that absolves them from wrongdoing in their eyes. However, divorce is only a civil dissolution of the legal contract but, under the religious principles of most religions, particularly the Southern Baptists, you are NEVER divorced in the eyes of God. The vows say "until death do you part" and "what God has joined together, let no man put asunder." I was always taught that unless your spouse dies, you can never remarry without committing adultery. I do not ascribe to these views but that is the conservative dogma.
+21 # John Escher 2012-10-20 14:29
This is a witty and perceptive article. Still, it depresses. Is that because the polls are CREEPing upward in Romney's favor despite his total humiliation and discrediting in the last presidential debate? Figuring him out in other words doesn't matter. Lose or win, the country will remain a pretty unpleasant place-- if it survives the self-incurred drone bombings and environmental catastrophes headed our way-- because of the large number of dopes here (perhaps better called "dodo-birds" if one can look ahead with historical hindsight).
+21 # moonrigger 2012-10-20 15:07
It's amazing how religions of "the book" have left women out of the equation...or else created such bizarre dogma, i.e. Jesus, Mary and Joseph were all virgins. (Huh? Where did James come from?) Women aren't allowed into the inner sanctum, because they are unclean, i.e menstruate. Yet, males of these male-dominated religions are also the first to squawk when they don't partake of their marital rights, i.e. sex on demand, and can't stand the idea of women having control over their own reproductive rights (how dare they?). Keep 'em where they belong, barefoot & pregnant down on the farm. If you provide any help for them when they're down & out, next thing they'll be wanting to take over the country! Denial creates forbidden fruit. The more they preach abstinence, the more kinky they become. Diapers indeed!
+10 # bingers 2012-10-20 17:09
Well, to be fair, back in biblical days a virgin was someone who had never slept with any man except her husband. It's just that the fairy tale is so spellbinding that all Christian churches ignore that fact.
+4 # Okieangels 2012-10-21 10:06
Certainly not "all Christian churches." There are plenty of churches that teach modern biblical criticism, and take most, or all, of the bible with a large grain of salt. Most Christians I know are quite capable of choosing the parts of the bible that are inspirational and ignoring the parts that reflect a bronze age mentality. (Hint: Next time a wing-nut appears on TV, ask yourself why a liberal Methodist, Anglican or Catholic wasn't asked about their views.)
+8 # carpbear 2012-10-20 16:16
I gave you the Scriptures, Joeconserve.

Take it up with God if you don't like what God said.

Or, you could actually try READING the Bible -- preferably in the original Hebrew, and the Koine Greek. I did, so I actually know what the Bible says -- and more importantly, I know what it *doesn't* say.
+8 # Art947 2012-10-20 17:31
It is too bad that the Scriptures that you reference were written by MEN. If you are referencing the New Testament, then you need to be aware that the Gospels were written as much as 200 years after the death of Jesus.

The Torah is not written in Hebrew. It is written in Aramaic.

Please also be aware that if these documents were written by one entity, then the contradictions within the document provide serious questions about that entities philosophy and consistency.
+2 # Okieangels 2012-10-21 10:09
The Torah was not written in Aramaic. No books written in Aramaic were allowed in the Hebrew bible. That's why you don't find the story of the Maccabees and Hanukkah in the Hebrew Bible. Most Christians and Jews believe the Bible was divinely inspired, not divinely dictated. Big difference.
+23 # pernsey 2012-10-20 16:20
Whatever the right says they are against or for, privately behind closed doors they are doing the opposite. If the right says they are for the middle class you can bet your butt, they are doing every thing they can privately to tear it down. If the right is against homosexuals then I would bet alot of them are closet gays themselves. If they are trying to stop voter fraud you can bet they themselves are promoting it.

Its opposite world, if you want to pollute the air, you name the bill the fresh air many great people I know are duped by this hypocrisy, yet they dont see it, its almost like in certain areas they are brainwashed.

Mitt pretends he cares about the middle class, when all he really cares about is making more money off of them. Thats all it ever really is about with republicans. If talking about banning abortions will get them votes to keep going with their selfish agendas then thats what they are for. As long as it doesnt cost them anything, and they never really do anything about it, they just like to use the talking point to get votes.

Fox News and Rupert Murdoch will go down as the force that used brain washing to ruin America...up is down, good is evil, right is wrong...its really quite amazing how many people are so caught up in the Fox bubble that they believe their nonsense as truth. Just keep repeating the lies long enough they become truth, thats the Fox mantra...its what they do.
+17 # Replicounts 2012-10-20 16:22
Sex is natural. Prudery, not so much.
+17 # RMDC 2012-10-20 18:44
"a vitriolic, one-sided, outrageously craven wingnut " -- yes, this described de Souza perfectly. I'd just add and "a complete asshole."
+10 # TurboKitty 2012-10-20 19:37
In answer to the title question ... they believe they are chosen by God ...
+17 # brenda 2012-10-20 21:00
Romney is the perfect stooge to do the 1% filthy rich’s bidding. His conscience has long been seared against feeling any compassion for those who are affected by his corporate looting of the many companies that Bain Capital has bought and raped. He's no better than the Mafia Dons who sell dope to low income adults and children. He is ideal candidate for the Revelation Anti-christ position. What’s even funnier, is hearing that his Mormon religion, long listed as a cult in Billy Graham’s Baptist shit list of cults and false religions, has been removed from that list. I guess Billy doesn’t mind who you are, or what you believe in, just as long as you espouse the Right Wing-nut positions being held by “Neo-Nazi, racial hating, gun toting, confederate extremists”, and the rich bustards who would sell the American dream down the river to the third world for fun and profit. I remember the words that the Communist Governments said about the rich bourgeois, that they would “sell the Communists the rope with which they [the communists] would hang the free world with”. But when the world is embroiled in the threat of World War III, it’s going to be the lower and middle class’ sons and daughters whose lives will be put on the line to die and get maimed for the greedy rich’s protection of their damn foreign investments, while the rich hide their money, sons, and daughters in the Caiman Islands.
Any poor/middle class person voting for Romney is either a bigot, fool or American turncoat.
+4 # bmiluski 2012-10-22 11:44
Please keep in mind, romney is NOT A STOOGE. He is part of the 1% and their front man.
+5 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-10-20 21:58
Weak theology but good psychology.
+3 # DRL 2012-10-21 09:43
To Art947
"The Torah is not written in Hebrew. It is written in Aramaic."

Strange! It reads like Hebrew to me.

Or perhaps you should tell the Israelis that they don't know what language they are speaking.
+5 # freeportguy 2012-10-21 14:21
"Even hypocrisy is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos or nihilism."

This alone sums up accurately the entire conservative way.
+9 # DurangoKid 2012-10-21 18:20
The hypocrisy stems from the split between who these televangelists are and what they preach. They preach a carefully crafted message to get people to part with their money. That's what these ministries are all about. They get in front of a camera and put on a show. The frightened and gullible hand over the cash. Keep in mind that Hitler looked great on stage. Off stage he like to spend some time relaxing and watching cartoons. Don't confuse the message with the messenger. The message is designed to attract power and wealth. The messengers are quite often of mediocre talent and intellect. No, they're not great people. They just play one on tv.
+2 # kyzipster 2012-10-22 07:42
+3 # NAVYVET 2012-10-23 06:17
On balance, it seems that reactionaries are more likely to cover sexual sins by railing against others who share them, although I doubt that liberals are happy to be outed. Nobody enjoys an October surprise. But get your FACTS right, please! Read a few collections of ancient myths and you'll see that in the Middle Eastern region there were plenty of ancient polytheistic religions with virgin goddesses who gave birth to savior gods. They began as un-virgins, cthonic gods of fertility, wives of saviors rather than mothers, with savage and bloody human sacrificial rites. Some evolved into virgin mothers (virginity restored yearly) like Cybele, mother of Attis, whose rites were still cruel. The benign virgin goddess tradition began with Isis, mother of Horus. Perhaps Anahita was regarded the virgin mother of Mithras, and she may have been the first permanent virgin, an attribute passed to Mary. Some less well-educated Christians, including those of a region in pre-Islamic Arabia, have worshiped Mary openly as a goddess, but she was NOT the first in a tradition going back, for all we know, to the Paleolithic's goddess figurines.
0 # Rangzen 2012-10-24 03:37
Wonderful. I do believe Inanna would agree with all you say.
+1 # Zeus 2012-10-23 11:47
Ah, NAVYVET, those were the days.
In some ways there is more equality when there are multiple gods (which, yes, came well before a single god). It does make sense, though, to use sex, religion, skin color and sexual orientation to eliminate a lot of the competition. These recent inventions will not last too much longer and it will be interesting to see how this will change in 200 plus years when death will be optional.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.