McLeod on Robinson

January 17th, 2010 at 7:28 am by David Farrar

writes in the SST:

PUT TOO much makeup on a 60-year-old woman and she’ll look like a man in drag. Such is the cruel fate of Irish politician Iris Robinson, a cosmetics queen who condemned gays while secretly bonking a mere slip of a boy. Her close-ups are a worry.

Iris was in “acute psychiatric care” last week after being forced to resign from politics, and quite likely costing husband Peter, First Minister of Northern Ireland, his career. I note this not to rejoice at her hypocrisy exposed, or revel in her distress, but to marvel at the many ingenious ways we make ourselves unhappy.

Eighteen months ago Robinson told the Ulster parliament that, “There can be no viler act, apart from homosexuality and sodomy, than the sexual abuse of innocent children.” Putting gays on a par with paedophiles naturally enraged the gays, but she was unrepentant. “What I say I base on biblical pronouncements based on God’s word,” she insisted. She is a born-again Christian but why gays would interest her in particular is anybody’s guess.

Whenever we see a “Christian” blathering like this, we know instinctively that personal disaster is on the cards. In this country, for example, there’s former Christian Heritage Party leader Graham Capill, also a former pastor, a former barrister and former police prosecutor, a father of 10 children, currently serving nine years for multiple sex offences, including rape, against three young girls.

Robinson’s hypocrisy was rather blatant. I’m not sure when God told her to sleep with the 19 year old guy, despite being married.

Normally I might point out Robinson is slightly the victim of differing standards. People react far worse to a 60 year old woman sleeping with a 19 year old boy than a 60 year old man with a 19 year old girl.

But then I remember that this woman claimed that consensual homosexual sex is “more” vile than child abuse, and my sympathy dries up.

Tags:

88 Responses to “McLeod on Robinson”

  1. Danyl Mclauchlan (1,049 comments) says:

    The Irish bloggers are calling it ‘cougar-gate’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. radvad (620 comments) says:

    Hypocrisy writ large for sure. And pathetically amusing in a sad sort of way.

    But here is a question. Why is it only Christians are charged with hypocrisy when they do something illegal/stupid? After all every non Christian I know claims child abuse etc (insert crime of your choice) is wrong yet non Christians commit crimes every day. The hypocrisy charge is not levelled at them even though they believe what they are doing is wrong and they would pass judgement on another who did the same thing.

    In short, we are all technically hypocrites. We all, Christian or not, in one way or another, condemn certain behaviour in others but often reserve the right to cross that line ourselves. That is part of our natural condition. Because Christianity addresses issues such as these is one reason I am a Christian.

    Disclaimer: Even though I am a Christian I in no way claim to be pure. Far from it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    It isn’t only Christians radvad. Tiger Woods has been savaged for his hypocritical ‘perfect family life’ image.

    It’s all a matter of scale and fame. Robinson’s hypocrisy is of a magnitude that cannot avoid comment.

    [DPF: Exactly]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kiwitoffee (383 comments) says:

    Oh dear. Let’s all have a go at Christians shall we?
    All on the basis of some sad woman politician from Northern Ireland who has taken to sleeping with a young man. It happens often and not just amongst Christians, in fact probably much more so amongst non-Christians.
    Those who throw the hypocrisy stone should be wary. None of us is perfect and this woman’s conduct and comments are no grounds to lambast Christian teachings. Can we have some joined-up thinking please?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Manolo (12,637 comments) says:

    What if it were a 60 year-old blobke bonking a 19 year-old lass? Surely, it would be different, wouldn’t it?
    Double-standards and hypocrisy transcend religion or political affiliation. It’s human nature after all: the weakness of the flesh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. 2boyz (230 comments) says:

    To cap it off I understand from other news items she managed to give the guy nearly 50,000 Government pounds to start a restaurant. She’s a crusty old slapper who deserves everything she is about to receive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. jcuknz (648 comments) says:

    >>>Hypocrisy writ large for sure. And pathetically amusing in a sad sort of way<<< I agree though I feel sorry for the husband and his carear in principle. I have no idea about his politics. It is sad that the fragile peace in NI is jeopardised becuase of the actions of the woman.
    If she and the lad got happiness out of the act, presumably becuase the husband was too busy saving the nation, then good luck to them. Another sadness is that the politics/religion required the woman to take the stance she had, created the hypocracy, we live in a sick culture. The Christian teachings are to be commended, it is the human interpretations and implementations that are the problem so often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Where would the Christian haters be without Graham Capill to refer to at every opportunity??

    I find it ironic that many of those who complain about bigotry towards homosexuals often fail to see their own rank bigotry in respect of Christians.

    Its not as if homosexuals themselves are immune from statements of hate. Some of the things they say about Christians or even just heterosexuals in general are disgraceful are and are at least the equal of anything said by poor Iris. There’s more than a few homosexuals writing in the blogosphere who exhibit a special talent for nastiness, spite and vindictiveness.

    Funny thing is, while opposition to homosexuality is much more pronounced within the Muslim religion, (they still hang homosexuals in Iran) you never see the queers saying too much about that. On the contrary, it seems to be the trend (among Progressives especially) to wholeheartedly embrace Islam and seldom make mention of its inbuilt vehement opposition to homosexuality. Why is that I wonder??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tvb (3,945 comments) says:

    The kid has become gay icon which is a delicious irony. Looks like she is burning is hell due to her psychiatric meltdown. I presume the sex act between a post menopausal women and the 19 year old was for pure sexual gratification. The husbands career is in suspension due to the funding of the money for the kid to start a restaurant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. scanner (340 comments) says:

    Leave the poor woman alone, all she did was get herself a bit of young totty. lets face how many 19 year old young men would turn their nose up at a MILF, hormones and all that.
    As for the fags, sorry I meant gay community, they have been shown so much tolerance in the western world in the name of liberalism, that the moment someone says anything against them they get all anal about it (pun intended).
    As for differing standards, we as a nation seem to have no problem with this, as we protect the identity of people who interfere with our children using court ordered name suppression, if they’re rich or famous.

    [DPF: If someone compared me to being more vile than a paedophile, I'd be outraged, and I suspect you would be also]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Robinson’s hypocrisy is of a magnitude that cannot avoid comment.”

    Sorry. Can someone explain the “hypocrisy” bit?

    The woman said nasty things about homosexuality, but right now I can’t quite see how this makes her a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. tvb (3,945 comments) says:

    The woman was grooming the boy for years being a sort of mother figure to him after his mother died.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Viking2 (10,736 comments) says:

    No name suppression in this job. Just as it should be.
    Tell Simon will you DPF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. cha (3,539 comments) says:

    The woman was grooming the boy for years being a sort of mother figure to him after his mother died.

    Ya gotta ask, how old was the boy when the relationship changed?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Graeme Edgeler (3,222 comments) says:

    Sorry. Can someone explain the “hypocrisy” bit?

    Yeah, I was having some trouble with that too. I think it’s that people consider her actions as close to paedophilia, maybe, which she also said was bad. Maybe?

    [DPF: The hypocrisy is a public persona built on her religious and moral beliefs, which were the opposite of her private behaviour]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    What if it were a 60 year-old blobke bonking a 19 year-old lass? Surely, it would be different, wouldn’t it?

    Why would it be different? Married bloke, married woman, no difference, publicly outspoken on Christian morals, it’s hypocrisy. And if there is grooming involved it looks gross, bloke or woman. Sixty year old bloke or woman bonking 19 year old seems creepy regardless of morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    This is a person who claimed that What I say I base on biblical pronouncements, based on God’s word. I am amazed that people are surprised when I quote from scriptures, and who attended a very conservative Church.

    So far she has racked up adultery and a number of accusations about dishonesty and theft (pertaining to assistance to lover Kirk McCambley’s purchase of a cafe and numerous violations of the Ministerial code she was bound by).

    The hypocrisy is simple. On one hand, she has claimed to have moral authority derived from her religious beliefs. Yet her private behaviour contradicts her position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I feel sorry for Iris. She’s got the Super-Deluxe 24-hour Access Born-again Personal Relationship with God(TM), but he didn’t bother to tell her she was on thin ice over the £50k? Or the marriage thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    I find it ironic that many of those who complain about bigotry towards homosexuals often fail to see their own rank bigotry in respect of Christians.

    Sorry, but where is the bigotry towards Christians?

    No one tells Christians how to live their lives, they are the ones (at least some of them) who try to tell us what is right or wrong.
    If they publicly take the moral high ground and tell us what is right and wrong, of course they will be held to their own standards.
    There is no bigotry to point out where they fail.

    To put it in your terms, red, Christians (not all, of course, but the zealots) are the ultimate commies. They want to control everything, up to who you sleep with and how you sleep with them.

    Mind you, other religious zealots are not better either.

    Funny thing is, while opposition to homosexuality is much more pronounced within the Muslim religion, (they still hang homosexuals in Iran) you never see the queers saying too much about that. On the contrary, it seems to be the trend (among Progressives especially) to wholeheartedly embrace Islam and seldom make mention of its inbuilt vehement opposition to homosexuality. Why is that I wonder??

    You must be reading a lot of gay sites to know that they are silent about this?
    Or could it be that you are just re-iterating some preconceived opinion, unchecked and unresearched.
    Don’t think that this is a hot topic on the right wing sites that you read.

    Some reading material for you, in case you are interested:

    http://www.gaynewswatch.com/Page.cfm?PageID=2&STID=290&SID=7399
    http://www.al-bab.com/arab/background/gay.htm
    http://www.globalgayz.com/travel/religion#gaymuslims
    http://www.globalgayz.com/country/Iran/view/IRN/gay-iran

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    [DPF: The hypocrisy is a public persona built on her religious and moral beliefs, which were the opposite of her private behaviour]

    So it was nothing to do with here pronouncements on homosexuality then? I mean she wasn’t indulging in homosexuality was she? It was adultery, and many people are guilty of this sin when simultaneously professing to be moral. (Christian or not).

    You really need to explain what is exceptionally hypocritical about this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The hypocrisy is simple. On one hand, she has claimed to have moral authority derived from her religious beliefs. Yet her private behaviour contradicts her position.”

    See my comment above. You really need to explain what is so exceptional about this woman’s alleged “hypocrisy”.

    You say it is of “a magnitude that cannot avoid comment”. Which really isn’t much of a magnitude anyway, but assuming you were trying to say her adultery was of some kind of exceptional magnitude, you would need to explain why she is more than just another Christian or human being who has fallen by the wayside.

    You seem to be making some kind of faulty logical connection between what she said about homosexuality and her behaviour, whereas I cannot see any connection. Sure, she subscribed to a strong moral position, and failed to live up to that position, but what’s homosexuality got to do with it?

    I think you are singling her out for special attention for only one real reason and that (leaving aside any debate on her position) is that she dared to confront PC speech codes on homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    You should actually understand hypocrisy Red, you seem to be much more experienced with that than with homosexuality or Progressives – “it seems to be the trend (among Progressives especially)” – speaking for others again?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. eszett (2,272 comments) says:

    See my comment above. You really need to explain what is so exceptional about this woman’s alleged “hypocrisy”.

    You say it is of “a magnitude that cannot avoid comment”. Which really isn’t much of a magnitude anyway, but assuming you were trying to say her adultery was of some kind of exceptional magnitude, you would need to explain why she is more than just another Christian or human being who has fallen by the wayside.

    no, red, not the magnitude of of her adultery is the problem.
    The problem is that she takes the moral high ground around sexuality when it comes to other people, but fails to meet her own standards.

    You cannot take such a stance on homosexuality while you ignore the standards for your own sexuality, can you?
    Saying, look at me, I am this über-christian when it comes to homosexuality, but not when it comes to my marriage vows (which are so holy and sacred that of course evil homosexuals should never be allowed to take them)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” speaking for others again?”

    You should receive demerits for constantly taking threads off topic Mr. George. And you’re so wrong it beggars belief that a man who always assumes the typically leftist delusional air of intellectually superiority can make such a fool of himself.

    I said- “It seems to me to be a trend”, and it does seem that way to me. The opinion is mine and mine alone. Nowhere do I express that opinion for anybody else.

    If I thought it would do any good, I would recommend reading and comprehension lessons, but I have long ago realised the futility of such recommendations to brain damaged leftists. They’re just not capable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” I think it’s that people consider her actions as close to paedophilia, maybe, which she also said was bad. Maybe?”

    Maybe is right. The male was 19.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Dr. Strangelove (39 comments) says:

    Chthoniid: She didn’t claim any ‘moral authority’. She offered an orthodox interpretation of biblical scripture (i.e. not her own idiosyncratic interpretation, but one which is endorsed by many Christian churches including the Catholic church), and by implication asserted that *the Bible* has moral authority.

    Although it is common to accuse Christians of hypocrisy under circumstances like this, such accusations are the result of a profound ignorance of Christian ethics, so here’s a brief primer on orthodox Christian ethics: (1) God made the rules. (2) Humans are supposed to acknowledge His moral authority and accept those rules. (3) But it is assumed that humans will not perfectly comply with those rules. (4) When they fail to comply with the rules they are supposed to acknowledge that they have done wrong, make a sincere commitment not to do wrong again, and seek forgiveness from God (i.e. repent).

    So if a Christian asserts that adultery is wrong (because God says so), commits adultery anyway, but then repents, that is all par for the course. Nothing in that series of actions suggests that they do not sincerely believe in the moral principles that they publicly espouse, so there is no hypocrisy involved.

    On the contrary, someone who commits adultery, but denies that there is anything wrong with adultery, is in a much worse position from the Christian point of view. The problem is that such a person would be denying God’s moral authority, and would of course fail to repent.

    Hypocrisy is really a distinctly liberal sin. When you hold some version of the view that people make up their own moral rules, then the greatest public sin you can commit is to fail to live up to the rules you publicly espouse. Christians don’t make up their own moral rules, and don’t pretend to be capable of living up to the rules they have been given, so hypocrisy is a relatively rare and trivial sin for them.

    In Robinson’s case her only sin, from a Christian point of view, was adultery. Hypocrisy doesn’t figure at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Progressives often enter into relationships and decry any official marriage vows and ceremony (secular or religious) because they maintain that their commitment to the relationship would not be made any stronger by so doing.

    In other words they are saying their commitment is as strong as Iris Robinson professed hers to be, they just do not need any ceremony or officialism to underpin that commitment.

    That being given, the break up of a relationship that is not officially sanctioned with regular marriage vows and or certification is therefore as big a betrayal of trust and commitment and as big an example of hypocrisy as Iris Robinson’s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    1. a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.
    2. a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.
    3. an act or instance of hypocrisy.

    Nothing there about “repenting” after being found out to absolve you of hypocrisy.

    Is that Christian “repent and she’ll be right” attitude a way of conveniently ignoring their moral code when they feel like it, as a simple repent supposedly makes it all right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    That being given, the break up of a relationship that is not officially sanctioned with regular marriage vows and or certification is therefore as big a betrayal of trust and commitment and as big an example of hypocrisy as Iris Robinson’s.

    Of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    She was pointing out what she considered a splinter in other people’s eye before removing the log of wood from her own. Nietzsche warned against just that sort of foolishness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. tvb (3,945 comments) says:

    What I don’t get is God knew about all this but he did not strike her down with a thunderbolt, he just stood back and allowed her to have sex with the boy. She obviously knew that of course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dr. Strangelove (39 comments) says:

    @Pete George

    >”a pretense of having … moral or religious beliefs … that one does not really possess”

    There is no contradiction in believing that adultery is wrong, and still committing adulty, so nothing in this situation even suggests that Robinson “does not really possess” any of the beliefs she espoused.

    >”Nothing there about “repenting” after being found out to absolve you of hypocrisy.”

    No kidding. It isn’t even possible to repent and be a hypocrite. In order to repent you have to *sincerely* believe that your actions were wrong. According to Christians, however, you can repent from, and be absolved of, sins like adultery.

    >”Is that Christian “repent and she’ll be right” attitude a way of conveniently ignoring their moral code when they feel like it, as a simple repent supposedly makes it all right?”

    It’s my understanding that Christians view the whole repentance thing as a way of *returning* to their moral code, rather than a means of ignoring it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    It’s my understanding that Christians view the whole repentance thing as a way of *returning* to their moral code, rather than a means of ignoring it.

    I don’t really see what the difference is. If they believe that if they sin they can just repent and hop back in the heaven queue it isn’t much of a disincentive.

    Seems to me that Christians are just the same sort of humans with different excuses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Sorry. Can someone explain the “hypocrisy” bit?

    For the benefit of Messers Edgeler and Baiter: The Bible has a lot more to say about the evils of adultery (start with Exodus 20:14, where the 7th commandment is laid out in no uncertain terms) than homosexuality. I’m rather surprised that such a good Christian prone to making “biblical pronouncements based on God’s word” wasn’t at least as intimately familiar with the Decalogue as she was with her adulterous lover’s cock.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Of course. ”

    Thank you Ryan. So why then is it considered outrageously hypocritical when, as your concurrence indicates, it is no different in principle to a similar event occuring in a non-Christian non married relationship??

    I say this woman is only being made an example of because she dared to confront politically correct doctrines on what can be said about homosexuals. Its a lesson to us all from the Progressives. ” Be careful what you say, or you’ll be got when the chance occurs.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” For the benefit of Messers Edgeler and Baiter:”

    Except there is no benefit. As usual you offer only vulgar and factless sneering, (laced with sour content at the woman’s downfall) and have not at all addressed where the ‘exceptional degree’ of hypocrisy lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    It seems some Christian types just do not get it, if a person goes on about living up to good family values while he is having an affair obviously what he is saying is that good family values are to have an affair while married.
    There cannot be any other explanation can there ?
    Caphill, what a piece of scum that one would wipe off the bottom of one’s shoe.
    Yet there are still in their eyes good Christians who believe Caphill has done no wrong.

    How do we know the affair only started when the boy was nineteen, it could have started four years earlier which would make that woman a pedophile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    In the Northern Ireland Assembly on 30 June 2008, in a discussion about “LGBT Groups: Mental-Health Needs”, Robinson said that “Homosexuality, like all sin, is an abomination,” and suggested that teenagers needed help deciding whether they were homosexual or heterosexual.

    This was about the time she was abominately bonking the 19 yr old. To non-Christians, that’s clearly hypocrisy. To Christians it is however they want to excuse it.

    By late July 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported that “Almost 11,000 people have signed a petition calling on British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to reprimand DUP MP Iris Robinson over her controversial remarks about homosexuality” and “Fewer than 30 people have signed an opposing petition calling on the Prime Minister to allow the comments to go un-reprimanded as a matter of personal opinion and religion”.

    Northern Ireland must be predominately Progressives.

    As a result of her comments, Robinson was nominated for “Bigot of the Year” for 2008 by Stonewall.

    She also voted strongly for the Iraq war, more Christian hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    So if a Christian asserts that adultery is wrong (because God says so), commits adultery anyway, but then repents, that is all par for the course. Nothing in that series of actions suggests that they do not sincerely believe in the moral principles that they publicly espouse, so there is no hypocrisy involved.

    Actually your conclusion is a non sequitor

    It is precisely the actions of the person that provides evidence of their hypocrisy. There is a lot more evidence backing Robinson as a hypocrite, and people are justified in drawing that conclusion. You can’t argue that evidence of hypocrisy can’t be counted as evidence of hypocrisy, just because the person claims to espouse Christian values. (By their deeds you shall know them.)

    We’re not discussing someone who misappropriated some office stationery. We are discussing someone who from a position of responsibility in her church, seduced a member of her congregation. She then abused her position of power as a politician, to give her lover pecuniary advantages. Along the way she committed adultery and broke the rules of conduct expected of a Minister. This is not a single heated moment of passion. It was calculated, planned and elaborate.

    All this time she espoused values as her political, public persona- that were at odds with these actions. That’s why she is no longer a minister. She has destroyed all trust in her by violating those values she claimed to hold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    She had known the boy since he was nine.

    He said: ‘I worked in the butchers since I was nine and I always seen her coming in and out. I knew her from a very early age through the butchers and through my dad.

    ‘She looked out for me and made sure I was OK and obviously anyone who has lost a parent knows it is an incredibly hard time and she was there to help.’

    Mr Black said the relationship developed beyond a friendship and that the couple would take walks together.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1241545/MP-Iris-Robinson-60-affair-19-year-old-toyboy.html#ixzz0cppO8VDT

    Also…

    Yesterday former MP Edwina Currie, who famously had a four-year affair with John Major was scathing about the cheating Northern Ireland MP.

    She branded Mrs Robinson ‘a stinking hypocrite’ for hiding her own shameful secret while referring to homosexuals as ‘an abomination’ and criticising other people’s lifestyle choices while boasting about her deeply held Christian views.

    ‘Mrs Robinson has made stupid and ignorant remarks about homosexuals while she was busy betraying her husband and seeking love somewhere else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    And…

    “When her husband gave an interview he said that his wife had asked for God’s forgiveness and received it.”

    I wonder if she got it in writing. Someone who was so dishonest to their husband surely cannot be trusted on just their word (literally).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Dr. Strangelove (39 comments) says:

    @ Chthoniid

    “It is precisely the actions of the person that provides evidence of their hypocrisy.”

    It is very common for people to do things that they sincerely believe to be wrong. In the case of adultery that is usually the way things go. So bare actions provide very little evidence of what people sincerely believe.

    It is, of course, still possible to find evidence of hypocrisy. If Robinson had publicly claimed that adultery is wrong because God said so, but was caught out privately joking about the rubes who believe in such things, then that would be evidence of hypocrisy. But the bare (no pun intended) act of sleeping with a young man is only evidence of lust. It is *very easy* to understand how someone might do that, and all the other things she did, while still believing that each action was wrong.

    “She then abused her position of power as a politician, to give her lover pecuniary advantages. Along the way she committed adultery and broke the rules of conduct expected of a Minister.”

    Well that is an excellent reason to give her the boot. But why not stick to condemning her for what she actually did (which certainly seems bad enough) rather than accusing her of the thought crime of hypocrisy, without the slightest shred of evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Evidence that many people see it as hypocrisy: Results 1 – 10 of about 35,800 for +”Iris Robinson” +hypocrisy.

    Whether it fits some definition of hypocrisy or not is really a side issue. An outspoken person demanding high Christian moral standards has failed to live up to those standards. She has not only cheated her husband but may also have irreparably damaged his political career.

    She has also cheated on her faith and has involved her church in her financial cheats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” She also voted strongly for the Iraq war, more Christian hypocrisy.”

    Sigh. Can these silly internally twisted commies get any more irrational?? If there is ever anyone who could be accused of hypocrisy it is your kind Pete, who say they care for poor people and then everywhere all over the world implement policies to make them poorer, or starve them to death (Ukraine), or commit genocide against them (Pol Pot) or do a hundred other things to worsen their plight.

    No leftist/ communist ever has the right to point the finger at anyone else and call them a hypocrite. Hypocrisy is the very foundation stone of leftist politics, where everyday and everywhere, rhetoric trumps outcomes every time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Evidence that many people see it as hypocrisy:”

    Jesuz you’re thick. Nobody has ever denied the success of Progressive public propaganda campaigns over the last thirty or fourty years. Especially in the basket case that is the UK today, where you have such disgustingly compromised organs as the BBC working for you.

    That’s all history Pete. We’re looking forward, not back, and the outcomes of those propaganda campaigns will eventually be rolled back.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    I’m sorry Red, I won’t do hypocrisy any more, that is obviously your area of expertise. And irony.

    The UK and BBC are also mine. Wow. I’m a lot more powerful than I ever imagined.

    I now understand why you want to exterminate all of “my kind”, we are the cause of all the world’s problems – that will be easily solved if you can execute your planned PolPotism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thanks for your long post at 3;57 Clint. Can you please answer the point as to why a Christian woman’s sin in committing adultery is ESPECIALLY “hypocritical”. (with regard to my own comment at 1:03)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. scanner (340 comments) says:

    At 19 the young “victim” is hardly a child, and it was a male female relationship, also the young man has not complained that he was raped, molested, or harassed in fact it seems he enjoyed it , as he went back for seconds, thirds, fourths etc etc.
    Her crime seems to have been helping some troughed tin head the young fellas way, something no one in our political system has ever done, Yeah Right.
    If I was 19 again and it was offered it I’d have play “Hide the Sausage” with her, it’s as much about power and ego as it is about swapping bodily fluids.
    Now because she had spoken out against fagots, and because these shirtlifters and their trendy friends see an opportunity to kick someone when they are down, the progressives amongst us launch into her with all guns blazing.
    I wish nothing but a pox on these gutless, spineless pricks, this is the sort of behavior we have come to expect from the “gay community” so I guess it’s not totally unexpected.
    To try and draw a comparison between her and a kiddy fiddler is ridiculous in the extreme, again it was two consenting grown adults.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. ben (2,386 comments) says:

    What has paedophilia got to do with this? The guy was 19, he’s a legal adult. Ok I get the hypocrisy when someone calls for family values and then does this. But paedophilia is a giant red herring here. A smear, in fact.

    Here’s what I take from this. ALL calls for policy that overrides the personal values of one group in favour of another are dangerous because they will needlessly make all of us criminals sooner or later. And for what? Between consenting adults the state has no role to play. Whether that be who you love or who you trade with.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    It’s not just about a bit of bonking.

    In April 2009, both Iris and Peter Robinson came under fire after Commons MPs’ expenses accounts were leaked to the press. The couple were branded “swish family Robinson” after claims that they were receiving £571,939.41 a year in various salaries and expenses, with a further £150,000 in salaries being paid to four of the couple’s family members.

    On 6 January 2010, Robinson issued a statement in which she said that she had attempted suicide on 1 March 2009. (some say that’s also a bit of a sin)

    It is also alleged that she encouraged friends to provide financial backing to assist her lover in a business venture. According to a BBC investigation, the payments she arranged from property developers to McCambley were £50,000 and as these had not been declared to the Northern Ireland Assembly this action broke the law.

    Robinson subsequently asked McCambley for £5,000 in cash, as well as a cheque made out to her Dundonald’s Light ‘n Life Church, which she attends. It is alleged that Peter pressed his wife to return this money – however, he failed to inform the proper authorities about the transaction, an apparent breach of his duty as First Minister of Northern Ireland to act in the public interest.

    Reports have been made of a further affair with Kirk McCambley’s father Billy, who died of cancer in March 2008.

    And not just a question of hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tvb (3,945 comments) says:

    She was grooming the boy for years and years. She was quite literally mad about the boy. And it was adultorous. The bible has plenty to say about that, in fact far more about THAT than homosexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. grumpyoldhori (2,410 comments) says:

    Whoops, looks like she was bonking the boy’s father going back a bit.
    No shame these Christians :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    @Dr Strangelove

    @ Chthoniid

    It is precisely the actions of the person that provides evidence of their hypocrisy.”

    It is very common for people to do things that they sincerely believe to be wrong. In the case of adultery that is usually the way things go. So bare actions provide very little evidence of what people sincerely believe.

    First, you make a serious axiological error with your premise. People rarely act in ways that conflict with their values. That is why inferring values depends on the more reliable metrics of what people do, as opposed to what they say. Talk is after all ‘cheap’.

    Second, your defense of Robinson lies entirely in introducing an auxiliary but necessary condition- motive. You’re trying to argue that an act of hypocrisy isn’t an act of hypocrisy if the motive to be a hypocrite was absent. I’m not persuaded by this argument. An act of hypocrisy is an act of hypocrisy. It’s that simple. To espouse ‘biblical values’ whilst knowingly- and with considerable deliberation- perpetuating an adulterous lifestyle is the act of a hypocrite.

    …But why not stick to condemning her for what she actually did (which certainly seems bad enough) rather than accusing her of the thought crime of hypocrisy, without the slightest shred of evidence?

    Quite, she is no poster-child for “Team Christianity”.
    I hope that you are engaging in hyperbole with your conclusion however.

    The only evidence we have that she is truly a Christian, is her word for it. I don’t think her word is worth a lot these days.

    The evidence we have that she is a hypocrite, is her adulterous affair. This is not a momentary lapse of judgment. This is a sustained campaign of seduction and dishonesty. Every step along this path, she would have knowingly done what was wrong. Not just once- not one heated moment of passion- but every calculated step an affront to the values she claimed to uphold.

    What amazes me, is this woman has pissed all over ‘good’ Christians- taken your values and ridiculed them in the public eye- and most of the pro-Christian posts here have tried to defend her sorry arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Of course she is a hypocrite- telling others how their lives should be lead and doing the opposite herself. There’s been heaps of examples, Jerry Falwell for one, Jim amd Tammy Baker for second. What was particuarly vile about these two was the active soliciting of monies for thier ‘ ministries’. Our parliment, regional councils, etc are just as full of hypocrites — we are all hypocritical to a degree, but those in public life sucking on the public tit have to be cleaner than clean.

    This isn’t about Christians its about public figues, who cares if a 19 year old is getting his pipes cleaned by a 60 year old, she might be really good in the pit BUT if you are going to take ‘ the baubles’ of power, a la Winston and then turn into a lying hypocrital drunken egomanical public money spending arsehole, you deserve every bit of public shit that comes your way

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thanks for another long post Clint. yes, she’s a bad bad bad woman. No doubt about it. But you still need to address my question of 5:04 pm.

    I’ve not seen a post here yet that provides a skerrick of reason for the argument that this is a case of gross “hypocrisy”. It is adultery for fucks sake, and perhaps a crime or two, but jezuz, this does not make the actions anything momentous in terms of hypocrisy. The endless whining about hypocrisy (from the sanctimonious fraud Mr. George in particular) is just infantile nonsense IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” Of course she is a hypocrite”

    ” we are all hypocritical to a degree ”

    So what’s your fucking point? The real reason this woman should be ashamed is that she committed adultery, that she (probably) committed fraud, and that she badly betrayed the trust of the public and her husband.

    The ‘hypocrisy’ that everyone (all you pure as driven snow people) keeps ranting about is way down the fucking list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    ………………….and that she betrayed the trust of the public and her…………….

    Thats the fucking point , thats the hypocrisy, when shes not on the public tit, she can shag anyone she wants, but don’ pontificate when you are a public figure and then do the opposite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Do I detect some hypocrisy in your remarks chief Redwhiner?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” but don’ pontificate when you are a public figure and then do the opposite ”

    Of course, but seeing as most politicians do exactly that in one way or the other, why the unsubstantiated focus on “hypocrisy”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Ryan Sproull (6,661 comments) says:

    Thank you Ryan. So why then is it considered outrageously hypocritical when, as your concurrence indicates, it is no different in principle to a similar event occuring in a non-Christian non married relationship??

    I say this woman is only being made an example of because she dared to confront politically correct doctrines on what can be said about homosexuals. Its a lesson to us all from the Progressives. ” Be careful what you say, or you’ll be got when the chance occurs.”

    I mostly agree with you, Redbaiter, though I don’t think she would have been vilified any less had she been unfaithful in a committed unmarried relationship.

    People’s problem with her is that she said that homosexuality was wrong – she expressed her belief that this is the case. I don’t think it’s hypocritical to express an opinion on right and wrong and then be discovered acting contrary to one’s own morality. It would be hypocritical if she had been discovered cheating on her partner with another woman, perhaps.

    She very publicly expressed an unpopular belief and those who took offence at her associating them with paedophiles and child molesters are now delighted her in public humiliation.

    So yes, I basically agree with you, Redbaiter, if I understand your point correctly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Dr. Strangelove (39 comments) says:

    @Chthoniid

    “First, you make a serious axiological error with your premise.”

    I think your mistake was learning your axiology from an economics textbook. Economic theories of value don’t extend to moral theory, at least not without some significant modifications. Most economics textbooks say that somewhere in the introduction.

    “People rarely act in ways that conflict with their values.”

    Only if you construe ‘value’ in the economic sense so that the term just means preference. People often act in ways that conflict with their moral values, but of course in most cases they will still be acting from some other sort of motive.

    “That is why inferring values depends on the more reliable metrics of what people do, as opposed to what they say. Talk is after all ‘cheap’.”

    That’s what they tell you in intro texts, but if you keep going you’ll discover that mental states are radically under-determined by actions. For any given set of facts, and any given set of actions performed by an agent facing those facts, there are infinitely many sets of beliefs and desires that could be ascribed to the agent without violating the axioms of rational choice theory.

    That’s just one of the reasons why vanilla economic rational choice theory doesn’t get you very far when you’re doing moral theory.

    “Second, your defense of Robinson lies entirely in introducing an auxiliary but necessary condition- motive. You’re trying to argue that an act of hypocrisy isn’t an act of hypocrisy if the motive to be a hypocrite was absent.”

    Not at all. I’m arguing that you are not a hypocrite if you say adultery is wrong, and sincerely believe that adultery is wrong, regardless of whether you then go on to commit adultery. The later action just doesn’t tell us much about the sincerity of the belief.

    “I’m not persuaded by this argument. An act of hypocrisy is an act of hypocrisy. It’s that simple. To espouse ‘biblical values’ whilst knowingly- and with considerable deliberation- perpetuating an adulterous lifestyle is the act of a hypocrite.”

    Espousing biblical values while not sincerely accepting those values would be an act of hypocrisy. Espousing biblical values while not fully living up to those values just makes you a regular person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Anna Sewell (42 comments) says:

    Homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God. There are two different Greek words in this sentence sometimes translated “homosexual”, but there are translation difficulties with both these words.

    Various ancient Greek writers discuss homosexual behavior quite a bit, and so we have a good knowledge of what the culture of the time thought about homosexuality and what words they used to describe it. The words Paul uses are not the normal words used to speak of homosexuality.

    The first of Paul’s two difficult words is “malakos” which literally means “soft” and is a fairly common Greek word that depending on context can mean virtually anything: (1) “soft” grassy meadows, (2) “gentle” or “mild”, (3) “cowardly”, “lacking self-control”, (4) low pitched music, (5) poor logic or reasoning (6) “weak”, “sickly”. The context of Paul’s list is moral vices and so meanings from definition 3 above are appropriate ones and thus “lack of self control” seems best. Some people appear to have decided that the word can mean ‘soft’ in a sexual sense and thus mean ‘effeminate’ or ‘passive homosexual partner’, which I suppose is possible. There seems no reason to think the context here merits such a translation though.

    The second of Paul’s difficult words is “arsenokoites” (literally “man-bed”) which has the opposite problem – this word does not occur enough times in surviving documents for us to tell clearly what it means. The evidence provided by these occurrences is confusing. It appears in some listings of economic sins. Elsewhere it is said to be something mainly done by men with men but which can even be done to a woman. A meaning that explains a lot of the evidence (but not all) is “anal rape” or “having sex with someone in order to prove dominance over them” (bear in mind that in the ancient world this was a somewhat common practice for heterosexuals to engage in). In short, Greek usage provides no reason at all to think that the word means “homosexual”. No study I have ever seen has concluded that the word meant “homosexual” in Greek.

    However Christians who have studied Greek are rather infamous for never reading or paying attention to any Greek documents outside of the Bible. So often their policy is: Using the Bible alone, what does this word mean? I would like to stress that such methodology, in general, is incredibly bad. The bible was written in Koine (‘common’) Greek and it uses normal words from the common Greek of the time. It was NOT written in some heavenly language that came into being for the sake of writing the bible and then immediately disappeared (as a few scholars once wildly speculated!). Its original readers when reading it would have understood the meanings of the words it uses because they already knew what the words meant from their knowledge of Greek, just as we who read it in English understand it because we already know how to speak English.

    At any rate, people have searched the bible from top to bottom to see what arsenokoites (man + bed) means in the ‘bible’ language and discovered a passage that uses ‘man’ and ‘bed’ in the same sentence in the bowels of Leviticus. Therefore it must be a reference to that, right? (Because, of course, Paul would invent a word his Corinthian readers didn’t know and expect them to search the bible from top to bottom to find the sentence that most closely matched it… not!) The sentence in Leviticus is generally believed to be condemning homosexuality and therefore “arsenokoites” in Paul’s writings is translated “homosexuality”.

    In short, I see no reason to think either malakos or arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 have anything to do with homosexuality whatsoever. Such translations are simply a result of poor scholarship.

    PS. It has been brought to my attention that a lot of the evidence regarding ancient usage of ‘arsenokoites’ was only discovered in the last 30 years, and that therefore the scholars who in the past concluded it meant homosexuality based on the above-critiqued argument were engaging in reasonable speculation based on the lack-of-evidence they had at the time.

    The Inhospitality of Sodom

    In the ancient world an action valued extremely highly was what we might call “hospitality”.

    The intertestamental work “Testament of Abraham” depicts hospitality as being Abraham’s primary virtue which makes him great in the eyes of God. In Judges 19-20 there is a story of an Israelite who instead of hospitality receives attempted rape and murder at the hands of fellow Israelites which leads to a major battle. The importance placed on hospitality in the ancient world is well-document by scholars studying its social environment. Hospitality and inhospitality were actions seen to be of major importance, to an extent that Christians often do not understand today.

    The story of Sodom and Gomorrah contrasts the great hospitality of Abraham and Lot with the inhospitality of the men of Sodom: Abraham and then Lot welcome the strangers that come to them, whereas the men of Sodom attempt to rape them. The story cites God’s reason for destroying Sodom as being that they are “exceedingly sinful” and subsequent Jewish tradition and interpretation attributed a huge variety of sins to them (economic crimes, general nastiness, pride, violence). But one sin that Jewish and early Christian interpretation saw as being primary was the sin of inhospitality depicted so clearly in the story. In the Gospels on two different occasions Jesus and his apostles speak of the primary sin of Sodom and Gomorrah as being inhospitality:

    If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly I tell you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. (Mat 5:14-15 / Luke 10:11-12)

    On their way they entered a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him; but they did not receive him, because his face was set toward Jerusalem. When his disciples James and John saw it, they said, “Lord, do you want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” (Luke 9:52-54)

    The Christian writer of 1 Clement, ~100AD, picks up on the theme of hospitality:

    “On account of his faith and hospitality, a son was given to Abraham in his old age… On account of his hospitality and godliness, Lot was saved out of Sodom” (1 Clement, ch 10-11)

    Yet, somehow, for Christians today “Sodom and Gomorrah” seem to have become synonymous with homosexuality. There seems to be a widely assumed view that the reason God destroyed these cities was because they were full of homosexuals. I have no idea as to how or why this viewpoint arose – it is not justified by the text of the story, and has no support in ancient Jewish and Christian interpretation of the story. Yet we have the word “sodomy” (originating it seems, sometime in the middle or dark ages) that focuses on the homosexuality of the men of Sodom (I suspect the ‘logic’ of this link may also have originated in the dark ages!)

    There is actually no particular reason to think the men of Sodom were homosexuals as we would define them. The story in Judges 19-20 is similar in that men of the city attempt to rape a male visitor, yet when that visitor gives them his woman instead they rape and kill her and leave him alone. These men are apparently not wanting sex with men so much as being aggressive, and scholars tend to analyze their behavior through the idea of that they were seeking to prove their dominance over the visitor (dominance being quite an important concept in the ancient world). By overpowering him and treating him as a woman they would dishonor him, but they also achieve the same by taking his woman for themselves. In the Sodom story a similar thing occurs, when they demand to rape the visitors Lot offers to them his daughters instead. Lot’s offer would be silly if Lot knew these men to be homosexual – why not offer a male relative instead? Clearly as in the Judges case there is an understanding that it is not that these people are attracted to men but are rather acting aggressively for other reasons. In the case of Sodom the counter-offer is refused (the women being offered do not belong to the strangers and therefore raping them would dishonor Lot not the visitors. Lot’s offer is an example of his hospitality – he is willing to suffer dishonor himself rather than see his visitors dishonored). The actions of the people of Sodom are consistent with seeking dominance over the strangers (aka “overwhelming pride” – Josephus Ant 1:194) not with being homosexual.

    The widespread modern view that Sodom was destroyed because of its homosexuality seems to me entirely unfounded. The evidence does not indicate the people of Sodom were homosexual. Their major crime in the story is depicted as inhospitality and this is how the story was understood by early Jewish and Christian interpreters including Jesus.

    Jesus and the apostles on homosexuality

    The gospels do not depict Jesus making any explicit statements on this topic. Nor is there much reason to think that his part of the world was familiar with concepts of sexual orientation or committed homosexual relationships as we would know them today. So to answer this question we have to speculate about Jesus’ reaction might have been to concepts he didn’t know about… so let the rampant speculation begin…

    Jews in general at the time were against homosexual practices as they knew and understood them. Therefore we might think that Jesus, being a Jew, would have also held such a view. Alternatively we could consider that Jesus’ ministry was focused on supporting, helping, and endorsing the oppressed minorities that the Jewish culture of his time was against. That in turn might lend us to speculate that Jesus would have opposed the Jewish view on this issue and supported homosexuals. I think however that if we apply the principles Jesus’ stood for to the modern issues of homosexuality there is only one answer: By the principles Jesus taught, stood for and depicted in his ministry, the challenges he mounted against traditional Jewish moral and social viewpoints, lead me to believe that were he to speak on today’s issues he would uphold the rights of homosexuals. (Liberation theology has, I think, in general correctly grounded itself in Jesus’ biblical ministry.)

    Would the apostles have considered homosexuality acceptable? Well that is a very interesting question. The apostles struggled for years with understanding the implications of Jesus’ ministry and values when applied to circumstances Jesus hadn’t explicitly dealt with – most notably its application to the question of circumcision of Gentiles. I see us today as being like the apostles and having to struggle with the question of how Jesus’ teachings play out in a new area that was not addressed by him. It took them years and more than one argument to reach a consensus (if indeed they ever did?) about circumcision of Gentiles, so we’re in good company. I can only speculate that most/all of the apostles were, by default, against homosexuality because the Jews were (and time and again the Jewish apostles show they default to Jewish values unless some situation causes them to think deeply about how the teachings and values of Jesus might change these). Like them, we are being faced with an issue today in a way that has caused us to reflect deeply on it to a degree never done before when we took our assumed tradition for granted.

    Paul is the only apostle to mention homosexuality in his writings and only does so once IMO (ie 1 Cor 6:9, I believe for exegetical reasons that Romans 1:26-27 is part of a speech by Paul’s opponents). Paul is somewhat infamous in scholarship for the tensions that lie within his own ethical framework. He argues that Christians are bound by the spirit of the law not its letter, and that the entire law is summarized in the love of ones neighbour as themselves. This suggests a virtue-ethic moral framework where a good action is defined as one characterized by benevolence. (Which IMO as a moral philosopher is a really powerful and logical framework, and I myself would endorse it) Yet at other times, Paul defaults back to a Jewish rule-based ethic that is founded on a list of “do”s and “don’t”s based on the Jewish Law. For example Paul gets upset when his Corinthian converts with whom he lived for years had so imbibed his spirit-of-the-law ethic and “freedom from the law” claims that their actions which logically flowed from these shocked his Jewish sensibilities. Many scholars have commented on the uneasy tension that thus exists within Paul’s own ethics as his framework of “freedom” and “spirit-of-the-law based on love” battle the list of “do”s and “don’t”s that have been ingrained into him from his life as a Jew. His love-framework leads him to make great statements of equality in line with Jesus’ teachings, like “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” Yet the ramifications of this truly revolutionary egalitarian statement are not carried out fully in Paul’s program. His biases creep back in – eg he doesn’t allow woman to talk in churches, they should have long hair etc where he capitulates to cultural views rather than allow his ethical theory full reign. The fact that he buys into societies gender-roles battles with the egalitarianism that he’d learned from Christ. One major ethical conflict that shaped Paul’s life and ministry was the fact that as a Jew he had bought into Jewish racial/cultural roles of “Jew vs Greek” and this battled with the egalitarian principle that he saw in Christ’s teachings. Paul’s egalitarian won out on the race/culture issue and he made that his life focus, but it seems that he never fully let Jesus’ egalitarian teachings flower with regard to the gender roles, or slavery issues.

    Gender roles were of huge importance in the society of their day – a hundred or a thousand times more so than anything we in the West today can perhaps understand. Rejection of homosexuality in their culture was founded on an emphasis on gender roles. For example, Philo (a first century Jew) argues that homosexual acts lead one partner to act like a woman which is so bad that it deserves the death penalty (because in his eyes manliness is the ultimate virtue), and that the other partner is equally deserving of death for causing the other man to act like a woman. The speech Paul quotes in Romans 1 also ties homosexuality to gender roles. Modern societies with firm gender roles (eg Arab ones) are also firm in rejecting homosexual acts on the grounds that it causes a man to act like a woman. However in our Western society which has let biblical egalitarianism shape our view of gender roles, where we truly put into practice Paul’s statement of “there is no longer male and female” we find that homosexuality seems to most people to be acceptable. For if no distinction is to be made between men and women in the social roles they are permitted to take, then it follows there should be no social rules about when genders take part in sexual acts.

    Hence, I would argue that though Paul rejected homosexual activity it was due to him failing to fully work through on the subject of gender roles the egalitarian teachings of Christ that he preached. The moral advances he achieved and advocated in the area of Jew-Gentile relations were never accompanied by a corresponding thorough-going challenge to his society’s view of gender-roles or slavery, and this is depicted by many of his writings. In today’s society we have put into practice the principles that he preached on the subject of gender roles and slavery, and have come to see that it thus supersedes what he said about woman having long hair, covering their heads, not speaking in Church, and having slaves obey their masters. Time and again on these issues we have determined that the clear ethical spirit of the New Testament needs to be worked out fully in practice in a way that the New Testament Christians themselves were not able to do, and that the ethical spirit of the biblical witness needs to trump the letter of the law when the views they express consistent with their culture are not justified in light of the underlying principles of Christian ethics they are espousing. The next logical step in our egalitarian abolition of gender roles is an acceptance of homosexuality.

    I see there as being two basic biblical ethical principles advocated in the New Testament: (1) A love ethic, (2) Egalitarianism. (The second one is really a subset of the first, and so the first is essentially the overarching biblical principle) The love ethic expounded first by Jesus and subsequently by his apostles is that an action has a morally good intent if and only if it is done out of love, and morally good consequences if and only if it is beneficial to those who are affected by it. In other words, morality is solely about benevolence, and the good or harm that our actions bring to others. This principle is used ruthlessly by Jesus and the apostles against Jewish rituals and practices that the Jews saw as commanded by God. Early Christianity was insistent that such rituals had no moral value because they were not motivated by benevolence/love toward others. Today’s Western society due to its historically Christian origins has learned well the lesson of this love ethic and as a result it pervades public thinking and laws in a way that it has ironically actually failed to pervade the thinking of conservative Christians (who usually endorse a divine-command ethic). Since the general view is that homosexuality is neither malevolent nor brings harm to others, it is generally deemed a morally permissible act under a love ethic. Furthermore those who are anti-homosexual and/or want to forbid homosexuals expressing and living the love they feel for others are acting in a way that is contrary to such an ethic (hence why I would deem such opposition unchristian).

    What some of this group is doing with the power they already have is deeply disturbing too. Peter Akinola, one of the leaders of the faction, in 2006 responded to Muslim violence against Christians in his country by announcing in his capacity as a Christian leader of Nigeria that “May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation.” Eighty Muslims were killed by ‘Christians’ in a subsequent backlash. I can only wonder why he has not been stripped of his rank and excommunicated from the church for this… He clearly knows nothing of biblical teachings of love, and so his attempts to “correct” others on issues of biblical morality are laughable.

    What I do not understand in this debate is the schismatic faction’s strength of feeling on this issue. The number of times homosexuality is mentioned in the bible can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Another issue that occurs in the bible about as often – remarriage after divorce being adultery – was recently deemed acceptable by a general Anglican council without remotely the same degree of hue and cry. Apparently it is okay for people to live in committed adulterous relationships and for these to be sanctioned by the church, but it is apparently a matter of church-splitting importance if people live in committed homosexual relationships. I see a double-standard there. This group seems upset over the issue of homosexuality to an extent that is neither justified by the biblical texts nor logically consistent with their strength of feeling on other issues.

    Honestly, I can only conclude that they are homophobic, lacking rational motivation for the degree of opposition on the issue but rather seriously affected by their emotions about it. Peter Akinola again comes to mind, as he has led a major movement in Nigeria against homosexuality and attempted to criminalize it. Perhaps someone might think that given the African Aids crisis he was acting out of concern for people and trying to prevent the spread of Aids, yet the statistics show that it is actually amorous heterosexual relationships that are the problem. The issue of homosexuality just seems to be one that gets people emotional in a way that other questions of divorce-and-remarriage don’t. Even among non-Christians, I’ve observed people get far more vocal and have much stronger feelings about homosexuality than about many other issues. Something about it causes people to feel strongly (pro or con) in a way that other seemingly similar issues don’t, and to be honest I’m not sure why this is.

    As with all issues this one is often clouded by emotion. A lot of people make up their minds before studying the issue carefully and looking at the evidence. I find a lot of those Christians I talk to who feel strongly (pro or con) about the issue have only the tiniest acquaintance with what the bible says on the subject, virtually no grasp of relevant moral philosophical concepts, and little to no skill or training in careful exegesis of biblical passages. It is my experience and observation that, generally speaking, the majority of the most vocal and firm Christian advocates against homosexuality come from a demographic consisting of under-informed laymen. By contrast, the anecdotal evidence that has come to my attention shows that of those who have been through seminaries (and are thus, hopefully, somewhat more intelligent, more expert in exegeting the bible, and better at understanding moral philosophy than the average pew-sitter) the majority think homosexuality is okay. In my own city it seems to be the case that a few parishes contain a small group of people influential within the congregation who have decided to take a stand against homosexuality and they have told the remainder of their congregation that homosexuality is unbiblical and the rest of their congregation has unquestioningly accepted what they have been taught.

    I’m a theologian-philosopher who has studied the biblical, exegetical, philosophical and theological issues carefully for years and concluded that homosexuality is definitely okay. (In fact I would go so far as to say that attempting to suppress or condemn homosexuality could be reasonably classed as un-Christian.) Yet time after time in discussion with lay Christians who are convinced the Christian and biblical position is to be against homosexuality (because their Pastor told them so, and pointed to a verse in the bible) I find that they simply know nothing of the issues that need to be considered before coming to any sort of conclusion. Time and again, they have simply believed others who sounded plausible and feel strongly about an issue they know virtually nothing about and are totally unqualified to have an opinion on.

    It is my experience that people, especially Christians, are very keen to argue over, and have quite assertive views about which things are right, and which are wrong. Morality is one of the most important topics in the world, so it’s important that our views on it are clear.

    But there is something I personally consider an even more important topic, that few people (outside of philosophers) seem to put much thought into. This topic may be usefully termed “meta-morality” and is the understanding of what it means for something to be “moral”. It is the topic that deals with such questions as:

    Why is morality important?
    Why should anyone care about it?
    What are we really saying when we claim something is “morally right”?
    Why at all would anyone want to do an action that is “morally right” rather than one which is “morally wrong”? Just as I might choose between wearing green, or blue with barely a second thought, why should the distinction moral/immoral concern me overly?

    All these questions and more are tied up into our ideas about meta-morality. If not for meta-morality, morality wouldn’t be important at all.

    It is my observation that the average person does not think about these questions much. Usually I find that people have simply not thought of many of the more important questions and problems of meta-morality. On those areas where they have a position, they have usually simply assumed a “default” position on these questions – and usually it is a very poor, illogical, and badly thought out one.

    The net upshot of it is, that people express some really strong views about morality (eg say about whether murder, or homosexuality is right or wrong), and are utterly convinced of both how right they are and how important the issue is, yet they have a really poor understanding of what morality is and a similarly poor understanding of what they or anyone else means when they say something is moral or immoral.

    The “Christian” assumption: Adding God makes it all better

    I’ve often seen Christians express the belief that to have morality you need God, or that morality proves God, or that you can’t have an objective moral standard without God. That certainly sounds very nice and pious. But of course, sounding pious isn’t exactly a good criterion for truth.

    In my experience, the common Christian view is a sort of a vague generalised answer to all the questions involved in meta-morality: “Yes, there are lots of problems, but God solves them all. So believe in God!” People who haven’t thought for even two seconds about meta-morality just stick God in their minds as “the ultimate moral authority” and that’s it as far as they are concerned.

    People who have thought a bit more about it, such as Christian apologists, tend to have seen a few problems involved in meta-morality and try to use that as an argument for the existence of God. They tend to assert that you can’t have morality without God, therefore if you believe in morality you have to believe in God. If anyone disagrees, the apologists fires meta-morality questions at them until the person gives up. (Intelligent readers should realise that just because person B can’t answer the questions, it doesn’t mean person A’s position is right)

    So, let me briefly explain why adding God doesn’t help. God is not the magical answer to all the problems, because the same problems still apply. Let’s say that someone is claiming that you can’t have an objective standard of morality without God. So what is it about God that makes him able to create an objective standard? Here are some sample answer I have seen, note that they all fall to the same error, of reintroducing an objective standard that works without God.

    Answer 1. “If you don’t do what he wants, he’ll send you to hell.” We’ve all heard this before, by another name: “Might makes right”. It works without God. If might makes right is true, then we don’t need God to get “right”, we only need might.

    Answer 2. “God can do anything with us he likes, because he has property rights. People who accuse God of doing wrong don’t understand the nature of property rights.” That simply claims that property rights are an objective moral standard. We don’t need God for that, only property.

    Answer 3. “God created us, therefore it is moral to obey him and immoral not to”. It’s not always clear what the reasoning is here, but it’s going to boil down to something like “Beings have complete rights over what they create”. That’s an objective moral standard in itself.

    In short, in order to get an objective moral standard out of God, you’ve got to put an objective moral standard in. This is always going to be the case. There is a famous statement in philosophy that says “you cannot derive an ought from an is”. What this theorem is saying is that it is logically impossible to derive a statement about morality from a statement about what is the case in fact. God’s existence is a fact. It therefore doesn’t help at all in deriving statements about morality. You’ve still got to put statements about morality in, in order to get statements about morality out. This is logically provable, and philosophers studying the subject have known it for centuries. Adding God simply doesn’t solve all the problems of meta-morality at all. If there are any “objective moral standards” they don’t depend on God, because as we saw above, in order to get objective moral standards out of God you have to put them in in the first place.

    I have encountered a fair number of Christians recently who are determined to see the Bible as a timeless moral text which states moral truths for all the ages. The most common example of this is the idea that “homosexuality is wrong, because the Bible says so.” In this post I have one point I would like to make: It’s not as simple as that.

    According to the bible it is…

    wrong to eat shellfish (eg Lev 11:9-12),
    wrong to wear clothing made of two different materials (eg Lev 19:19),
    okay to have slaves (there are rules and regulations regarding its institution in the OT and nothing in the NT attacks it as an institution),
    okay to commit genocide (eg many times in the OT with Israel on the warpath),
    wrong to have long hair if you are male (l Cor 11:14),
    wrong to have uncovered hair when praying if you are female (1 Cor 11:5),
    right for men to kiss on the lips when they meet (eg Rom 16:16)
    right that if a man is caught raping a woman that they be forced to marry and never allowed to divorce (eg Deut 22:28-29)
    right to offer sacrifices (instituted in the Torah)
    wrong to offer sacrifices (eg Jer 7:21-22, Amos 5:22-25)

    Are they all timeless moral truths?

    Several of the early church fathers tried to explain why it was that God had instituted the sacrifical system in Leviticus only to get rid of it again after Jesus. The best explanation they came up with was that God didn’t like sacrifices but that sacrifices had been around long before the Mosaic Law (which is true). Thus God, over time, decided to wean Israel off sacrifices – firstly by strictly regulating their existing practices with the Mosaic Law, then by condemning them often through the prophets and finally abolishing them entirely with the destruction of the temple.

    What is interesting here is the understanding that what God says at one time isn’t necessarily a moral truth for all generations. Some modern authors have used similar reasoning to explain the genocides in the bible – back then it was a dog-eat-dog word and if God’s people hadn’t fought and killed to survive they would have been wiped out. The commands to slaughter other nations were necessary for their own survival – unfortunate morally, but necessary.

    Once this sort of reasoning is accepted, we can see that what is morally okay at one time might not be morally okay at another. Just because God says something is right or wrong at one point in history does not make it right or wrong for all times and places in history.

    So, if the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, does that necessarily mean that homosexuality is wrong for all cultures and all times and places? It’s not as simple as that.

    The first point it lists is to “establish universal sinfulness”. That the person is a sinner and needs saving. Christians are well-known for condemnation.

    Did Jesus condemn sinners? Consider Jesus in his actions toward the prostitutes, the tax collectors, etc. Is he ever once recorded as trying to convince them they were sinners? Far from it. It was the Pharisees, the religious leaders who were continually labelling such people as sinners – they kept saying to Jesus “why do you associate with such people?”.

    That is not too different to today. Today it is the religious leaders who say loudly that prostitution is wrong, that homosexuality is wrong. Our churches are enthusiastic in labelling and attacking sin. They lead the way in the condemnation of sin. And yet… that’s what the religious leaders of Jesus’ day were doing. Jesus never once joined in with them in condemnation: it was the religious leaders themselves that he condemned in response.

    Everyone likes finding faults in others, attacking sin in others. It is an easy step for us to fall into… to focus on sin and condemnation. To say “you are wrong to do this, you are a sinner, that is sin” comes all to easily to human lips. It makes us the judge, we become condemners.

    I have been told several times by enthusiastic evangelical speakers that everyone deep down knows they are sinners. Well, if indeed we believe that they already know that, why put effort into telling them? Why rub it in? Jesus didn’t go to the prostitutes and tell them how they were sinners. We don’t see in the New Testament a gospel of sin being preached. In each instance the preacher does their best to put as positive a spin as they can on the gospel. Consider Paul’s sermon to the Athenians in Acts 17. We are told that Paul was horrified by the Athenians idol worship… so what does he say to them? He says that he can see that they are very religious people – he turns the negative into a positive quality and commends them for it.

    Instead of focusing on building people up, and on the positives of the gospel, like we see happening in the New Testament we seem to focus on the negatives and try to grind people’s noses into the dirt. Instead of being Jesus to the prostitutes we are the Pharisees, condemning the women caught in adultery, condemning sin left right and center. It’s so easy, it’s natural, and we enjoy doing it. Jesus spent a large proportion of his time attacking the religious leaders over their condemnations of sinners… I’m inclined to wonder if the best medicene for the church today wouldn’t be a modern day Jesus.

    Andrew Theogeek

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    That was a monster post but well worth the read. Very interesting. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. thedavincimode (6,130 comments) says:

    Phew!!

    But “arsenokoites” – “arse” + “koites” (coitus) – that’s it right there!

    I would be interested to know if you think this issue underscores my poorly and inadequately read impression that whereas Jesus espoused an ethos, from about the 10th or 11th centuries the (then single) church, for reasons of politics, bigotry and above all else, as a means of globalisation and controlling not just people but sovereign states, sought to impose a prescriptive framework around Jesus’ philosophy and the bible generally. Whereas, in any practical sense, by its very nature an ethical framework is incapable of being formulated as a set prescriptive rules. Today’s churches maintain perspectives on issues that I understand developed and evolved from that time. Homosexuality is an example (that they now wrestle with). Another I understand, is the vilification of Mary Magdalen yet, my understanding is that there is no biblical basis for that vilification. Presumably, the suggestion that Jesus and Mary were not married, did not have sex or children, is simply because, as I understand, there is no specific mention of that in the bible. Biut what is the big deal if they did? I gather it that in the context of those times, it would have been extremely unusual if Jesus had not formed such a relationship. The bible is presumably concerned with his day job and not his private life. You wouldn’t expect, in that context, that the bible would refer to Jesus and Mary taking the kids to soccer and hooking up for a beer and a barbecue afterwards with a couple of apostles and their kids. My impression is that denial of this prospect has more to do with elevating Jesus as a “pure” and devine being as a means to elevate the moral and spiritual authority of the church (ie listen to us because we have the inside oil). And yet, in light of your comments, based on what is extremely thin evidence, churches have for so long been anti homo. The impression one is left with is that for centuries the churches have selectively construed the bible so as to reverse-engineer the post biblical dogma of their own making and impose it on biblical times. They get away with it because they control the information and not everyone can be bothered to research these issues or others prefer not to discover anything inconsistent with what they prefer to believe on these issues.

    Your comments regarding Paul simply reflect the fact that he carried the social baggage of the times and had not been able to fully reconcile the love thing; perfectly understandable I would have thought if Jesus’ teachings were so revolutionary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Except there is no benefit. As usual you offer only vulgar and factless sneering, (laced with sour content at the woman’s downfall) and have not at all addressed where the ‘exceptional degree’ of hypocrisy lies.

    Factless sneering? Do you own a Bible you idiot? I do and Exodus 20:14 in my King James is crystal clear: Thou shalt not commit adultery.” If Mrs Robinson the public figure wants to present herself as some moral paragon who bases her public statements on the world of God (another fact) then one might think The Ten Commandments would be top of the list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    If Christians as a group are to be judged by the actions of some high profile Christians why it wrong to judge homosexuals by the actions of some?

    Would it okay to judge all libertarians by the actions of the poster boy, Jim Peron who got booted out of New Zealand? For those who have not heard of Peron he came to New Zealand to open a bookshop featuring books that appeal to libertarians When he was exposed as a strong supporter of NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) he was sent on his way.

    I would not try to link all libertarians to Peron despite the fact there are still some libertarians who still strongly support Peron. They will not raise a rational defence of Peron but offer abusive and arguably threatening posts and emails to anyone who raises the issue of Peron.

    I noticed not that long ago a poster by the name of James who pushes extremes libertarian ideas even for a libertarian. He seen nothing wrong computer generated kiddie porn as there is no real victim. The poster did give his last name but I think most libertarians would know who he is judging by his Facebook page.

    If it is wrong to judge libertarians by the actions of a few who wish to push the legal limits of child porn why is it okay to attack Christians by the actions of a few?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Chthoniid (1,966 comments) says:

    Let’s be clear- this isn’t an example of Christians being attacked. It is an instance of a public persona projecting one image, while in private acting the opposite. Just like Tiger Woods.

    This women has pissed all over your values- in public- and mostly what’s happened is a bunch of Christian apologists for her actions have sprung to her defense. Seriously, she’s not worth it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” It is an instance of a public persona projecting one image, while in private acting the opposite. ”

    And of course this never happens anywhere else does it? Its only when that person is a Chrisatian that Progressives seek to dance about pointing fingers and screaming “hypocrisy”, as if the perceived hypocrisy is more important to them than the actual possible crimes of fraud this woman committed.

    ” Just like Tiger Woods. ”

    Really? When was Tiger Woods accused of hypocrisy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. cha (3,539 comments) says:

    Hasn’t Rodney Hide got a mate called Jim Peron?.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Try googling: Results 1 – 10 of about 351,000 for +”tiger woods” +hypocrisy

    Political hypocrites are not unheard of: Results 1 – 10 of about 6,180 for +”phil goff” +hypocrisy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    I googled for “Pete George” + idiot and got about 1500 hits. Get a brain loser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Results 1 – 10 of about 3,250 for +redbaiter +idiot
    - so yeah, you win that one.

    But if you actually checked on the Tiger Woods hits it would prove that many have accused him of hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “But if you actually checked on the Tiger Woods hits it would prove that many have accused him of hypocrisy.”

    The Tiger woods links, if they “prove” anything at all, prove that only very few by comparison were focused on hypocrisy. I could do a search on Tiger Woods + Adultery, but I’m not brain damaged like you and recognise such an argument as futile.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Hit 1 – Because that’s what the Tiger Woods kerfuffle comes down to — hypocrisy,
    Hit 2 – Why Is Tiger Woods in Trouble? It’s Not His Steamy Sex Life; It’s His Family Values Hypocrisy
    Hit 4 – I’m Sensing Hypocrisy: Tiger Woods Advice To Michael Vick
    Hit 5 – Tiger Woods’ transgressions are a lesson in hypocrisy

    But you could be right on Phil Goff, no one will have ever accused him of hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    That’s right Pete, plunge right ahead and ignore the logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Ignore the logic? You had simply asked “Really? When was Tiger Woods accused of hypocrisy?” and there are examples.

    Results 1 – 10 of about 17,200 for +hypocrisy +kiwiblog -Christian
    Results 1 – 9 of about 5,630 for +hypocrisy +kiwiblog +Christian
    Seems like Christians aren’t the only ones associated with hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. bearhunter (859 comments) says:

    Of course the real reason that the DUP is imploding over the actions of Iris and inactions of her husband Peter is nothing to do with hypocrisy, adultery or shonky financial dealings. It’s the simple fact that despite 40-odd years of howling apocalyptically about the evils of Catholics and Catholicism, it turns out that the boss’s missus was shagging a papist. You might get away with being a fallen woman or even a grasping, corrupt politician, Iris, but they’ll never forgive you for crossing THAT particular line…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    The bulk of the attention was not because of hypocrisy. The bulk of the attention was because of “celebrity sex scandal”. Hypocrisy in the Tiger woods case was by no means the major charge and cannot be used to justify your own bigotry in making hypocrisy the major item in the case of Iris Robinson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Alan Wilkinson (1,798 comments) says:

    “People react far worse to a 60 year old woman sleeping with a 19 year old boy than a 60 year old man with a 19 year old girl.”

    Evidence? Or twaddle? I vote twaddle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    If Christians as a group are to be judged by the actions of some high profile Christians why it wrong to judge homosexuals by the actions of some?

    Chuck Bird: Serious waste of straw there, mate. It’s wrong to do both, but it’s hardly wrong to point out that a very high profile public figure like Iris Robinson has been exposed as an utter hypocrite whose own conduct was not governed by the same standards she very loudly held others to.

    I’ve got to ask this one more time: What part of “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is hard to understand?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    ” I’ve got to ask this one more time: What part of “Thou shalt not commit adultery” is hard to understand? ”

    Nothing, but it would be good if you could ask a question that had a point to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “Hasn’t Rodney Hide got a mate called Jim Peron?. ”

    NO. When the evidence against Peron became clear Jim Peron was not a mate of Rodney Hide.

    Compare this with Labour’s continued refusal to condemn Philip Field.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    Redbaiter:

    It would also be splendid if you stopped playing self-appointed moderator who gets to decide what is and isn’t “relevant” around here. Now, have you got a point apart from your rather desperate attempt to spin away Iris Robinson’s blatant and blindingly obvious hypocrisy? I’m still waiting for you to look up Exodus 20:14 and show how my direct quotation was a lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Chuck Bird (4,415 comments) says:

    “It’s wrong to do both, but it’s hardly wrong to point out that a very high profile public figure like Iris Robinson has been exposed as an utter hypocrite whose own conduct was not governed by the same standards she very loudly held others to.”

    Craig, I agree with you. However, it was not necessary to highlight the fact that she was a Christian.

    Highlighting high profile individuals who behave badly be they Christian, homosexual or Maori does not be indicate how the whole group behaves.

    However, it is a different matter pointing out statistical differences of a group whether it relates to criminal offending or HIV.

    This is where I find the libertarians quite hypocritical on this blog.

    Some idiot in the homosexual community calls for NZ Blood Services to allow homosexuals to donate blood. Someone points out the difference in the HIV rates between homosexuals and heterosexuals and they are accused of being homophobic.

    Yet many very racist remarks against Maori go by without a mention. It is David’s blog and he makes the rules. He is a very nice guy although he is a librarian.

    However, i do not think Christians have a monopoly on hypocrisy.

    There seems to be a markedly different remarks against homosexuals are treated and the way remarks against Christians and Maori are treated. Most Maori I know do not support the extremist.

    I suspect you could say the same the same about homosexuals. Many do not support the militants but just get on with their lives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “It would also be splendid if you stopped playing self-appointed moderator ”

    I don’t do that and I do not have any power to be any kind of moderator. I might occasionally express an opinion regarding the worth of a posters views, or express the opinion that they should go away, but that is far from “playing self appointed moderator”.

    “I’m still waiting for you to look up Exodus 20:14 and show how my direct quotation was a lie.”

    I have not accused you of lying. (nuts) I have voiced the opinion that your posts contribute nothing to the issue. And I repeat that assertion. They don’t.

    1) The woman is a bad bad bad woman fit to be judged by those such as you who are so keen to cast stones at Christians.

    2) She has indeed failed in living to the moral code she espouses.

    3) She has indeed been guilty of hypocrisy.

    None of the above facts give substantiation to the wild screams from you and other Progressives concerning “outrageous hypocrisy” especially while you show complete indifference to possible fraud that may have been committed.

    You are as guilty of bigotry towards Christians Craig as anyone who has ever shown bigotry towards homosexuals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    Craig, consider yourself put in your place by RedBigot.
    (stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.)

    I do not have any power to be any kind of moderator.

    Correct. But it doesn’t stop you trying to moderate (others, not your own extremes) and speak for the blog as if it is yours.

    I have already agreed with your (and other’s) point that there is far more to the Robinson thing than hypocrisy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    1) The woman is a bad bad bad woman fit to be judged by those such as you who are so keen to cast stones at Christians.

    Baiter, another part of the Decalogue you should commit to memory and try observing is “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.” (Exodus 20:16, for easy reference.)

    So calling Robertson out on her blatant hypocrisy — and the utter failure of a public figure to practice what she so loudly preached to others — is “casting stones at Christians”? Quite ironic given that Jesus himself wasn’t above chiding his own disciples for being too quite to pass judgement on others when their own behaviour was far short of the mark.

    I have enormous sympathy with Iris Robinson the human being — after all, as Jesus himself said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” (John 8:7) As a Christian, I know that nobody is without sin.

    But he also admonished us all: “How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:42) Now, I hope that a passage Mrs. Robinson will meditate on a great deal in the days ahead, because there’s no shortage of politicians and public moralists who could usefully take that message to heart.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. ZenTiger (421 comments) says:

    It seems to me the liberal condemns hypocrisy as the greatest of sins, because it enables them to make an attack on Christianity. She could murder 50 people and it wouldn’t be their deaths that was the issue – it would be the “what happened to though shalt not kill – hypocrite”.

    Robinson was guilty of adultery, and that is a far more serious sin than hypocrisy. Dr Strangeglove has argued extremely well how the argument of hypocrisy doesn’t stand up in the strict definition of the term (she acknowledges God’s laws and fails to live up to them). However, even accepting the charge of hypocrisy, in the same way I become a hypocrite when I suggest we should follow the laws of NZ and then are caught exceeding the speed limit by 5kph, flagrantly disobeying the road code, so has Robinson fallen short of the moral code. In the hierarchy of crimes, small bikkies compared to the damage her adultery has done to those around her.

    The Christian beliefs allow people to repent (it must be genuine) and move on in this life, but as they believe in an after life, they understand there will be another reckoning for their sins. Atheists merely cease to exist and have no further responsibility for their actions. They are just as capable of criminal and immoral conduct. Again, it’s usually the actual crime that is worse than the attached “crime of hypocrisy”. Face up to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.