The latest is related to the claim that Sarah Palin had a fling with basketball player Glen Rice back in the 80s, before she was married.
Most people on the right that I'm seeing on various comment pages are saying, understandably, "So?"
On the left, responders are saying "See? She's a hypocrite! She's against sex outside of marriage, but she had sex outside of marriage."
It's almost hard for me to discuss accusations like this seriously, because the moral and intellectual childishness of the position is so extreme that to explain it to such an obviously ill-equipped mind seems like a tremendous chore.
The most obvious fact is that history is rife with people who have done something in the past which they regret, and because of that regret have become powerful advocates against the type of wrong they have done. Similarly, there are many people throughout history who have fallen short of the standards they espouse; that doesn't mean that the standard itself is bad.
If we apply the same "hypocrisy" standard being used against Sarah Palin for the alleged affair to other historical figures, here's what we have:
- The apostle Paul could never become a proponent of Christianity, because he used to persecute Christians.
- Martin Luther could never have launched the Protestant revolution at the Catholic Church because he himself was a Catholic Priest.
- Pre U.S. Civil War slave owners who freed their slaves and became anti-slavery advocates could never have done so, because they used to own slaves themselves.
Shall I go on? Many recovering drug addicts and alcoholics have been inspired by their struggles to help others -- most people leading AA and other 12-step programs are recovering addicts themselves. We don't find that controversial.
Is it the "but they aren't hiding the fact that they were addicts" issue? Does anyone really feel that it's incumbent upon either normal people or politicians to make up a sexual disclosure document before they can opine on family values? That's a remarkably intrusive and pointless exercise, and invariably the people condemning others for some past indiscretion are those who oppose the agenda that person is currently espousing, not the past behavior.
Which brings us to the next point. Ideas are independent of the people who promote them. The idea that people should avoid sex outside of marriage remains a good idea (in my opinion) even if many of the idea's advocates had sex outside of marriage (and don't care to document the events to the world). If it were a bad idea, it would remain a bad idea, even if all the proponents had been meticulous their entire lives in adhering to it.
Leftists might find it instructive if they could stop seeing conservatives through the lenses of their stereotypes actually looked at how we behave. There wasn't mass condemnation of Bristol Palin because the girl had a baby out of wedlock. No, instead of the fiery, judgmental condemnation all us right-wing haters are supposed to love, what you actually saw most was sympathy and understanding. Plenty of us have been in her shoes or know someone who has --
that's why we know it's a bad idea.
The book of Romans in the New Testament states "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." That's a very popular verse in evangelical circles. It reminds us that none of us is perfect, that we all fall short in some way. But you have to go on standing for what's right, despite your personal failures.
If we silenced all people from advocating good because they have themselves done bad, then there would simply be no advocates for good. Which is, one suspects, exactly what the left wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment