Posted on 10/18/2012 2:44:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
He may have got his own wife squared away but his ‘fiancee’ is still married.
And she's already his "fiancee"? I thought mature people were able to delay gratification. I hope she's worth all the trouble.
Of course I do, I know the Catholic voting data, but my actual question was why does Ann Archy think that Catholics have almost always voted democrat, including for Obama.
That’s between them. Not you, me, the church, or the government.
He didn’t file for divorce until October 4. Separated for years, but doesn’t file for divorce until a few weeks ago? He needed to make better decisions.
And yes, we should hold the public standard bearers of our faith, our morals to a very high standard. If they can’t represent us in the way that is demanded of them, they need to step down. He should have known better.
Here is a website that looks at it:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1112/religion-vote-2008-election
For the last two elections, catholics voted for democrats. I am from NM, a bastion of catholics and democrats; they are indistinguishable.
What, is Dinesh D’Souza your minister? Is he a deacon of your church, or do you think that his book and movie are your new book of the Bible?
For Pete’s sake, he’s a political writer. His private life is private. If you have a problem with his private life, that is your fault for confusing religion and politics.
I am sorry, I guess when he chose to be the head of a Catholic (Christian) College, he lost that right to be hide behind the veil of privacy. His position alone had increased expectations on his behavior, he was a leader of our young people.
And immoral is immoral, whether it is the neighbor I don’t know, or a person who has been elevated to the public arena, on his own or not. And we should call out immorality and stand against it, whether it is our side or theirs.
I didn’t know that he was some kind of head of a Catholic college. Which one? I guess if he has been separated from his wife for years, the school knew about it when they hired him. I wasn’t even aware that he is Catholic.
Catholics have voted almost entirely democrat since they arrived in America, but as far as the last 2 elections, they voted republican in 2004.
Catholics voted against an incumbent democrat once(1980).
I just read D’Souza’s statement that accompanied his resignation. I still think tht this whole thing is an attempt to discredit him and his film. He denies the affair and sharing a hotel room and accused the other guy of trying to smear him. This is not the first time that the other man has publicly criticized D’Souza and he opposed his appointment to Kings College.
I still say that none of this is any of our business, unless we are students or faculty at Kings College. Don’t confuse your politics with your religion.
Yeah, that and the BS about staying in the same room but no hanky panky? Oh please!
Oh, when you are conservative, you have not choice but to meld your politics and your religious beliefs. In fact, it is the basis of our country.
I know it stings when one of our own falls, but we can’t turn a blind eye to immorality.
And, I am sorry, but after seeing a few posts where she is married too, just devastating from the point of view of a standard bearer of conservatism. He should have made wiser decisions.
Sorry, had another thought. Absolutely this whole thing is definitely meant to discredit him, but he gave them the open door. That is where I find frustration, we always give them an in. Someone in his position, knowing what he had released to the public against a media popular president, knew he would be under a microscope. But, would the media have had any traction to run with this if he had divorced his wife. If this woman had divorced her husband. Then they became engaged, then they got married? No. It would have been a brief blip on the radar, if anything.
2004 they just barely went Republican. The biggest gains in White Catholics. I think that goes along with what I saw in NM with the Hispanic, Democrat, Catholic population. Probably higher in the union regions too.
It seems that they might swing against the incumbent democrat this time; they swing for economic reasons.
I have NEVER said that....apologize!!!! NEVER!!! I am a Catholic and THAT is a SLANDER! Half of them vote for Dems and I have no idea why!! Now apologize to me and who you sent this to!
YOU said that Catholics....only you said catholics, which tells me something about you....voted for dems until 2004!!!! PROJECTION!
I guarantee that many attendees at that conference - a conference which affirms the literal truth and universal applicability of the Gospel - are themselves divorced.
The Gospel they affirm allows for divorce in only one specific circumstance: a spouse's porneia.
The Gospel affirms that anyone who divorces his wife for any other reason and "remarries" is committing adultery.
Plenty of attendees at that conference are in violation of that Gospel standard. Hence their concern over timelines and appearances and their studied avoidance of exegesis.
The argument his critics are making is founded on a common modern understanding among "Biblical evangelicals," namely that getting divorced for the typical secular reasons - "we grew apart", "we fight all the time", "I'm not attracted to him/her anymore", etc. - is perfectly acceptable.
What they find unacceptable is that he is sleeping with another woman before he has observed the purely secular niceties of getting his divorce recognized by the courts and getting his "remarriage" recognized by the state.
According to the Gospel standard, unless his wife committed porneia, it does not matter whether he was sleeping with some woman he met at the airport bar, or if he formally divorced his wife in court, then met a new woman, courted her for a year and married her in a tasteful church ceremony.
So World magazine's expose was not some righteous judgment on the hypocrisy displayed by D'Souza.
It is a masking of the general hypocrisy of "Biblical evangelicals" on this question. They are attacking D'Souza on appearances, but falsely exonerating many among themselves and their readers on the facts.
no one is supposed to notice
World does not want us to notice that what D'Souza did blatantly and nonchalantly was what many of their readers do quietly but equally nonchalantly.
Perhaps they should have spent the election season examining the plank in their own eye, rather than submarining - for show - one of the most effective opponents of the current, morally monstrous, administration.
No one set you up as the judge, though. Is there nothing in your life to be ashamed of? Are you pure as the driven snow? You don’t even know the facts behind the story, yet you think you have the right to pass judgement on this man and attempt to destroy his credibility.
This story would have no legs in the press, were it not for people like you. Maybe there is someone out there, who would like to destroy you by prying into your private life. Probably not though, it isn’t likely that you have much of a life to destroy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.