Posted on 10/18/2012 2:44:24 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Dinesh D'Souza, the former president of a New York Christian college who recently came under fire after it was revealed that he was engaged to a woman while still married to his wife of 20 years, released an article to his website on Wednesday declaring he did not have an affair.
In the article, D'Souza claims World Magazine didn't present all of the facts when it reported that he and his fiancée, Denise Odie Joseph II, stayed in a hotel room together while in town for an apologetics conference in Spartanburg, S.C., in late September. D'Souza and his wife, Dixie, have been separated for two years but are still legally married.
"I met Denise three months ago. We are not and have not been having an affair. Nor did we share a hotel room in Charlotte," wrote D'Souza. The original report by the magazine quoted Alex McFarland, one of the conference's organizers, who said D'Souza admitted to him that he and Joseph stayed in the same room together, though D'Souza claimed "nothing happened" between them.
Tony Beam, who was also mentioned in the magazine's article and was another one of the conference's organizers, escorted D'Souza and Joseph between the airport, the conference and the hotel.
Beam told The Christian Post on Thursday that Joseph's arrival with D'Souza was somewhat unexpected to the event's organizers – they did not make plans for an extra hotel room for her. But D'Souza's assistant told Beam's assistant they would take care of it. Beam had forgotten that D'Souza was married at first, so upon their arrival he didn't question D'Souza when he introduced Joseph as his fiancée.
He later drove the couple from the conference to the hotel, and was present to make sure the check-in process went smoothly. He says they only checked into one room, though he acknowledged that Joseph could have possibly checked into another room later that evening.
"It was one room. In my presence, there was not a discussion about another room," said Beam.
He arrived early to pick the couple up the next morning. When he had the hotel clerk call up to D'Souza's room, the teller told him, "They said, 'Give us 10 minutes.'" "I did not see them go into a room together; I did not see them coming out of a room together. All of this took place in the lobby," Beam emphasized.
He later contacted Alex McFarland, another one of the conference's organizers, to tell him what he had witnessed because, though he hadn't witnessed them sharing the same room, he was suspicious of the couple. McFarland sounded surprised, said Beam, because he knew D'Souza was married. McFarland called D'Souza to ask him whether or not he had stayed in the same hotel room as Joseph, and, according to World Magazine's report, D'Souza admitted that he had.
But D'Souza says McFarland was "fronting for" World Magazine's reporter, Warren Smith, to fish for information regarding what happened that night. D'Souza claims he never told McFarland that he and Joseph stayed in the same room, and that either McFarland or Smith lied in their account of the conversation.
"I clearly told McFarland that Denise and I stayed in separate rooms," wrote D'Souza. "McFarland knew he didn't have what he wanted, because he subsequently called me back and asked me again. I realized McFarland may be fronting for Smith, so I told him I didn't have any further comment. I'm not sure whether McFarland is lying or Smith is lying, but one of them made up the quotation attributed to me that we stayed in the same room but 'nothing happened.' This is pure libel."
McFarland provided CP with a statement Wednesday but declined to comment further. "Although I had no knowledge of Dinesh's personal life, none of us is above reproach and we all need a Savior. I will continue to pray for him and help point him toward living the godly life he's always lived."
D'Souza also sought legal advice to make sure he could legally be engaged before being divorced, and said he and Joseph were "trying to do the right thing."
"I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings," said D'Souza. "Obviously I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancé at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong."
While Beam says it is possible that D'Souza was genuinely unaware of this general Christian belief, he was still surprised by the statement.
"It certainly surprises me," said Beam. "I mean I certainly would think that if you've been in conservative evangelical circles ... that you would, at some point, kind of pick up on the idea that announcing an engagement to a woman when you are still legally married to another woman would be a problem."
Glenn Stanton, marriage expert and director for family formation studies at Focus on the Family, told CP that the separation of a struggling married couple can be a good thing – it gives them time to think and work on their issues – but says "it's not a good idea" to become romantically involved before a marriage has officially ended.
"It's not honoring to the marriage that tragically has died, and not honoring to the spouse, the children of that marriage, and not even honoring to the heart of the individual who is going through the divorce ... It's not wise from really any perspective," said Stanton. Although D'Souza says he can be legally engaged and married at the same time, Stanton says the spiritual marriage covenant is still in effect.
"It's disappointing that he was interested in the legal standpoint but not in the Christian standpoint. Legally, that may be no problem ... but, in essence, when you get engaged before your marriage is actually ended, you are on the on-ramp to bigamy," said Stanton.
Stanton, who recognized it would not legally be considered bigamy unless D'Souza tried to marry Joseph before his divorce is finalized, described being in such a relationship as "attitudinal bigamy."
Since the controversy began, D'Souza has suspended his engagement with Joseph. He filed for divorce on Oct. 4, several days after the conference ended, but says he had been working with attorneys on the filing process two weeks before the actual filing date.
D'Souza and his wife of 20 years, Dixie, have been separated for two years. The controversy with Joseph has led to his resignation as president of The King's College in New York. Still, Stanton says, there is hope, however unlikely, for D'Souza to reconcile his relationship with his wife.
"There's always hope for reconciliation," said Stanton. "I mean, Jesus raised people from the dead."
In addition to his former role as college president, D'Souza is also the best-selling author of What's So Great About Christianity and The Roots of Obama's Rage. He is also the co-director and star of the popular political documentary, "2016: Obama's America."
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.