An actual request for hypocrisy?

This will surely be my last post on the Miss California issue.  Really.  But in some ways it is the gift that keeps on giving.  (Of course, in other ways it is the gift that keeps on annoying.)

In reviewing some news today, I came across this NewsBuster article refering to an interview between CNN’s Howard Kurtz and the homosexual judge who had asked Ms. Carrie Prejean “the question” and who has since been slandering her for that answer.

The article caught my eye for its title: “Perez Hilton Gives Obama Pass on Same-Sex Marriage, Blames Miss California for Controversy” — mainly because it reminded me of the question I had asked in my own post, “So, Miss California agrees with President Obama” (and the followup: “Marriage is between a man and a woman? Shocking!)

But when reading it, I saw what was — for me — an illustration of the point I have tried to make: that many people prefer hypocrisy to a true statement of opinion or belief, even among our representatives or leaders.  For instance, here is a selection from that article, with a quote from this particular fellow:

“Well, you mentioned President Obama, but when he says that, he says he believes marriage is between a man and a woman,” Hilton responded. “However, he also says that he believes gay and lesbian couples should have the same rights that heterosexual couples [have]. If Miss California have said the same thing, then I wouldn’t have had an issue with her answer because it wouldn’t have been inclusive and it wouldn’t have caused this wedge and divided the way that it did.”

Now, whether or not you believe that this person has properly characterized the stance of the President is irrelevant.  What I see here is an actual request for hypocrisy on the part of a supposedly rational person.

This person who (for reasons that still aren’t clear) served as a judge in the contest is actually saying that he would have preferred that Miss California state (1) marriage is between a man and a woman, and (2) homosexual couples should have exactly the same rights as heterosexual couples.  Of course, some may not see this as a contradiction (and thus not hypocrisy), but you have to remember that for most activists “same rights” means not just “civil unions” that carry the same legal weight as marriage, but the label marriage — like the word is some sort of magic arrangement of letters.  For many, the rights without the word equals unacceptable intolerance.

Consequently, what he is saying is that, “Miss California should have said something in the second half of her statement that would have allowed me to imagine that she didn’t really believe the first half of her statement.”  So, again, it seems to me that there is actually a preference for hypocrisy — a desire to see a leader state his or her position in a way that really does not communicate his or her real beliefs.

Of course, maybe I’m wrong, and it’s a preference for irrationality and self-contradiction and not for hypocrisy, at all.  Maybe the same judge would have preferred her answer conclude with “…and as we all know, Mr. Judge, not only does two equal one but also country fried unicorn makes for good eating.”

Nah!  It’s a preference for hypocrisy.  And it’s a real shame when people prefer that their leaders speak with forked tongues.  Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks (Matthew 12:34), so, if — with his or her mouth — the leaders we prefer are routinely willing to subjugate character to convenience — what does that tell of us the hearts of those leaders?

Jeremiah and others in the Bible prophetically speaks of a culture for which hypocrisy is a prominent characteristic (e.g., Jer. 9:8).  Are we there?

10 thoughts on “An actual request for hypocrisy?

  1. You’re right, Mr Smith. You better give the politically correct answer, or something might happen to you. Didn’t George Orwell talk about that?

    Remember, she didn’t introduce the subject. She simply gave an honest reply to a question. What happened? Lots of “outrage” from people who were personally “offended”. Funny how the agressor always plays the role of victim. Isn’t it?

  2. Howdy, and thanks, Steve. But, you know, it isn’t even the offense that startles me. I’m used to Biblical positions being offensive.

    What gets me is the desire for hypocrisy — that some would actually prefer that a person, especially a leader, make statements that do not reflect what he or she really thinks. In fact, in some ways the ability to do so is considered an admirable asset. It’s just crazy.

  3. correctmyreligion

    I would be interested in your opinion on this post…

    [EDIT: Please forgive my removal of the specific name of your 4/28 post, though anyone going to your blog can find it. For those who do, the pictures there may not be family friendly, so let the surfer beware… Your requested opinion follows immediately below. WGS]

  4. Greetings, correctmyreligion —

    The essence of the post to which you refer concerns comparing the public’s lack of acceptance for homosexuality and its willingness to accept, say, bloody UFC cage matches.

    I think you make a good point in that regard. On one hand, I wouldn’t assume that UFC matches are embraced by everyone, and a statistical comparison might be interesting. On the other hand, if there is a real difference it may be because some might feel that violence, while ungodly, is at least a broadly “natural” reaction while homosexuality is a perversion even of that which is natural. I’m just guessing, though, on this last item, as it does not fit my thoughts.

    As for my opinion (which is what you asked for), the spirit of murder is just as much a violation of God’s law as is the spirit of sexual sin. Both are works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19-21) and have no part in the mind of a Christian.

    As long as society rejects Christ’s lead and God’s Spirit, it will be ruled by its stomach — meaning its whims, urges, and desires of the moment. Currently, you may be right and the UFC may be more tolerable by society’s carnal standards. Were society allowed to continue, perhaps its opinion would change and the other would be preferred. Society’s choice of sins to embrace and reject vary because it has no true moral anchor — and sadly, the lack is one of choice not necessity.

  5. gary

    In this world, people wish to compare every wrong act as being a lesser or greater sin. But all sin is the same in the eyes of God, and all sin warrents the same penalty. When a person commits an act that is contrary to Gods way of life, that single act violates all Gods commandments. If a person is a thief, this person is also a liar, they dishonor their parents, covet what they have no right to, they consider something more important than God, worship the act (idolize), and speak foul words of God. Every law and statute is violated by the one act of stealing. Our society is working toward justifing evil behavior, using this worlds value system, and we will soon justify every foul and disqusting act as acceptable. Soon we will accept murder of old people,to decrease the social burden, as we accept murder of unborn children, to reduce the personal burden. Soon we will accept child molestation as an alternative method of child rearing, And soon this world will condemn as criminals those people who stand up and say that all these things are wrong. God tells us, Choose life. He also tells us to, Speak truth. He commands us, cry out, warn the people, so that no man can say, I never heard these things. Many people may not like the truth of God, many will ridicule the truth of God, but that does not change the fact that it is the only truth. I wished that you could understand, but I know that only about one in a million do understand the truth, And what truth is that? The truth that God IS. These voices, that proclaim the truth of God, will become fewer and fewer as these evil days continue, but on that day when those whose eyes are veiled, are healed of their blindness, remember, you shall not be able to say that I never heard these things. May God bless you.

  6. Deano

    Jer 5:30-31 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land; The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?

  7. Someone in American conservative politics said not many years ago that “perhaps the greatest perversion of any society is the one most natural to it.” Fair enough, but the problem seems to be, we have a LOT of perversions that are very natural to us.

    You know what I think is one of the biggest ironies? This state of affairs has been promoted (often as part of the Law of Unintended Consequences, and in good if not total measure) since the summer of 1960 (at least) by the “classical liberals”: those who believe that human nature can be reformed by human means.

    I can’t forget the role of the “classical conservatives” though: the ones who believe that human nature can’t be reformed by human means, and are therefore apt to let it run unrestrained in other ways. And then there are the “classical moderates” who realize that human nature is flexible, a mixture of good and evil, and who seek pragmatic solutions to human problems (and never quite get at the real issues).

    Truly, it is not in the heart of man to guide his own steps, as Jeremiah prayed!

  8. Pingback: Hoping your President is a liar? Really? « Thoughts En Route

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.