Full title: Conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza steps down from Manhattan evangelical Christian college after unholy tryst
“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,” D’Souza wrote.
I never trusted him. He has an odd manner about him.
Who cares??? What D’Sousa does in his personal life is his business. D’Sousa is not the problem, Communist Barack Hussein Obama is....and D’Sousa has done a maginificent service to his country exposing the farce and America Hater/Destroyer that Obama is!!! End of story!!!
Honest question for evangelicals: why do so many evangelical Christians tolerate divorce when Jesus spoke so clearly about it in the Gospel?
With so much literal interpretation of the Old Testament, it has always seemed odd to me that Protestants view the words of Jesus himself as “negotiable.”
I guess he was being a big fat liar in this article then:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/10/17/2016-obama-america-film-maker-am-not-having-affair/
Two things I see - first, he’d been separated from his ex for two years. This is an affair? Second, Obama and the Thugs are out to get him, and will do whatever they can to bring him down. 2016 was NOT appreciated at the WH. This smells like skunk stink to me.
Does not move Obama a whit in the polls.
But it does serve notice to all in the future who might dare to be so cheeky as to make such a movie.
Saul would be so proud.
So he’s not perfect either. But he stepped down and paid the price for his actions. (Nothing he did was illegal)
This is unlike Democraps who continue to proclaim their innocense even though there is no history of cherokee blood in their family OR a valid (not forged) birth certificate.
The fact that he made mistakes in his life DOES NOT change one single fact in his documentary about Obama.
First, he was already SEPARATED from his wife for nearly two years before he even met his “fiancee”!
Second, “engaged” has no legal meaning. He was in a committed intimate relationship after his marriage had failed. Engagement is a cultural tradition. (And our culture has no suitable word for such an adult relationship without an engagement; “girlfriend” is juvenile, and “partner” is legalistically cold).
Third: The “got around to filing for divorce” only after he introduced her may have plenty of reasons. There are many reasons to delay filing, and they might actually be in the interest of the ex-wife. The wife may in fact have precipitated the divorce. And delaying may have greatly enriched her.
Fourth: I’m fascinated by this story, because I’m in a very similar situation, with the ages and dates almost identical. The only difference is that I met my new gal a week after the divorce was final (Thank you, God!). But because the divorce was a fast one (initiated by her, thankfully) It was uncomfortable when people saw me with my new girl when they hadn’t even heard I was divorced.
Fifth: While I’m waiting for the old Catholic marriage to be declared a nullity under the rules of the church, I have to wrestle with delaying an engagement until no longer married in the eyes of the church.
Sixth: Dinesh’s gal might be nearly as beautiful as mine, but there’s no way she’s as sweet and loving.