Posted on 06/10/2007 5:38:52 AM PDT by Reaganesque
In today's world, it would seem, the worst possible sin a person can commit is the sin of hypocrisy. We regularly see articles in the news about celebrities, politicians and others who, despite advocating one thing, are caught doing the exact opposite. Conservatives point to the examples of Al Gore and his energy consumption or John Edwards and his work for a hedge fund. Liberals point to Newt Gingrich cheating on his wife during the Monica Lewinsky fiasco and pedophile priests.
Because of this, some on the Left and the Right have come to the conclusion that it is best not to have moral standards. That way, no matter what you do, at least you're not being a hypocrite. Sounds good, but is it really?
My question to Freeperdom is this (for the purpose of discussion): Which is worse? Having moral standards and earnestly trying, but failing, to live up to them or being a hypocrite? Are the two the same thing? Additionally, how do we know when someone is earnest or not? What do you think?
Personally I do not view the two as the same, and do not view both as equally bad. Having the moral fiber but not being able to maintain an upright standing all the time is understandable. Everybody is human.
But what seperates that from the hypocrite is that the hypocrite feels no remorse for disregarding his own rules. The hypocrite will come up with excuses, will shift the blame, will feel no shame (Except perhaps the embarassment of being caught).
Failing to meet moral standards means you had those standards to begin with, whereas the hypocrite probably never had them at all.
I concure with SoldierMedic.
Reganesque, this is a problem with some religions. They teach that perfect performance is the ultimate. There is a specific religion that believes you can perfect yourself almost (you do need a “little” help) to the point of becoming god.
The rest of Christian society see the incongruency of this belief. By believing that one can be almost perfect by their own obedience, you see a distortion and a warping of the soul when the person sees it can’t be done. What is left for them to do when they can’t perform perfectly? Either they will lie about their performance (which is sin), delude themselves into ignoring their own failure, or be twisted into a hypocrite of the worst kind in appearing to perform while hiding the sin.
Christ came to set us free from our sin. Until you can see the difference between almost perfect performance, and being perfected through the sacrifice of Christ, then you can only BE a hypocrite.
great answer. Thanks for the insight.
No problem, sometimes I have my moments.
I think the major difference is how glibs and conservatives treat the hypocrisy. Hypocrits in the GOP (like Tim Foley) resign (in shame) and are never (or rarely) heard from again. Glibs who get caught are re-elected - over and over...
Conservatives believe that hypocrisy in some is an unfortunate human failure, but that those who practce it have no place in the party or in government.
Glibs believe that EVERYONE is a hypocrit, and as long as the practitioner weilds power to do their bidding, they can remain.
When did you stop beating your wife?
Barney Frank can have a prostitution ring in his basement - no big deal. Larry King can get divorced 10 times and they laugh. Bill Clinton is revered because he treated imorality as a gift. William Jefferson can take a bribe without consequences because he comes from a poor background in the South. Sandy Burger can steal national secrets and just get a slap on the wrist because he was helping Bill Clinton.
However, for a conservative, if you commit one sin in your entire life, your political and public life is OVER. Slight exaggeration, but not far off.
Ok, here is the punch line. Why does this happen? These radical liberals who cry hypocracy do not believe in the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Jesus. Therefore, if someone has moral standards and fails, there is no awareness or idea by the radical liberal that forgiveness is available. If someone has no moral standards, then there is no hypocracy, and that person gets a free ticket from the MSM.
Morality is tough. There are all sorts of challenges to doing the right thing. A moral person is acutely aware of their failings and often feel guilt or similar feelings as a result of their failure to live up to their ideal(s). Few of us are able to sustain living up to our personal "shoulds" and "ought tos" 100% of the time, which is why forgiveness is such a virtue, especially if we can forgive ourselves and then keep striving.
A hypocrite doesn't have those morals, nor the shame that comes with them. However, as pride goeth before a fall, sometimes it is difficult to know for sure if a person is a hypocrite or a moral person behaving hypocritically and headed for a fall.
Either of your situations can be attributed to the human condition. One where humans have such hard time admitting their faults. Look at Gore. Virtually a pathalogical liar. Yet, he never admits he's wrong even when presented with evidence to the contrary.
Look at Bush. He also never admits he does anything wrong.
Ego and position in life, particularly for politicians, almost require that one be obstinate and forsake humility.
The average person, whose life isn't under a bell jar for all to see, have and must admit his faults if he is to interact with people around him. Politicians see themselves above reproach because they won a well paid for popularity contest. The People can't be wrong! (Example: McCain)
For long but very revealing look at the liberal mind watch "How Modern Liberals Think"
For the hypocrite, those rules often merely serve the purpose of allowing the person to sermonize and feel morally superior. The rules in question are for the “benighted”, not the “anointed”.
As opposed to post-modernists, who do not acknowledge that there is any moral law.
That's why hypocrisy is such a huge sin in modern times. The closeted homosexual republican is acknowledging that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of, by the fact of being closeted. The post-modernist cannot abide even that acknowledgement of moral law.
In other words, the real question here is: Should we be openly sinful or quietly sinful. The left prefers openly sinful, and that's why you have gay parades and I-slept-with-my-brothers-wife type confessionals on Oprah.
I, OTOH, prefer quietly sinful.
One other thought. When kids are growing up, the message hypocrisy sends is consistent with the nature of man. We are always going to fall on our faces, sin-wise. The question is, if we are publically celebrating the sin, kids get one message. If we are hiding it, they get another. The later is imperfect, but better than the celebration alternative.
The danger is not Hypocrisy (failing to meet a moral standard which one nonetheless affirms to be Right), but rather Relativism or Cynicism, call it what you will -- the denial that there is such a thing as absolute Right or Wrong at all.
Exactly.
Well, for one thing, no one gave a damn about Clintons love life. He lied to a grand jury. The libs pointing fingers at Newt was pointless. As for Al Gore, he is not honestly trying his best. If he was really so worried about GW. he wouldn't live so large. He would live more like the rest of us plebes. Especially with all his money. He could buy a lot of environmentally safe stuff like GWB does at his ranch in Texas. So that does make Al Gore a hypocrite.
When did you start thinking that I beat my wife?
Last Thurs....HEY!!!
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.