said my tone responding to his defense of TH was angry and passionate. The story:
Robert Miller (assistant Professor of Law @ Villanova) writes (re Ted Haggard\):
‘A man is not a hypocrite because he violates a moral norm in which he sincerely believes.’
(now me)How convenient - especially now that Ted Haggard is in such a pickle, but also it is just a lot of hooey. The definition of hypocrisy is - an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.
This is the exact model of Ted Haggard’s actions and apparently his beliefs as well. While he was railing against gays and lesbians that would seek to legitimize their relationships, he was, in fact, violating his own vows of commitment and with a gay man to boot. This is the absolute height of hypocrisy. His intention is paramount here and apparently his intention was to break his marriage vows and have sex with a man. No amount of specious rationalization by Mr. Miller can change this. I am sorry \(not a lot though\) that Mr. Haggard ‘struggled with his dark and impure’ side, but lots and lots of people do this all the time and do not succumb and very few of these people are in the position of moral icon as Mr. Haggard. Shame on him for doing it and shame on him for lying about it afterwards. And shame on Mr. Miller for trying to justify it.
Below is the link to Professor Miller’s article to which I responded with the post above.
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=526This is Professor’s email response to my criticism of his article (sorry this is so long):
Dear Mr. Robbins:
The editors of First Things have forwarded to me your email below. I have a few thoughts in response.
1. I never attempted to “justify” Ted Haggard’s behavior. On the contrary, I said very clearly that, since it involves various forms of sexual immorality, it was gravely wrong. My point concerned whether, in addition to sexual immorality, Haggard’s wrongdoing included that particular form of moral wrongdoing called hypocrisy.
2. Your definition of hypocrisy (“an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction”) is not, I think, factually correct. The definition of “hypocrite” given in the Oxford English Dictionary, for example, is "one who falsely professes to be virtuously or religiously inclined; one who pretends to have feelings or beliefs of a higher order than his real ones." Note that the emphasis is on lying about inclinations, feelings or beliefs, or, I think more properly, values. Hypocrisy is not a divergence between professed values and conduct but between professed values and actual values. Hence, as I said in the post, “The hypocrite pretends to accept and live by one set of values when, in fact, he accepts and lives by quite different ones… This species of lying is hypocrisy.” Your definition of hypocrisy would make all lying hypocrisy, which cannot be the case. Hypocrisy is a very special kind of lying. It’s lying about what your values are.
3. So did Haggard lie about his values? For example, he said that he thought adultery was wrong, but did he really believe this? It seems clear to me that we cannot answer this question merely by knowing that the man has in fact committed adultery, for people who sincerely hold moral values sometimes act contrary to them. For example, we believe we should be patient with children, but we all sometimes lose our patience and become angry with our children. Does this make us hypocrites? No, because we sincerely believe in the value at issue; it’s just that we don’t always live up to it. Thus St. Paul can say, I do the evil I do not intend and I don’t do the good that I intend to do. This kind of disconnect between one’s sincerely held values and one’s ability to live up to those values is notoriously common in connection with the sins of the flesh. Alcoholics, porn-addicts, gluttons—all these people may sincerely want to avoid the vices to which they’re liable and yet find themselves falling into them again and again. Unless you’re a much better man than I am, I’m sure you can think of examples from your own life in which you’ve failed to live up to values you sincerely believe in. Such people are not hypocrites; they’re sinners, but their sins are common ones—lust, anger, impatience, gluttony, etc.—not that special kind of deliberate, intellectual sin called hypocrisy.
4. The only basis in the public record for thinking that Haggard did not sincerely believe the values he taught is that he often violated those values in serious ways. But since it’s easy to see how a man with certain weaknesses of the flesh can sincerely believe in good moral values and yet nonetheless often violate them, there is no reason to conclude that Haggard was lying about this values. It’s just as easy to believe that he is weak; indeed, it’s by far the more likely scenario. Moreover, we should not impute the additional form of wrongdoing to Haggard without convincing reasons to do so. If there is a more charitable explanation that is even more reasonable—that he’s weak, not hypocritical—surely in charity we should adopt the more charitable view.
5. You might want to moderate your tone. It’s unseemly to be so passionate and angry about what is, from every angle, a great tragedy, including for many innocent third parties, like Haggard’s wife and children.
I am going to respond – any suggestions? Was my tone too passionate and/or angry? (I mean, after all, Haggard has been ranting about my ability to ‘marry’ my partner of 26 years apparently thought it was ‘dark and ‘impure’ and this is a tragedy for Mr. Haggard.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
