All Comments (75)

FYI

UN Wants Final Word on Rearing Your Kids

While pressing senators to reject the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST, patriots should also urge rejection of another “convention” sent to the chamber by Bilderberg President Bill Clinton that has been lurking since 1995. If the Senate ratifies the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the world body, not parents, will decide how to rear children.

The Senate is likely to get a significant makeover in the 2008 election. If your senators are incumbents with a good, America-first record, contact them and warn them of these two treaties. If one or both are new boys, give the man in-depth education. Even senators who are normally on good behavior can cast odd votes. For example, the late Sen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.) was a strong patriot and pork-fighter. But, unexplainably, he advocated ratification of the UN’s so-called “genocide treaty.”

If the Senate ratifies Rights of the Child, the state. acting under UN direction, will decide what your children read, who they associate with, what discipline (if any) can be imposed and whether or not they can be home schooled (home-schooled children perform significantly better academically than their peers in public schools).

But, regardless of merit or lack thereof, the UN should have no role in rearing America’s children. For that matter, Congress has no role in state school systems under the 10th Amendment.

There was a time when RW slimeballs like Colson would do their time for crimes committed and then slink off into the sunset.

No more! Ever since Nixon "rehabilitated" himself, it seems that every Republic crook sees his getting caught at something untoward as the first step to a life of greater notoriety and wealth. The think tanks and the book tours await those whose hypocrisy can be easily pawned off on the sheeple who believe any RW lie or masquerade - as long as the name of Jeebus gets invoked along the way.

Chuck has found the perfect cover for himself with his church ministry. Not for him the life of a garbage man who keeps a private faith and spends his life atoning for his treason. Nope, there's money to made and people to be hoodwinked.

I marvel at the level of cynicism that infests the Chuck Colsons of this world.

As for 'truth,' ...the truth is of course that even the people moralistically-tying up the business of American government for years over a BJ have been caught getting caught cheating on marriages and lying their faces off on a far more alarming and ongoing basis, but everyone brings up Clinton lying about questions that really shouldn't have been the business of Congress.

I want to see some of *those* guys put under oath and asked some questions about more important matters. A common Republican tactic is to make sure no one of them *is* under oath, and when they get caught out, attack someone else or bring up Bill Clinton.

Let's have some truth in the here and *now.*

You misconstrue what I say, 'Not Hateful.'

And on this, again, reality check:

"But the typical leftist Democratic mindthink (and granted Pubs are not much better) is to grow government and tax the crap out us. Socialism and more socialism."

George W Bush has expanded government (check out the DHS, for one,) more than any President in history, not to mention taking unprecedented liberties with executive power, not to mention undermining judicial checks and balances, curtailing civil rights like habeas corpus, posse comitatus, and all manner of right for private citizens to 'petition the government for a redress grievances' via his tort reform, not to mention a lot of bad precedents under the premise of 'protecting marriage.'

His Federal Marriage Amendment is a direct assault on states' rights which the conservatives clamor for, (cause it's what *they* want, unlike federal labor or environmental standards)...

As for Social Security, he could have just dumped a fraction of what he spent on screwing up Iraq into the pot and we'd be good to go for a very long time, ....instead he cut benefits to the poor and gave a bit back to proselytizers to expand their base by exploiting the suffering of other for conversion efforts.

And it really falls flat to keep parroting 'Tax and spend Democrats' when he *just spends and spends while transferring wealth to the wealthy, runs up huge deficits and waits for someone else to have to break the bad news about the bills inevitably coming due for his adventurism.

Hardly what I'd call 'Republican virtue,' however that came up.

I was never a big Clinton fan, but my foremost concern is certainly not him 'sinning.'

Oh, and I believe the 'concept' exists, in fact, I observe what the concept *does* on many level.

I just don't believe 'sin' is a real thing.

Pagan, No offense, but you are just full of bull*.

Does not matter how Clinton got to court to LIE in the court, he just did lie . Enough to lose his law license .He should have done the HONORABLE thing and just stepped down. Just think, if he had, Gore would be in office for at least 6 years, and Bush would never have been President ! If you knew anything about the 9-11 commission and their findings, you would know that BOTH administrations were blamed along with the CIA, FBI etc. The entire government was and is inept at doing its job. As far as Social Security goes, you must be kidding. The politicians have been stealing from the fund for decades and now that the boomers (like me) want to retire, the demographic facts are that either benefits must be delayed or reduced, or taxes increased. I see NOTHING wrong with taking MY money to get a better return on it.
But the typical leftist Democratic mindthink (and granted Pubs are not much better) is to grow government and tax the crap out us. Socialism and more socialism.

I like the saying that goes like this- "if you want the faster road to hell, vote for the Democrats, however, the slower road to hell is to vote for the pubs"

I don't know really how you can comment on sin. You probably do not believe the concept in truth exists. Sad.

Pagan, No offense, but you just full of bull*.

Does not matter how Clinton got to court to LIE in the court, he just did lie . Enough to lose his law license .He should have done the HONORABLE thing and just stepped down. Just think, if he had, Gore would be in office for at least 6 years, and Bush would never have been President ! If you knew anything about the 9-11 commission and their findings, you would know that BOTH administrations were blamed along with the CIA, FBI etc. The entire government was and is inept at doing its job. As far as Social Security goes, you must be kidding. The politicians have been stealing from the fund for decades and now that the boomers (like me) want to retire, the demographic facts are that either benefits must be delayed or reduced, or taxes increased. I see NOTHING wrong with taking MY money to get a better return on it.
But the typical leftist Democratic mindthink (and granted Pubs are not much better) is to grow government and tax the crap out us. Socialism and more socialism.

I like the saying that goes like this- "if you want the faster road to hell, vote for the Democrats, however, the slower road to hell is to vote for the pubs"

I don't know really how you can comment on sin. You probably do not believe the concept in truth exists. Sad.

What? seems to be living up to his name again.

On *my* planet, I see a lot of marriage being used as a weapon for control and hurt, instead of what it's *supposed* to be, precisely because people condemn 'sex outside marriage' a lot more than they're concerned about 'Did you obey my ritual' than things like spousal abuse or making sure a marriage or other relationship is actually healthy or equitable.

People who think "In-marriage acceptable, without marriage 'sin'" aren't thinking about making sex and/or marriage a *good* thing, just trying to simplify their system of *control.*

Even if it means trying to, say, force gay people to marry opposite-sex folks they don't love or actually have any attraction to, then leave the unfortunate spouses to deal with the pain involved.

I say *where *is* the support for that statement?

I have plenty of experiences to the contrary. (By 'outside marriage' I take it to mean the sin-based model of unmarried sex being the same as breaking a marriage-oath whether by mutual agreement or not.)

But maybe that's part of the point, for some: Enforce a certain model of marriage, and thus *prevent* any experiences to the contrary, or at least call anyone who has them 'morally disqualified' from saying, 'Uh, no, in fact, it doesn't usually or always hurt anyone.'

>>And where's your support for the statement that "with sex outside of marriage, someone always gets hurt"?

Uh, is this person from another planet?

Unbeeeeeeeeeeelieeeeeeeeeeeeevable

Actually, the Republican leadership in Congress started their witchhunt before the indiscretion even *happened,* Reasonable, not to mention being obstructionist about getting almost *anything* done while pursuing Clinton about their sex-fixation.

As for eyes off the ball, that was all the Republican leadership, many of actively cheating on spouses themselves, even *wanted* anyone to have their eyes on.

It's a matter of historical fact that the watch on Al Qaida was in fact something that Bush lost in the transition... with warnings on his desk, he could have been doing something other than trying to gut Social Security, deregulate the energy industry for his buddies, and funnel government money to proselytizers.

OK Are you kidding. You are correct as I did call him on his spelling.

I never chided his name though -that is what he called himself.

As far as being the a "-hole, just the fact that you had to comment makes you the same.

Noticed you did not even try to address the post itself !

And I am not kidding.

Reasonable not hateful,

"that is there business"

First off, it's "their", not "there".

I suggest the use of a spell-checker in a post where, "first off", you correct someone's spelling and chide their name.

(whispering) It makes you look like an @$$hole!

Well former Christian, you are spot on for your moniker. First off, Eden is not spelled Edan.

Sex is not bad , it is only something that can be good if exercised in the correct context. Obviously, Clinton's vows to his wife when he ismarried mean nothing to you. His vows to protect the constitution and to tell the whole truth in court mean nothing to you. I don't particularly care if someone wants to have an affair- that is there business, but when they do in effect on MY TIME (the president works for us) and then spend gobs of time defending the action and trying to cover it up, lying in court, then I do have a problem with it. Clinton did something that took his eye off the ball(Al Qaida) and let them develop their infrastructure etc. that led up to the attack.

Marriage is stabilizing influence in society whether you want to believe it or not. Young couples that cannot make lifelong commitments in Europe - that is supposed to be impressive? I am sure many of those relationships will fail. You think they will stay together if they cannot even make a vow, civil or religious?

Chuck:

As usual, you make lots of statements, few of which are supported by fact.

First, you assume there was a garden of Edan. Doesn't it occur to you that many religious prohibitions seem to be an attempt to remove as much sex as possible from society? Why is sex bad?

And where's your support for the statement that "with sex outside of marriage, someone always gets hurt"?

This is exactly what I mean when I say you make broad assertions and never attempt to provide facts to back that up.

In Europe, over 30% of younger couples (under 35) who live together are not married. Are you trying to say that everyone of these relationships will fail? Will result in someone getting hurt? And is this any different than the number / percent of people who would get hurt and are married?

How about your other grand assertions? You said; Is infidelity a public matter? It had always been considered to have public consequences until the Clinton era when many began to say otherwise.

Where were all the people during the Kennedy administration talking about the public consequences? I seem to remember the media adopting, up until Clinton, a "don't ask; don't tell" attitude because as Dawkins says where a man puts his penis is not in the public interest.

By the way, those are wonderful comments from PaganPlace -- just the right mixture of reason and compassion. I agree with your assessment of sex -- it should be celebrated not vilified.

Ghost 1: "There is a difference between a forum and a good fight, or between journalism that mediates debate and pseudo-journalism that stages artificial debates to titillate and provoke. The latter is part of what author Deborah Tannen has called "the Argument Culture"..."

I read the "Arguement Culture". I think of that book every single time I hop on a blog board or watch a staged debate. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in dialogue rather than debate. As for all you happy creatures of condition, please do continue to spew whatever you need to spew in your quest to defeat "them". You have to beat "them" you know...

Ghost 2: "These are not personal attacks."

hahahahaha! I just fell off my chair from laughing so hard. Fortunately, I'm a ghost and didn't feel a thing.

Joey underlines the point contained in the well-known joke:

Q. How can you tell if a politician is lying?
A. His lips are moving.

Ken: the issue is whether knowing that a candidate was unfaithful is very meaningful information. even supposing that it suggests a fidelity or honesty issue, the question is whether the fact that a particular candidate is known to have lied is a good reason to prefer a candidate who, for all you know, has lied and not been caught, or would lie in a heartbeat if given the chance. To me, a candidate who has been pro-choice and suddenly claims to be pro-life when the constituency changes is more clearly not to be trusted than one who couldn't admit to cheating on his spouse. but that's me.

So a burglar sees "the light" in prison and becomes Elmer Gantry. This truly, sadly represents conservativism in America.

DD:

By continually calling Colsen and others "moral imbeciles" I think you reveal your OWN imbecility.

Are you for real?

Thank God you don't represent what the majority of Americans think about morality and this topic at hand.

Imbecile indeed.

Mr. Colson stated: "Sex out of marriage may seem glamorous and adventuresome; but the fact is somebody is always hurt."

When an individual is tortured, someone is always hurt as well. And yet a few weeks ago, the good reverend lectured us all on how torture is morally justifiable.

Is anyone else here a little sick of the logical inconsistencies of political Christians like Mr. Colson?

"Do you honestly in your heart believe that tricking Congress into starting a war for profit is less of a crime than illicit sex? Do you believe that the murder of at least half a million people, mostly civilians, plus the disappearance and torture of thousands more, is a less important consequence than the embarassment of the President and his family?"

All of those actions would be immoral, if there was the slightest bit of truth to any of your hyperventilation. But there isn't and your lies are themselves offensive and immoral.

Chuck Colson is an ex-con. The operative word is ex. He has done his time and has since then done more to rehabiltiate criminals and assist their families than any of his detractors.

The point remains that anyone who would lie to their spouse, the one person whose close relationship makes them most vulnerable, cannot be trusted to fulfill any promises to a faceless public, and no amount of anti-Bush or anti-Nixon propaganda alters that fact.

Anyone who believes that casual sex hurts no one can only believe that if their own humanity is too scarred over to be capable of genuine intimacy and the trust and vulnerability on which it rests.

TOMH: "Hey, I'm in the 70%!"

You remind me of something I heard on the radio the other day and I can't remember who to give credit to, but I got a chuckle out of it.

People who believe in UFO's = 25%
People who believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 = 25%
The President's approval rating = 24%

It's safe to say EVERYONE disapproves of the President.

Angela B.:

We didn't ask for a sermon, please, keep quiet and go harass your own congregation.

Frankly, after reading the essays of the several panelsists, and their commenting fans, I am a little suprised. I would have expected this whole topic to be "radioactive," but it does not seem to be. It seems to be regarded, generally, as just another, somewhat boring, topic.

Wow. I am so suprised. Maybe the world is making progress, after all.

DD, you are mixing data and coming up totally erroneous conclusions. Yes, Bush's approval rating and war approval in specific is about 30% as you say. Hey, I'm in the 70%! But that is SO DIFFERENT than stating that 70% of USA-ers would agree that he should be charged with "collosal public crimes". This is obvious to all of us, regardless of our personal views, isn't it? To state otherwise is to be utterly blind or utterly dishonest.

And to state the the Wash Post, who virtually every objective person agrees to be a left-leaning paper, is a sop to right-wingers... well, again, you are entitled to an opinion shared by very few, and not empirically supported. Name the last GOP Pres candidate endorsed by the Post oevr a Dem. Go ahead, I'll wait. For a long while.

Mr Colson,
See how you stirred up the hornet's nest....You really stepped in it this time!

One thing I've found through these posts is everyone has a different view on morality and most of the time it goes beyond the point that it should. What I've chosen to do as one of God's children is in love, speak the truth to those I feel are headed for an eternity separated from the only true God and yes, there is truth; not relativity or "That's Your Opinion". An opinion is a strong belief but not truth. Truth is the the way things really are. but most are not really willing to search for the truth. We live in a fallen world and everyone sees themselves good and/or evil in their own eyes but at the end of the day; God's Word has stood the test of time and 1) Loving yourself more than you love God 2) Creating your own sense of morality of what you believe God will forgive; 3) Forsaking the sabbath; Dishonoring your parents, and of course: lying, stealing, adultery (which is stated in the Bible as having lust in your heart) murder (which in the Bible is having anger in your heart) or hating someone, coveting. Go speeding down the highway going 100 miles and hour and the law will chase you unless you have a intercessor in the courtroom or the judge pays your fine and then you get off and do not have to withstand the penalty. We all will stand before a Just and Holy God one day so all I want to say is: Love Your Neighbor as yourself, Love your enemies, Bless those who persecute you and pray without ceasing because at the end, you will stand before a Just and Holy God not a Crooked Judge or a "figment of society's imagination" Make Peace with God and Yourself!

LOVE, IN CHRIST!

One thing I've found through these posts is everyone has a different view on morality and most of the time it goes beyond the point that it should. What I've chosen to do as one of God's children is in love, speak the truth to those I feel are headed for an eternity separated from the only true God and yes, there is truth; not relativity or "That's Your Opinion". An opinion is a strong belief but not truth. Truth is the the way things really are. but most are not really willing to search for the truth. We live in a fallen world and everyone sees themselves good and/or evil in their own eyes but at the end of the day; God's Word has stood the test of time and 1) Loving yourself more than you love God 2) Creating your own sense of morality of what you believe God will forgive; 3) Forsaking the sabbath; Dishonoring your parents, and of course: lying, stealing, adultery (which is stated in the Bible as having lust in your heart) murder (which in the Bible is having anger in your heart) or hating someone, coveting. Go speeding down the highway going 100 miles and hour and the law will chase you unless you have a intercessor in the courtroom or the judge pays your fine and then you get off and do not have to withstand the penalty. We all will stand before a Just and Holy God one day so all I want to say is: Love Your Neighbor as yourself, Love your enemies, Bless those who persecute you and pray without ceasing because at the end, you will stand before a Just and Holy God not a Crooked Judge or a "figment of society's imagination" Make Peace with God and Yourself!

LOVE, IN CHRIST!

Anonymous: "Mr. Colson, disregard the personal attacks."

These are not personal attacks. They are criticisms of the kind of destructive public behavior that has been tolerated for far too long in this country in the name of religion. We do not care what Colson does or believes in private. But his public behavior has been obscene and has done tremendous damage to this country.

"There is a difference between a forum and a good fight, or between journalism that mediates debate and pseudo-journalism that stages artificial debates to titillate and provoke. The latter is part of what author Deborah Tannen has called "the Argument Culture", which has functioned as an aphrodisiac for communications companies in their quest for audience and profitability."
-Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel
"The Elements of Journalism" Three Rivers Press, 2001. p. 140

DD: "But when moral imbeciles come out of their churches to parade their hypocrisy and imbecility in public forums and try to extend their power to the whole population, they should expect to hear what others think of them."

Right on! (applause)

franco:

Mr. Colson, disregard the personal attacks. Those of us that stand by the Word of God will continue to be attacked by those who follow their own pleasures. I have read all of your books, "Loving God" was my favorite. Continue the fight for the Kingdom of God!!

On a scale of 1 to 10, how crazy is this guy? Kingdom of God?? I think Franco might be an 11.

So, does that mean that we should question the ethical standards of Mr. Guiliani, Mr. Gingrich, Sen. Vitter, Sen. Craig, etc. etc. etc.?

Why does marital infidelity only rise to a public issue when President Clinton does it?

"How can the Washington Post expect anyone to take Charles Colson seriously???"

The Washington Post seeks every possible opportunity to throw out sops to, and to flatter, the right wing. They see this a "balance" against the times when they are forced to print something the right wing does not want them to print. This lazy form of "journalism" has no regard for the actual truth or the credibility of its sources.

See the controversy now raging (Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon) on the rightwing lies passed off as fact in Time magazine.

Didn't the Washington Post used to be a good paper??? Didn't the Post's own reporters expose Colson as a liar, a cheat, and a criminal???? Now he writes for the Post???? Watching a decent paper get into this silly commentary game is bad enough. Seeing them employ an ex-con they helped to catch is truly disgraceful. I don't think even my hometown Gannet paper would pull this crap.

Mr. Colson, disregard the personal attacks. Those of us that stand by the Word of God will continue to be attacked by those who follow their own pleasures. I have read all of your books, "Loving God" was my favorite. Continue the fight for the Kingdom of God!!

Chuck Colson opining about morality - that's a hoot. What will the Post offer us next week, lessons in dog obedience from Michael Vick?

Yeah, we need Chuck Colson, a convicted felon and co-conspirator with Richard Nixon et co. in subverting the Constitution, to give us moral instruction. Getting Jesus in jail doesn't necessarily change a person's true nature.

How can the Washington Post expect anyone to take Charles Colson seriously??? He's mad because Clinton lied about having sex with someone other than his wife (not a crime), yet he was convicted and imprisoned for obstruction of justice in an attempt to discredit Daniel Ellsburg, because of he helped Neil Sheehan alert the public to the government's true feelings on the Vietnam war. Who would take a morality lesson from a man guilty of obstructing justice. Come on WaPo, you can do better than this. There are plenty of credible people on the right. Chuck Colson is not one of them. Find someone who's not a criminal.

Chuck Colson opining about morality - that's a hoot. What will the Post offer us next week, lessons in dog obedience from Michael Vick?

people have the right to ask anything of a politician they please, but they would be idiots to put more than the most marginal weight on a candidate's sexual pecadillos, or prevarications about same, for simply logical reasons. we would only know of the lies of a small number of our candidates, and have no good reason to assume the rest haven't lied or wouldn't if given the chance. on the other hand, if we know a candidate has been duplicitous about nearly anything else (can't at the moment think of any subject about which one would lie that would be less likely to suggest untrustworthiness in general, nor one less serious) - then we can draw a meaningful inference about the future - but even then subject to the caveat about not having been given the chance to get caught lying yet. bottom line - you size up your candidates based on your impression of whether they will try to do the right thing for the right reasons.

TOMH: "Maybe you would be happier somewhere else."

Or maybe YOU would be happier somewhere else, because you make another important point. Colson and those like him feel perfectly justified in parading their imbecility and hypocrisy in public forums because they are wearing religious finery, and religious finery is supposed to command respect and be immune to criticism. Hogwash. We do not go into churches and say these things. But when moral imbeciles come out of their churches to parade their hypocrisy and imbecility in public forums and try to extend their power to the whole population, they should expect to hear what others think of them.

"somebody is always hurt"

Only if they are doing it wrong...

Dear TruthSayer:

Let's get one thing straight; you are mistaken; sex outside of marriage is NOT a sin. And there's no question about it.

What about monstrously criminal public actions with apalling public consequences? Do these matter? Do you honestly in your heart believe that tricking Congress into starting a war for profit is less of a crime than illicit sex? Do you believe that the murder of at least half a million people, mostly civilians, plus the disappearance and torture of thousands more, is a less important consequence than the embarassment of the President and his family?

Here's what's weird to me: We're even bothering to talk about "whether a politician who cheats on his wife or her husband would cheat on his or her constituents" in the face of the most immoral administration in American history.

If only we still had a president whose personal life was his greatest moral failing! Bush's sex life may be perfectly according to the 10 Commmandments, for all I know, but that didn't stop him from lying his way into a war in which hundreds of thousands of people have died. We don't have to speculate about whether some private immorality is a sign of public immorality to come: The public immorality is here.

"Moral imbeciles divide into two groups: those who crave authority, and those who crave to submit."

That explains everything. Repukes are all kinky sadomasochists into bondage and leather whips.

No wonder they keep getting busted in the men's room.

I bet Chuck Colson spends too much time in the mens room himself.

...And where the heck does A CONVICTED CRIMINAL OF WATERGATE CRIMES GET OFF TELLING ANYONE HOW TO BEHAVE!?!

WHY IS THE POST GIVING CRIMINAL DIRTBAGS LIKE COLSON AND THE TREASONOUS OUTER OF COVERT CIA AGENTS MR. NOVAK A VOICE ON MORALITY ANYWAY!?!

Perhaps the management of the washinton post supports them?

That must be it.

Colson is not only a crook, he's a sloppy, uneducated "minister." The public fascination about sex goes back to the Garden of Eden? What public existed then, sir? And take a good look at your text; the issue isn't sexuality, it's disobedience, defying God's commands. Furthermore, Adam and Eve are ashamed of their nakedness, not of their sexuality. I continue to be appalled at all the people quoting or referring to Scripture who clearly don't know what they're talking about.

Redemption. The masquerade of redemption is common and constant with moral imbeciles. They have changed, they say, and they are now marvelous and have great work to do. But they have not changed. Moral imbeciles divide into two groups: those who crave authority, and those who crave to submit. "Redemption" is the process by which moral imbeciles graduate out of submission and into the greater and more profitable imbecility of wielding authority over submissive imbeciles. It is a pathetic masquerade, and a horrible toxin when imbeciles try to leverage their power over other imbeciles to get political power over an entire nation.

You're a giant hypoctire Mr. Colson.

Your fearless leader Bush is a liar who is having our finest men and women killed for nothing.

You support the death of innocents in public while you bash the private actions of Americans.

Rick Santorum said he thought government should be active in our bedrooms. Note that we disagree and Mr. Santorum is out of office as he should be.

Freedom of religion means FREEDOM FROM YOUR HYPOCRITICAL DOCTRINAL HEGEMONY.

Please take your hate to your own bedroom. Mine is private

I don't accept Chuck Colson as a moralist or an example today any more than I did when he was a hatchet man for Nixon.

Yes, actions have consequences. That's why Chuck Colson went to prison. He's a convicted Watergate felon and a real slimeball of a human being.

What's Chucky up to these days? He's been trying to get taxpayers to fund his whacko prison ministry and has caused a scandal with it.

I don't believe in redemption. Chuck Colson was a Watergate crook, is a convicted felon, and will always be a bad guy until he dies and burns in Hell.

All you Repukes are headed to the same place. Better wear your summer clothes, I hear it is hot down there. Repukes are torturers and traitors.

TOMH: "The strong majority of Americans ... who would strongly disagree with charging him with 'collosal public crimes' must all be imbecile."

Now you have a error of fact. Check the polls. There is no strong majority. The number of Americans who still have not recognized the Bush deceptions is 30 percent or less. Many people who at first were deceived have applied moral reasoning (and other forms of reasoning, for that matter) and come to understand that they were frightened, lied to and manipulated. They are angry, as they should be. That is moral reasoning at work.

Voters would have every right to question whether a politician who cheats on his wife or her husband would cheat on his or her constituents. -- Chuck Colson

So I guess, Chuck, if Rudy gets the GOP nomination, you're voting for the Democrat, right?

**A common behavior of morally stunted people is to dress themselves up in some sort of religious finery and then try to dominate others.**

I suppose you would say the same of those who dominate others by insisting we stop using energy, as they dres themsleves up in tree-hugging finery? I claim no such thing; both tree-huggers and heterosexual-marriage only-ies both want the best for society, based on their worldview. To consign one type to the realm of morally stunted is a slanderous opinion without merit.

**People like Colson need to be aware of the utter contempt that anyone capable to moral reasoning feels for him...his encouragement of Bush's colossal public crimes, but then to claim some sort of high moral standing and parade his hypocrisy for all to see. He is a moral imbecile.**

Apparently you are so far above us that any who disaree are incapable of moral reasoning. How sweet of you. The strong majority of Americans (even those like myself who are no friend of Bush's) who would strongly disagree with charging him with 'collosal public crimes' must all be imbeciles. Maybe you would be happier somewhere else. If you could find enough non-stunted people to agree with you.

**The public fascination with sex goes back to the Garden of Eden.**

And who would the "public" have been in the Garden of Eden? A troop of howler monkeys?

**Sex out of marriage may seem glamorous and adventuresome; but the fact is somebody is always hurt.**

If two single people have sex, whether out of genuine affection/love for each other or just for the sheer physical pleasure of it, who gets hurt?

When we were single, both my husband and I had "friends with benefits" - unattached friendsof the opposite sex with whom we occasionally had sex. It was understood that sex with said friends was recreation, no more binding than a game of basketball. And married friends or friends in othewise committed relationships were off limits.
I am still friends with men I've had sex with, and he is still friends with women he's had sex with. Before I met one of his female friends, he told me that he and she had slept together in the past, and that he hoped that didn't upset me. I told him I saw no reason that it should upset me. There are only two circumstances under which his sexual past would be my business. One is if he contracted an STD. Even then, I would only need to know what disease he had, not who gave it to him, or the blow-by-blow details of their activities. The other is if he had a child that he was obligated to support. If he had to pay child support, that would affect our household budget, so I would need to know about it.
And of course, it works the other way round as well. He would need to know if I had an STD, and my daughter is kind of hard not to notice.
Other than that, who we had sex with before we met is none of the other's business.

Where do people like Colson come off moralizing about anything? Even though our society talks about forgiveness, ex-con are not employable! I guess we can apply the same standards to Giuliani today, eh?

Hey Chuck,

Should we hold your assertion to be true about the private matters of GWB (drug and alcohol addict), Dick Cheney (oil tycoon using his office to help benefit others) or the countless others in DC today who cheat, lie and swindle the public in much much worse ways than Clinton could have ever dreamed? Many of their 'private' matters have gravely hurt our country so much more than a BJ. Maybe your article should use those examples about how private matters have public consequences rather than being a political hack to take another jab at Bill Clinton. Or, is this the beginning of the right-wing mud machine's way to start to talk about the scandal again so as to stir the feelings of yesteryear in the hopes of disuading people away from voting for not only Hillary, but for the Democrats? I find your article ever so biased and swarmy.

TOMH: A common behavior of morally stunted people is to dress themselves up in some sort of religious finery and then try to dominate others. They can spot little peccadillos (except their own) oh so clearly, but they are completely blind to the real moral problems of our time. In public life they even tend to become enablers and apologists for the real moral problems of our times. For example, Colson signed the letter saying that Bush was theologically justified in attacking Iraq. If that is not moral imbecility, I don't know what is. People like Colson need to be aware of the utter contempt that anyone capable to moral reasoning feels for him. Not only to commit the Nixon-era crimes he committed, his encouragement of Bush's colossal public crimes, but then to claim some sort of high moral standing and parade his hypocrisy for all to see. He is a moral imbecile.