I Guess They Don't Do Oppo Research In France

To you and incandenzah:
this is really troubling. What the %#@* .... the point is not that he "sinned", the point is that he sinned and he is standing by it. I read the article on the BBC website and I almost threw up.
.

Your partial knowledge of Jesus' teaching is more dangerous than no knowledge at all. When Jesus told people with no sin to cast the first stone and nobody could not because they also had sin, he then told the woman "go and sin no more". How can you miss that part? This man is the serving minister in a nation that is currently cooperating with Thailand to eradicate the sick practice of paying to rape underage children, yet, he not only does this, but has the hubris to record this in a book for public consumption. And when he is called out by sane people (thank God there are still a few left even in France), is retort is that they are making something out of nothing and that when he wrote "young boys", he was using the term loosely. Am I the only one who is aghast at this? There is little basis to compare this to the John Edwards case, these were all issues with consenting adults, but when the serving minister of a civil nation paid to f#%* children then boasts about it, I do have a problem, and by God, I hope the majority of the members of all civil societies also have a problem with it.
.
By the way, I am a democrat, and liberal on most issues, but stories like this feel me with horror. I sincerely hope that the day will never come in America when pedophiles who boast about their escapades are allowed to be in authority. I know their are people in authority who have done the likes and worse, but at least our corporate civility still makes sure that they cannot act like they are proud of their acts. I hope America retains the ability to shame such disgustful behavior.
.
Amy: good job on the story, I share your horror on this, and sincerely hope we are not in the minority.
.
God have mercy!

Thank you walkingfunny for that bit of clear thinking. I cannot add to your post.

walkingfunny:
.
It seems that, in addition to whatever horror you share with Amy Sullivan, you also share the same thrilling excitement of publicly declaring your moral outrage, and love of confirming your own moral superiority in comparison with the worst of the wretchedly sinful.
.
The more outraged you are, the more obvious your righteousness, isn't that how it really works for you?
.
Aren't these sorts of terrible events really vehicles for your own desires, your own fears, your own sins?
.
Isn't that the real reason for your need to publicly declare your shock and condemnation, walkingfunny...because it feels so good to be so right when some other is so bad?
.
And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. --John 8:11
.
Isn't that the real lesson of Jesus' encounter with the adulteress and the Pharisees,walkingfunny?
.
Don't you know that?

Judging the judgmental for judging others? Thick, thick irony.

"The more outraged you are, the more obvious your righteousness, isn't that how it really works for you?"
.
what arrant nonsense! What does my righteousness have to do with this? I'm simply saying the guy is sick SOB, and if this is not your first reaction to the fact that he has done such heinous things and yet, he stands by them, then I guess the whole of this discussion is futile ..... we definitely live in different worlds.
.
"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. --John 8:11
.
Isn't that the real lesson of Jesus' encounter with the adulteress and the Pharisees,walkingfunny?"
.
I'm always amazed at how good folks can be at cherry picking. How come you capitalize the " Neither do I condemn you", but not the " go, and sin no more"? I don't condemn you because there is mercy and forgiveness .... very basic foundations of christianity ..., but also go and sin no more ... repentance ... also a basic foundation of christianity. You can't sit on that two-legged stool and wonder why you keep falling flat on your face. You need a third leg, to be forgiven for what you have done, you first need to admit that it is wrong (not make silly excuses or worse still boast about it), then you need to make an effort to turn away from it, also based on the fact that you acknowledge that it is bad. Can you still fall back into it?, sure, but final redemption requires an admission of fault not some silly rationalization of what is (or at least) should be patently evil to all, irrespective of their background.
.
You don't have to agree with the christian theology, that is not the standard here, what I am hoping will appeal to you, and to all is common humanity, that is a pretty low, and generally universal standard. If you feel comfortable to rationalize away the actions of this idiot, then you may just be scoring a failing grade in the basic human test. Tell me, what are your thoughts on people who commit genocide and are proud of their exploits?

walkingfunny:
.
I'll take the chance that you're not deliberately missing the point to reiterate simply:
.
You sure do love to feel righteous.
.
That's not what God intends for us to be when confronting the occurrence of mortal sin.
.
It's pretty vile of you to equate criticism of you (or the smugly shocked Amy Sullivan) with the condoning of child rape, but it seems that you may just have not given it much thought yourself, and aren't accustomed to people who are Christian enough to think before they leap to join the bleating chorus of "Look! A sinner! Not me...over there! A sinner!", walkingfunny.
.
Look, you're not proving anything to anyone by being as loudly horrified and shocked as you are, except maybe that you love to vicariously participate in sin from the safety of a viewing gallery, and that, if you weren't "liberal", you'd be rapaciously watching segments like this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,204143,00.html or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20I5ZiELU8s tsk-tsking and tut-tutting the whole time.
.
The point of John 8 is that God is telling us not to celebrate our own righteousness through the sins of others, but to work very hard ourselves to know and perform the true will of Jesus, which is to perfect ourselves through intimacy with the good (Him).
.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with some "two legged stool" nonsense. It's Jesus' demonstration of the spirit of the law.
.
Really, honestly, just try to think about it when you calm down from your bouts of shock and horror (and righteousness) some day in the future, OK?

stuart--
I spend my entire working life helping kids who are being sexually abused. I've seen it all...and it gets pretty godawful, trust me. Like the other SW on here, I have seen parents blame the kid, I have seen the system blame the kid... and I have seen the arrogant use their christianity to try to judge those to KNOW how wrong it is to sexually abuse a kid and those who have no need for your damn concepts of 'sin' and 'forgiveness'. You blame those who have a clear sense of right and wrong and who YES, take pleasure in helping innocent kids who have been abused. And damned if I see ANYTHING wrong with THAT! I do NOT subscribe to the hypocritical christianity you are spouting, but neither would I deny your right to spout it. Just try not to aim it at those of us who fight every day to protect and defend the KIDS.
Thanks.

to=who

activistmom:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Erthun0Pauc&feature=related

What an inanely frivolous reply. I guess you really ARE incapable of taking the issue of childhood sexual abuse seriously if all you can do is to spout your religious beliefs about 'sin' and 'forgiveness' and show Monty Python clips. OK, I'm out of here. I've far, far, FAR better things to do with my time than to debate with religious zealots. I pity any child who depends on YOU for their protection tho.

SZ, I'm sorry that you're getting beat up here for no good reason. When I saw you being described as a "religious zealot," I about swallowed my crucifix (no, I'm not Catholic, but I do think the point is less the cross than it is the man who died on it).
.
Somehow, this whole sick mess has turned into an opportunity for AS to flaunt something (anything) that's a sure-fire bond with what she takes to be her "audience." That's sad.
.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the rich stay healthy and the sick stay poor.

I was wondering what you might think of this exchange, FT.

I couldn't care less about whether Amy Sullivan was being self-righteous in her relevant and serious denunciation of Mitterand's history of supporting sexual abuse. Just like I couldn't care less if Glenn Greenwald is self-righteous in his relevant and serious columns.
.
OTOH, I am disturbed by her unnecessary reference to Edwards, since it is promoting this idea of brutal child rape/sex scandal equivalency which is at the heart of that horrifying peition in support of Polanski, with its reference to a "morals case".

Rose:
.
I could care less if Amy Sullivan were being self-righteous and judgmental in a relevant and serious denunciation of anything that merited such a response, but this isn't serious at all. It's tabloid, exploitative, and a pseudo-moral defense of he own village fools-for-scandal appetites.
.
I mean...she even gets in the whole "The French are pedophiles!" thing they're saying half-jokingly in the Village now, as if there's a correlation between European culture having moved on from Madonna-Whore (and have no penalty for displaying female nipples on broadcast television) and child sexual abuse.
.
This kind of thing from her is damaging in its own right.

SZ:
" .. you're getting a real thrill out of being "shocked" over the moral failures of others .. "

I don't doubt that the statutory rape of your kids and/or grand kids by any pedophile would elicit out of you any outrage - or what you call "a real thrill out of being "shocked"." You don't fit heare.

SZ:
" .. Can you recall what Jesus said to those who betrayed a similar lust to judge...something about being the first to cast stones...? .."

May be you just got introduced to that bible you are waxing so knowledgeable about.
A few lessons from now you will also learn "Render unto ceasar what is ceasars." And our 'ceasars' have in place a judicial system that proscribes certain acts/behaviours and punishes those who stray - at times with the death penalty .
Try as hard as you may, we are not going to close down our judicial system and release the millions in the jails into the community.

And our legislators are not going to stop legislating even if many of them are felled by those laws now and then.

Come to think of it, god of the previous versions of the bible has promised to punish sinners severely when he gets back someday ...

Does it mean that that god - as presented in the bible (old testament) - is not guilty (as charged) of the proscribed sins and deserving of censor/punishment - as judged from the new testament?

[Up with the new, burn the old in hell, eh?]

cfukara:
.
You're ranting incoherently.
.
Isn't that the rightists' job?

What he did was wrong. If Stuart, you, or I were in a position to prevent this from happening again, I would, and I presume you or Stuart would. But the fact is, we are not. Awareness of the fact that child prostitution in Thailand is a big human rights problem is good, but that's about the limit of the good that can come from this. That doesn't require expressing deep moral outrage. It's not as if people need a reminder that this is wrong. Most know, and for those that don't, it's not due to lack of being informed.

On the other hand, clucking about the failings of others can be a personal danger. It can lead one to ignore one's own faults. It's easy to fall into the trap of not paying your own sins, either because they seem smaller, or just of a different nature. Or even to willfully use it to distract attention.

I'm not saying I'm perfect, or even especially good. I'm not saying shame on anyone. But I see this sort of thing a lot in society, and on the whole it does real harm. We'd all be better off if people spent less time shouting about their outrage and more time teaching and self-reflecting. In a situation like this, I'd ask you to consider what you can learn, consider what you can teach, and let the rest slide.

Thank you Stuart and Friar Tuck.

Thank you so much for understanding the point of my commentary.
.
I was beginning to despair of being able to communicate well enough to make that point, and so now am slightly reassured.

" .. cfukara: You're ranting incoherently.
Isn't that the rightists' job? .. "

That reads like a generic line you have on file ready to copy-and-paste. Lets try your easy idiocy on you:
---
SZ: You're ranting incoherently.
Isn't that the rightists' job?
----
That doesn't sound worthy even to you, does it?

I spent two years toiling in Child Protection. Sadly a lot of perpetrators to get away with molesting children. It falls under "what do you know vs. what can you prove in a court of law". Worse was how many mothers would defend these guys and stick with them. Even if it meant having their child(ren) being taken into state custody. And even more infuriating is the short statue of limitations there is on prosecuting sex abuse cases.

queen, under the Anne Applebaum school of morality, because the moms looked the other way, that somehow mitigated the responsibility of the molester. How obtuse is that?

spob, I can't even begin to get my head around the "well her mom might have known about it and was so pushy that her kid must have had it coming" defense. I wonder if Anne would be so quick to coddle a self admitted sex offender if her own child was the victim? Then again, I spent two years watching some mothers side with their child's abusers, no matter what evidence was against the guy.

the defense is not a real defense, it's a makeweight--she can't just bring herself to say that she doesn't give a fig about Polanski's crimes, so that's how she rationalizes her feelings of empathy for him.

Mr. Jennings did not speak approvingly of a NAMBLA founder at all...this was all a lie.

As for the young man, apparently the age of consent in MA is 16 and it was a willing encounter not a rape. So, this is far different but your attempts to conflate the issue sad.

Who is Harry Hay? Someone praised by Jennings. And Jennings thought the kid was 15. And he has admitted that he handled it incorrectly.
.
Besides, in your zeal to cover for someone who thinks that adult-child anonymous trysts are cool, ponder whether school administrators should be cool with kids engaging in that kind of dangerous behavior.

I am not sure "pretty freakin' hilarious" is what I'd call this post.

The actual point of the post, which nobody seems to be getting, is that not only was the vetting process on this guy seriously flawed, even worse than McCain's and Obama's, but that the opposition never caught on to it either! I mean, come on, lighten up, folks. LOL for a bit.

I disagree with you on a lot of things, but on this, I'll really have to join you in throwing up .......
.
I am liberal on many things and I really hope that the position taken by Stuart and co. is not representative of liberals. I really hope I'm right. I hope all of us, irrespective of our political leanings will have the first reaction of absolute disgust .... I mean, how can any civil human being rationalize this away?... how?

What about Ken Jennings, Obama's school-safety czar? He didn't report adult-child bathroom trysts despite an obligation to do so as a school administrator and he praised a NAMBLA founder.
.
wtf?

Kevin Jennings, spob. Kevin. As far as I know, the former Jeopardy! champ isn't a child molester.

If you're gonna keep reiterating the same quasi-factual tripe, at least get the name right.

My bad. I got the name of a perv wrong. Not sure that what ive said is "quasi-factual". Is it not true that he looked the other way when one of his students was engaging in adult-child trysts in men's rooms? Is it not true that he praised a NAMBLA founder?

Well, to start with a small quibble, a teacher isn't the same thing as an administrator, and greenlyfe addresses the other issues above. If the kid was a high school sophomore, it's a 50/50 on whether he was 15 or 16, so right now you're assuming facts not in evidence. You're creating a false equivalency between Jennings and Polanski, which has been happening a lot lately, and it's kind of aggravating.
.
"Oh, Obama wants to socialize medicine! The U.S. will be like Soviet Russia, rather than, you know . . . Canada."
.
See how stupid that is?

I don't think Amy was being gratuitous here. The French look down their noses at us about our "prudishness", but they have people like this reptile in their government.
.
Gingrich is scum; just like Edwards is scum. What they did to their spouses was simply awful.
.
In any event, over here we have Ken Jennings. I'd say he "brought the ick", though not as much as that scum Mitterand.

I don't know anything about the laws or moral customs of Thailand so it's not really for me to say if anyone is calling anyone out for "bad moral choices."

I spent time in Thailand back in 96'. Thailand was cracking down on the child sex trade even then. In part because they wanted to protect the kids and also to reduce the incidents of AIDS in that country. These kids were brought in to the country either because their parents thought they would be employed legitimately or because they had been outright kidnapped. The frequenters of these brothels included Australian, American and European men out for a little holiday. The children had no choice, no where to go and were subject to violence if they did try to run. Obviously their lives were and are brutal.

She's not just calling the guy creepy. I don't have a problem with that. By all means, call people creepy if you think they are. She's saying it makes him unfit for his job. Does she know anything at all about his qualifications or accomplishments as culture minister?

surely you jest, destor.
.
I'll leave it to those on your side of the aisle to police your comments.

Thanks Ivy. Didn't see that little tidbit, and if some of the posters on this site are intellectually honest, they'll admit that they're wrong. The case with Jennings is really no different than that of, say, Sarah Palin, or whoever sat by silently as Strom Thurmond knocked up his housekeeper and paid her to keep quiet.

Guys, his own words indicate he thought that the kid was 15.
.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562501,00.html
.
Moreover, would you want some teacher, administrator, principal, what have you, counseling a kid who admitted to anonymous trysts in men's rooms just to "make sure he wore a condom"? Wtf? Moreover, Jennings has indicated that he handled it incorrectly.
.
“Twenty one years later I can see how I should have handled this situation differently. I should have asked for more information and consulted legal or medical authorities. Teachers back then had little training or guidance about this kind of thing. All teachers should have a basic level of preparedness. I would like to see the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools play a bigger role in helping to prepare teachers.”
.
And he praised Harry Hay guys, come on.

Yes.

oh really, Ivy, so when a kid comes to a teacher, administrator, what have you and admits to dangerous sexual activity (e.g., adult-child homosexual trysts in bathrooms), you're ok with the teacher patting him on the head and saying, well, just wear a condom.
.
You must not be a parent.

You also miss the convenient fact that Jennings himself wrote the boy was 15 at the time. So, even if he was 16 as he claims, Jennings BELIEVED him to be 15, ergo, in his mind he WAS counseling somone under the age of legal consent.