Ah, a Scott Plaid thread.
Just checking in to see what I’ve done wrong this time.
Bennett doesn’t belong on the list- he never condemned what he was later found to be doing.
Nor does former NJ Governor Jim McGreevey- all he did was use “the gay thing” as a smokescreen to cover up malfeasance- he never condemned gays.
While we are all (with good reason) piling on Scott, again, I would like to point out that this
demonstrates that Scott certainly did not read the books (or even decent reviews of the books). Neither his own perfection nor the ability of the reader to achieve such perfection are themes in any of Bennet’s books. I never liked the guy. I think his sanctimony was simplistic. But Scott is in error, regardless whether one describes the text or the subtextual themes of Bennet’s books. (There were more than one and none of them said that.)
crap. Scott the ‘shot gun’ approach only works well when your ammo is good. when you (as you do here) do a scatter and see what sticks method, folks can breeze by the very core of your point and focus instead on those cases where you missed the mark by a continent or two.
please. stop doing that.
thank you.
Chair of the Liberal but not a fucking lunatic society.
Sitting waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over here========>
I guess we can close the thread now. Scott Plaid’s won!
As others have already said, Christianity is certainly not monolithic when it comes to gambling, and even if it were, simply being a Christian wouldn’t mean being a hypocrite if you indulged in behavior not in keeping with your church. People are allowed to disagree with their religions or their parties without being hypocritical.
Also, I don’t consider gambling a vice, though I do not gamble myself. I think it’s generally foolish, but I think lots of things are foolish.
And as for him having a problem, that’s none of my business. The fact is that he never attacked people for gambling and therefore should not be attacked for gambling.
Which raises the question: is being able to understand scott’s ideas actually an improvement, or was he better off when nobody could understand his tortured syntax and abominable spelling?
Y’all realize that Sampiro, not Scott, brought up Bennett in the first place. Regardless of whether Bennett should be on the list, why are so many people rushing to pile on Scott rather than deal with main point of the OP? Why distract a list of a dozen by nitpicking one questionable inclusion?
Homebrew while Scott didn’t supply the list, at the first suggestion that some names shouldn’t belong, he latched on like a remora without reflection, investigation apparently. Symptomatic of the guy, really.
Anyone else think it’s funny that arrow points to the right?
:: Raises hand ::
To the OP’s point, you’d figure that specially the religious leaders would remember a certain quote about seeing the mote in your neighbor’s eye while ignoring the beam in yours. I’m sure Jesus would be fascinated.
As to the ongoing Plaidjack of the thread, in Bill Bennett’s particular case, his brand of Christianity is conservative Catholicism, wherein gambling is regarded in much the same way as drinking: if you do it responsibly, it’s your own business.
OTOH, it was enjoyable to see some wind taken out of that sanctimonious windbag’s sails, partly because he had allowed himself to benefit from sales to, and celebration by, the Christian Right under the until-then uncontested misperception that his advocacy of old-school civic virtue was the same thing as their fundamentalist moralism.
Well, bricker objected to Bennett’s inclusion, then Scott objected to bricker’s objection, then others objected to Scott’s objection, then you objected to the others objection, then I objected to your objection, then…
Seems like typical pit thread progress to me.
I’m also one who wonders about Reagan’s inclusion. I’ve never heard deadbeat dad used to refer to someone who merely ignores his children, only to one who ignores his financial obligations.
“Family Values” and “Virtue” preclude being an absent father as much as deadbeat so Reagan belongs either way.
As to Bennett, losing $8 million over 10 years is hardly living up to the virture of “Self-Control” and “Responsibility”. Moralizers claim we have to set a good example for children. They use that as a board to bash the homos, and others they don’t approve of, whom they say undermine the family. When you look at the world, though, gambling causes far more problems than homosexuality. Since they cite the Bible so frequently, then perhaps they should look to Paul who said it’s wrong to do something that would cause your brother in faith stumble. Since gambling causes so many to stumble, Bennett would be honor bound to not gamble to serve as an example. In fact, that is why he says he quit after being exposed.
Gambling is the pursuit of fast material gain without hard work or prudence (note the qualifications). It is also an activity easily proven to be destructive not just to the individual practicing it, but to his/her loved ones. It has destroyed families, the “cornerstone of virtue”. I honestly can’t imagine anybody considering it an admirable thing.
To borrow a quote from this page:
The Bible also preaches against excess. Bennett wasn’t a fellow who fed some nickels into slot machines in Biloxi and occasionally bought a PowerBall ticket. By his own estimation he lost $8 million over the years. This did not just affect him but affected his wife and his family, and the money could have been used for innumerable projects that would have benefitted many.
I do not think it is hypocritical to accuse him of hypocrisy for criticizing the morality of others (which he did) and profiting from a book extolling the virtuous themed writings of other authors while practicing an excessive and destructive vice on the side.
Guess we can make one major addition to the OP - if you’re going to be indulging in sin, make sure it’s at least somewhat different than what you’ve criticized publicly.
Politicians for example may rail against adultery and the general decline of morality but are at liberty to smoke crack without fear of accusations of hypocrisy .
Ted Kennedy is welcome to denounce glue-sniffing.
Martha Stewart can speak out against shoplifting.
The possibilities are endless.
Does he get the Hollywood Lifestyle Exemption? 
I will strike James McGreevey from the list, though, as the worst I can find is some comments on the sanctity of marriage (but not in an anti-gay marriage context) while he was not only an adulterer but married his wife under a false pretext.
Nah, Sampiro, I don’t think Bennett really belongs on your List. I’ll let you replace him with Newt Gingrich, though.
Referring to Bill Bennett specifically, try this on for size:
"When reminded of studies that link heavy gambling to divorce, bankruptcy, domestic abuse, and other family problems he has widely decried, Bennett compared the situation to alcohol.
“I view it as drinking,” Bennett says. “If you can’t handle it, don’t do it.”
Nope, no hypocrisy there. :dubious:
Newt is a deadbeat dad by anybody’s terminology.
[Hijack]One thing that as a librarian and historian I have to give Newt credit for, though, is this (which I bring up only because it’s the only time I’m likely to post on Newt Gingrich in the near future): his papers are housed at the University of West Georgia, a small public university in Carrollton, GA, and he has allowed people he knows who are writing very negative articles and books about him to have complete access to them. That’s something I actually find commendable (and something that Henry Kissinger and Jimmy Carter don’t do [they both restrict access to the private stuff to researchers they believe will be favorable]).[/Hijack]