Father: Forgive Yourself, You Need It.

Now and then curiosity gets the best of me. I go to Google news to see which priests got arrested for what in the last 30 days. Given how the Vatican state likes to pontificate to the world about what is or isn't moral I like to see how they are practicing morality themselves.

According to a Google news search the following are a sampling of what Catholic priests have been up to recently. I have choosen to only report on US cases and not go international with this report.

Father Kevin Gray was arrested in Connecticut for stealing $1.3 million dollars from his parish, over the last seven years, in order to pay for male escorts and hotels. Maybe he needed his luggage lifted? But $1.3 million? That's $185,000 per year or $3,571 per week. Exactly how many rent boys was Father hiring at a time? Either this priest was hiring another "escort" every night of the week, along with an expensive hotel room, or he isn't being entirely truthful about his spending habits. And that raises an interesting question: What else could he be doing with the money if claiming he spent it all on male prostitutes is the preferred excuse?

In West Virginia, Father Felix Owino was arrested for aggravated sexual battery against an 11-year-old girl.

Father Patrick Umberger apparently was ejected from a waterpark last year because he kept following small boys into the toilets. A police report was filed against him at the time. He said he had prostrate problems. Now he has legal problems as he was arrested for child porn.

Father William Casey, in Tennessee, pled guilty to "crimes against nature." (An absurd phrase if ever there was one. Apparently this has something to do with molestation charges against the priest.

Parents in North Carolina say that a church choirmaster was molesting their daughter. When this accusation was made known to the local priest, Father John Schneider he went to the apartment of the choirmaster to delete photographic evidence of the assaults from the man's computer. The priest was called when the man was arrested and left a school board meeting in order to destroy the evidence.

Mark Campobello was a priest, now he is a former inmate. This priest was released from prison a few days ago, no doubt to make room for other priests. Campobello served his sentence for sexually assualting two teenage girls.

Father James Grady was sentenced to prison for possession of child porn of underage females. He supposedly came to the attention of police when he responded to an undercover operation offering children for commercial sex.

In an ecumenical spirit I feel I should discuss the actions of Protestant ministers as well. Rev. Lawrence Brown, of Louisiana, was arrested for "indecent behavior with a juvenile and soliciting for prostitution" regarding a 15-year-old girl. In Middletown, NY, Rev. Robert Burke was arrested for third-degree rape. Steven Breed was a graduate of a Baptist seminary and briefly served as a youth minister before becoming a teacher. He was arrested for getting real estate agents to show him homes, where he would steal valuables on an inspection.

Pastor Kenneth Kleckner, in West Ocala, FL, was arrested for soliciting a police offer online. He thought the officer was an underaged girl. Baptist pastor Christopher Daniels was arrested again, after he escaped a jail work team. He was previously found guilty of arson and fraud charges. In South Carolina, Pastor Grady Ponds and his wife, Rhonda, were both arrested on child porn charges.

In Indiana Pastor Christian Johnson was arrested for possession of meth and his wife was arrested for possession of a stolen vehicle. Also in Indiana a minister, Wayne Harris, Jr., was arrested. He borrowed funds from a charity that helps orphans, supposedly to build a church. He bought a Mercedes and a mink coat instead and never paid back the money. In Louisiana a Baptist minister was arrested for sending threatening emails and text messages. Rev. Bill Vandergraph was arrested for sexual penetration of minor under the age of 13.

Baptist pastor Christopher Settlemoir was arrested for sexually attacking teenaged boys. Pastor Thurman Leonard was arrested for assault and battery and felony abduction. Gerald Laneaux, a youth minister, was arrested for sexually molesting a 4-year-old.

I think I've had enough—there's more but one can only spend so much time in sewer. What I love is that these people are in the forefront of the fight against gay people committing to each other for life, because they deem that to be immoral.

The Enforcement of Morality backfires on Christians

In my previous post I mentioned a book that has recently been republished by Liberty Fund, which is a direct assault on basic libertarian principles. While Liberty Fund has not been openly libertarian it was fundamentally classically liberal in nature and never, to my memory at least, engaged in the publication of books which were assaults on libertarian values. Their publication of The Enforcement of Morality by Lord Patrick Devlin is just that.

While they talk about the importance of this book in the debate on same-sex marriage it should be clear that Devlin was defending the criminalization of homosexuality. This means the arrest, prosecution and punishment of individuals who have violated the rights of no one. Devlin argued it, not on the basis that individual rights were assaulted but on the principle that some sort of "societal right" is violated. Packed into that is the assumption that "society" as a collective body has rights that exceed those of any individual member of that body. While my individual rights are not violated by someone's private sexual athletics, my rights as part of the collective called "society" is violated in the same manner as my individual rights would be if someone punched me in the nose.

What nonsense! If you punch me in the nose I feel direct pain. It may bleed. You may break it. You must do something to me for this to happen. But if you have a sexual liaison in the privacy of your own home, one I know nothing about, and was no party to, exactly how is it that my collective "social" right was violated? Hayek argued that the term "social justice" is an absurdity. He said: "'Social justice' is necessarily empty and meaningless." But so too is Devlin's concept of social rights, and for similar reasons.

Devlin, who had joined a Catholic order as a young man but left it, argued that widely held opinions, no matter how they are derived, are shared values that hold a society together. Any private activity that violates those values threatens the social fabric, in Devlin's mind. So even bigoted, and prejudicial views, if widely held would seem to warrant special legal protection. In Devlin's mind, because enough people in 1950s England thought homosexuals were disgusting, to not inflict legal punishment on people for being homosexual, is somehow an assault on all the people who are disgusted with the activity. I would wonder how Lord Devlin would respond if the prejudice that was so widespread was against Catholics like himself. Certainly, in the period of colonial America this was precisely the case, right down to having laws forbidding Catholics to reside in certain colonies. What I tend to find, however, is that people who hold Devlin's view always manage to exclude themselves from such categories.

It is important to cover what inspired Devlin to launch his defense of collectivist rights. In 1950s England there was a rash of gay men who were being prosecuted for being homosexual. Of course, this went back much further. One remembers that Oscar Wilde was charged with being gay in 1895 and sentenced to two years in prison at "hard labor." The sentence was harsh and destroyed Wilde's health. He collapsed and burst an ear drum and spent two months in infirmary as a result. After his release in 1897 he was in extremely poor health and eventually died as a result of it in 1900, at the age of 46. He was bankrupted and lost all contact with his sons, who he loved dearly, and who loved and missed him. Consider that this is what Devlin was defending!

The persecutions of gays in the 1950s revealed precisely how the law encouraged blackmail and extortion. This sort of victimization of gays by the criminal classes was portrayed well in the 1961 Dirk Bogarde film Victim. I have a clip here if you wish to see it.



The common moral thread that Devlin was defending actually made criminality possible. It encouraged the blackmailer and the extortionist. It lead to suicides and destroyed lives. This is Devlin's moral order.

As a result of these incidents the British government created a committee to study the matter of homosexuality and prostitution and what the law should say about these matters. Headed by Lord Wolfenden the committee of socially acceptable individuals held hearings, including speaking to individuals who had been victimized because of the laws in question. The committee issued its report arguing a classically liberal position: "It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour. Even after this Report it took the British government another decade to abolish these laws, and in Scotland they remained in place until 1980. It should be noted that Wolfenden was himself quite anti-gay and that matters were not helped when his son, Jeremy, told him that he was gay himself.

Devlin believed that all morality must come from religion. He wrote that "Morals and religion are inextricably joined—the moral standards general accepted in Western civilization being those belonging to Christianity." He wrote that no moral code "can claim any validity except by virtue of the religion on which it is based." In other words, there is no rational code of morality, merely religious preferences all of which are valid merely because the proponents of those codes extol them in the name of an imaginary being.

Even crimes, Devlin said, are not offenses against the individual, but only crimes because they are offenses against the collective concept called society. "Now, if the law existed for the protection of the individual, there would be no reason why he should avail himself of it if he did not want it. The reason why a man may not consent to the commission of an offense against himself beforehand or forgive it afterwards is because it is an offence against society. It is not that society is physically injured; that would be impossible. Nor need any individual be shocked, corrupted, or exploited; everything may be done in private." What makes a crime a crime, says Devlin is "that there are certain standards of behavior or moral principles which society requires to be observed; and the breach of them is an offense not merely against the person who is injured but against society as a whole."

What it comes down to, for Devlin, is a crime is a crime because society doesn't like it. And what society doesn't like is the collective presumptions of people, based on religious precepts, without reason or logic, or any underlying principle. Morals are morals for no other reason than religious people say they are. Criminal law enforces moral principles, not because any right is violated, but because religious people want it that way. There have always been classical liberals who doubt the moral consensus of a society but that is irrelevant to the likes of Devlin. These dissenting opinions should be shunted aside in favor of the collective morality, as expressed by the common man of the era.

But look how pathetic that argument is. Consider the England of today, which is vastly different from that of Devlin's times. Today the moral consensus is not Christian. And there is a widespread social acceptance that discriminatory practices are wrong. By Devlin's own logic the Christian who discriminates against the homosexual today should be restricted by the law, and punished if he indulges is own personal judgment. Individual rights, Devlin argued, don't matter. Only the social consensus. Today that consensus would put the likes of Devlin in the docket for living up to their religious moral principles.

And who would defend Devlin from such prosecution?—the very classical liberals whom he castigates and attempts to refute in his book. The classical liberal or libertarian would argue that the Devlinite Christian, like the homosexual of 1950s England, has individual rights and that society as such does not. The liberal would argue, as John Stuart Mill did, that the function of government is to protect people from one another and otherwise leave them free to control their own lives. Proper liberalism would defend both homosexuals in a homophobic culture and Christians in a secular one.

Oddly it is Devlin's legal theories that dominate today in England; not those of the Wolfenden Report. Devlin basically won the legal battle. The law in England today does not protect individual rights, it protects the right of society to say what is acceptable and what isn't. And today that means prosecuting Christians for holding to the moral code that Devlin advocated. In other words, his own legal theory undermines the ability of Christians to follow Devlin's moral code. Sure, when Devlin argued his theory, he assumed his Christian morality would dominate. One has to wonder whether he would realize his errors, if he were alive today.

Devlin said "it is not possible to set theoretical limits to the power of the State to legislate against immorality." At the time he assumed his view of immorality would dominate. Today in England, it doesn't. So what are Christians clamoring for?—limitations on the power of the state to legislate against immorality. Except today the immorality is that of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination against gays.

Devlin says the power of the State is unlimited, at least not limited by any theory. This is why Liberty Fund's publication of his book is a violation of the very principles they claim to promote. Devlin has no objective definition of morality at all. For it is "what every right-minded person is presumed to consider to be immoral." So, in a secular world, if right-minded people believe faith to be an immoral means by which people evade thinking, then faith would be immoral and legally sanctioned. Devlin pretty much dismisses reason; he says: "It is the power of commons sense and not the power of reason that is behind the judgements of society." It is as if he is living up to the very worst of what Rand called the "whim worshipper."

Devlin says that because there is a "general abhorrence of homosexuality" and because people find it "a vice so abominable that its mere presence is an offense" he concludes, "I do not see how society can be denied the right to eradicate it." What does it mean to eradicate it? No law prevents people from being born homosexual any more than the laws of the Third Reich could prevent people from being Jews. But, what of the culture that now dominates much of Western civilization, where bigotry and prejudice is seen as abominable and inherently offensive?

Devlin may have thought he was defending Christian morality with his arguments. What he was defending was the concept that individuals do not have rights, that rights reside in collective bodies, and that the social collective has the right to use force against anyone who offends the majority opinion in that society. Devlin justified the very legal situation that Christians in England find themselves today. They may be his religious heirs, but it is Devlin's legislative heirs who are tormenting them. Classical liberal rights theories cut through that. Liberalism would have opposed the persecution of homosexuals in England in the 50s, and it would oppose the prosecution of Christians today. Devlin's religious descendants would benefit from a modern Wolfenden Report that once again called for a separation of private morality from the realm of the law.

The great irony of the Devlin/Wolfenden debate is that Devlin's ideas won but it is his religious heirs who suffer because of it, not homosexuals. Every legal structure should be built as if one's worst enemies would control it. If that is done, the rights of all will be protected.

Killing old women in the name of morality.

Helen Pruett is an 76-year-old woman living alone. As is often the case at that age her health is fragile. She previously had three heart attacks but in recent years was doing fairly well, all things considered.

But things took a turn for the worse quite suddenly, unexpectedly and unnecessarily—all thanks to the drug warriors and their ill-considered, counterproductive war on drugs.

While supposedly safe in her home, this elderly woman suddenly found armed thugs shouting and screaming, guns drawn, at every door and window. A swarm of men, with violent intentions, surrounded her. Included in this assault were local and federal agents.

During the raid Mrs. Pruett suffered a heart attack. The drug warriors said they had the house under surveillance for two years and that the "suspect" wasn't there. But Pruett lives alone so the "suspect" is never there. In other words anothe screw up by incompetent, adrenaline driven armed thugs put another innocent person in harms way all to protect us from the evils of drugs. Who will protect us from the evils of the war on drugs?

According to Pruett's daughter the woman is now in the Intensive Care Unit and is "not in good condition." The daughter said: "She was traumatized. Even the doctor said this is what happens when something tramatic happens. He said its usually like a death in the family or something like that just absolutely scares them half to death, and that is what has happened.

The daughter claims she recently learned of another such raid by the SWAT team and DEA thugs where they "went into some other elderly woman's home who was on oxygen and took her oxygen off of her and scared her half to death."

I am the first to say that illegal drugs are not good things. They do harm people, just not as much as the war on drugs. And the harm illegal drugs do to people are a direct result of the choices made by those who are harmed. The war on drugs is a threat to all of us, and Helen Pruett is a living—for now at least—example of that.

The police chief says he apologize for the mistake. That and $1 will get you a drink at McDonald's but it won't cover the cost of intensive care for the woman he scared.

Chief Kenny Dodd defends his decision to draw guns on the old woman. "These were considered high-risk warrants. These individuals are known drug dealers and they were looking at a lot of time in federal prison, when we serve those type of warrants, we usually go in with guns drawn just to protect ourselves." This is precisely the reason officers get shot by innocent people whose homes are attacked because of the constant errors made by these morons.

In a bizarre move Dodd is now claiming: "We didn't botch a drug raid." Instead he says "he and 12 officers went to the home and did surround it" because the suspect, Tim Washington, was thought to live there. But he didn't live there, Pruett did. That the armed drug warriors surrounded the house of an old woman, because they had it wrong as to who lived there, is a botched drug raid no matter how Dodd tries to spin it. Police confirm Pruett had no connection to the man they were looking for, but don't say they botched it. An even more twisted example of police logic is that Dodd says Pruett's home was never part of the investigation, but that it was listed on the warrant the police secured. So, they never actually investigated who lived at the house, got a warrant to raid the property, did so, an old woman has a heart attack as a result, but don't you dare call it a "botched drug raid." How stupid do you have to be to be a cop in Georgia?

Dodd is now trying to spin the claim that Pruett's heart attack had nothing to do with armed thugs surrounding her home. He says: "We were there to serve an arrest warrant. [Yep, on someone who never lived there.] While we were there, she had a heart attack. [And you don't think the presence of heavily armed, potentially violent, men on her doorstep had nothing to do with it?] We rendered aid. [I guess she should kiss your feet because you didn't shoot her on the spot.]" Dodd says: "I just want our citizens to know the truth." So do I. Here it is. Cops are a threat to you life. The war on drugs is now more dangerous that drugs themselves. Dodd botched the drug raid, Pruett is possibly dying because of it. But Dodd makes it sound as if Pruett was lucky the drug warriors were there since they could help get an ambulance for the heart attack they caused.

In the Cory Maye case it lead to the death of a police officer, and Maye's imprisonment. In the Kathyrn Johnson case the drug warriors managed to gun down the dangerous, terrified, and entirely innocent, 92-year-old woman. Annie Rae Dixon was 84 and bed-ridden when the drug warriors broke into her house by mistake and then, according to them, they "accidentally" shot her to death as she lay in her bed. Rudy Cardenas was out for a walk and happened to walk past a house as drug warriors were attacking. The warriors got confused, probably too many drugs, and thought he must be the suspect. Seeing armed men rushing at him he fled and was shot in the back multiple times, killing him.

Here are some facts. The war on drugs kills more people than the drugs do. Yes, the DEA is more deadly and dangerous than cocaine. And, as our cops militarized and turned into violent, armed gangs they have managed to drive out of the drug market dealers who themselves are not armed or dangerous. In other words, the drug warriors and their violence has resulted in the drug trade itself becoming far more violent. We are in arms escalation race between two armed gangs of violent criminals and innocent people like Helen Pruett, Corey Maye and Kathyrn Johnson get caught in the middle.

We witnessed the same sort of stupid violence when the moralists pushed through Prohibition in the United States. Alcohol production had been a peaceful activity until then. Suddenly we had shoot-outs in the streets and an escalation of violence. Government-sponsored, drug-war-related violence breeds more violence at all levels. This means more and more innocent people will die as a result of the escalation of violence, instigated by the drug warriors.

Keep in mind the premises behind the war on drugs and the damage it does to innocent people. And then consider a new book published by Liberty Fund. By consider I mean ponder, not consdier buying it. If anything you may wish to boycott Liberty Fund from here out. This blogger considers this new publication to be a total betrayal of the principles on which Liberty Fund was founded and a sign that the conservative rot in the libertarian movement is spreading. Please note that the arguments in this horrendous book would equally apply to the war on drugs—so the violence in the war on drugs appears to be something that Liberty Fund would have to endorse.

The book in question is The Enforcement of Morals by Patrick Devlin. Devlin wrote the book to attack the liberal principles of John Stuart Mill being used in the debate on legalizing homosexuality in. Devlin wanted it to remain a criminal offense. Liberty Fund's new book says that homosexuality "harm[s] society by undermining its moral structure" the same way that murder and assault" harm the individual. And we "ignore such behaviors at our own peril." They claim this assault on classical liberal vaues will "resonate and reverberate anew" with readers in light of debates on same-sex marriage. Devlin's arguments are an attack on classical liberal principles and marks a dramatic, troubling reversal, nay, a betrayal, of the liberal values once held by Liberty Fund.

This blogger wonders if Liberty Fund has gone to the dark side and certainly will be more hesitant to purchase any books from them. I also note that the results of the logic used by Devlin is what lead sto these deaths of innocent people due to the war on drugs. The principles that Liberty Fund is now pushing literally leads to killing people. Shame on them. For the record, the classical liberal reply to this blatant push for Big Government and collectivist principles is H.L.A Hart's work, Law, Liberty and Morality. Hart, not Devlin, upholds the principles that Liberty Fund formerly espoused.

What really bothers me is that the publication of this work degrades the wonderful books they do publish by mere association. Liberty Fund is not your usual publisher who publishes all sides of a debate. They supposedly, as their name implies, promote liberty. Thus they are putting a stamp of approval on a collectivistic, anti-liberal, statist argument and implying that this is actually liberty. That is is why it is more disgusting for them to do this, than it would be for Random House to do it.

Wanker's molehill is newspaper's mountain.

Warning: This post is not suitable for small children or conservatives. Really. You have been warned!

Allow me to play Devil’s Advocate, for there are times the Devil needs an advocate, regarding an uproar at the University of Hawaii. The student in question, who I shall identify by his first name only, Tim, enjoys showing his body off. By his own admission he is an exhibitionist. (I warned you conservatives not to enter here.) Tim uses the screen name Speedostudent for himself.

From what I have been able to discern, this self-proclaimed anarchist, is an ethical exhibitionist. That is, I know of no claims that he exhibited his sexuality in a way that forced others to watch him. He wasn’t one of those men in raincoats searching out unwilling participants to their game of show-but-don’t-tell.

Speedostudent’s exhibitionism seems to have been confined to videos of himself masturbating, which he uploaded to an adult website. Three weeks ago he filmed himself, in the act of self-love, in an empty classroom at the university. Of the five such videos he has posted, this is the only one that was filmed outside the privacy of his room, or outside the confines of his parent’s home.

From what I can tell Tim made sure that no one was there to see his performance. For his video he chose an empty room; well after classes had ended for the day. The only way anyone could see the video was by logging into an adult site dedicated to sexually explicit films and photos, many of them posted by individuals like Tim. It is a perfect, market-based solution to the voyeur/exhibitionist dilemma.

The dilemma existed because, under prior legal codes, both acts were illegal and technology did not allow the happy coordination of willing voyeurs finding willing exhibitionists. Those who wished to practice voyeurism found it difficult without resorting to peeping at unwilling performers. Those who wished to be seen equally found it difficult to illegally indulge their proclivities. Now the Internet, and video technology, allows willing exhibitionists to perform for thousands of happy voyeurs, all without involving unwilling individuals. It is a consenting, peaceful, voluntary exchange that makes everyone happy—except the moralists who seem only truly happy when they are miserable.

Tim’s situation was a bit more complicated as he chose to film his display on the campus where he is a student. Before I go into this uproar further, I need to take a detour back to the reality of college life at a fairly typical university.

I will discuss what I saw at the main university I attended as an undergraduate.

The first thing I can confirm was that students were having sex on campus all the time. I definitely know that students would, as they now say, “hook up” and engage in various sexual activities in numerous places. The fifth floor of the library was notorious as a spot where students would meet for sex. There were private study rooms that could be commandeered or some couples (sometimes more than couples) would find out-of-the-way toilets to use. Add to this the romps in cars in the parking lot, empty classrooms, dorm rooms, in the nearby wooded area and just about any other place you can think of, including various campus offices

I don’t want to leave the impression that the campus was one tangled mass of writhing, lubed bodies, as much as you might wish me to, but sex was both frequent and rather inconsequential. Many students on campus were actually glad that others were using the library, offices, empty classrooms or their cars for sex. Otherwise the common complaint was that roommates would use the dorm room instead. For many students this meant the non-participating roommate had to watch and/or listen to the amorous activities of the other roommate. Even worse was when they were asked to wait in the hall until it was over. Some ended up “locked out” all night. Of course, now and then, they got invited to participate, much to the horror of the conservatives who are still reading this in order to be horrified and titillated.

That only covered sexual acts with two or more individuals. When it came to the so-called “solitary vice” it was far more widespread. Bathroom stalls and showers were particularly chosen in these cases, as well as just about every place else as well. Having attended boarding school for several years, I was pretty much immune to being shocked by the masturbatory delights of others. I first saw such a thing in a dorm room before I even had any idea as to what it was. I was in grade school then. The swimming pool seemed to be a favorite location as were the group showers and the toilets. I will not attempt to recount how many times, in the course of daily life, such a thing would be stumbled upon. I can’t say I was ever really bothered by it. It didn’t break my leg, or pick my pocket, so I was rather blasé concerning the matter.

But someone who had come across Tim’s video did not find the matter as yawn inducing as I did. They filed complaints on campus. A female student, in her column for the campus newspaper, resorted to some pretty ugly tactics in misreporting the incident.

She claimed that Tim “has been endangering students by leaving his body fluids in many classrooms.” First, I have to chuckle that she can’t say sperm but resorts to using the euphemism “body fluids” instead. In reality there is hardly a risk to anyone from this. In medical reality this is less risky than some germ-ridden child spitting all over a birthday cake in order to blow out candles. If dried spunk were a threat to civilization, it would be illegal to shake hands with any adolescent male on the planet

The risks of disease, of any kind, are minimal. If the risk were larger, certainly the university I attended would have died off before second semester. I remember reading once that studies were done of what was found on stairway railings in various public locations. It is far more disgusting and revolting than some dried spunk—which I should note was one substance widely found on such railings. It really is best not to think of such matters, otherwise a compulsive fear may take control of you. We seem to survive fairly nice, in spite of these substances floating about us, so it’s best to forget about them. Just consider for a moment that you eat in restaurants using devices that were in the mouths of thousands of people before you—including some really disgusting people. And you really don’t know how well washed those utensils were—see what I mean, it’s best to simply not think of such things.

Also, from reading Tim’s blog, and his own comments, it is clear that there were five videos and only one was filmed in a classroom. This journalist, with all the ethics of a real journalist I might add, was exaggerating when she referred to “many classrooms.” It was one. Tim did have photos of himself taken, wearing Speedos, hence his nom-de-porn, in many classrooms. But when it came to “bodily fluids” it was one classroom and that classroom would be easily identifiable from the video—in case teams of “toxic waste specialists” are required.

Our ethically challenged journalist said that Tim “shows pictures and videos of himself masturbating in building such as [several were listed here]….and possible more.” Wrong again. There were no such pictures, taken in a classroom, posted on Tim’s blog or at the adult website. The only such photos were of him in a bathing suit and he was not doing anything to induce the flow of bodily fluids. This instigator then tells students to “take appropriate precautions like disinfecting desks and washing hands frequently.”

With this sort of exaggerated, panic-inducing comments she has a future as an environmental reporter. Maybe Al Gore will hire her as a publicist.

What was even worse was that this journalist describes Tim, fairly accurately—think Christopher Atkin’s in Blue Lagoon—and then warns students to “not attempt to approach” him. She says if anyone sees him, or anyone else who is “sexually deviant” with “psychotic behavior,” that they should call campus security.

The term sexually deviant doesn’t say much and never did. It is a moral judgment, not a clinical one. But “psychotic” has some precise meanings. And there is absolutely nothing about this young man that indicates he is psychotic. Since some symptoms of psychosis include hallucinations, delusions and paranoia, I would say the student journalist is more psychotic that this kid. She was the one who hallucinated that this happened in numerous classrooms, and she was the paranoid bleating about disinfecting desks and warning students that they must not approach the young man in person.

I do not think it was a good idea for this young man to film himself in a classroom (though I do know of one such incident when I went to university). But neither do I think it was the tormenting disaster that the campus newspaper made it out to be. In one story, now deleted, they compared the young man to a pedophile. That the hysterics manage to drag that into everything and anything having to do with sex, will never cease to amaze me.

I am the first to say that the university has the right, within certain boundaries (limited because it is a state university) of regulating actions on campus. And, as long as they treat all students equally, I’m fine with that. But the rules for such things are vague and unevenly enforced. I’m not sure if it were revealed that a female student had masturbated a male student in an empty classroom, that there would have been this call for disinfecting desks and frequent washing of hands. If a university were to wish to attempt to ban all sex on campus I suggest they will end up without any students. But it also seems that Tim made an effort to prevent anyone from involuntarily witnessing his hobby.

Here is how I would have handled it, had I been a university official. I would meet with Tim and tell him that using classrooms, for his extra curricula endeavors, creates a problem. I would thank him for his cooperation in the future and suggest that if he ever markets his video that he share some of the proceeds with the university and perhaps steer him to a good porn agent in LA. I would also call in the student journalist and the newspaper editor and caution them about such hysterical, unethical distortions of the facts. According to Tim’s blog, “the student newspaper has retracted the libellous statements it made about me” and the “complaints about the video have been resolved with the school administration.” But it also clear that these reports deeply troubled and upset him.

As for another market-based solution: I might note that Tim really would like to have a career in adult entertainment, he enjoys what he does. So any producers out there might wish to cash-in (literally) on the publicity by hiring him for their next production. Those offended need not purchase it, those who wish to see it may do so and enjoy it. Tim is happy, his voyeuristic fans will be happy, the producer will be happy and a small band of moralistic types will be unhappy. It sounds like a win-win situation for everyone, even the moralists who relish every bit of “bad news” they receive.

Note: The DSM tends to define exhibitionism as a paraphilia where the individual is aroused by showing their genitals to unsuspecting strangers usually in a shocking way. This was more accurately modified later to refer to it as a psychiatric disorder ONLY if it included "acting out against others or substantial distress." In Speedostudent's case he did not act out against others and is most clearly not distressed, but actually rather pleased. I would suggest, as I did in the piece above, that much of the problem of exhibitionists "acting out against others" existed in the past because other options, for legal, consensual "acting out" did not exist. The current state of the law and technology created a more liberal atmosphere and has thus reduced the "harm" associated with this activity. Of course, I'm sure the Puritans are working hard to interfer with it, by numerous laws, all guaranteed to make matters worse for everyone.

UPDATE: The university newspaper has retracted and apologized for the remarks.

More information here.

How the most religious states fare.

The Pew Survey has released information on the most religious states in the United States and the least religious. They look at four factors to rate the depth of religious belief. The four questions rate the importance of religion, worship attendance, frequency of prayer and certainty in the existence of a god. I’m not convinced that the middle issues are as important as the other two. Using the two more important factors the top ten most religious states would be: Mississippi; Alabama; Arkansas; South Carolina; Tennessee; Louisiana; Georgia; Kentucky; North Carolina; and Oklahoma. Using all four survey questions wouldn't appear to change the ranking significantly.

The ten least religious states would be: New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Alaska, California, Nevada and Colorado.

With this in mind we can test a claim made by religious folk the when people are more religious society is more moral, stable, peaceful and prosperous. These are objective claims that can be investigated. So I did.
Blessings from God?

First, let’s investigate the claim that religious people receive material blessings from their deity because they are religious. This claim is quite prevalent. I heard it from the pulpit frequently, especially by the top leaders of the Religious Right. You will often hear it said that America is prosperous because has been a “Christian nation.” And the Bible clearly indicates that long-life is one blessing from Jehovah to his followers. If this is true we would expect those states with higher levels of religious fervor to more prosperous than those with lower levels of religious belief.

I looked at two different statistics that would indicate some sort of benevolent blessing to the believing states as opposed to the more secular states. First, I thought the poverty rate would be a good place to start. If the Christian deity increases prosperity due to one’s faith then the more religious states ought to have lower poverty rates and the more secular states ought to have higher poverty rates. Unfortunately it seems the deity got it backwards: the percentage of people living below the poverty line in the ten most religious states averaged out to 16.67%. In the more secular states the percentage below the poverty line was 10.3%—at least according to the Census Bureau.

So would the deity do better with life expectancy. Many Christians make the claim that believing and surrendering to God will increase life expectancy. Once again, if this is true then the most religious states ought to have an longer average life expectancy than do the least religious states. Again it seems the deity got things backwards. The average life expectancy in the ten most religious states was 74.9 but in the least religious states it was 77.8. Of course I don’t think religion has anything to do with life expectancy, but if it did, then it would appear that religion lowers life expectancy instead of increasing it.

Personal Morality

One of the most persistent claims I hear from Christians is that without the belief in some sort of deity it is not possible to be live a moral life. They are quite blunt that a belief in God is necessary otherwise people will live immorally and violently. First, lets look at some firm numbers that will indicate if this is true.

Christians are very adamant about sexual morality. It is an absolute sin to have sex outside marriage—this is a widespread belief most likely believed by the dominant conservative sects. The smaller “liberal” denominations are a bit more flexible. So does religion increase, or decrease, the likelihood of having sex outside marriage? First I looked at the data for the number of teenage births as a percentage of all births in the state. If belief in a god acts as some divine chastity belt then the teen pregnancy rates ought to be lower in the ten most religious states. In those religious states teen pregnancies made up 16.7% of all pregnancies. In the less religious states it was 10.3%. A different way of measure teen pregnancy rates can be found here, but it comes to similar results.

I also looked at the percentage of all pregnancies for unwed women. This is one of the key moral messages that the conservative Christians preach. So how’s it working out for them on that front? In the religious states 39% of all pregnancies were to single women. In the least religious states it was 33.8%.

Christians preach the “sanctity of marriage” very loudly. They say marriage is so sacred that gay people can’t have it because they would “degrade” it. I was a bit worried that the least religious states might lose out on this one because the Pew Survey listed Nevada as one of the least religious states. Nevada is a divorce mecca because it has the easiest divorce laws in the United States. So people go to Nevada for the express purpose of getting a divorce. That means Nevada has the highest divorce rate in the country, as you would expect giving the circumstances. What I found was the divorce rate per 1,000 people, in the most religious states, was 3.95 and in the least religious states it was 3.91. If I exclude Nevada’s high divorce rate the less religious states have an average of 3.62 per 1,000. So, even with Nevada included the less religious states have lower levels of divorce. Excluding Nevada the difference is even more pronounced.

Please remember I’m not particularly opposed to divorce nor am I opposed to sex before marriage. I’m even in favor of sex after marriage. I am just using criteria that Christians emphasize and showing that their belief system doesn’t even seem to support the results they say they want.

Morality Toward Others

To me the real test of morality isn’t whether you get pregnant, or have sex outside marriage, or even get a divorce. The real test of morality is how you treat others. Many believers tell me that without a god then there is no objective morality about things like rape and murder. So I looked specifically at the issues of violent offenses against other people. If religion makes people moral than the more religious states ought to have less violent crime while the less religious states ought to have more violent crime.

First, I looked at violent crime in general. The Census Bureau keeps such statistics on the basis of the numbers of such crimes per 100,000 people. In the religious states there are an average of 520.7 violent crimes per 100,000. In the less religious states the number is significantly lower: 370.3. What about forcible rape? That really ought to be a double taboo since it includes violence and sex outside marriage (usually). In the ten most religious states the average number of rapes, per 1,000 population was 30.3; in the less religious states it was 24.5. So, far this wasn’t looking good for the religious states.

I then decided to check out murder rates. I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve heard believers argue that murder is only wrong because God says it is, and since unbelievers don’t believe in a god then they have no moral restraint on killing others. I was doubtful of that myself. So I checked the murder rate per 100,000 population. In the ten most religious states the rate was 7 murders per 100,000 people. In the less religious states it was 2.49. That’s almost a 3 to 1 ratio.

Conclusions

I looked at two main areas. The first is whether believers are somehow blessed by their deity for believing. That they have higher poverty rates and shorter life expectancy in states that are more religious than in those that are less religious seems to contradict that idea.

The second area regards the larger realm of personal morality. That two has two areas. The first of them was how people in religious states act according to the moral teachings of their own religion. We see that that what most conservative Christians would describe as “sexual sin” is more prevalent in religious states than in the less religious states. And divorce, which strikes at the very heart of the “sanctity of marriage” believe is higher in the religious states and lower in the more secular state. It would seem that the people in the least religious states are more likely to live up to “Christian morality” than the people in the more Christian states.

The second area of morality was how people act toward others. For that we looked at violent crime in general, violent rape and murder. There is little question about the immorality of these actions and widespread consensus that such acts are wrong and should be outlawed. What we saw was that stronger religious beliefs did not lower the rate for these crimes at all. The states with highest “faith” rating had more violence, rape and murder than the state with the lowest rating.

There are other ways to checking how these states compare. We could use VD rates as a proxy for morality indicators. I believe if we do the more religious states would lose out again. We can look at polls on things like torture—but polls done on that topic showed support for torture higher among religious people than non-religious people. We could look at the well-being of children in the two groups. A quick look at the “Kids Count” index of the Anne E. Casey Foundation shows that the religious states doing less well than the less religious states. Alabama ranks 48th; Arkansas 47th, Georgia 42nd, Kentucky 41st, Louisiana 49th, Mississippi 50th, North Carolina 37th, Oklahoma 44th, South Carolina 45th, and Tennessee 46th. In comparison the less religious states did as follows: Alaska 35th, California 20th, Colorado 22nd, Connecticut 4th, Maine 12th, Masschusetts 5th, Nevada 39th, New Hampshire 1st, Rhode Island 15th, and Vermont 8th. (I can’t say whether I agree with these ratings, they are used just as an example. Child abuse rates could be used as well.)

If you think there are other valid data sets to use suggest them in the comment section. I’d be curious to see how these two sets of states compare to one another across a wide range of measurements. I picked ones I thought were obvious and uncontroversial and didn’t know precisely what current statistics would show when applied to the states in the Pew Survey. I did not pick the states, I use the Pew data. Pew doesn’t rate the kind of religious beliefs well here though other surveys they have done do indicate the kind of Christianity that predominates. So, you will find that many of the professed Christians in the less religious states actually tend to be “liberals” in theology while the Christians in the more religious states tend to be more fundamentalist. That would indicate a wide divergence of religious intensity than is showing here. The divergence is because these numbers make the less religious states appear more religious than they are while underestimating the fervency of the believers in the more religious states.
Notes on methodology: In all cases I used percentages or rates per 100,000 (or per 1,000) population. This standardizes the rating so that the numbers take into account the varying population sizes. All the numbers used are unaffected by population differences. I took the statistics for all 10 of the most religious states and averaged them to one number. I then did the same for the 10 least religious states. This averaging out allows to compare the differences between the two groups as a whole. To duplicate my spreadsheet go to the sources listed and take down the data for the 20 states being studied. (I did this by one set of data for the most religious states and another for the least religious states.) Total up the numbers and average them out. Unless there is a typo in my spreadsheet, and I tried to check it carefully, then you should get the same results.

All I have to say about Tiger Woods

Let me make it clear that I have little to nothing to say about Tiger Woods and his private life, so I won't be saying it.

Mr. Woods does nor take it upon himself to try to arbitrate the morality of others, as do the Catholic hierarchy and fundamentalist Christians. Mr. Woods does not attempt to pass laws to control the sex lives of others as do the Republicans and various conservatives. Mr. Woods has, to my knowledge, never publicly expressed an opinion attacking others for their sex lives. In other words, Mr. Woods has basically respected the rights of others to live their own lives according to their own values. Given those facts I see no reason whatsoever to offer any opinion regarding his private life. He has not intruded, or attempted to intrude, on the private lives of others and I feel we should grant the same respect to him.

That Woods is well-known, because he plays golf well, is of absolutely no relevancy. That he is well-known does not make him public property. It does not bestow on others a "right to know" the most intimate details of his life. The media, acting like sharks in a feeding-frenzy, is it's typical self. Moralizing on a constant basis the journalism profession proves itself to be utterly immoral in how it treats others. While my university major was journalism, I have never had much respect for journalists. They are bottom-feeders who exaggerate and distort facts in order to sensationalize a story. They will report the opinions of activists, even if they know the "facts" being presented are lies. They will bias stories in subtle ways in order to push the public into accepting their preconceived political agenda. They do so because they feel they are morally and intellectual superior to the rest of humanity and thus have a right, nay, an obligation, to push people into "doing the right thing." Yet the media itself is frequently doing the wrong thing for no other reason than to sell a story.

What Tiger Woods does, or doesn't do, with his sex life is no one's business but his, and those he sleeps with. It is for them to work out, not a matter of public consumption. The real immorality in this story comes from the media. Shame on them. What a pathetic bunch of wankers the media has become. They deserve no respect. And they certainly won't get any here. Tiger Woods ought to be left alone. And all those prurient busybodies out there, who eat up the scandal and feed the profits of the sleaze-merchants in the media, deserve to have their darkest secrets exposed to the world. The whole thing is quite literally obscene, in a way that sex never could be.

Love letters and traditional morality.

One of the fringe people who inhabit the internet dropped by the site and left a little hate note earlier today. I found it amusing to no end, mainly because he got so many things completely wrong. I immediately shared it with numerous people.

What particularly amused me was that he bitched that I call those who disagree with me, "'bigoted,' 'racist,' homophobic,' 'Nazi, anti-Semitic,' and 'xenophobic" and ascribe (sic) their views to 'hate.'" Yet, in the same comment our writer (at IP address 204.27.59.66) attacks gays, immigrants, blacks, and interracial marriage. He did not attack Jews, but I'm sure it was oversight.

I have used the term "security Nazis" and "health Nazis" and I have called people who are actually propose Nazism Nazis, but I've never branded someone a Nazi for disagreeing with me. And I've only used "anti-Semitic" to refer to people who actually hate Jews. I think the people I have called bigots have pretty much proven themselves to be bigots. And the author of the love letter, certainly didn't do his cause much good by immediately launching in bigoted diatribes about gays, immigrants and blacks. I was tempted, when I saw that obvious contradiction, to assume it was hoax by someone who agreed with me and was supporting my views through satire. But I think this "love letter" was quite genuine.

The author claimed I "supported the disaster of black rule in Africa." Well, that's hard to answer because to say I did, or I didn't .would both be wrong. I just never supported rule by anyone on account of race. I never supported a government merely because it was run by whites or because it was run by blacks. I've supported and opposed black candidates and supported and opposed white candidates. Race just was never a factor, policies were. I have openly criticized the policies of Mugabe, in Zimbabwe, and of the African National Congress, in South Africa. How I supported "black rule" I don't know. But then neither did I oppose it. My support, or opposition, is not connected to race.

The author claims I "agitate for dispossession of whites through mass immigration." Dispossession of whites? He also claims I "fanatically" support interracial marriage. Out of the hundreds and hundreds of articles I've posted here I believe that only two have touched on the subject. Apparently that is enough to be accused of "fanatically support[ing] interracial marriage." In truth, I don't support interracial marriage, but neither do I oppose it. I have no position on who other people ought to marry, only that they ought to be free to marry the partner of their choice. [And for the crazed individuals lurking in the background, I am talking about adults and humans so don't try to drag kids or sheep into the discussion.]

It simply is none of my business who another rational adult chooses to marry. So I literally have no opinion on it. If someone told me they were marrying I would congratulate them because it means something important to them. I wouldn't urge them to seek a partner of a different race, a partner of the same race, a partner of the opposite sex, or a partner of the same sex. It is just not my business. I wish them well regardless.

Our poison pen writer claimed that I want to "tear down the world our ancestors built" and that I'm "motivated by hatred" for European civilization and western culture. I supposedly also don't "care at all about the white children who will have to suffer the consequences of the death of the West." I do care about white children, and brown children and black children. I don't actually limit my concern for children to one race, as apparently my critic does.

For the record, I don't think the West is dying, nor do I think it ought to die. I am an advocate of the values of the Western Enlightenment, the great tradition of classical liberals that arose in the West. I happen to think that many values that dominated in the West are right and proper and are superior to other values. But they are not superior merely because they dominated the West, but because they work and are right. Nor are they good merely because they are part of our tradition.

I was also accused of being an opponent of "traditional morality." Again, this is wholly besides the point. I am a moralist, in that I have a firm code of morality about how people should act toward one another. Only a complete non-thinker supports a moral principle solely because it is traditional. It was traditional to enslave people. It was traditional to rape women during war. It was traditional to burn people at the stake. Are these the traditions that the author of this "love letter" wishes to support? Well, given his general tone, they might be.

That a "value" or "moral principle" is "traditional" neither says anything in favor of it, or against it. There are traditional values, that are long-standing values, that I support strongly—such as property rights. But there are others, such as racism, which go back centuries, which I oppose.

The "traditionalist" is the non-thinker. He is bound by the thoughts of dead people because he is unable to think for himself. The advocate of "traditional" morality is not an advocate of moraity at all. In fact, they advocate nothing but the past. Which past? Whose past? Would our writer, if born in Saudi Arabia, be an advocate of stoning women to death? Would he support the burka? Would he say the Koran is true merely because it is the tradition of his tribe?

There is no position more sterile than supporting the "traditional" since it is entirely relative to where you live and controlled by what era you are living in. The traditional morality of a native in a land of cannibals is vastly different from the "traditional" morality of someone living in Iraq in 1500. or in Chicago in 2009. To say you support "traditional" morality says you have abrogated the right to think for yourself and rely on whatever ancient dead people preferred. It's not even clear which dead people one must cling to. Is it those of the last 100 years, 200 years, 500 years, or can we go back to our ancestors in the African bush and cling to their values—it would be interesting to see conservatives try that.

I'd like to know if I should cling to the tradition of Luther, or maybe Calvin, or maybe the Pope? How about the tradition of the Greeks who preceded the rise of Christianity? Can I cling to their traditions? Would my nemesis have supported Greek, traditional pederasty merely because it was traditional? It seems to me that advocates of "traditional morality" answer no questions at all but raise plenty.

I can understand being a "traditionalist" if one is incapable of thinking, but anyone with an IQ higher than the typical houseplant ought to be able to think for himself. Apparently the author of the poison pen letter to me does not see it the same way. Either way, I must thank him for the amusement he gave me.

Illustration: A traditional practice, burning Protestants at the stake.

Politician, "family values" man, sex fiend.

Mike Duvall is one of those Theopublicans, that combination of a Republican and a theocrat. Duvall had a reputation because he was strongly opposed to equal marriage rights for gay couples. Duvall shouted that his position was because he supports traditional family values. The Religious-Right group, Capitol Resource Institute, praised Duvall as a “consistent trooper” who “has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California.” Remember, that in Christianese, that family doesn’t mean family, not in the sense most people mean. It only means hetereosexuals. Apparently gay people are without families.

Duvall was, as expected, a supporter of the hateful Proposition 8. He is a Christian, who would have prayer in public in the state assembly. He was also something of a sex fiend and a pervert, as least by “family values” standards.

Mr. Duvall was sitting a meeting room at the state capitol chatting with someone. The microphone in front of him was on as the hearing was about to be broadcast. Duvall launched into a bragging sessions about screwing two women, neither of whom are his wife. To make it worse, it appears that one of them, and possibly both of them, are lobbyists in Sacramento. So, instead of giving Duvall inappropriate cash bribes to vote their way, they apparently were giving him a horizontal rumba instead. Duvall bragged about cheating on his wife and, in the same conversation, bragged about cheating on his mistress as well. But hey, they’re women, so he’s still a “family values” kind of guy.

Duvall got caught. Of course many “family values” politicians just haven’t been caught—yet. Duvall apologized, but not for the affairs, not for the inappropriate relationships with a lobbyist, not for cheating on his wife, but for “the comments I made in what I believed to be a private conservation.” So he’s sorry he said something and got caught but not sorry about lying to his wife, lying to his mistress, or any the violtions of common sense ethics for a politician. He’s just sorry he said something, not sorry he did something.

Duvall whined: “This is a private matter and I asked that everyone respect the privacy of all involved.” Really! What cheek!

Duvall is a conservative and today’s religiously-obsessed Right do not believe that one’s sex life is a “private matter.” Mr. Duvall has regularly voted on policies making the private lives of others a matter of state concern. You would think that whether two people marry one another is a “private matter” that ought to be left to “all involved.” Mr. Duvall said it wasn’t. He wanted state legislation banning some couples from making that “private” decision.

This is typical of conservatives. Their sex life is a private matter. Your sex life is a matter of state regulation.

I’m glad this moralistic, two-faced, lying theocrat has resigned his office. He deserves the shame and the ridicule. But, since he chose to use his state office to bed a lobbyist who was employed to secure his votes, I suggest that much more ought to be coming. Duvall ought to face legal charges. No one seems to think these female lobbyists were screwing Duvall because of his looks or physique—he’s fat and old. But he had what every lobbyist wants—a vote in the state assembly. And that changes the dynamics. I suggest the lobbyists traded sex for influence and Duvall traded influence for sex. It was an act of prostitution with both Duvall and the lobbyists all playing the whore.

I just wish some of these Republicans would start talking about how sex is a “private matter” before they caught in some scandal.

Photo: Duvall: it was Brad Pitt looks that got him screwed.

Another one bites the dust.

Go on down to Tennessee for some old fashioned, country-style, family value of God, the GOP, Mom and apple pie. Here is a picture of those family values. The guy in the rather scary sweater is Paul Stanley, a Republican legislator who sticks up for families by sticking it to gay people—and I don't mean in the "hide the sausage" way either. For instance, Stanley decided that gay people should be forbidden to adopt children. Stanley is very wholesome. You can see it here, with his family. His daughter has a very long dress on. Mother has just enough lipstick to be seen but not in a painted-woman fashion popular among those liberals. And junior has a decent haircut, the way Jesus wanted.

Mr. Stanley taught Sunday School. He was God's man in a trouble world saving the family from evil perverts and sinners. Gays shouldn't adopt, he said, because "When you're married, there's a commitment there." And gays can't marry, just the way Jesus wants even if he forgot to mention it during his time on earth. Stanley was so sure of his family values that he told people he would fight to prevent gays from adopting even if the children in question had to stay in state care as a result. It's all about marriage, commitment, family, and God. And it sure as hell helps with the votes from the revival crowd.

Senator Stanley will be stepping down from one of his positions, though he is still clinging to office, for the time being.

Apparently this leading light of God's Own Party (GOP) was shtupping a female intern. Hey, that counts in Republican circles—at least the intern was female. Like a good moralist Stanley was able to hide the truth from the public, which again counts in Republican circles. There is one thing Republicans can't stomach and that's the truth.

But the female college student had a boy friend named Joel Watts. Apparently Watts found photos of the young woman, in the nude, which had been taken at Stanley's apartment. Now this doesn't win points with the Republicans who prefer to ban porn entirely, except for their own secret stash of it.

Watts figured this was a money maker for him. He offered to sell the memory card, with the photos, to Stanley for $10,000. Stanley, smelling a perpetual blackmail racket, had no choice but to call in the authorities. Watts are arrested for extortion. That was some time ago. Stanley was able to keep it all a secret until now.

Stanley describes himself as an Evangelical Christian. He is proud of his anti-gay viewpoints. He is a very vocal champion of so-called family values. But he was shtupping a college girl, young enough to be his daughter, and taking pornographic photos of her. He was doing this behind the back of his wife and covering it up intentionally. We have lying, adultery, pornography, all wrapped into one family value package.

I have long suspected that those who preach the strongest about family values and abstinence and porgrnography are themselves fighting terrifying demons. I once debated a Christian family values type on television. The guy was quite scary actually. (He literally had a meltdown in front of my very eyes and continued to preach to an empty chair after the show was over.) As I was leaving the studio with the show's moderator, he turned to me and said: "I really get the impression that ..... is terrified of a monster inside himself that just might get out." After the show aired about a dozen people managed to locate my home phone number and called in support. More than half of them said the same thing about the guy.

By the way, the guy did actually have a mental breakdown on stage. He disappeared from the public arena after that for two years. I did see him about six months later being led around by his wife, and I mean literally being led around. I was having breakfast a few yards away and watched as he placed him on a bench where he sat, head drooped down, motionless, until she came for him 20 minutes later.

Jimmy Swaggart used to preach about pornography and prostitution all the time. Yet he was a fan of both. Ted Haggard was vehemently antigay and led campaigns against the equal rights of gay people. Yet he was secretly hiring male prostitutes for sex, while bragging in public that Evangelicals have the best sex lives of anyone. True, perhaps, just not with their wives.

In the name of fairness, I should note that I apply this theory to the Left as well. I have long suspected that socialists often wish to use government as a means of charity because they are not charitable themselves. I suspect that the Left and the Right both have the same problem. They see the flaws in their own characters and assume that everyone else is flawed in the same manner. Their solution is the gun of government.