Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Cal  Thomas :: Townhall.com Columnist
Scandal? What scandal?
by Cal Thomas
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
How much of the Republican convention did you watch?




In the media accounts of Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley's resignation from the House over allegations of sexually explicit e-mails between himself and House pages, one frequently encounters the word "disgraced" modifying Foley's name and "scandal" to describe his behavior.

These are moral words, created for the purpose of labeling aberrant (and abhorrent) behavior. To show how far we have drifted from any sociological, not to mention theological moorings, consider these definitions from dictionary.com: "aberrant: departing from the right, normal, or usual course"; abhorrent: "causing repugnance; detestable; loathsome."

Right? Normal? Detestable? People who mock such notions ask, "According to whom?" Public schools, popular culture and editorialists at major newspapers have hammered into us this aversion to trans-generational morality. They proclaim that one person's concept and definition of "right" is as valid as another person's and to assert that there is only one right, one normal and one course is to be "judgmental" or "bigoted," attitudes modernity considers a worse "sin" than the behavior that used to be called sinful.

Our sophisticated age demands we not recoil at aberrant behavior, or call it abhorrent. The anti-moral wrecking ball has caused enough damage to our foundations that what remains of a structure is no longer recognizable. NBC edits positive references to God before broadcasting "Veggie Tales," but refuses to edit Madonna's blasphemous depiction of herself on a cross. These decisions are made by the network's "standards and practices" office, which mocks the words because clearly there remain few standards to which practices may be conformed.

Behavior once thought shameful is now paraded openly and promoted proudly to sell books. Former New Jersey Democratic Governor James McGreevey tours the talk show circuit. His presence dares anyone to question the legitimacy of his dumping two wives and having sex with men. He apologizes for his extramarital sexual relations and for putting people on the state payroll that didn't belong there, but he has no intention of changing his behavior.

Bill Clinton has recovered from sex with an intern in the White House and impeachment. He doesn't suffer for having practiced aberrant behavior. Few see him as having disgraced himself. Clinton takes in six figures on the lecture circuit and enjoys rock star status wherever he goes.

Former Congressman Gerry Studds (D-MA) may have started this decline (or did he merely reflect declining morality?). Studds had an affair in the early '80s with a 17-year-old male page. Studds was censured by the House, but famously turned his back to the Speaker in an act of disrespect and rejection of the judgment by his colleagues. He refused to resign and was re-elected to several more terms. A homosexual organization donated $10,000 to his campaign. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Cal Thomas is co-author (with Bob Beckel) of the forthcoming book, "Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America".
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Cal Thomas' column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Subject: Pedophilia, hosekuervo?
I'm sorry, correct me if I am wrong. According to my good ol' Websters,

- Pedophilia: Sexual desire in an adult for a child (typically pre-pubescent).

I'm shocked I have to explain that to a Lib, because you defend perverts all the time. You should know your constituency by now!

Play it again, Righty.
"Wrong again.

My comment was about Christian Conservatives only. This does not deny objections from others -- it simply ignores them, because they don't belong in a comnment about Christian values, do they?"

I'm willing to be proven wrong. Show me the conservative Christians on this thread who have trashed Cal's column. I would contend that there aren't any, but maybe I missed one.

"You missed, uhhhhhhhh, your own words -- which (typically) you failed to include." Anyone who wants to read my own words can scroll on up and check them out. They haven't gone anywhere.

"Well, you ridiculed me -- explicity -- for the principle I was defending. That principle was that Foley was just as guilty as the Democrats named by Cal. Now you decline to reveal your own accusation .... Slick." No, I ridiculed you for saying that you put principle before partisanship. I think you would like to do that, but you don't. Go back and read it. Only someone who was deliberately twisting the words that were said would come up with what you came up with.

"You ridiculed me for condemning Foley." Did not. That was an easy one.

"But once again, you're about a week behind on the news ... as you were with the National Intelligence Estimate." I'm not sure how I was a week behind on the news on Foley, since it's been omnipresent (and since I read Blankley's column here on TH. The problem here is not that I'm behind the news, but that you are conflating the arguments here that are specific to Cal Thomas' column with those from other columns. It also shows that you still have not grasped what Cal said in this column. You heard what you wanted to hear, not what he was saying. By the way, someone who can't tell a rusino from a double capp shouldn't be harping on missing one item in the news.

"Summing up -- you basically misrepresented everything you posted ... again " Maybe it's me, but I think you're projecting. And I hate to say that because it's a term that Kimberly over-uses. But I think it's apropos here. Third parties welcome to pass judgement here.

"You really need to get a life -- or simply catch up with the news --- this is my last visit tio this web page and thread -- which gives you the last word, if you so choose." I do need to get a life; I can't believe I've wasted so much of it responding to you. And I should know better. I've seen you in action with other posters. I have only myself to blame. Oh, and I choose.

"For once, I hope you can avoid the Slickery, or the patronizing comments (anyone who bothers to look will see that I only play defense with you; you are the attacker, and it's almost always personal.)" That's funny. I was going to say the same thing. Hmmm. Who started this little tit-for-tat? My, that would be you on Oct. 5th, at 10:17 PM. Cheers for now.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.