Why does it seem like christian leaders are supporting a man who admited cheating on his wife while investigation Clinton yet they treat Clinton himself like a criminal for having an affair with Monica? Could it be that politics and NOT faith pushes them to accept one and reject another? Mind you I am a Christian who is getting TIRED of being misrepresented by those so called leaders of Faith.
2007-03-10 03:52:20 · 7 answers · asked by caliguy_30 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
An excellent question. I am a Christian also, and I have been wondering the same thing. Of course we know, that the Lord forgives, but I think the timing here is suspicious. I heard Falwell and others want to help Newt. And that is all good and well, but none of them offered to help Clinton, and I fail to see how that makes them Christian.
2007-03-10 05:52:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nonetheless....you still have to deal with the fact that President Clinton lied (Whether Newt Gingrich cheated on his wife or not).
Now all politicians lie.... but Clinton left a verifiable trail that could not be ignored...an affidavit signed by him stating no sexual intercourse with Monica. Now Clinton is not the first President to cheat on his wife...but he was sloppy.
So the question is what do you do with President Clinton?
Do you let him of the hook or not? The problem is you couldn't ignore it. Clinton left a serious evidence behind.
President Clinton continues to blame the right wing...'They were out to get me' he says...but the truth of the matter is he put Congress and America in an awkward predicament. Something had to be done. If not,....America would have seen a President blatantly 'Above the Law'....in the long run that would kill the American Presidency. By 'attempting' to impeach him showed the American public that the office of the Presidency was subject to punishment. It actually gave more trust back to the American People (That Congress can override the President).
So two things were actually accomplished....1) It showed that the Presidency is not above the law by being punished 2) Gave faith back to the American People that our constitution is working.
2007-03-10 07:32:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends on how emotionally worked up the mob is about a particular issue. With Clinton, it's a toss up whether the fervor was over the affair or the lying about it.
Then again, consider the basis of Christian doctrine. If someone confesses a sin, admits remorse, and asks forgiveness, then they are supposed to be forgiven.
Clinton, by trying to weasel out of what he did, failed to show remorse or ask forgiveness. Newt, by freely admitting it and saying he was sorry, met the standard for forgiveness.
Double standards are when two people are treated differently for doing all the same things. Here, what Clinton did and what Newt did are different, even if only after the fact.
2007-03-10 03:58:50 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
For starters, I have to say that I don't think religion has a place in politics.
That being said, let's look at the facts.
Clinton went on the stand and publically announced that "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman."
That's called perjury when you lie under oath.
Gringrich, admitted openly that he sinned and that he had an affair on his now ex wife.
Gringrich didn't lie. Clinton did.
That's the difference.
2007-03-10 03:59:59 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
While your at it.... How could George Bush say he is an evangelist, and send people to a war that he searched for (a big fat lie) false information to make it happen?
Our forefathers warned us about church and state being separate. Yes, a persons morals make a good leader, but for our country to remain free, religion should play a very small part in avocation of their religion.
As you know politicians are not godly creatures, they carry with them the same weaknesses as all humans. It is up to us to overlook or forgive them and find a deeper understanding for people in general. The ultimate question should be, "who is the smartest person for the job?" And not what religious affiliation.
2007-03-10 04:05:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If a black church leader comes to town to defend only blacks, is he not failing his faith by not defending all men. This can be said of any religion leader that does not set out to protect all men, and his faith.
2007-03-11 00:29:17 · answer #6 · answered by allen w 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, they all have double standards.
2007-03-10 14:53:51 · answer #7 · answered by cynical 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋