File Under "Moron": D'Souza Resigns in Scandal "I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings." —Dinesh D'Souza A week after accusing President Obama of "attacking the traditional values agenda" because he "doesn't like traditional Christianity"—indeed, he even later said Obama has a "pathological hatred" toward Christianity—conservative icon Dinesh D'Souza resigned his presidency at The King's College in the wake of an adultery accusation. The accusation seems simple enough; Bill Hutchinson reports that D'Souza, 51, introduced a 29 year-old woman, Denise Joseph, as his fianceé to colleagues at a South Carolina evangelical conference, and shared a hotel room with her. D'Souza is still married to his wife, Dixie Brubaker. The pair separated in 2010, but it was only after allegedly shacking up with Joseph at a Comfort Suites motel that the incendiary right-wing propagandist bothered to file for divorce. The story originally broke through World magazine, a Christian news publication with estimated circulation of 100,000. According to Hutchinson, of New York Daily News: D'Souza called the World story "pure libel" in an opinion piece published Thursday on FoxNews.com, a day after telling The Associated Press his engagement to Joseph was off. But he did not deny the main thrust of the story. "I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings," D'Souza wrote. "Obviously, I would not have introduced Denise as my fiancée at a Christian apologetics conference if I had thought or known I was doing something wrong," he wrote. "But as a result of all this, and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement." Joseph — who authors the conservative blog Smart Girl Politics — recently bashed hypocritical Republican men, she called RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) for allowing their "independently minded" wives to ruin marriage and traditional family values. "RINO Dads are those guys who will sheepishly and proudly fill out Republican ballots on Election Day while their wives openly mark their support for things like 'freedom of choice' and 'freedom from poverty,'" she wrote on her blog in January. What part of that excerpt doesn't read like satire? Of course, anyone is welcome to solve this conundrum: • "I had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced" — I'm pretty sure it's in the Bible. Then again, I can see why he was confused; Sen. John McCain, who won the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, received a marriage license to wed his current billionaire wife while he was still married to his first wife. • "to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, Denise and I have decided to suspend our engagement" — Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. So ... you thought it was okay because you were engaged, but now that you find out that doesn't make it okay, you've "suspended" the engagement? • "Joseph — who authors the conservative blog Smart Girl Politics" — Really? Come on, you're just fucking with us now. • "while their wives openly mark their support for things like 'freedom of choice' and 'freedom from poverty'" — And yet you're shacking up with a guy who can't exercise enough control over his wife to not want to divorce her? I mean, you do see the problem with this phallocentric fantasy, right? I'm sorry, but ... how is this hard to figure out? So he got engaged, allegedly shacked up with his "fianceé", filed for divorce, then called off the engagement. How could anybody think he's done anything that violates Christian morals? No wonder he accuses World magazine of "pure libel". I mean, it's not as if the Bible says anything like, "Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery." (Luke 16.18) Right? So it's no wonder that D'Souza "had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings". We can even set aside that the divorce papers were filed after the alleged shacking. Ah, Republicans! ____________________ Notes: Areilla. "D'Souza Accused Obama of 'Attacking the Traditional Values Agenda' Just Before Sex Scandal Revelations". Right Wing Watch. October 18, 2012. RightWingWatch.org. October 20, 2012. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/dsouza-obama-attacking-traditional-values-sex-scandal Hutchinson, Bill. "Conservative pundit Dinesh D'Souza steps down from Manhattan evangelical Christian college after unholy tryst". New York Daily News. October 19, 2012. NYDailyNews.com. October 20, 2012. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/dinesh-souza-steps-manhattan-school-tryst-article-1.1187226 Weigle, Luther, et al. The Bible: Revised Standard Version. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1971. University of Michigan. October 20, 2012. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/r/rsv/
But you guys! Christianity provides our moral foundation...and stuff. Rite? I wish Hitch were alive to see this.
Semi-precious bits and baubles Health, of course, is a consideration to wish for, as well. He would have died laughing. Although I would note this: When Oregon changed over from the ballot box to mail-in voting, it was actually liberals who fretted. Sure, this would increase turnout, but voters would no longer have a certain kind of isolation that they enjoy when actually in the voting booth. For instance, we worried about vote coercion. All these years later, I'm a fan of mail-in voting. The coercion problems we worry about might exist, but not in any significant fashion that demands our attention by reaching our eyes and ears. Generally speaking, mail-in voting appears to be a success. I have no problem admitting this, but .... "RINO Dads are those guys who will sheepishly and proudly fill out Republican ballots on Election Day," D'Souza's new and former fianceé complained, "while their wives openly mark their support for things like 'freedom of choice' and 'freedom from poverty'." Did she just imply that real Republican men control how their wives vote? I don't know; I'm still looking for the original blog post. True, I'm not looking very hard. The SGP blogs are a mess. But in the middle of all this scandalmongering are some pretty impressive stones. Not precious gems, of course, but persuasive, semi-precious bits and baubles. I mean, really, I don't care who Dinesh D'Souza bangs. Indeed, of the couple of men I know who have actually heard about this story the last couple days, both tell me she's hot, so whatever else, kudos to D'Souza, or something like that. So that, in the end, seems to be how important the idea of D'Souza trying to get a trophy girl seems to be. But I have a feeling that RINO line is going to chew at me for a few days. And then there is D'Souza's impressive explanation, that he "had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced, even though in a state of separation and in divorce proceedings". Even if we set aside the suggestion that he filed divorce papers after the incident in question, how does one become a family values icon and the president of a Christian college while having no idea what is in the Bible? I mean, it's not like this is some obscure line from the prophets; this is Jesus Christ we're talking about. Christian? Christ? Ah, who gives a damn what Christ actually said? D'Souza "had no idea that it is considered wrong in Christian circles to be engaged prior to being divorced". These are incredibly telling details. When people fret about phallocentrism in "family values", well, it would seem Ms. Joseph only reinforces that concern. When people fret about ignorance in "family values", well, it would seem that Mr. D'Souza, a best-selling author of Christian apologetics, reinforces that concern. More than the idea of whether D'Souza diddled or fiddled or simply in-the-middled, we get a glimpse inside "family values" advocacy. Of course, perhaps I'm just cynical; there is nothing about either point—D'Souza's staggering ignorance or Joseph's apparent advocacy of male supremacy over women—that surprises me.
I'd have more respect for him if he chalked it up to misunderstanding, or lust, or something...and stuck with it. But now he cancels the engagement? He must have Romneysia too.
Exactly what are family values according to a Christian, here are some: http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html Doesn't make any sense to me. Consider how divorce it self was not legal in original Christian dogma, now it is? Hence why I don't see why they have a problem with gays getting married when they already destroyed the sanctity of marriage centuries ago.
Seems to be the case, yeah. That, or she's implying that real Republicans don't marry liberals. For her sake, I hope she means the second one. Not that it would be any less ridiculous, just less insidious. Actually, it appears his mistake was as he states it: being engaged while in divorce proceedings. In other words, nobody minds that he's getting divorced and remarried. It's this little detail of being engaged before the divorce is finalized. She is pretty hot, by the way.
Ain't Misbehavin' I'm reminded of any number of suggestions we hear about all sorts of things, from voting to abortion to vaccination: If we make misbehavior easier, people will misbehave. You know, if Pennsylvania doesn't make it harder for thousands of people to vote, the vote fraud rate might double ... to two cases in this cycle. Or if you leave rape and incest exceptions in an anti-abortion policy, well, some women just ... oh, hell, I can't even say it. Condom distribution against STD transmission. Needle exchanges. Hell, I'm pretty sure I heard last year or this that if you vaccinate girls against the number one cause of cervical cancer, you encourage them to become dangerous sluts. So ... let me get this straight about Mr. D'Souza's outlook: It shouldn't be scandalous because they're engaged, but now that it's scandalous, they're calling off the engagement. It seems to me he just made it easier to morally get laid. I mean, I'm not quite forty, but my generation is well aware of the, "You're going to marry her, right?" attitude about defiling a young woman with lust and pleasure. Now it's just, "You're going to get engaged within a month of meeting her, right? I mean, you can always call it off later." This isn't circular reasoning; it's ouroboros. ____________________ Notes: Benen, Steve. "Ryan ally in Wisconsin: 'Some girls rape easy'". The Maddow Blog. October 11, 2012. MaddowBlog.MSNBC.com. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/11/14364599-ryan-ally-in-wisconsin-some-girls-rape-easy
