"I've spent the last five days of my life crying in Argentina."  Please. 

 This is definitely a downer of a story on several different levels.  The bottom line, of course, is that Sanford's once-promising political career is over.  Even worse, the manner in which this drama played out in such a weird way shows that Sanford's personal life is in even worse turmoil than his political life and that is a true tragedy.  

The only thing we can do is pray for the Sanfords and ope that they get things back on track.  

I'm a quarter Argentine. Heh...

This guy is a loser. How could you be going to a marriage counselor, and STILL see your mistress? If you're going to a counselor, the point would be that you would obviously be trying to REPAIR your relationship with your wife. I don't get it...

Not to mention that he did it over Father's Day weekend...and he has four sons.

First Ensign. Now Sanford.  At the rate the GOP is going, Obama might run unopposed in 2012.

One can't help but feel awful for Sanford's wife and sons.  They must be going through an excruciating amount of pain and sorrow right now.

I completely forgot about the fact that it was father's day weekend. You can't really make it much worse, but it shows what kind of person this is. Putting all of this aside, I still have to ask, if someone is going to do these kinds of indiscretions, why is it that they always feel they need to do it while in public office? Is it because the job affords them the "respect" that makes them feel invulnerable / invicible. Like they can do no wrong? Time and time again, we constantly see politicians in this compromising situations. Is it just that they have ALWAYS been like that and they only get busted when in the public eye?

Time and time again, we constantly see politicians in this compromising situations. Is it just that they have ALWAYS been like that and they only get busted when in the public eye?  -  Todd

Todd, people in public office are no different than those who aren't.  That is, they are subject to the same temptations as anyone else.  The sad fact is that this scenario plays itself out millions of times per year and we never hear about it because, for the most part, these people aren't newsworthy.  Don't think for a minute that those in office are any more or less susceptible to temptation than we are; it just isn't true.

Also, none of us should make the mistake of thinking we're in any way superior to Sanford.  He has fallen hard but there was a time in his life, probably not all that long ago, that he would have been absolutely certain that such a thing couldn't happen to him.  Probably the reason that the Bible constantly urges us to be wary of falling into sin and temptation.  It's no accident that keeping out of sin is a full time job.

He's still a Christian brother and we need to pray for him without throwing him under the bus.  I don't know much about the woman but it appears she has a family as well and we should be careful to pray for them a well.

Just Sayin', I understand what you're saying. I am hit with temptations on a regular basis. I think maybe it has to do with character and discaplin. I love my wife and would never do anything to hurt her. I'd love to go parading around in Tijana and hook up with every girl that gave me the eye. But it's not worth it. It's not who I am, it would be breaking my promise as a husband, it's not worth the stress and hurt that it would put my wife through. It's not about "not getting caught", it's about you as a person and how your honor and integrity define you. Taking bribes, cheating on your spouse, these are things that are simply not worth the ramifications, either physically, or emotionally to my integrity.

Lets put things into perspective. I can't really say for other people, but I know that me personally, what makes me happy is my sense of accomplishment. If someone bribes me with a huge sum of money that would otherwise make wealthy beyond imagination... would that make me happy? No, it wouldn't. I would be much happier knowing that I bought a Ferrari with my own money, and fixed it, rather than just being given one.

I think the difference between myself (perhaps all of us) and people like Sanford is this; I certainly don't think I'm "better" than they are, but I do think that I'm perhaps more "enlightened". I'm completely satisfied with who I am as a person, and anything that I have or ever wanted to change about myself, I either have, or am in the process of doing so. If I have a bad habit, I work towards eliminating it.

I can't say for certain, as I am not in his same situation, but I just don't see how the values that I have now would permit me to do something like this.

Ultimately though, marriage rates have gone down, and divorce rates have gone up. I don't think this guy should be let off the hook, or should be allowed to keep his dignity. He needs to be made an example of. If this kind of behavior is going to be frowned upon by the public, then the consequences need to be severe. We've gotten to the point in our society where it's almost become "acceptable", almost to the point where it's maybe even considered "cool" to cheat on your spouse while in office... "because you can".

We need to put a stop to this, and this needs to be a huge regret that he has to live with for the rest of his life. I would hope that in the unfortunate situation that I ever fall in a similar situation, that someone would be as equally harsh to me, as I would completely deserve it.

I don't think this guy should be let off the hook, or should be allowed to keep his dignity. He needs to be made an example of. If this kind of behavior is going to be frowned upon by the public, then the consequences need to be severe.  -  Todd

Todd, I respectfully disagree with much of what you said.  What "hook" is it that you think we should keep him on?  It's not up to us to keep him on any such "hook"; that's God's province and not ours.  As for his dignity, I think it's safe to say that Sanford has already done a pretty good job of stripping all his own dignity and throwing it away.  Are we supposed to pile on him and somehow make it worse?  I doubt it.

You also mention that the consequences of his actions need to be "severe".  I agree with you on that but hasn't that already happened?  I mean, he's lost his career and any hope of reviving it.  He's more than likely lost his family and any hope of reviving that.  He's lost all his credibility and likely any hope of reviving that.  He lost his ministry and likely any hope of reviving that anytime soon.  What more could we possibly do to him that hasn't already happened?  Are we to have a public flogging at high nooon in front of the capital building in Columbia?

Doesn't the church exist as a hospital for sinners?  This man (and his family) needs our prayers and our support and our love more than ever.  There was a time we looked up to him and we were glad to bask in his success as long as he enjoyed it.  Now, if you will, the situation is reversed and he is in desperate need of our love just as any sinner who would walk in off the street and into our church on any given Sunday morning.  We need to offer that love and comfort to him unconditionally; I think that's the example christ put before us.

The obvious comparison is David, a leader of God's own choosing.  He was guilty of adultery and so much more and still God called him a man after His own heart.  Sanford is our brother and although he has committed a hhuge sin in a very painful and public manner he is still our brother.  We must NOT abandon him or shun him or think of him in any way as being a second class citizen of the church.  we seriously need to put our collective arms around him and let him know that God loves him and we do too.

Just Sayin': From a religious standpoint, I agree with you completely. I do consider myself to be religious, and I base my morals and the direction I chose to live my life by the will of God.

I do recognize of course that America was founded on religious (Christian) values. I believe that gives us strength and that gives us virtue. But being a publically elected official does not make you Christian, nor does it mean that everyone in the United States is expected to "turn the other cheek".

Lets not forget that God too has unlimited wrath when provoked time and time again. I certainly don't expect a public flogging, certainly not like the 400 Baal prophets who God commanded that Elijah massacre.

However, we've been accustomed to:

A) If the offending person is on OUR side (party), we talk about forgiveness and second chances.

B) If the offender is on the OTHER side (party), we use it as ammunition against that party and as a benefit towards us.

This is wrong. As I've mentioned, when people seek public office, they become role models. They are the people we expect to be the best of the best. I'm tired of the "they're only human", and "we all make mistakes". A mistake is the red "reset" button. A violation of trust and honor is cheating on your wife, not to mention AS you're serving your country.

As far as I'm concerned, a public servant is a SLAVE to his people. When you register with the elections board, you are agreeing to a period of servitude to the populace. You should and MUST do so with dignity and honor. Anything less is completely unacceptable.

I believe there just exists too much hypocracy when it comes to this. What I DO expect is equalateral disgust from both sides, on every occasion. I don't expect a public flogging, but I do expect an immediate resignation, in EVERY situation. President, Governor, or otherwise...

Of course, we're all entitled to our beliefs, and I'm not suggesting that my response is necessarily the correct one, but it is at least in my mind.

Pretty good, Todd.  I have to quibble on one point because I've resolved to not let it pass when people say it. 

Our form of govt was based on Deism not really Christian values per se.  Deists believe in good morals because they also believe that someday we will all face our maker.  Prominent Deists were Jefferson, Madison and Mason who fathered the Declaration, the Consititution and The Bill of Rights.  Jefferson's version of the Gospels removed the miracles and the resurrection.  They think we can be good.  Christian values teach that we are unable to live a holy life, Jesus took the punishment on behalf of those who accept his sacrifice and believe in His power to make us righteous by faith not works or feelings.  Today's descendant of Deism is the church of universal unitarianism which isn't a Christian religion though they do accept Christians for the most part just not the belief that God intervenes in the affairs of men through miracles or any other means.

Patrick Henry and Geo. Washington are more of the Christian variety you are claiming but they weren't so intimately involved with the writing of the founding documents as those previously mentioned.  Patrick Henry also wanted to keep the Anglican church as the official state religion of Virginia (antidisestablishmentarianism) which Madison successfully opposed.

I'm not going to jump off topic, but I don't believe it is incorrect in any way to say that this country was founded upon Christian values.  That is not necessarily to say this country was founded as a "Christian nation" (a trickier and more complex argument to make) but just that the values and principles the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are based upon are definitely "Christian."  But this is a debate for another time and another place.

Back to the topic at hand.  I found myself both angered and saddened at the news of Sanford's affair yesterday.  Of course, my heart grieves for his family and the pain they must be feeling.

As a person, Sanford should be forgiven.  If I was a member of his church, I would want Sanford to show signs of forgiveness and repentance and then fully accept him back as a member in good standing.  As it has been said in previous comments on this thread, we all make mistakes and none of us are above succumbing to temptation. 

As governor, Sanford should be finished. Given the circumstances surrounding Sanford's affair and how he disappeared for a week without his staff knowing he had left the country, I believe he should immediately step down.  As a governor of a state, what he did was a dereliction of duty, and he should be forced to resign for no other reason than that alone.  If Sanford refuses to resign, the SC legislature should move to impeach him.

As a politician, Sanford is useless.  I no longer want him championing fiscal conservative principles or values.  He is damaged goods and conservatives would be wise to to steer clear of him in the future. 

Sanford had a bright political future.  He had already served in the Congress and as a governor.  He was a strong fiscal conservative and had gained national exposure on his stand against stimulus funds.  Republicans do not have too many leaders at the moment and it is a shame one of their brightest threw away his career and future.

This country was founded on things like what the Constitution actually says so it doesn't really matter what faith they may have something in common with but unless you are going to say more than what you think (or "believe"), it doesn't really matter what you think.

Like I said, c, that debate is for another time and another place.  I am sure we can revisit the topic in the future but it adds little to the present discussion. Glad to see you are delightful and charitable as always.

thank you

I didn't expect you to back up your claim that I'm incorrect, NCT

iow, I didn't say what I think

Fine, easy enough.  I will allow myself to be baited...

Since you once stated, "Supreme Court logic is impeccable" I will past Supreme Court decisions to prove this point:

In 1799, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in Runkel v. Winemiller:

"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

That's about as clear as you can get. 

Later, in 1892 in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled unaminously, once again, that  we were a Christian nation.  They ruled:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." 

In that landmark decision the Court quoted 87 legal precedents for their decisions and, at the end of their ruling, stated that they could have quoted dozens of more precedents, but figured 87 was enough to make a sufficient case.  In that decision the Supreme Court also quoted the Founding Fathers, the acts and proclamations of the Founding Fathers, the acts of the Congresses, and acts of the state governments.  It's really an amazing ruling. 

Indeed, an elementary understanding of U.S. history can only lead one to conclude that this country was founded upon Christian principles and that the Founders (even the deists Jefferson and Franklin) considered this a Christian nation.

NCT quotes me out of context of course. 

1.  The Anglican Church was the established church of Virginia, too....for a while.  The point made is that the law of the constitution applies to all churches (now that's not really biblical is it)

2.  Scalia has thus criticized the principle of the Holy Trinity case as "nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking."^[2]

O'Connor, "The central support for the Court's ultimate conclusion that Congress did not intend the law to cover Christian ministers is its lengthy review of the 'mass of organic utterances' establishing that 'this is a Christian nation,' and which were taken to prove that it could not 'be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation.'"

3.  That's why one must go beyond a 5th grade education as long and hard as that might be in Florida.

But really, it's your motive behind wanting the US to be a Christian nation or the values are based on definitely Christian ones (now you've got me confused...which one you are trying or actually failing to prove) that is the problem.  Though I don't really have insight to motive, it seems that people that make the claim you make are then trying to come in the backdoor and say therefore there should be no abortion or gay marriage (or cross dressing...) because "what the fathers meant is what we say they meant."  But Madison and Mason said there's no religious test and of course there's that 1st amendment establishment clause.  And you can't prove that abortion should be illegal by the Bible nor the same for gay marriage since Paul himself says that's none of our business in 1 Cor 5 anyway.  So don't bother.  But you can certainly follow your own conscience in your own affairs.  Be happy with that.

But if you want to keep this up, show me the stuff in the Constitution or Declaration that matches stuff in the Bible.  And not Rousseau or Plutarch or Locke...

oh yeah you can even show me stuff in the Federalist Papers that matches the Bible; the other problem here is that if you limit YAHWEH to the description of God in the Declaration, you diminish him.  YAHWEH is the wholly other.  You might capture God the judge in the Declaration but you won't be able to show God the Savior and what a loss that would be.  I don't worship the Deist God of the Declaration but you may.

Now I wish I had not let this comment thread be hijacked...We will have to continue this conversation soon, C, in a more appropriate forum.  Rest assured, if you were learning about any Supreme Court decisions made in the 1800's and Scalia's dissent with them while you were still in fifth grade, your elementary education was vastly superior to mine. That being said, you should probably read the decision instead of merely copying and pasting what you find in Wikipedia.  

The Sanford affair is a sorry and sad mess. I pray he will find peace and reconciliation with his family soon.  

This point must be the one where TLM would say "I accept your apology."

That is pretty funny though.  Scalia and O'Connor unlike me didn't read the whole decision.  I was a pretty quick reader by about third grade, btw.  But my Masters made me a lightning fast reader.

The real trick, of course, is unlike you, really reading (and understanding) what was written and not going only so far as proof texting.  It's like that quote on the bottom right of NCT.  It should be named NotCompleteThought.  Which reminds me shouldn't the Conservative21 banner lean to the right?

For the record, I was posting irt Todd's post when this hijacking got started by someone other than me.

O'Connor didn't mention that the court showed that the law didn't intend to cover Jewish rabbi either.  BUT, if all those 87 statements (some of which only mention God agnostically not speficying the Christian God) were made by guys like Sanford who apparently was using his religion fake or otherwise for political gain, what good were their religious statements?  So there you go. 

just that the values and principles the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are based upon are definitely "Christian."

red herringed again.  You made this statement above NCT then went on to talk about stuff that didn't back it up.  Saying that all religions are on equal footing and that no legislation can be made against religion are not concepts from the Bible and Christianity is certainly not the established religion or the civic religion.  I'm not sure you understand what the values and principles of the founding docs are or even what Christianity is.  And once you define those, based upon your shaky history applying the Bible to things like water baptism and abortion, you'll have some difficulty finding scripture that resemble the values and principles that are there or the values you think are there.

The most important part of the Bible is the Gospel: Christian values teach that we are unable to live a holy life, Jesus took the punishment on behalf of those who accept his sacrifice and believe in His power to make us righteous by faith not works or feelings. And, that isn't in the founding docs.  To teach people the docs are Christian is to teach people that Christianity by default is more about works than saving grace.  That is why Paul would and I do object so to your claim and I do it virtually to your face because it is the same error Paul challenged Peter with.  Get your act together and shape up.

"all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

this is what groups such as those that favor things like equal marriage rights are arguing btw.  Equal protection a la XIV Amendment, but this 18th century ruling shows the concept was already understood.  Equal footing, equal protection samo samo.