<p>Obviously it wasnt expected to be taken as a reference to gay sex- but considering the behavior that he apparently was participating in at the time, it sounds like something that someone would say who isn’t good at keeping secrets.</p>
<p>I am bemused that when “religious” leaders are shown to be human, and have particular issues with greed, deceit,theft,sex,narcissism … that we are surprised and shocked.</p>
<p>The fact that someone has chosen a career path that gives influence and control over a lot of people, doesn’t make them automatically ethical and noble.</p>
<p>There may even be a reason–as with psychologists et al–that they felt they would benefit from such a proscriptive and prescriptive calling; as they say, no one could use this expertise more than they. </p>
<p>It is no surprise when this becomes evident to all as the treatment fails or no longer takes.</p>
<p>Right. He must have some sort of “psychological need” as my aunt was fond of observing. Interestingly, she also was annoying and slightly dotty.</p>
<p>Sex addiction is an issue for clergy-there are support groups and programs out there just for them, and there is no religious group that is exempt.
I have read, though no clue if it is accurate, that the internal conflict between orientation and religious beliefs both draws the person to more active religious practice, and causes a sort of split between the regular church going life and the acting out life.
The problem with Rev. H is his “regular” behavior was so anti-gay. Wasn’t there just a politician out in Washington state with this same anti-gay/secret life issue? You can’t know if it’s self hate sparking the preaching/voting etc or they think they are correct but personally exempt.
Some folks that act like that feel so superior that they think the rules they preach don’t apply to them. Some live in a darkness of self hate. Many just sort or split off even thinking of the other behaviors when not spinning out of control - as if someone else does them.
Again, this is trauma and addiction stuff, not like Jim McGreevey who led a semi-open gay life all along, hiding it for political and religious reasons. </p>
<p>btw and TOTAL conjecture -I always thought that Clinton went to this kind of treatment center post Ms. L. He sounded sort of AA afterwards.</p>
<p>I read here some people think he’s just gearing up for getting back to mega-church fund-raising kind of stuff again.</p>
<p>I also remember seeing a post saying he is getting a counseling degree.</p>
<p>If he stays out of the church, as it was indicated his 4 counselors thought he should do, he’s going to have to work hard to establish himself.</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see. I really wouldn’t be surprised if he became a star in blue movies. It doesn’t take much to think of some titles: Heavenly Massage Pulpit Fantasies Daddy’s Little Flock of Sheep</p>
<p>“Wasn’t there just a politician out in Washington state with this same anti-gay/secret life issue? You can’t know if it’s self hate sparking the preaching/voting etc or they think they are correct but personally exempt.”</p>
<p>Jim West former mayor of Spokane WA. Was recalled from office when it was disclosed he was attempting to trade sexual favors for city government jobs. I my opinion he was a gay pedophile, unlike the good minister who at least sought out homosexual experiences with like aged men, Mayor West worked the 16-18 year old leagues. The Mayor was in his mid 50’s. wrong even if he was hetero. He had a young man/boy thing. He died recently of cancer. </p>
<p>While in state legislature he was a open attacker of gay rights and issues. Kinda if I shout loud enough, no one will suspect.</p>
<p>“No, it doesn’t, unless you believe that’s it’s OK to morally condemn people of other religions.”</p>
<p>Actually I do believe it is OK to morally condemn people of other religions and judging from the number of folks hooting at Christian fundamentalists on this board I am not alone. In this country you have a right to say what you want and believe what you want but nothing requires that other folks not think you to be a total ass. The laws of the country protect you against discrimination in housing or on the job but it doesn’t require that people respect you. Do you respect Scientologists? How do you feel about Tom Cruise? You may think he is a great guy but I would venture to guess that most posters on CC don’t think too highly of him.</p>
<p>Not so much anymore. Some of the protection against discrimination in employment eroded during the Bush administration. Now agencies that receive “faith based” government funding can discriminate in who they hire with government money, including demanding that their employees follow a specific religion or have a specific sexual orientation. </p>
<p>They can also require their clients to participate in religious activities in order to receive services funded by taxpayer dollars. Some Catholics report that have had to decline or end badly needed services due to pressure to convert to Protestantism…at taxpayer expense.</p>
<p>I always wonder about the motives of adults who write laws like that. It’s one thing to write a law that says 14 is OK if the other person is 16,17, etc. But to write a law that says 14 is OK for a 40+ year old? Shudder. A law like this obviously isn’t being written for the benefit of 14 year olds.</p>
<p>Recently there was a case where a gym teacher was bringing under 18 girls from the HS to a motel to have sex with a man in his 30s. That was fine and dandy, no violation of the law. The only reason the two of them can be prosecuted at all is that they also gave the girls cigarettes and alcohol.</p>
<p>I’m tellin’ ya: he’s gonna end up in the movies, the kind that they do in Anaheim. Perhaps doing the kind that go both ways, or maybe the all-male ones…</p>
<p>“Do you respect Scientologists? How do you feel about Tom Cruise? You may think he is a great guy but I would venture to guess that most posters on CC don’t think too highly of him.”</p>
<p>Dislike/disrespect are very different from moral condemnation. If I think Tom Cruise is (1) engaged in political activities I believe to be destructive and (2) making a big fool out of himself, that’s quite different from condemning his religion on a moral basis. The singer Beck is a Scientologist, and I don’t give a hoot about it, because he isn’t doing (1) or (2).</p>
<p>“Actually I do believe it is OK to morally condemn people of other religions”</p>
<p>So, I’m curious, who do you condemn morally besides Scientologists? Jews? Wiccans? On what basis?</p>
<p>" So, I’m curious, who do you condemn morally besides Scientologists? Jews? Wiccans? On what basis?"</p>
<p>Polygamists for one, both the Mormom offshoots and the Muslim variety. Anybody who puts their women in a sack or mutilates their sex organs is morally reprehensible. Devil worshippers or anyone else who practices animal sacrifice or reads the entrails of animals. Snake handlers because they risk lives and seek to in effect tell the Almighty what he must do. Chistian Identity groups and the Nation of Islam because they are racists should I go on or do you get the general idea?</p>
<p>Wiccans and Scientologists I just consider fools. They are eligible for ridicule but not moral comdemnation.</p>
<p>“Attraction to post-pubescent teens is ebophilia.
Attraction to pre-pubescent children is pedophilia”</p>
<p>Er ah, thanks for the clarification? I feel much better about the guy now? I think actually in his case it came out he fit both categories as he met some of his “dates” while in the boy scouts and working with troubled youth. </p>
<p>Just an ick kind of guy, properly labeled or not, wouldn’t you say so?</p>