Forgiveness Is No One Else's Business And Faith's Got Nothing To Do With It

I don't think so. Quite honestly, given the enabling that is done by the media, turning a blind eye to the corruption and rank hypocrisies that happen on a daily basis in Washington and around the nation by politicians and corporate elites, the media should be spending some serious time (long overdue) castigating itself for it's enabling that corruption.

The media has ignored it, turned a blind eye to the very real harm done to innocent American citizens. Not only that, it's lied to help those same corrupt interests to get away with their wrongs. It's gotten to the point that those same corrupt political, corporate and foreign interests feel entitled to not only get away with their wrongs, but to openly brag about it. That is the true definition of an enabler.

Elizabeth Edwards is not how Sally Quinn sought to define her, in fact, I well remember how Quinn is a woman who had an affair with a married man, and broke up his marriage. That makes her a hypocrite in my book. Quinn sought to embarass and degrade Elizabeth Edwards, and I believe she did that to help attack a couple who have been the rare voice speaking out for the poor and struggling in the US. This entire attack is pretty transparent, no one is deceived.

I will not judge John Edwards, from what I've read he's doing enough of that himself. But I will state that this entire onslaught by the corporate owned media, and the catty remarks made by others, including Hillary Clinton is disgraceful.

John and Elizabeth Edwards did NOT cheat the American people. I don't believe they were seeking the presidency to attain power, but to actually attempt to save our country and our people from the corruption that has ruled our country since the '80s, and I do include the corrupt Clinton years in that.

The Clintons always like to talk about 'hope', but they did more to squash hope for the working poor and struggling middle class. Their policies helped lay the tracks for half of what George Bush has been able to get away with. They decimated the economy with their dirty trade and backdoor deals. Bill Clinton signed a NAFTA treaty that he knew didn't meet the constitutional requirement of a 2/3's majority vote, but he signed it despite it not getting the votes to legally allow him to. The truth didn't matter to him, and it hasn't stopped him peddling influence ever since.

If you and others care so much about the truth, and corruption, why is it that no one demands Hillary Clinton answer some very important questions about her finances, and the contributions paid into her and her husband's foundations, by foreign nationals (who are not allowed to contribute to campaigns here) and her taking that money to fund her campaign?

Or about how her aide, Huma Abedin, a woman NOT of independent means, whose reported income is less than $25,000. per year, is able to purchase a condo in Washington, DC for $649,000. in September of 2006? Abedin's mother is in the employ of the Saudi government, and her brothers and cousins have connections to Islamic extremists. Tell me how it's not a possible embarassment, or threat for a top aide to a senator, who still technically is a candidate for the presidency (she only suspended her campaign and will have a roll call vote at the convention), to have the appearance of being funded, supported, on the payroll of some unknown entity, for reason unknown?

Tell me how that is so easily dismissed by those who claim to "report" in the public interest?

I believe the media jackals, like Sally Quinn owe Elizabeth Edwards and her family an apology, and in fact one to the people of the United States as well, for enabling economic devastation, the corruption and exploitation of our government.

It should be noted that the New Testament, the heavy weight in this issue, was written by and for people who had little or no part in shaping civic life and apparently expected the end of this world to come in their lifetime. Their concern was for their “own salvation” not how society would function or whether they should personally judge their civic rulers. Therefore any concern about how one’s “faith” should
cause them to judge the conduct of a politician could, in large measure, be a function of the political bias of the church they attend. Any debate as to forgiveness of people one has never met and does not know you is encouraging people to transform a random act into a personal offense.

Rather than blame the other for our anger we must accept that “you make me angry” does not make the
other responsible for our anger. We need to understand why we are offended and why someone’s action cause us pain, discomfort or dissappointment. Often, we have expected outcomes other than those experienced and want to blame others for that deficiency.

As to forgiveness becoming “destructive”, it could be framed this way: when one forgives because their “faith” says they “should” that person is allowing themselves to be hobbled by both dogma and the substitution of materialism for religion. This is similar to a young child being forced to say “I’m sorry” by a parent when the offender does not understand the complexities of the circumstance.

The question could be better asked: “At what point do we expect too much of others?” Rather than just accepting an apology on such a serious matter, Mr. Edwards may have asked: What am I supposed to do now? How do you expect me live with this? (What is our relationship? Can I trust you? Do you expect me to forget this has happened? How do we act as a family? How do I face my friends? What if it happens again?) The one offended has that right to ask and the offender has the obligation to answer. To quote
Thomas Szasz: “The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naïve forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.”

As far as Mrs. Edwards is concerned, should we judge her as being more reprehensible than George Bush(#41) who, knowing his son’s limitations, could have supported John McCain for President in the year 2000 but, as far as I know, didn’t? Have you ever heard anyone ask where was George 41 when America needed him? Did he let America down by his silence and assumed support of a son whose faults were well known by him? Do we need to forgive Bush 41 or is that an issue beyond the comprehension of those who wallow in stories of marital infidelity or those whose concern is to merely please a bean counter in the sky with displays of religiosity?

Dear E Favorite,

God makes His demand on His Creation. It does, after all, belong to Him and, as such, He has every right to demand what He will. He is sovereign, a concept fairly foreign to citizens of the USA. But God is love. In His love, He gave us free will, not creating us as automatons, and we – Adam, Eve and everyone since – have chosen to disobey. He could have left it there, but knowing that we are incapable of saving ourselves, and in the greatest display of love ever to occur, He sent His only son, Jesus Christ, to live the perfect, sinless life that we cannot and to incur God’s just wrath toward us by dying in our place. His promise to His people is that we will all share in the triumph of Christ’s resurrection and live forever in His presence.

I don’t believe God’s love or wrath to be aspects of a game. Christ came to earth the first time in love, peace and humility to seek and to save those who are lost. But His second coming will be in glory, majesty and might. Christ will then be the agent who brings God’s wrath upon all sinners who are not forgiven through faith in Christ and His work.

But it's one thing to forgive a spouse privately and quite another to join publicly in his effort to present himself as the perfect family man for political purposes.

Yet, if every political spouse did this, think of all the effective politicians who would not have been elected. Roosevelt, anyone?

Personally, I think women only have 50% of the responsibility for the relationship. Period.

More cynically, I'm wondering how long it will be before a highly-placed powerful woman in the political or financial world is caught with her skirt down in a puddle, and whether her husband is expected to play the same role for the cameras that wives are 'supposed to' play.

No one here, with the possible exception of Mary Cunningham, would look too good if our lives were examined under a microscope. None of us are perfect. Except for Mary.

Susan, I agree with you 100 percent.
I supported Hillary Clinton from the moment she announced, however, I have many friends who supported Edwards.
I haven't talked to them since all these revelations hit the news, but I can't help but believe they are disgusted, as am I.
This should terminate any political aspirations Mr. Edwards might have for the future.
Any decision to "forgive" Mr. Edwards, I leave in the hands of his wife, Elizabeth.
It is his marriage vows to her that he offended.
(He can thank his lucky stars he's not married to me.)
However, he violated a standard of public trust when he decided to try to become president.
These people simply must understand that if they wish to be considered, they need to maintain an upright life with their commitments intact.
This goes for both men and women in public office.
Some years ago, a Republican woman was caught in an assignation (I think her name was Chenowith, from one of the Western states, if I remember correctly) and that was the end of her political career.
And, it doesn't matter what the offense is -- let's say he was discovered to have embezzled money, or to have abused his employees, or to have cheated on his income taxes.
Those are the types of offenses which display a defiance of upright behavior.
Candidates need to understand we are giving them our support and our trust that they will fulfill their political promises in office.
The way they have lived their life says a lot about the quality of their character which, for newcomers on the political scene, is all we have to go on when we give them our support.

Wiglaf:

hello arminius,

i preferred serpents and dragons.

sincerely,
wiglaf
---------------------------
Ditto and amen.
---------------------------
Sick:

So, you're sick of the media coverage and yet you've found time to write twice about so it could be published in the media.

Next.
-------------------------------

Ditto. However, it's not Susan's fault here; she's just responding to the question. There are, as she says, bigger ones: Georgia, for instance, with its current problems, five ethnic groups living somewhat uneasily together, giant next door, and potential for greater disaster.
--------------------------------
But there are also odd and beautiful things in the universe, in the mind. Can't we find something else to discuss? Something in muted colors, perhaps, something subtle, quiet, beautiful?

Has anyone tried smudging?

Ron R, you say: "We humans are all incapable of the perfect obedience to His commandments that God demands."

But why would a loving God demand something from us that we are incapable of?

Then you say: "But God’s forgiveness, through the work of Christ, will turn aside God’s wrath from Sen. Edwards. You can’t do any better than that."

So maybe God isn't so loving after all? We need his son, Jesus, to turn aside his wrath?

I must say, Mr Mark's way is much less complicated. No need for an invisible, supernatural being with wrathful, demanding ways, who is mitigated by his nicer son. It sounds like a game of invisible good cop/bad cop.

Garyd:

God Saves whom he will. For them there is no need of forgiveness from God for their sin has been removed from them as far as the east is from the west.

All others s get to carry on as they currently do. We are here that God might demonstrate both his justice and his mercy. Mercy by it's very nature is not merited. It cannot be earned. Forgiveness in one sense is like that.

August 13, 2008 9:28 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Christian God in the Person of Jesus Christ forgives all who repent and ask for forgiveness, and take seriously the "sin no more."

In Islam, Allah does what he will.

I thought you were a Christian?

Pam - I figure these power brokers actually have gotten away with so much that no one ever finds out about that they think they can get away with anything.

What the public finally sees is a small part of what they've been up to.

So, you're sick of the media coverage and yet you've found time to write twice about so it could be published in the media.

Next.

God Saves whom he will. For them there is no need of forgiveness from God for their sin has been removed from them as far as the east is from the west.

All others s get to carry on as they currently do. We are here that God might demonstrate both his justice and his mercy. Mercy by it's very nature is not merited. It cannot be earned. Forgiveness in one sense is like that.

Mr. Mark,

You said, “Unfortunately, the Xian god ONLY forgives those who accept Jesus as their personal overseer, so no matter how contrite he is, and no matter how deeply he realizes he has wronged his wife, the Xian god offers NO forgiveness to Sen Edwards until and unless he grovels at the feet of Jesus.

The Xian god's love and forgiveness is totally conditional, that condition being: worship ME.”

You misunderstand how Christ forgives His people, namely, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (I John 1:9) Christ moves His people to confess our sins by His grace. His grace is given to us without condition.

You said, “We humans - in our own stumbling way - seem to be able to do so much better than that.

Why opt for Jesus's conditional forgiveness when its' in our capacity to do better on our own?”

We humans are all incapable of the perfect obedience to His commandments that God demands. At the heart of confession of our sins to Christ is humility – our recognition and admission that it’s not in our capacity to do well enough let alone better on our own. Christ led a perfect, sinless life so that the sins of His people might be forgiven. Elizabeth Edwards may well forgive the senator for his sinful folly, and that would be very good indeed, perhaps saving their marriage and restoring a peaceful life together. But God’s forgiveness, through the work of Christ, will turn aside God’s wrath from Sen. Edwards. You can’t do any better than that.

hello arminius,

i preferred serpents and dragons.

sincerely,
wiglaf

Beth: "I smell a rat somewhere, possible a Rove/Republican "dirty tricks" rat, to find a candidate's weakness and exploit it."

It's almost as conceivable that this was an ultimate dirty trick by the Dems to help Obama, who appears absolutely angelic in light of Edward's affair and the machinations of the Hillary campaign that emerged yesterday. And having adultery front and center in a presidential campaign where McCain is an admitted adulterer does him no favors, either.

I never supported Edwards' 2008 run for the presidency. He lost me when he failed to support equal rights for gays and based that position on his religious beliefs. I also felt that his VP run in 04 ruled him out for consideration this year. And, I found the timing of his Obama endorsement to be politically expedient by half.

Had Edwards left the campaign earlier, his votes would have gone to Obama, and the whole Hillary problem (she just won't go away, even now!) would have been marginalized and extinguished by mid-April at the latest.

Seen in retrospect, Edwards did a great disservice to his Party, a disservice mitigated only by the fact that he didn't win the nomination. Thank Thor for large favors!

Beth: "I smell a rat somewhere, possible a Rove/Republican "dirty tricks" rat, to find a candidate's weakness and exploit it."

So it's more conceivable that the inept, shadowy, vast right wing conspiracy built a scam and ran it successfully to trap Edwards in an elaborate honey trap. . . than that Edwards, like millions of other people just fell to the temptation of lust?

You said it best: "That doesn't excuse what Edwards did"

What he did, whether the lady was a GOP plant, a KGB uber-spy or even a low-rent prostitute.. the decision was made by Mr. Edwards himself to dabble with the naughty bits....
No need to drag this thing through a conspiracy theory. This sort of high-level dalliance is just way too common to require sophisticated plots to make it plausible.

DITLD,
I agree with you completely - I'll take privacy over power any day.

Not all are like us, though.

Beth writes:

"Forgiveness is up to God. What John Edwards did was wrong, and I feel very sorry for his wife and children. But only God knows what is in someone's soul."

Unfortunately, the Xian god ONLY forgives those who accept Jesus as their personal overseer, so no matter how contrite he is, and no matter how deeply he realizes he has wronged his wife, the Xian god offers NO forgiveness to Sen Edwards until and unless he grovels at the feet of Jesus.

The Xian god's love and forgiveness is totally conditional, that condition being: worship ME.

We humans - in our own stumbling way - seem to be able to do so much better than that.

Why opt for Jesus's conditional forgiveness when its' in our capacity to do better on our own?

A clarification: I never suggest that Elizabeth Edwards is in any way responsible for her husband's adultery. She is, however, responsible for agreeing to try to help him cover it up so that he could continue his presidential run. How two people, intelligent and politically sophisticated, could have thought this story wouldn't come out is a mystery. Apparently the drive for power, like sex, has the capacity to blind anyone to reality.

Forgiveness is up to God. What John Edwards did was wrong, and I feel very sorry for his wife and children. But only God knows what is in someone's soul.

I hope some enterprising investigative reporter will take a complete and careful look at the background and personal history of Rielle Hunter, aka Lisa Druck, and the "minister" who set up the meeting at the Beverly Hilton. I smell a rat somewhere, possible a Rove/Republican "dirty tricks" rat, to find a candidate's weakness and exploit it.

Rielle/Lisa did come out of nowhere in 2006 and slither into the Edwards campaign. Apparently no one in the campaign bothered to do a background check.

That doesn't excuse what Edwards did. His affair has taken all the attention away from the many worthwhile things he had to say about the economic situation in this country, where so many people are suffering.

Pam

One would assume that people with good judgement don't run for public office, period.

When the President sits on the toilet, a Secret Service guard must wait ouside, I assume, and if the President is momentarily delayed for some reason, then I assume that the Secret Service guard might knock on the door, just to make sure that everything is ok.

In my daily life, I am FREE to experience life as it comes, without being shadowed by Secret Service guards, body guards, reporters, and politcal handlers. I think that I would rather die than lead the kind of circumscribed and planned life that a President is bound to lead.

DITLD,
In your river analogy, J.E. saw the rapids coming and threw his life vest overboard.

And just to clarify something in my last post - when I said it wasn't right to hold public figures to a higher standard, I was speaking of sexual self-control only. I hope that people hold office-seekers to higher standards in many areas - one of which is judgment.

Susan,

Like you, I initially supported Edwards because his views were the most liberal of the threee candidates. As you say, he raised issues the others didn't, and, equally important, he persisted in efforts to get them to state their positions.

Speaking simply as a citizen, IMO, Elizabeth Edwards' decision to forgive her husband is none of my business. Nor can I assign even partial blame to her for encouraging her husband to run. As far as I can see, the responsibility from beginning to end rests exclusively with him.

The heart of the issue is that a scandal would have errupted, which, all things being equal, would have been cost the Democrats the presidency, as you point out. Americans have no tolerance for this sort of thing notwithstanding the number not only of candidates, but of presidents, who have had affairs, the latter while in office. What, at one time, was a private Edwards family matter, no longer was, and Edwards either didn't see this or chose not to.

As for humiliation, I don't see any going to Mrs. Edwards any more than I did to Hillary Clinton. It was their husbands, not they, who were adulterers.

Autonomous writes:

"While it's true that McCain's indiscretions are old news."

But the LATEST claims of adultery by McCain aren't really old news, they have not been fully investigated by the media, and - unlike Edwards' infidelity, which appears to have been a simple case of him getting is rocks off - McCain's infidelity was a quid-pro-qou for him submitting legislation that was favorable to clients managed by his paramour.

And, yes, the media give Teflon John a free ride on everything, from his HUGE foreign policy gaffes to his clueless-ness on domestic issues to his tasteless antics at Sturgis, where he offered his current wife up as a contestant in a nudie beauty contest where participants engage in simulated sex on stage with the "hard riders." Why should adultery be any different?

DITLD,
I agree with everything you said and see exactly how it applies to indiscretions committed *after* one has been elected (to whatever). Probably the very fact of being elected is such an ego massage that one might think himself invincible.

But in John Edwards's case, he had not yet even announced for the presidency. Could he not learn from the mistakes of others? Why run, knowing that there was every chance that this would come out? He was paying the woman for her silence. Such things are traceable, and presidential finances are heavily scrutinized. Not to mention that tabloids are often willing to pay even more than the blackmailee.

And why did Elizabeth actively encourage him to run when she knew about it? Did she not realize that revelation would inevitably subject her to intense public humiliation? Hasn't she watched all the obviously miserable wives standing silently by the podium while their husbands confess?

I'm not saying that it's right to hold public figures to a higher standard than Joe Blow down at the widget factory, but in reality, the public does, and always has. Knowing this, shouldn't one make a choice? Give up the ambitions, or keep it zipped until you're out of office? Isn't example after example of men who thought they were too smart to be caught, being caught, just a *little* bit instructive?

Did anyone ever stop to think that life is like going down a river in a boat, a river that you have never been on before, and do not know where it is going, nor any of its geography?

Life is like that; running for President is like that.

Sometimes, the river may be calm and easy to navigate; maybe you will like those times, or maybe you will be bored.

Sometimes, the river may become rough, and even turn into violent rapids. When that happens, you struggle to stay afloat; you do not plan or strategize; you do not take out a pen and notepad, and make plans on what to do; you react from moment to moment to save yourself, and to keep form capsizing. Some people may think this is thrilling and exciting; others may think it is terrifying.

But anyway, that is what you get, when you do down a river; it is alot like life.

While it's true that McCain's indiscretions are old news, McCain is typically given the same pass by the MSM that Bush received for 8 years - to keep up with how widespread this media phenomenon is, I recommend Eric Alterman's column on the Media Matters blog.

Not much negativity ever surfaces or sticks to McCain, thanks to this pervasive lack of real journalistic coverage. Slanted news coverage is a real problem for everyone that pays attention.

As we see in the news today, the Kerry Swiftboaters are already gearing up for Obama, so when the neocons get ahold of a nasty little tidbit on Edwards as the present campaign heats up, they'll make every effort to find a way to smear the entire democratic party by implication - and certainly Obama in particular.

This was clearly the one and only reason that Clinton was ever impeached - in hopes of both tainting and compromising the entire democratic party by association. Karl Rove is actively working for McCain, and is currently making the rounds on the Fox News circuit - how will he convert this Edwards gem into something far more damaging? Stay tuned.

Should we assume that Edwards and his wife didn't understand the amoral wiliness of the RNC, or the predilections of the TV-addicted voting public for scandalous nuggets of 'character failure' in their celebrities and public officals? That would not be giving Edwards much credit....

The collective attention span of voters is notoriously short - and their interests are typically of the self-centered kind. If there's any way to extend the lifespan of this mini-scandal and match it up with Obama's alleged hyperbolic 'unsuitability' for office that's being pandered about by Rove and the McCainites, we're going to see it now.

You're political foes should determine your present and future behavior, at least in some measure. Remember that old saying, 'keep your friends close by, and keep your enemies closer'.

Walk the Talk or don't run for leadership positions!!!

Susan Jacoby

The key phrase in your esssay is this:

"...given the relentlessness of the media in pursuit of sex stories and the childish prurience of the American public about sexual misconduct..."

People don't want to hear about health care, inflation, war in Russia, genocide in Darfur; that takes too much effort; they want to hear about John Edwards's sex scandal. That's the sad truth; that is the world we live in; that is the down side of democracy.

For Arminius, your Grover Cleveland reference just backs up my claim, that his has been going on since the beginning of human history.

Pam said:

"I understand that politicians are human, and subject to all the same temptations that afflict people in general, but surely they must realize that in a a life lived in the public spotlight, it is so much more difficult to keep anything private."

But that is what makes them human; after all that is what they are, and they, like us all, live their lives with the firmly held belief that their secrets will remain secret. Just because a man is running for President does not mean that he has some kind of "super-human" widsom that would make him act "better" than other people; he will in fact, act just like anyone eles, just like you or me.

Pam also referred to Mrs Edwards "...sitting on a ticking time bomb..." But I have sat on a ticking time bomb (scandal-wise) without saying anything? Why? Because I did not have courage and could not think of what to say. And while I sat worrying, "boom!" it went off. That is how our lives unfold. Mrs. Edwards is just a woman, just a wife, like other women, like other wives, not a special person gifted with extra-human wisdom, but just one of us, who, perhaps, did not know what to do, or perhaps, hesitated too long to make up her mind, and then, did not know how to back track. I have had all those experiences, myself.

Anonymous wants to know, why the media does not focus more on McCain's infidelity and adultery, when he traded in his old wife for his new wife. That is assuming that people care about this stuff for reasons of morality. But that is not why they care; they care for the reasons that Susan Jacoby cited,

"...the relentlessness of the media in pursuit of sex stories and the childish prurience of the American public about sexual misconduct..."

McCain's adultery is OLD news; it is not current enough to be titillating to the public; people won't get a "charge" out of thinking about it and discussing; it is not juicy enough to get people's minds off of the high cost of gas; and so this story just is not going to fly.

First, great essay, Susan. You have a gift - not always pleasant! - of cutting to the truth.

OK, here is something I just posted on Sally Quinn's blog on the same subject. There is a bit of a firestorm there, and I suspect one will erupt here.

OK, everybody, calm down! Time for a history lesson.

The time is 1884. Grover Cleveland, Democrat, is running for president. Suddenly all the newspapers explode with a scandal: Cleveland had an affair with a woman, and she had a baby. Hooo boy! Looked bad for the Dem's candidate. So what did Grover tell his staff to do? TELL THE TRUTH! That was done, and the scandal blew over. Cleveland won the election. It did help that the paternity of the child was uncertain, but Cleveland took full blame. Also, Cleveland was a bachelor at the time - he got married as president.

Something to be learned here, maybe?

Susan -

Excellent overview of the situation - I once supported Edwards myself in the early going. You'd think that the Bill Clinton business would have served as a cautionary tale for democrats and a word to the wise that would hold public office...you don't philander without eventually getting caught. You will not be the exception to the rule.

So Edwards and by extension his wife, violated the public trust by sweeping it under the rug. Affairs in the private sector are one thing - among men and women that would be president, it's another matter all together. Ambition seems to be driving every political train, regardless the consequences of past reckless behavior.

Under different circumstances and with Edwards as the dem candidate, the White House would have faded in the distance like a train whistle. Now perhaps the press should re-focus on McCain, and his similar offenses. But will they? Not likely.

Good essay, Susan.

I shouldn't be surprised anymore about political scandals, I suppose, but somehow I still am. Don't these people read the newspapers? Don't they see the utter shame and degradation of those who get caught, and the misery of their families?

I understand that politicians are human, and subject to all the same temptations that afflict people in general, but surely they must realize that in a a life lived in the public spotlight, it is so much more difficult to keep anything private.

I can only assume that the ego required for someone to run for high office is also the kind that makes them think that they, unlike all the others, are too smart to be found out.

BTW, I don't let Elizabeth off the hook, either. She sat silently by while he ran, knowing full well that he, and by extension the party, was sitting on a ticking time bomb.

Good thing he didn't get the nomination.