I’ve been thinking over the past few days about how often charges of hypocrisy get thrown around in here. I think that many times, the accusation is simply not true, and reflects a misunderstanding of what hypocrisy is.
The Haggard case comes to mind, of course. Is he a hypocrite? I say that he is not, necessarily. Is it hypocrisy simply to commit an action that one believes to be a sin? I don’t think so. To say that it is is to declare that you don’t believe any action is a sin, or that you yourself never commit sin, or that you’re a hypocrite yourself.
There’s a decent discussion of the question between Father Neuhaus and Robert Miller posted here: http://www.firstthings.com/
hy¡Epoc¡Eri¡Esy ¡Vnoun, plural -sies. 1.a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess. _____________________________________________________________________________________ I think your definition is correct only if you dont believe cheating on a spouse or homosexuality or using illegal drugs is amoral.
“To say that it is is to declare that you don’t believe any action is a sin, or that you yourself never commit sin.”
Actually, those who level the charge are mostly saying there is no such thing as sin, or even such a thing as right and wrong this side of murder.
Anyone who agressively advocates any moral position should expect to be attacked at such time as they offer proof they are not perfect. It goes with the territory these days.
But he lobbied Washington against gay marrage and was outspoken against gay rights. And I would speculate he spoke against it at the alter. All this while leading a hidden gay lifestyle. Isn’t that a little hipocritical?
Or, he has a wife and kids, butt screws guys. So he portrays himself as hetero, but secretly is homo. Isn’t that being a hypocrit?
I think your definition is correct only if you dont believe cheating on a spouse or homosexuality or using illegal drugs is amoral.
What? (I think you mean immoral, btw. Sorry to nitpick, it’s a pet peeve.)
Of course I believe that cheating on a spouse, homosexual behavior, and using illegal drugs is immoral. I think, for example, Haggard does, too. I don’t think, therefore, that he meets the dictionary definition you provided. Did he ever make a pretense to a particularly virtuous character? I don’t personally know, as I never heard him speak, but I doubt it. Do you think his statements that homosexual behavior is a sin were pretenses, that he doesn’t really believe that? I don’t think so- I think he really believes it is a sin. One that he’s guilty of.
“The Haggard case comes to mind, of course. Is he a hypocrite? I say that he is not, necessarily. Is it hypocrisy simply to commit an action that one believes to be a sin? I don’t think so. To say that it is is to declare that you don’t believe any action is a sin, or that you yourself never commit sin, or that you’re a hypocrite yourself.”
When a person says one thing and leads others to believe that thing, then does the opposite, that is hypocritical to me.
Personally, sin is a religious value of sorts. As I have no belief in a God, I also don’t believe there is sin in that sense.
So legal drugs - moral, illegal drug - immoral. So if the fucks in congress decide that pot is all of a sudden legal, it shifts moral status. I’m sorry, I don’t hang my beliefs on what lawmakers think is right or wrong.
But he lobbied Washington against gay marrage and was outspoken against gay rights.
But supported civil unions. (Just for the sake of accuracy and honesty.)
And I would speculate he spoke against it at the alter. All this while leading a hidden gay lifestyle. Isn’t that a little hipocritical?
Well, that’s my point. I don’t think that it is. Hypocrisy has an actual meaning, and it is not simply getting caught commiting an action which one believes or states to be wrong.
No problem on the correction. I am not an educated man.
I think Haggard put on the mask of a righteous man and wasnt righteous. That is what I read as the definition of hypocrisy. I think he preached living righteous from the pulpit, and all the time was sinning.
Do as I say, not as I do…That to me is the embodyment of hypocricy.
ps…had to look up the proper spelling of righteous…just for you
I think there are some words that people find particularly damaging and one of those words is hypcrite.
There seems to be a real aversion to be called that and to cause damage to a reputation, the best thing to do is label them hypocritical. It puts people on the defensive in a hurry.
If a non-religious person wants to smear someone of faith, they use that word. If you want to damage a politician, use the same word. It is being overused because it creates such an emotional response. I think people use it to challenge someone’s integrity and character.
Another word that seems to cause the same type of reaction is to label someone intolerant. People will scramble and backtrack to avoid both of the words.
I think it is hypocrisy. From wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn, this is their def:
an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have
I think he was pretending to have beliefs that he did not have. As opposed to K-Fed, who really thinks he can rap.
**I think Haggard put on the mask of a righteous man and wasnt righteous. That is what I read as the definition of hypocrisy. I think he preached living righteous from the pulpit, and all the time was sinning. **
I don’t know a lot about Haggard but I doubt he painted himself a righteous man. I have never met a Pastor who did.
Pastors don’t preach righteous because they expect others to live to their standards, they preach to live to biblical standards. Pastors understand that they, like everyone else are sinners and to fall into sin makes them human, not hypocrits.
I think he was pretending to have beliefs that he did not have.
If that’s true, then he is indeed a hypocrite. But I don’t think that’s true. Or at least I don’t really have any reason to think so.
You think that Haggard actually thinks homosexual sex is morally acceptable? Or that he thinks prostitution is OK? Or that he doesn’t think using meth is immoral? I guess that might be the case, and his entire ministry is just an act that has nothing to do with his beliefs, but is rather a show to bamboozle people and get rich, but I doubt it.
I think he really believes those things are all wrong, and he believes he’s guilty for having done them.
Do you think his statements that homosexual behavior is a sin were pretenses, that he doesn’t really believe that? I don’t think so- I think he really believes it is a sin. One that he’s guilty of.
I understand (or I think I do - you will likely correct me) that what you’re after here is separation of frank hypocrisy from run-of-the-mill weak human behavior. But it looks like by doing so you are staking out the position that hypocrisy is grounded solely in belief and never in action, so that action alone is never sufficient to justify the charge. I think that’s a tough sell, given enough bad behavior. At what point does weakness get so large that it is inseparable from belief? Ever? If Haggard had a tryst once a month, is it weakness? Once a week? Once an hour? Is he just getting weaker and weaker, or is he moving towards, if not belief, at least psychological accomodation with his increasing frequency?
I would guess that as a religious man you’d have to be able to separate belief from psychological accomodation. But in practical terms, surely a reasonable charge of hypocrisy could fit in there someplace.
Clearly, Haggard meets 2, unless you believe that his preaching and public positions were not in fact his stated beliefs.
Agreed. But with apologies to the good folks at Merriam-Webster, I think that’s a poor definition of hypocrisy.
Is there anyone who doesn’t at times act in contradiction to their stated beliefs and feelings? I think that if so, they must either think that there are no immoral actions, or that they themselves are perfect.
It could be argued that anyone leading a church as he did is putting on an appearance of virtue.
It can and is being argued. But I think it’s a specious claim. Church leaders do not typically make claims of being more virtuous than anyone else, as Casey mentioned. I think that sometimes, people assume that when someone advocates virtue, it’s equivalent to a claim of special personal virtue- a holier than thou attitude- and that just isn’t the case.
Give us an example of what you think to be hypocrisy.
Well, I think that if Haggard doesn’t really believe having homosexual sex, or using a prostitute, or taking meth, are wrong, he’s a hypocrite. Or if he thinks he’s somehow morally free himself to do those things, while other’s aren’t, he’s a hypocrite. But I don’t think that’s the case. It might be, but I don’t think so- I think he believes he’s committed immoral acts.
But it looks like by doing so you are staking out the position that hypocrisy is grounded solely in belief and never in action, so that action alone is never sufficient to justify the charge.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
At what point does weakness get so large that it is inseparable from belief? Ever?
I understand your point, but I’d say never, really. (Although I think that committing an act one thinks to be wrong so often and for so long might in fact lead one to the belief that it isn’t wrong, at least for the individual in question.) If the person continues to believe that the action is immoral, even while yielding to it often, I’d say that they’re not a hypocrite- they’re just trapped in sin. The key thing there is that they know or still believe it to be sinful, or immoral.
**in practical terms, surely a reasonable charge of hypocrisy could fit in there someplace. **
I don’t think so. I think, rather, that the charge of hypocrisy is the only practical accusation available for criticism. If you don’t like that fact that Haggard says homosexual sex is wrong, and he’s caught engaging in it, you can’t say that he’s wrong for the sex itself. You’re stuck with a charge of hypocrisy which is not, in probability, true. In other words, you can’t accuse him of sinful behavior, because you don’t believe, as he does, the behavior to be sinful.
“If you don’t like that fact that Haggard says homosexual sex is wrong, and he’s caught engaging in it, you can’t say that he’s wrong for the sex itself. You’re stuck with a charge of hypocrisy which is not, in probability, true. In other words, you can’t accuse him of sinful behavior, because you don’t believe, as he does, the behavior to be sinful.”
Haggard told people homosexual sex is wrong. In his beliefs as a Christian he knows homosexual sex is wrong. Yet as wrong as he believes it is and tells people it is, he engages in it himself. How can you not find this to be hypocritical?
For an analogy, you are a Christian. You believe strongly in your religion - at least that’s how you portray yourself. But if you were exposed as an atheist, would that be hypocritical?