[link|http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1554388,00.html|Ted Haggard] is the recently, ah, retired head of the National Association of Evangelicals, who stepped down the other day after vicious, baseless accusations that he'd purchased sex and crystal meth from a gay male hooker. Hard for us to imagine how one would squeeze these lemons for a cooling beverage, but that's because we're not former Bush speechwriter [link|http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NWZkNjE3YzhmNjhhMDk5YWQwYWM3NzMwNmMwODg1Yzk=|David Frum]:

A sensational but to-date unsubstantiated allegation has been hurled at a major American religious figure. On much of the left, the reaction is gleeful delight: See! He is no better than anybody else!

In my mind, however, this story highlights a widespread moral assumption that I have never been able to understand.

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his "real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

I might note that nowhere in the rest of the piece does Frum identify the gay coke-snorting, hooker-humping, morality-vilifying moral exemplar.

If Frum ever finds himself at loose ends and out of work he ought to consider his native Canada's Cirque du Soleil, which is ever on the lookout for gifted contortionists.

cordially,