I stand corrected on the details of the process by which David repented and was forgiven. That said, the actual events as set forth in the Bible only make Gov. Sanford's use of that story more inappropriate, not less. David had to pay a price for his misdeeds. That price was the death of his first son with Bathsheba. And pleading with God, fasting, and praying did not persuade God to spare the child's life.

Let me be clear: The concept of God killing David's child to punish him for killing Uriah is extremely problematic for me. I'm not a fundamentalist; I do not take the Bible as a literal model for human justice, or as a not-to-be-questioned instruction book for how to live one's life. The only reason I'm talking about it here is because, if Mark Sanford is going to apply the biblical story of King David to his own situation, then he should be honest about the parallels, or lack thereof. And the truth is that there is no reasonable comparison between God sending Nathan to force David to confront his own misdeeds and then face real consequences for them, and Sanford forgiving himself hours after he was caught committing adultery and misappropriating public funds by announcing his decision to stay governor and “put his lapses” behind him.

Because this is such a interesting story and one of the first uses of parable and because David wrote Psalm 51 in repentance… I'd like to clarify:

David did repent and was forgiven.

Absalom was not David and Bathsheba's first born son. Absalom's mother was Maachah (or Maacah). David and Bathsheba's first born son did die a week after his birth, becoming sick after Nathan left David and died before being named.

Nathan told the story that brought about David's repentance.

David did repent deeply *after* Nathan was sent to him and told the parable (one of the first parables told) about the two men, one rich and one poor and the poor man's only beloved little lamb that was taken by the rich man to feed a traveler. (2 Samuel 12) After hearing Nathan's story, David was angry and said, 'As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb four-fold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.' David didn't realize that the story was about himself. Nathan listens to David's outrage and then Nathan tells David that David is that man and David repents deeply as evidenced by Psalm 51.

Psalm 51 written by King David is a Psalm of Repentance which is introduced and begins:

To the choirmaster. A Psalm of David, when Nathan the prophet came to him, after he had gone in to Bathsheba
1 Have mercy upon me, O God,
According to Your lovingkindness;
According to the multitude of Your tender mercies,
Blot out my transgressions.
2 Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity,
And cleanse me from my sin.
3 For I acknowledge my transgressions,
And my sin is always before me.

Yes, I was very lucky (luck plus the fact they had to add two shows because of the incredible demand). His poetry is on a shelf next to my desk, too. Resting between e.e. cummings and Shel Silverstein.

FWIW: Here's a review and some great pictures.

No, that's not what Sanford did. He made a mistake (actually, he made multiple mistakes, and very serious ones) and then looked to the Bible to try to excuse those mistakes. You don't correct mistakes as serious as the ones Sanford committed by pointing to a Bible passage and interpreting that passage to mean you can just put everything you did behind you the day after you're caught red-handed.

The point isn't whether Sanford is saying he's going to have his lover's husband killed and then marry her. First of all, there is nothing in the biblical story itself to indicate that King David “put his lapses behind him” or had the intention of doing so. In marrying Bathsheba after having her husband killed, he rather continued lapsing — he didn't put them behind him. Plus, God did not consider David's lapses past and gone because he took David and Bathsheba's first-born son, Absalom. The atonement was forced upon David; he did not show any willingness to atone on his own.

Second, the offensiveness of Sanford's analogy is not simply in the grandeur or biblical/historical importance of the individual to whom Sanford compared himself. Sanford is interpreting King David's behavior to mean that he was “putting his lapses behind him,” and apart from the fact that that interpretation is not really supported by the text, there is also the arrogance of Sanford's suggestion that he can “put his lapses behind him” simply by saying so and then holding on to his position of political power. By analogizing himself to King David he is, first, suggesting an enormous level of arrogance on David's part and, second, identifying himself with that arrogance.

Tell me: How can a man who cheated on his wife over a period of at least a year, then continued to lie to her and betray her by continuing the affair after she found out about it and told him to end it, then lied to the entire population of South Carolina and his own gubernatorial staff, deceiving them, putting them in, to say the least, a very awkward position, and leaving the state of South Carolina leaderless for what, if his plans had gone as intended, ten full days, put those “lapses” behind him the day after he is caught? What “lapses” is he “putting behind him,” exactly? The affair itself, or the fact that up until the very last minute that he could do so, he was still lying about it to his wife and his staff, only admitting to it and cutting short his “vacation” when his lies caught up with him? Is the “lapse” he is putting behind him the fact that he would still be with his lover right this minute if he had not been seen at the airport getting on a plane to Argentina?

And how does keeping his powerful political position constitute “putting his lapses” behind him? You put your lapses behind you AFTER you have atoned for them to the people you have hurt and/or harmed — not 24 hours after your disgraceful behavior is discovered and before you have done any of the work necessary to even begin to say you and your family are ready to put the “lapses” in the past.

dr.e

Well, it's kind of easy to “put your lapses behind you” when you've had sex with someone else's wife, impregnated her, tried to deceive her husband into coming home from war to sleep with her so he will think the baby is his, arranged for her husband to be killed when he won't cooperate, and then married the dead husband's wife. Right?

you are wrong. Hypocrisy, to quote wikipedia: Hypocrisy is the act of pretending that one has beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities or standards that they do not actually have; this is usually done in order to mask their actual motives or feelings; falseness.

The term hypocrite is widely misused. Many persons state that hypocrisy is the action of 'not practising what you preach'. It is easy to see the resemblance, and completely understandable why there has been widespread confusion. However, this, like many others, is an incorrect definition

so, we may know that something is wrong and say that that thing is wrong but we may still do it. That doesn't make us a hypocrite.

Sanford would only be a hypocrite if he didn't actually believe that adultery was wrong but said that he believed it was wrong. There is no indication that this is the case.

OK, good comment. I decided to try the same thing as you- how many commandments he violated (and I'm going to stretch it, like you did).

I come up with:

-Adultery (obviously)
-Covet (is the woman married?)
-Steal (from the taxpayers to fund his trip)
-Honor mother/father (He does claim to be a family values man. I think lying probably falls under this commandment, which I interpret as a broad code to live honorably, thereby honoring the parents who raised and taught you how to live.
-Keeping Sunday holy (he was doing the above, in part or in whole, on a Sunday, and let's not forget that he skipped out on Father's Day, I find this less of a stretch than you.)
-No idols (some of those e-mails make me think he worshipped her, but I'll consider this a stretch)

So the four we're missing:

-Murder
-Bearing false witness against a neighbor
-Using God's name in vain
-No other gods

Does Sanford get extra points for committing these together? How about extra points for committing one in order to achieve another (such as stealing so he could commit adultery)?

In Dante's Inferno, Sanford makes it all the way to the eighth circle.

And of course Sanford has violated the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

I am a sinner

Democrats are good people

Republicans are good people

Democrats and Republicans both make mistakes

Both Democrats and Republicans are God-fearing people, have moral values, have family values

Having said all that, let me very carefully state my case, (I know it's rather long):

When politicians, government officials, spokesperspons, and pundits of a political party claim to have exclusive rights or title to such moral values, family values and “God-fearfulness,”; use such an alleged monopoly to lord over, preach, malign, demonize and just clubber the hell out of those of the other political party—not just politicians, officials, etc., but the total membership of the party–as being amoral, having no family values and not being God-fearing; and then, time and time again, violate those very same principles and virtues, I believe that's called hypocrisy. But I may be wrong…

That's all I am saying.

I am not calling all Republicans hypocritical or evil; I am just calling out those party leaders,politicians, officials, etc., who have made those principles planks in their ideological platform and then happen to fall through those (rotting) planks themselves,

Furthermore, any Democratic politicians who preach other virtues, accuse Republicans of not possessing thiose virtues and then trample those virtues themselves are Hypocrites, too!

As I have said before,I truly believe that all Americans, Republicans, Democrats, or whatever, share virtues and failings equally, including politicians. However, when politicians of either party, or the party itself, use such virtues or failings to vilify the entire opposition, it is not only hypocritical, it’s just wrong.

And, yes, Democratic politicians have been guilty, too.

Well. Sanford is only trying to correct those mistakes because he was caught. His affair (funded by taxpayers) had been going on for some time. Sanford believes he can redeem himself by quoting the Bible. Apparently he only believes in the Bible when it is politically expedient. When Sanford's getting a little bang bang on the side at taxpayer expense while lying to everyone he's happy to ignore the teachings of the Bible.

Really the issue I have with Sanford is his hypocrisy. He has run as a “family values” and religious man. He also supported impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

Eliot Spitzer, the Democrat did it right when he was caught. It took two days for him to announce his resignation. The statement he gave is spot on. As a public servant he should do what is in the best interest of the people. Spitzer realized he had lost the trust of the people.

Spitzer: “I cannot allow for my private failings to disrupt the people's work. Over the course of my public life, I have insisted – I believe correctly – that people take responsibility for their conduct. I can and will ask no less of myself. For this reason, I am resigning from the office of governor.”

The issues with both Sanford and Spitzer are not about sex. Sure it started with the sex, but it's about being effective in office and about trust.

Let Sanford quote the Bible to his wife because the sex part of it is between the two of them. And that just shows that Sanford doesn't get the other reasons why he should resign. Sanford is now trying to redeem himself in the eyes of the public by quoting the Bible, believing that his only fault is the sex part.

By the same token, Bill Clinton very publicly cloaked himself in religion after being outed on the Lewinsky scandal, seeking 'spiritual consultation” from several clergy including Jesse Jackson. Both parties are hardly perfect in avoiding scandal or in rushing to use religion when it suits them.

To be clear, I think Sanford should resign. You can't just leave your constituents high and dry. But the implication that the GOP is somehow unique in these issues is just more partisan BS.

Glee? Pot, kettle, black…

Agreed, the celebratory attitude expressed by a few isn't entirely appropriate. That said, when republicans work so hard to portray themselves as the party of morality and family values, they set themselves up for those reactions. Falls from grace inevitably occur, and hypocrisy by it's nature isn't especially user friendly. I truly feel some sympathy for the man, afterall, each of us is human and susceptible to human failings, and each or us must know that love can be a powerful incentive – for good and sometimes ill. Soulful apologies are well and good, but if they turn into rationalization, spin, or avoidance of accountability, then much of the sympathy is bound to evaporate. The line between the public and private lives of politicians used to be respected more in the past. I'm not convinced that our current fascination with knowing absolutely everything about public officials is such a great thing.