Praise for Sinning Done Right, Part Deux

Back in 2012, I wrote an essay called Praise for Sinning Done Right, that frankly, got me in a lot of trouble. It wasn’t about praising sin or explaining how to sin. It was merely praise for two people who had the guts to react to their own humiliating public sin in the right and proper way; that is, the Christian way.
Once again, I find myself unable to be silent as Bristol Palin confessed to the world a few hours ago that she was pregnant, out of wedlock, for the second time. Tomorrow, half the liberal world of punditry will be wagging their tongues in delight as they gloat over the moral failures of one of their very favorite targets.

To hell with those weasels. I say, God bless Bristol for handling this the way a godly Christian woman should, and I praise her for doing it bravely. What else could her parents ask for? I could ask for no more if she were my daughter. Until a month ago she was engaged to Dakota Meyer, a US Marine and a war hero. Apparently, as we now know, that engagement involved a little (slightly) pre-marital sex. Shame on them. As she put it, the fact that the engagement failed and she is now left pregnant is a “huge disappointment” for herself and for her family. Yes it is. Extra points for not denying the obvious facts, Bristol. Bless you for not distorting the truth in order to shield yourself from judgment as you face it with a bowed head and a steely disposition. You are a good example for untold numbers of women who, despite their best intentions, found themselves with a less than ideal outcome on the road to happily-ever-after.

And here’s something more, from her blog post: “At the end of the day there’s nothing I can’t do with God by my side…” I don’t know about you, but I know lots of people who take a friggin’ long time to get past their faith crisis after a moral failure like this. But here she is, making a statement of faith right out of the gate. And I believe her. She’s shown in the past that this is not a temporary thing. Good for her. She’ll need it in coming days as she’s called s-words and c-words and words not even imagined yet by civilized people. But the hardest one, and the most untrue, will be the h-word. For she is no hypocrite. She has desired only what God wanted for her, and tried mightily to make it so. The first time she was let down by a world-class idiot. This time, no one knows the cause, but even if it were her own pride or other sin that caused the failure, hypocrisy was nowhere in the equation, and so more’s the shame for them that call her that.

All I have to say is God be with you, Bristol. And well done. You faced it quick and you faced it right, and that’s better than most people in the public eye can say these days. And worth something. May others learn from you, and may you be comforted a little in your grief, my Dear. And may you and Dakota remain open to the change of heart that God may yet bring to you both, now that everything has changed.


Filed under Morality

9 responses to “Praise for Sinning Done Right, Part Deux

  1. Grunt, all due respect, I couldn’t disagree more. Maybe we can forgive her dual pregnancies (seventy times seven and all that …), but of course the woman’s a capital-H Hypocrite.

    After her first unwed pregnancy, per Wikipedia, “In May 2009, at age 18, Palin began working with The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, to inform young people about the negative consequences of teenage pregnancy.” “Also in May 2009, Palin was named a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Ambassador for the Candie’s Foundation, a teen pregnancy prevention organization that is a division of the Candie’s clothing brand,” for which she was paid more than $262.000 in that single year by Candie’s in an obvious marketing campaign.

    She said “Parents warn their children about the mistakes they made so they are not repeated. Former gang members travel to schools to educate teenagers about the risks of gang life. Recovered addicts lecture to others about the risks of alcohol and drug abuse. And yes, a teen mother talks about the benefits of preventing teen pregnancy.” Also “Birth control needs to be used effectively each and every single time if you’re gonna be having sex.”

    Grunt, she is the very dictionary definition of hypocrite, collecting literally hundreds of thousands of dollars and participating in myriad multi-level marketing campaigns against unwed pregnancy, while setting us up for her SECOND unwed pregnancy.

    But let’s ignore the hypocritical aspects … do you personally know any young woman who’s had two different children from two different baby daddies without ever being married? I know I don’t. At our most charitable, it’s … unusual, and bespeaks of someone willing to talk the talk (and cash the checks) without walking the walk. Hers is a “convenient” God and faith.

    So okay, people make mistakes. Those people don’t assume the false facade of spokesperson, but whatever. Bristol’s been on “Dancing With the Stars” … TWICE! She’s “authored” a biography, been a reality show star and guest, participated in a bar altercation or two, moved here, moved there, done this, done that. She’s a regular butterfly, flitting wherever cameras are rolling and checkbooks are being opened. She’s Paris Hilton from a few years back, a roving entrepreneur.

    I understand it’s more fun being famous than, say, working as a dental assistant. But Bristol, honey, your life choices have been horrible. Maybe a pedantic fealty to the prosaic would do us all some good.

    P.S. I voted for Palin enthusiastically, and until she went altogether off the rails about a year ago I continued to defend her as Freedom’s Voice. Now I see the whole family’s been leveraging us for media stardom all along.


    • solaratov

      With all due respect, I must disagree most vehemently with you. In the first place, simply because one is a “spokesperson” for abstinence – or anything, for that matter – does not mean that one is elevated beyond the temptation of normal passion and desire and “decisions” made in the heat of passion.
      I just don’t see that Bristol is a hypocrite because she had unprotected sex with someone she loved/loves. She probably based her decision on factors such as time-of-the-month and the impending planned nuptials. These factors, of course, are the same factors that other young women have used millions of times before…and gotten pregnant.
      Yes. She should have known better – in fact, *does* know better – and passion is no excuse. But she’s human and subject to the same mistakes as any other human.
      None of that makes her a hypocrite. She made the mistake – but she did not make it alone No one has yet mentioned that her fiance, Dakota, should have had the foresight – and, indeed, the common courtesy – to have prepared himself by having a condom or two in his pocket (they don’t take much room).
      I just keep coming back around to being unable to grasp the convoluted “logic” that drives people to brand Bristol as a “hypocrite” for being completely human and making a mistake. I understand that you are disappointed in her action and the resulting out-of-wedlock pregnancy. I am too. But I’m not going to call her names because of totally human actions.
      At least she has the guts to stand up and say that she made the mistake and the decency to apologize to those who expected better of her and whom she let down. People who don’t know her and are not part of her family – but who do listen to what she says and use her words to teach their own children. But her pregnancy does not in any way negate the message that she has shared. Indeed, her pregnancy re-enforces that message. Abstinence is the only 100% sure method of avoiding unplanned pregnancy. That is still true; and she can certainly still teach that.
      And, with God’s help, she and her new child will come through all of this and be just fine in their own lives. I believe that her relationship with God will help and strengthen her so that she’ll be able to withstand all of the condemnation and name-calling that will ensue – much of it from people whose own lives leave them no room to condemn the actions of others.

      As far as your disenchantment with the rest of the Palin family…if you put people on a pedestal, you leave yourself open to disappointment every time. People are human, subject to human foibles; and it is painful to find that they really are just like us.


      • Bristol was never a spokesperson for abstinence, she disputed any claim of that. She was a spokesperson for using protection during sex. Which she didn’t do. Twice. Ergo, hypocrite.

        I’m not disappointed with her serial unwed pregnancies. What difference does it make to me? I’m not even disappointed she’s a hypocrite, I’m just disputing the errant notion she didn’t preach one thing, for obscenely ridiculous money, and practice another. Of course she did, the proof is gestating in her tummy. How is this even open to debate?

        Your discussion of my “disenchantment with the rest of the Palin family” brings to mind two questions: (1) Back in 2008 did you not believe Sarah was perhaps this nation’s last, best hope for restoration of America’s values and integrity? Do you feel she’s fulfilled any part of that great promise since then, in between reality shows? and (2) is trusting in a politician equivalent to “putting them on a pedestal?” Should we then not believe in anything or anybody to avoid disappointment? I never thought she was Superwoman, but I was at least hoping for Jeff Sessions or Phyllis Schlafly. Instead we got the conservative Kardashians.


        • Kelli, thanks for being courageous and speaking your mind, BTW.

          I think you might have been snookered into accepting the liberal’s redefinition of a hypocrite. But I could be wrong. It all hinges on her intent, which you claim is not genuine, and I claim the evidence all points to her being completely genuine. Which is right? First, let’s banish the liberal’s definition.

          You claim the definition is preaching one thing and doing another. Wrong. The word comes to us from the Gospels where Jesus very clearly refers to a group of corrupt, non-genuine fakers who only preach for show and don’t even believe their own words in their hearts. As a consequence, they don’t act on the belief they espouse. Libs routinely throw the hypocrite word even if the target firmly believes his own preaching or moral stand but merely fails to live up to it completely. This accusation is especially heinous if the teaching was legit in the first place and the target never sought to aggrandize himself or exclude himself from his preaching. In such case? NOT a hypocrite.

          When did Bristol ever claim to be perfect? Like Sol said, it was the opposite, and that was the whole point of her example as a spox. Did the money magically invalidate that? No. The money was well-spent because she was the most vivid example they could find. She did her job. Is $300k a lot compared to, say, the $600k that Chelsea Clinton got for a few minutes of airtime on NBC?

          But back to your claim: She preached against unprotected sex, and she failed to do so, herself, twice. This is the liberal definition of hypocrite, as I explained. It is in no way the true definition, as Sol explained. It could only make her a true hypocrite if her actions are solid evidence of her intent being corrupt. Is that true? Your argument there is extremely weak. Like everyone else, you point to her being in the public eye too much. Um, weak. She got pregnant twice out of wedlock. Both times, she bore every speck of responsibility for it, as outlined by Solaratov. THAT’s where the rubber hits the road, Lady. That’s the voluntary, conscious part. Like Sol, I fail to see any weight in your evidence for her lack of sincerity. Perhaps you see it in her eyes. Perhaps you’ve followed her a lot better than we have, and your judgment is better on the matter. That could be. But with the info I have, I must disagree. Are you really going to tell me that you see total failure in a young woman who slips up and gets pregnant with her fiancé US Marine war hero regardless of her trying REALLY HARD not to, just like EVERYONE ELSE. You think she did it on purpose? Because she just wanted to thumb her nose at all the suckers who listened to her? I don’t see it.


        • Another comment on the Palin family angle. I ain’t sayin’ Bristol isn’t a total pain in the ass. I’d say, from the party-fight story and the fact of her failing 2 near-marriages that there’s a good chance of that. Moral aspect? Not much. Yeah, she should probably get that under control. So should 85% of all American women. As for Sarah, I do not, nor have I ever, understood a single word of the vast criticism against her. Maybe that’s my fault, but I have listened to it, and besides being largely invalid from a critical standpoint, it usually seems to reveal more about the accuser than it does about her. What is it about Sarah that brings out the knives? My poor, lunatic liberal aunt was driving through Alaska with some of my other relatives, and she made them wait hours while she stalked the Palins, so obsessive is her hate for the family. We really should have that aunt committed.


          • Okay Grunt, let me see if I’m understanding you: Bristol is like the alcoholic who swears off liquor and joins AA, but relapses again and again, They honestly intend to go sober, but their will power isn’t sufficient to the task. Is that it? Yeah, I couldn’t call them a hypocrite, but neither would I elect them as a spokesperson for sobriety.

            Many years ago I was disallowed membership into a Presbyterian church because I was shacking up with my paramour. I didn’t blame them in the least; I was actively engaged in sin by their (and Biblical) definition. But I don’t remember making PSAs for abstinence at the time, I couldn’t in good conscience do that (well, that and nobody asked me …). Do wutcha want … live yer life … but fer gawd sake, at least everybody TRY to make your private and public persona be in relative harmony.

            I’ll tell you when the bloom finally left the rose for me with Sarah, is when I recently saw her speech on C-Span at the Western Conservative Summit. It was a cutesy talking-points wink-wink nudge-nudge delivery unbecoming a commencement address, let alone a serious speech from a Veep candidate. No substance whatsoever, just vague generalities about America and Obama. I was left thinking, “Five years and you’ve still not found the time to put any substance on these hoary cheerleading slogans?”

            But what else is new? Whom HAVEN’T we been misled by in this century? (Honestly, maybe only Obama — he did vow to transform America)


            • I think I get you. And I really don’t get the practice of denying church membership because of stuff like that. My wife hates that even worse than I do. She changed denominations once because of divorced women being driven out of her United Baptist church for being ‘sinners’. I can see why that kind of thing could make someone very sensitive to public hypocrisy.

              But you have to be very careful not to plunge off the other side of the dock. For example, I’m trying to grasp why you’re so comfortable making this very public exhortation (preaching) about all of us keeping our public and private personas in harmony. Isn’t that awfully dangerous? You know, in case one of us observes a glitch in your behavior now? We might even call you a hypocrite, and it seems like it would be pretty easy to observe some little discrepancy in your statement and your own behavior. We’d be wrong to do so, of course, because that would be careless to use the extremely loose and liberal definition of hypocrisy to accuse you thusly. Obviously, you really feel that way, and if you make a mistake, it’s only because it’s very difficult to strictly adhere to your advice.

              Do you see what I mean? Bristol merely preached to be sexually responsible – something which is very difficult for a young woman. That’s good advice, still, regardless of how many times we fail at it.

              I know a young woman from Armenia who was raised Catholic, I think, who was named after a saint and taught to remain sexually chaste until marriage. Good advice, really. But she was so horrified after blowing it once that she rejected everything she knew and became a total avowed slut. She is now terrified that she will die alone with a dozen cats and STDs. Because, you know, that’s kinda what happens. So, here’s the weird thing: She’s still convinced that her family was totally wrong and a bunch of hypocrites because they preached something really hard that even some of them couldn’t perform on. Now, who’s the idiot here? In this example?

              But just in case what’s really going on here is that you have distain for the message, and not really the messenger, let me assure you that I preach the same message, and I have never once, even as a young man, failed to live up to that message. I’m no hypocrite (just like I don’t think you’re a hypocrite), but I’m not proud, either. Frankly, I think having a perfect record on this is way over-rated, even to God. He loves sluts, too. But I think he also wants those sluts to become faithful in their sexual behavior, because faithfulness in sex is so very much like faithfulness to Him, and the only real way to enjoy real freedom from fear and all the other things the Enemy throws in our path.


        • Just to give an example about Sarah from today:

          This looks like doing yeoman’s work to me.

          Here’s a woman who struck a chord with the Tea Party movement, but was otherwise completely abandoned and demonized by her own party and became such a lightning rod with the Left that she (claimed) she could not even continue in public office due to the financial and legal weight of the onslaught, which is absolutely verified true.

          She’s a regular person, with no fortune. No contracts. No political support. But she still manages to, through writing and appearing at events and interviews, to become the heart and soul of the Tea Party movement, and is even called a king-maker behind the scenes of the last few elections because of her modest and consistent influence.

          All this takes money while she is writing and appearing, so rather than take on $250,000 speaking gigs like Hillary Clinton, she agrees to do a TV show which 1) helps pay the bills and 2) keeps her in the public eye: both essential to her playing any kind of role politically, even behind the scenes.

          All this is done while keeping a traditional family together. I just don’t get how this makes her some kind of sell-out. I think she’s accomplished a lot that could be called unselfish and useful, considering she’s NOT a party insider and has no power of any kind, whatsoever.

          And I was biased against her to begin with. I usually distrust strikingly attractive, beauty queen types like her. In my experience, they are dangerous and manipulative and profoundly unfaithful, with rare exceptions. It took a long time for her to impress me, but she has. Of course, I could be completely wrong. I often am.