Terrence, perhaps, is operating with a more black and white modern view, making stark moral contrasts and clear delineations. Or maybe he just likes messing with Michael, which I agree is quite enjoyable.

Or maybe they just have an old fashioned disagreement, which I welcome and surely deserves discussion.

Regarding Terrence’s last point, though, I will say my re-telling of the story was mostly based on the BBC radio story with interview from several involved–actually, it was a longer story about walking in Obama’s steps in London overall–I can’t find it online so my murky memory will have to suffice.

Again, the story on the BBC is not an actual news story. It is his brother-in-law’s retelling of what happened on a drug tainted night ten years ago.

I see someone trying to build up another’s character for irrational reasons. Some people support a religion. Other people support a favorite sports team. Then there are those who support a politician or political party. In their fanaticism, they distort reason to fit their loyalties.

If all it takes to be considered a moral man is walking away from a stripper, then I am a moral man. But I know that I am not, so this criterion is flawed.

Person 2 says z is not significant enough to base a moral judgment on. Shows that y is significant enough to make a moral judgment on.

Person 3 says Person 2 cannot make judgments about X because Person 2 uses criteria that Person 2 does not apply to Person 2′s own life.

Person 3 has no added to the dialog because dialog deals only with X and his doing of z and y. X, z, and y are the only issues here.

one strike out in “real life” does not a moral character break, often a strike provides the deepest opportunity for moral formation-learning.

If the legend in the pub is true, and Obama thinks the stripping business is immoral or amoral, did he not have a duty to do something about it in his position? Ignoring an injustice is as bad as perpetrating the injustice committed. Ghandi or MLK surely said something like that.

Abstinence or negation is not the virtue. Abstinence and action, or negation and propagation of the positive, is the virtue of a moral man: G0 (propagation of the positive) and sin no more (negation of the negative).

Cast the first stone then Terrence

Watching or being in the presence of a stripper is not illegal.

Possession of cocaine as Obama boasted of is a Class B Felony. Committing this crime supports drug cartels abroad, who murder many, and gang activity in the user nation. The cause and effect relationship is so long I feel it is unnecessary to detail it. The short of it is being a part of the cocaine trade is an abject crime that shows complete lack of moral fortitude and care for society and individual. He was old enough to know it was wrong. He did it anyway.

The BBC story is a second hand account based on an alcohol and maybe coke inhibited memory given by Obama’s brother-in-law ten years after the fact. That the BBC propagated the anecdote does not somehow make it fact. Even if it were fact it is hardly enough to make a judgment on one’s moral character on it alone.

Moral character isn’t like baseball, where you get three strikes. In baseball, you strike out all the time, but if you do something right, just a small percentage of the time, like 3 times out of 10, you are a star. One strike out in real life means you no longer have moral character.

Oh, did Jesus run away from the whores? I’m sure after the dance was over, Obama made sure to tell the stripper sin no more.