General Question

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

The Devil made me do it??? What basis does Sanfords "Spiritual Advisor" have in saying that he was "Gripped by Darkness"?

Asked by RealEyesRealizeRealLies (30935points) June 29th, 2009

Yet another fallen angel who refuses to accept personal accountability. As if he was “gripped” by something else and could not control his own actions.

I understand addiction and deviant behaviors all too well. I understand them enough to know that nothing changes at the core level until a person accepts their role in the act.

Blaming others to avoid persecution is very ugly, and only serves to justify every errant propensity.

This so called Spiritual Advisor who claims adherence to Godly principles should know that freedom is only attained after admission of your part in the issue. Surely forgiveness is at hand, but not to those who cover their compulsions with avoidance.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

38 Answers

gailcalled's avatar

Sanford’s Spiritual Advisor, whatever that is, needs first to learn about mixed metaphors.

The fog may walk on litle cats’ feet, but I don’t think darkness can grip.

Here’s an excellent explanation, entitled MY TRiP, by John Kenny, in the Op-Ed of today’s NYT. (Registration is free.)

Disclosure; Kenney is a writer..often a funny one.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Who is Sanford?

gailcalled's avatar

Mark Sanford; disgraced governor of SC.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@gailcalled oh yes, same old, same old

mammal's avatar

it is an admission, isn’t it?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Perhaps they think that by saying that some people will find the action more excusable – but it isn’t

mammal's avatar

hell i forgive him, what is patently unforgivable is that he is a republican, fucking some Argentinian whore, like Argentina needs any more fucking by him and his ilk.

wundayatta's avatar

People who do these things make bad choices. Does it matter why they made bad choices? Well, that depends on whether you are going to give them a second chance, or not. Which depends on whether you think this is a part of his character, or a momentary bad choice that will not happen again. If you were temporarily insane, you can make the case that it’s a momentary bad choice, and won’t happen again. Of course, people may not believe you, but there it is.

Anyway, pleading temporary insanity is not saying you are not responsible for you actions. Or, at least, it doesn’t have to be saying you aren’t responsible. It can be arguing for getting a second chance. Again, it depends on whether people believe you that it was temporary insanity.

With politicians, I think we tend to believe it’s not temporary insanity, but it’s an aspect of their character. If that’s the case, then we don’t trust the guy any longer, and we want to cut off our relationship with him. In the case of politicians, they should resign.

So, is he pleading temporary insanity when, in fact, he was in full possession of his choice-making faculties because he hopes people will give him another chance? Or was he really not in his right mind? If he wasn’t in his right mind, what are the chances that the insanity will return? What is he doing to prevent it from happening again?

If he was insane, then he has to show how he is going to prevent that from happening again. That is what taking responsibility means. Even if he just made a mistake, he has to take responsibility by showing how he can guarantee he won’t make such mistakes again. Otherwise, he’s just looking for an excuse, so he doesn’t have to do anything.

You can say the devil made you do it, but how are you going to stay away from the devil’s influence in the future? The excuse doesn’t necessarily mean he is refusing responsibility. The plan of action for keeping from making that mistake again is what determines that.

These actions may be inexcusable, but they are explainable. Or they can be explainable. If you can explain what made you do it, and how you are going to prevent that from happening again, then I think people can forgive you. If you can’t even explain it, then how can we trust you to prevent it?

The devil made me do it is code, I believe, for certain human mistakes. It probably speaks to his core constituency (which is not us)! He may be accepting responsibility. But it depends on how he’s going to fight the devil. Right now, we seem to believe he is not really contrite, but is just trying to get people to believe they should excuse him, without him really working for forgiveness. This means we seem to think he doesn’t understand why he did what he did. Which means he isn’t trustworthy.

The question is, are we making a knee-jerk response because we believe no one could be sincere and speak the way he does, or is he really being disingenuous, and lying in our faces? That’s a judgment call and everyone makes it for themselves. He may not sound sincere to us, but we may not understand his metaphors and way of speaking. What matters, of course, is how he sounds to the people of South Carolina.

fireside's avatar

I see nothing that says the spiritual adviser, Culbertson, used the term “Gripped by darkness”. That phrase is in the headline crafted by the AP writer.

The words used by Culbertson were “power of darkness” and the subtext seems to be that Sanford was caught off guard by the feelings of lust that he doesn’t seem to have felt too often.

I also see nowhere where Culbertson was actually blaming anyone other than Sanford and his wife for the state of their marriage. He even refused to support Sanford’s 1994 campaign because he thought that the political life would detract from the marriage.

The reference to David makes sense when you read about the weekly meetings they had to try and explore the issue of fidelity in marriage.

The AP article was fairly interesting and provides a lot of context.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@mammal yes, that comment truly makes me believe that you care for people of Argentina..oh wait, except for those women you deem as whores

MrKnowItAll's avatar

“A stiff prick, has no conscience”

The_Compassionate_Heretic's avatar

Children use that excuse and it doesn’t work for them.
Why should it work for adults?

No one is buying that excuse.

mammal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir well, whore, covers a multitude of sins and genders, the most grievous being the political sin of sleeping with a top brass Republican senator, that to me is tantamount to consorting with the devil or collaborating with the enemy…take your pick, would you engage in a protracted affair with a republican?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@mammal i’m sure you realize many people end up in desperate situations and don’t give a crap where the money comes from

mammal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir yes they do end up in desperate situations, thanks to the Republican party’s grip on world poltics

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@mammal yes, two different issues and yet your responses are contradictory

mammal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir not really, i have nothing but sympathy for those who are forced into prostitution through economic hardship, i have little or no sympathy for an educated Argentinian Journalist who is sleeping with a man whose political agenda helps to keep many of her compatriots in Argentina and the rest of Latin America dirt poor

mammal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir a peeve of mine is when women, by sleeping with men like that…empower them, maybe that is sexist, i don’t know…but i find it really annoying

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@mammal and a pet peeve of mine is calling anyone you wish a whore just because that’s what you think she was doing – we will never know truly what the reasons were for their fling

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I find your position fascinating. You seem to equate Republican with evil incarnate. Do you consider Democrats as angels? How exactly do you expect the world to change now that Democrats hold power? I’m not one or the other and could really care less. I voted Ron Paul yet it had nothing to do with the party line.

Do you excuse Democrats for their sex scandals? Sanford got the Republicans closer but the prize still goes to the Dems for the most sex scandals. And let’s not forget two Dem Presidents who were busted… Clinton & Kennedy. Do you excuse them too?

Now, I’m quite sure the Dems are more ethical than Republicans on every other issue besides sex scandals. The Democrats morality is surely to a much higher standard in all other respects than those nasty Republicans could ever be… right?

That must explain the double standard of why Dems seem to get off much easier.

And CNN seems very biased in their forgiveness of Dems as well.

But Newsweek finds the Dems still in the lead for illicit activities…

1. Wayne Hays (1976): Affair with secretary (one of the first major sex scandals)
2. Allan Howe (1976): Solicited sex with two prostitutes (both of whom were undercover cops)
3. John Young (1976): Staffer alleged sexual harrassment
4. Fred Richmond (1978): Charged with soliciting sex from a 16-year-old boy.
5. Gerry Studds (1983): Reprimanded for having sex with a male teenage House page
6. Gary Hart (1988): Affair with model Donna Rice.
7. Barney Frank (1989): Affair with male prostitute, who also conducted business in Frank’s home.
8. Chuck Robb (1991): Admitted to receiving a nude massage from a former Miss Virginia.
9. Brock Adams (1992): Eight women accused him of sexual harassment, abuse, and rape.
10. Mel Reynolds (1994): Sexual relationship with 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
11. Bill Clinton (1998): Affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
12. Gary Condit (2001): Affair with (murdered) intern Chandra Levy.
13. Paul Patton (2002): Affair with nursing home operator; when the affair ended the state of Kentucky filed numerous violations against her business.
14. Bob Wise (2003): Affair with a state government staffer
15. Jim McGreevey (2004): Resigned as NJ governor after admitting that he is “a gay American”
16. Neil Goldschmidt (2004): Admitted to having a relationship with a 14-year-old girl in the 1970s.
17. Roosevelt Dobbins (2005): Congressman form Arkansas, pleaded guilty to fondling a 16-year-old.
18. Gavin Newsom (2007): Affair with the wife of a top aide.
19. Antonio Villaraigosa (2007): Affair with a television reporter.
20. Tim Mahoney (2008): Admitted to multiple affairs.
21. Eliot Spitzer (2008): Involved in prostitution scandal.
22. Paul Morrison (2008): Affair with administrative staffer while Attorney General of Kansas, pressured her to reveal information about Kansas D.A.
23. Marc Dann (2008): Attorney General of Ohio, had an affair with a staffer.
24. David Paterson (2008): Admitted that both he and his wife had extramarital affairs
25. John Edwards (2008): Had an affair with a campaign employee while running for President.
26. Kwame Kilpatrick (2008): Text messaging sex scandal
27. Sam Adams (2009): Portland, OR mayor lied about relationship with 18-year-old male intern.

1. Tom Evans (1980): Along with other politicians, accused of being involved with lobbyist/former Playboy model Paula Parkinson.
2. Bob Bauman (1980): Solicited sex from a 16-year-old boy
3. Jon Hinson (1980): Caught attempting to have oral sex in a men’s House restroom.
4. John G. Schmitz (1982): Had an affair that led to an out-of-wedlock child.
5. Dan Crane (1983): Reprimanded for having sex with a teenage House page.
6. (Buz Lukens (1989): Spent time in jail after having sex with a 16-year-old girl.
7. Jon Grunseth (1990): Swam nude with group of 13-year-old girls; suspended gubernatorial run.
8. Ken Calvert (1993): Arrested while soliciting a prostitute.
9. Bob Packwood (1995): Resigned from Senate amid allegations of sexual harassment and abuse.
10. Bob Livingston (1998): Admitted to multiple extramarital affairs.
11. Helen Chenoweth-Hage (1998): Admitted to a six year affair with a married rancher in her home state of Idaho
12. Henry Hyde (1998): Admitted he’d had an affair many years prior
13. Rudy Giuliani (2002): Ex-wife Donna Hanover accused him of “notorious adultery”; he’s now married to Judith Nathan, his girlfriend at the time.
14. Steve LaTourette (2003): Accused of affair with staffer, who he later married.
15. Jack Ryan (2004): Former wife Jeri claimed he took her to sex clubs and pressured her to have sex in public.
16. James West (2005): Removed as mayor of Spokane, WA after an gay Internet sex scandal.
17. Don Sherwood (2006): Affair with 29-year-old woman while he was a PA congressman.
18. Mark Foley (2006): Involved in a texting scandal with male House pages
19. Bob Allen (2007): Solicited oral sex from a male undercover cop.
20. Newt Gingrich (2007):Acknowledged having an affair in the 1990s
21. Charles Boutin (2007): Resigned from MD Public Service Comission after email exchanges with a prostitute surfaced.
22. David Vitter (2007): Part of the DC Madam scandal
23. Larry Craig (2007): Bathroom sex solicitation scandal.
24. Vito Fossella (2008): Affair with a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel.
25. John Ensign (2009): Admitted to having an affair with a married staffer.
26. Mark Sanford (2009): Affair with a woman in Argentina.

Here’s some interesting info on how Dems are rewarded for their sex scandals

Former Rep. Mel Reynolds. The Illinois Democrat was convicted of 12 counts of sexual assault with a 16-year-old. President Bill Clinton pardoned him before leaving office.

Former Rep. Gus Savage. The Illinois Democrat was accused of fondling a Peace Corps volunteer in 1989 while on a trip to Africa. The House Ethics Committee decided against disciplinary action in 1990.

Rep. Barney Frank. The outspoken Massachusetts Democrat hired a male prostitute who ran a prostitution service from Frank’s residence in the 1980s. Only two Democrats in the House of Representatives voted to censure him in 1990.

Former Rep. Fred Richmond. This New York Democrat was arrested in 1978 for soliciting sex from a 16-year-old. He remained in Congress and won re-election—before eventually resigning in 1982 after pleading guilty to tax evasion and drug possession.

Former Rep. John Young. The late Texas Democrat increased the salary of a staffer after she gave in to his sexual advances. The congressman won re-election in 1976 but lost two years later.

Former Rep. Wayne Hays. The late Ohio Democrat hired an unqualified secretary reportedly for sexual acts. Although he resigned from Congress, the Democratic House leadership stalled in removing him from the Administration Committee in 1976.

Former Rep. Gerry Studds. He was censured for sexual relationship with underage male page in 1983. Massachusetts voters returned him to office for six more terms.

Sen. Teddy Kennedy. The liberal Massachusetts senator testified in defense of nephew accused of rape, invoking his family history to win over the jury in 1991.

Somehow I feel much cleaner knowing the Dems have the majority now.

LexWordsmith's avatar

Perhaps “Maria from Argentina” is noticeably dusky?

mammal's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Satan, arch puppeteer, that he is, has the ambidextrous capacity to manipulate the Republican party with his right hand whilst simultaneously maneuvering the Democrats with the left… thus distracting his gullible audience from his more nefarious extra curricula activities…particularly down south

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar


I believe we disagree on what (who) a Satan is. In my book, Satan is the EXACT same thing as Deception. There is no wicked “arch puppeteer” than pulls our strings and takes control of anyone. To think so is to reject personal accountability. It’s never my fault. Every choice is justified because something else made me do it. BULLSHIT!

Deception (Satan) does not control Humanity. Humanity controls Deception. Humans pull the strings of Satan, not the other way around. Deception is our puppet and we make it dance however we choose.

mammal's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir as always, your opinions are close to my heart <3

Rsam's avatar

i cant wait for the south park episode about idiots such as this.

LexWordsmith's avatar

@gailcalled : The phrase from the KJV is “The Light shone forth in the Darkness, and the Darkness grasped it not”, iirc—perhaps that is the allusion the headline intends.

gailcalled's avatar

@LexWordsmith: Tanslator of KJV said it better.

fireside's avatar

@LexWordsmith – Where exactly did you find that “quote” since I don’t see it anywhere in the KJV.

LexWordsmith's avatar

@fireside : The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, Verse 5. The translations that you encounter might be a little different, but the sense should be much the same.

fireside's avatar

@LexWordsmith – So here are a bunch of translations. I would say that, in some ways, Sanford did not understand his own darkness, but that is not really the same thing.

New International Version (©1984)
The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

International Standard Version (©2008)
And the light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness has never put it out.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.

King James Bible
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

American King James Version
And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

American Standard Version
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

Bible in Basic English
And the light goes on shining in the dark; it is not overcome by the dark.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Darby Bible Translation
And the light appears in darkness, and the darkness apprehended it not.

English Revised Version
And the light shineth in the darkness; and the darkness apprehended it not.

King James Version
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

Weymouth New Testament
The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overpowered it.

World English Bible
The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn’t overcome it.

Young’s Literal Translation
and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it.

LexWordsmith's avatar

@fireside : Very interesting—thanks! Some comments:

(1) the translations that have the first clause in the present tense and the second in the past show great fidelity to the Biblical notion of the eternality of God (“f.e., “Before the world was, I am.”).

(2) i don’t know what verb the Greek (in which whoever wrote the Gospel of John actually wrote, to the best of my apprehension) uses; the RC Latin translation uses the verb “comprehendo” (shares a root with “prehensile”), which i think means something like “to enfold completely, to blanket, to grasp firmly, to have well in hand”, although i had only two years of Latin and might be being influenced by the English meaning of “comprehend.”

(3) I don’t like the translations that fail to convey the idea that the Darkness was unsuccessful in trying to hide or extinguish the Light. On balance, i think that i like the translation “The Light blazed forth, and the Darkness could not smother it.”

kevbo's avatar

I hope I’m not repeating anything above.

So it turns out that Sanford’s ”
King David reference may have originated in his membership with the Christian Mafia aka “The Family,” which purports a Machiavellian view of Christianity (e.g. the rich and powerful are, in fact, those chosen by God). So he likened himself to King David who, according to this cult/lobby, was also chosen.

This tidbit came from an interview of the author of The Family on “Real Time with Bill Maher.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther