Eclectic Radical wrote:

The point is that her moral grounding finds it unacceptable to allow consenting adults to marry while finding it entirely acceptable for a minor child to pose semi-nude for a lingerie catalog.

How does a decision she made at 17 (or even a year ago) have anything to do with her religious values today? We don’t have any idea what her spiritual leanings were at that point in her life, so how could we possibly know that they’re inconsistent with her current moral/religious beliefs?

But even if her relationship with God and religion is the same today as it was four years ago, I don’t see why a Christian conservative who defends “opposite marriage” must automatically classify implied nudity as immoral. What does one have to do with the other? Why can’t this woman believe that the human body is beautiful and nothing to be ashamed of ~and~ that God wants marriage limited to hetero couples? Would you condemn pro-gay marriage Catholics for inconsistently embracing Catholic values, or would you praise them because they happen to be on the same page as you?

As for social cons believing that women shouldn’t have the choice to pose nude, that was certainly the hope of the people trying to embarrass Carrie Prejean. Now they’re riled up because the social cons didn’t live up to their stereotypes by condemning Prejean for showing the world her back.

I’m no fan of Maggie Gallagher, and I don’t know anything about her attacking Andrea Thompson. But for a lot of people there’s a big difference between someone who appeared nude in an erotic film anchoring the news and an underwear model bringing a little attention to a conservative organization. Neither one makes a difference to me and I would defend both women from being shamed for their respective pasts, and come down on anyone who attacked them.

This would all be a non-issue if some liberals weren’t trying so hard to discredit Prejean. Her 15 minutes would already be up.

I do have a problem with the way the left is portrayed by even many in the center when it makes pointed statements about individuals expressing right wing views. When a woman claims religious motivations for attacking gay marriage, it might not be nice to drag out a nude photo of her as a seventeen year old girl, but that does not mean the fact that her family’s religious values did not draw the line at a seventeen year old girl posing for Victoria’s Secret should not give us pause for consideration of the religious basis for her argument. The photo isn’t ‘that bad’, no, but the horrifying nature of the photo isn’t the point. The question of whether or not Carrie Prejean is ‘a slut’ isn’t the point either.

The point is that her moral grounding finds it unacceptable to allow consenting adults to marry while finding it entirely acceptable for a minor child to pose semi-nude for a lingerie catalog. Regardless of one’s position on either of these moral questions, it is legitimate to make note that the latter is not compatible with the moral/religious grounding for the former. When people proclaim their moral superiority, which is what religious fundamentalists who attack homosexuality on religious grounds are doing, they invite scrutiny into their own moral life.

When the right attacks individuals on the left for their supposed moral turpitude, they proclaim themselves to be the guardians of public morality. When the left questions the legitimacy of their credentials in this area, it is ‘liberal sleaze.’

I don’t have a problem with women posing nude if they so choose, nor do most liberals. The point is that social conservatives supposedly do. Except when they consider said person to be a champion of moral values. Then the nude photo is beyond the pale and making note of the inconsistent embrace of Christian values is a horrible misogynist attack.

Where was Maggie Gallagher when CNN anchor Andrea Thompson was the target of a ‘horrible misogynist attack’ over her nude glamor shots early in her career? Oh, I remember now…

She was attacking Ms. Thompson for being a slut.