Biblical Scholar Smacks Down Piers Morgan When Asked To Explain How Jesus Condemned Homosexuality (+video)

Photo Credit: Downtrend

Photo Credit: Downtrend

Piers Morgan is clearly a glutton for punishment. We saw that repeatedly during the gun control debates in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

A couple of nights ago on his program, Morgan criticized Phil Robertson’s recent anti-gay remarks as “repulsive” and claimed that he should be fired. Apparently, that’s Morgan’s way of handling opposing viewpoints from major celebrity figures.

On his program last night, he decided to invite a Biblical scholar, Dr. Michael Brown, on the show so that he could trap him into admitting that Jesus did not, in fact, condemn homosexuality.

That trap was not set properly.

When Morgan asked Brown to cite just one instance of Jesus condemning homosexuality, he probably thought that he had already won the debate. But alas, he was hoisted on his own petard.

Read more from this story HERE.

  • Charles

    The only way this idiot from across the pond, can get any attention, is to make an ass of himself.

  • James

    Well I have to say that Piers Morgan did not make an ass out
    of himself, unlike the gays, Piers was born that way. No one could make that big of an ass as Piers Morgan is. I think the only reason he is over his is that no one in the British Empire would allow him to go there.

  • jdelaney3

    Piers is a hard-headed glutton for punishment. He doesn’t learn, because he’s profiting from his insanity.

    • ginger

      I didn’t see Larry Elder at all….

  • Dempsey Coleman

    What is Clear in the Bible on the Queer Life Style
    Is Clear only problem with this Queer Argument
    is they will NOT believe what sends them to HELL.
    What burns your Ass scares the HELL out of them.

  • Harold

    Morgan is a immoral bunch of manure. He should go home and stay there he is not wanted in the USA.

  • ComDog66

    Some people WILL NOT listen to the truth no matter HOW PLAIN the Bible says it. I like how the guys said, “We accept and love our neighbors, but we don’t condone their life-styles.” That is truth! Love the sinner, hate the sin.

    • Francisco Carson

      “Love the sinner, hate the sin” came from a Hindu you dote.

  • Paul

    It’s amazing how humanity will twist and distort the truth to support their beliefs and perversions. It is as simple as procreation. That is the reason we were created; to grow and multiply. God have mercy on all of us.

    • Splinter Cell

      All gays and lesbians come from a man and a woman, ever thought of that fools? Besides, all cultures despised gays… In many cultures across the world, gays/Lesbians are hunted down and beheaded. Only in Democratic countries do they practice freely, so to assume that only Christians hate Gays/Lesbians is absolutely ridiculous!

  • Pingback: Dr. Michael Brown Vs. Piers Morgan On Jesus Condemning Homosexuality()

  • rbradford

    Love Dr. Michael Brown. How can these commentators argue the truth with him.

    • Francisco Carson

      I just did.

  • ginger

    The truth has no meaning for liberals and progressives…they don’t want to be convicted on the subject so try to convince themselves that God is wrong.

  • Liberals HATE the bible….suddenly, they are professionals in Christian theology—-ROFL………….!

  • Biblical Schollar: Troooo lololooooo trololooo looolooo loool!

  • David Gunness

    Matthew 15. Read it.

  • Invictus_Lux

    Jesus did teach against homosexuality in the same way he taught against thermonuclear war and the Morning After Abortion Pills – through deafening silence at the absurdity that anyone could be so wicked to even think to conceive to ask if homosexuality was acceptable to God. ALL dialog in the bible is premised on an assumption of celibacy in single life (including same sex attraction disorders) AND marital chastity between a man and a woman – NO MEN-with-Men and NO Women-with-Women.

    Gen 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

    Mat 19:3-6 And there came to him the Pharisees tempting him, saying: Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? 4 Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, made them male and female? And he said: 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6 Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.

    Not one reference to a man clinging to his man. The homosexuals need to accept the plain truth that they are forbidden from same sex coupling. It’s unthinkable to Christian morality.

    • Francisco Carson

      Because we all know two men loving each other is the same as a nuke destroying all mankind and the ending of new born life in the eyes of Christ, what a laugh. The issue of homosexuality was a non-issue with the 1st Century Jews as it was with Jesus, the historical record bears that out with lack of any cases of homosexuality brought before the Jewish courts and to say Jesus talking about heterosexual relationships to heterosexuals is Him condemning homosexual relationship is so reading into the text, it’s not even funny.

      • Invictus_Lux

        Loving a person in the filial sense of the word is one thing but performing illicit and unnatural sexual acts just to illicit the selfish pleasure of hormonal stimulation in the eros sense is closer to drug addiction than it is any sort of expression of love. Why do same sex attraction individuals imagine that loving a person always equates with physical pleasure??

        You are of course a liar or misinformed on Jewish Law – homosexuality was unheard of and when discovered they were driven out of camp or stoned to death. The Romans did not even tolerate it and found it disgusting.

        Your dialectics are way out in left field and lack any reason or rationality. I did not make the comparison of nuclear war to homosexuality – that was YOUR irrational liberal mind that did that. My point should have been very clear that the bible was not meant to be a cook book of all things Jesus said or did – that is why He established the Church (as St. Paul says – the pillar and foundation of truth) and told his disciples to TEACH the nations not to hand out bibles that would not exist for 300 more years to people who could not in large numbers read for another 1200 years and roll your own do it yourself salvation system. How absurd you are. Homosexuality was NEVER EVER condoned in any Jewish or Christian teachings.

        • Francisco Carson

          Your quote:
          “Loving a person in the filial sense of the word is one thing but performing illicit and unnatural sexual acts just to illicit the selfish pleasure of hormonal stimulation in the eros sense is closer to drug addiction than it is any sort of expression of love. Why do same sex attraction individuals imagine that loving a person always equates with physical pleasure??”
          Do you even know how nonsensical you sound?

          Homosexuality was unheard of to the Jews? Are you missing a screw? First show even one account of gays being stoned in any historical record, you can’t and I’ll be glad to wait if you can. Come on, just even one.
          Don’t you think it’s a little odd how on one hand you say homosexuality was unheard of yet it received (according to you) the harshest punishment? I’ll leave it up to you to tell me what’s wrong with this picture. And as for the Romans. Bisexuality was the norm to the Romans and there is not one historical scholar on Earth who’ll say otherwise. You are starting to say things that are out and out lies if you know even a little of High School history.

          The rest of what you say is probably what the voices in your head are telling you before the nurse comes with your meds. I’ll just leave your rant and hollow accusations where they lay.

          • Invictus_Lux

            Disqus just crashed and lost my reply. I am not taking the time to retype it all. But you’re out to lunch again here. I’ll give the abbreviated version of it:

            The Jews have NEVER condoned same sex coupling or marriage nor has any orthodox Christian teaching. It was explicitly against the Jewish law and punishable by death. Do you imagine that the Pentateuch was supposed to give a ledger tally of all legal cases held by the Jewish authorities??? No! So don’t expect to read every case there any more so than you might expect to read every account of people being stoned to death when caught in adultery either. An argument from silence is not an argument. There’s no text telling us of legal action against men having sex with their animals either – but you’d have it because of it that it was ok??? Are you of adult mind?

            It’s a tangent but the Romans only permitted homosexual acts against the lower class Infamia (infamous individuals who had no legal standing – whores, entertainers, slaves, gladiators etc.). It has nothing to do with love an everything to do with a patriarchal society expressing its domination by penetrating those it wanted to as expressions of virility and domination (just as male animals do to inferior males in nature to set an example to the females to not let it mount them). It had nothing to do with “sexual identity” other than being a dominant male. There are almost no records of Roman female lesbianism – the Romans were very family oriented.

          • Francisco Carson

            No, the ancient cultures did not smile on same-sex relationships because it took away from the procreation of a people when it was future generations that kept a people from extinction, but to mean that as an everlasting application is ridiculous. You say an argument from silence is not an argument and yet you turn right around and do it with Jesus on homosexuality (And no, it’s not a given Jesus kept Judaic prohibitions. He was breaking them consistently and that’s why he was always getting in hot water with the Scribes and the Pharisees).

            You just finished saying the Romans found homosexuality repulsive and yet here you are, again, contradicting yourself. I said nothing about homosexual ‘identity,” But bisexuality was common place in the Roman world, as I said before and know you’re agreeing with.

          • Invictus_Lux


            You’re making a circular and strawman argument. YOU were the one who was trying to say that the bible has no condemnation for same sex coupling and then ignored it and tried to say it was superseded by Jesus who came to liberate the gays with his teaching on love so the gays then then go attain nirvana and couple with each other and not worry about going to hell as the old law would have it. . You are not even rational. No where does Jesus give any license to homosexuals to engage in sex – nowhere. The old prohibitions are still in full force with the exception that those who repent from it and remain celibate can attain eternal life if conforming to the rest of the teachings.

            Jesus not one time broke any of the moral laws – he only broke some of the disciplines that the Pharisees and Sadducees were inventing out of thin air and imposing illicitly on the people even while getting their vig for granting exceptions to their paying followers. He is God – he could do that. But even as he admonished them he still told his followers that they had the proper authority and should be obeyed even when they were hypocrites and did not obey their own laws. You will find not a single case of Jesus breaking the Mosaic Law.

            You only imagine I contradicted myself about the Romans since you don’t know how to parse logical concepts. Romans were REPULSED by the notion of citizen males of standing being penetrated by a subordinate male (a person who was in lower social stature and not a citizen – prostitutes, slaves, gladiators, entertainers etc.). They considered it permissible for a dominant male to penetrate an effeminate lower tier male as an expression of his virility and dominance. It had nothing or very little to do with any notion of romance – it was for simple pleasure and use of the other person’s body to express his domination over him. That’s not bisexuality – that’s just SOME of the men opting to exercise their rights to dominate lessor caste men either for humiliation, pleasure or whatever. Most of these men has no same sex attraction at all.

          • Invictus_Lux

            As to the Roman sentiments toward homosexuality you have to know that their Republic evolved over time. So its important to know which era we are talking about. That’s how there can be two answers – due to temporal shifts in social attitudes and laws.

            While the first three centuries of the empire saw no legislation as far as we can tell regarding homosexuality, aside from the continuation of the Lex Scantinia (prohibition of raping young non consenting males) as marked by its citation by the Roman jurists, in the fourth century there would be dramatic new laws condemning male homosexuality. Most scholars interpret a convoluted law from the year 342 AD surviving in both the Theodosian Code and the Code of Justinian as a decree from the emperors Constantius II and Constans that marriage based on unnatural sex should be punished meticulously. Although Constans himself was later denounced as having male lovers, this trend of the emperors in condemning male homosexuality in laws would continue. In a law of 390, surviving in the Theodosian Code and the Lex Dei (‘Law of God’), the emperors Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius ordained that any man taking the role of a woman in sex would be publicly burned to death. –

            Thus we see Rome formalizing its laws STRONGLY AGAINST homosexuality as it Christenized and cast off its pagan origins and hedonistic practices.

            Are you condoning a return to paganism?

  • Invictus_Lux

    There is nothing more absurd a concept than for an atheist to think they can teach the scriptures and interpret them.

  • DM

    Why bother quoting the Bible, they have all already come up with reasons they do not apply. We all know how this this goes, it will be manipulated to suit the the next talking points. It is a lost cause, sooo many people are so concerned with doing, “The Right Thing” they cannot see the forest for the trees. It will be our demise trust me….

  • badman400

    It is obvious that piers morgan is alright with making a fool of himself on screen for money. He certainly isn’t alone these days. The simple Louisiana fisherman that he is attempting to discredit and ridicule is much more credible, loved and supported, than morgan will ever be.

    • Francisco Carson

      Are you talking about a man who was molesting a 14 year old girl when he was in his 20’s? If that pedo Phil is loved and supported by so many, God help us, but It just shows how the hatred for homosexuals is so strong, people are willing to overlook the pedophilia aspect of the man.

      • Invictus_Lux

        You are a man who hates reason and rationality. Run along troll.

        • Francisco Carson

          All you have to do is Google for facts checks you nasty little man.

          • Invictus_Lux

            As if atheist run Google is not bought off and unbiased in putting its search results of its sponsors at the top of the search chain. Is this where you get your truth from – Google? Do you have a license to drive Google or do you count on incompetence in info searching as your excuse in life and eternity for saying and doing the outrageous things you do here?

          • Francisco Carson

            So a big Atheist conspiracy is happening at Google? Not only are you a pretentious fop in the manner with how you talk, you’re also a conspiracy nut to boot. I forget people like you just love to banter on and on till the cows come home, it’s how you fill your day. I have to admit, I bit into your trap of arguing back with you, that’s all you needed to go hog wild with responding to every comment of mine even though they were to other people. I bet you live for this. I’m done with you.

          • Invictus_Lux

            Its an established fact that Google, WIki and other popular info sites are run and managed by atheists. Wiki has an internal board of editors that routinely edit out articles or contributions that have what they consider a religious bias and in some cases remove entire contributions – and there is no appeal process.

  • CSN

    Dr. Michael Brown has a radio Talk show aired on a station in Oregon, and he’s very down to earth and to the point about everything he knows. I’m glad Piers got his behind kicked from a logical defender of scripture.

  • CSN

    Piers Morgan is being used as a tool to incarcerate the Bible Teaching and Believing Christians who interpret scripture at Face Value, and do not try to make of it, a Graven Image of something it does not stand for. Jesus Christ NEVER condones sin. When the woman who was caught in adultery was going to be stoned, Jesus wrote in the sand, and according to scholars, he was writing down the sins of the people standing before him, ready to stone the woman…one by one they left the scene…he turned to the woman and said, “isn’t anyone left to condemn you?…and she replied, “No sir”…then Jesus said, “neither do I condemn you…GO AND SIN NO MORE!” That is how Jesus condemns sin, and how he expects us to react to sin, ADMIT THE SIN, REJECT THE SIN, BUT THEN GO AND SIN NO MORE.

  • PatriotInk

    Piers Morgan validates the concept of “low information everything.”

  • PatriotInk

    How does a mindless, uneducated miscreant like Piers Morgan get a TV show? How? He has yet to bring to any discussion even an elementary knowledge of anything he chooses to talk about. There is something about the S0B that seems to be utterly oblivious of his own ignorance.

  • Allen

    This “expert’s” first citing of Matthew 5 conveniently omits Matthew
    5:11: “God will bless you when people insult you, mistreat you and tell
    all kinds of evil lies about you because of me.”

    If your first example is negated by a preceding verse (he’s citing Matthew 5: 17-20) then you I question your expert status.

  • Francisco Carson

    Brown should be ashamed of himself.

    Any man who claims Jesus said we are to run back to the Old Testament is insulting the complete work of the cross and teaches a different Gospel than the one preached by Christ and Paul. The Bible is crystal clear that ALL the Law and the Prophets hang on the sole edict of “Loving your (gay) neighbor as yourself,” Period. Paul even goes as far as saying those who insist on following aspects of the Old Covenant, a covenant that was hung on the cross to die with Christ and to die to us to be replaced by a NEW Covenant of Grace, are under a “curse.”

    Mr. Brown also seems to miss the rest of the Matthew verses where Jesus talks about born ‘eunuchs’ who straight marriage doesn’t apply to and how the marriage vow is only for those who accept it for themselves, it wasn’t a command. Look at the Bible more closely and you’ll see Jesus said little about marriage (He only commented on it because it was brought up to Him) and Paul had even less a regard for it.
    Any person who doesn’t understand these basics tenets about Christianity shouldn’t call themselves “Christians.”

    • Invictus_Lux

      You don’t know what you’re talking about.
      The OLD Testament Law is still very much in effect – in fact its intensified now that Heaven is a possibility for humankind. Before one had to commit a physical illicit act to offend the law but now mere illicit thoughts (lust) can do it under the New Testament. The 613 Mitzvot laws though are only in effect for the Jewish Christians not the Gentile Christians.

      Loving your neighbor as yourself does not in any excursion of logic subsume a notion of granting them license to cause self harm and loss of eternal calling by being too cowardly to address their illicit behaviors and tacitly aid and abet them. Showing apathy or indifference to another human being knowing that they are on an illicit path is perhaps the worst kind of hatred and contempt imaginable. That’s saying “I don’t care what you do or that you will suffer eternal loss”. We are not to nag just to belittle but we MUST at least try to warn others when they are on a grave path that can lead them to loss of eternal beatitude.

      The verses about eunuchs refer to the celibate priesthood for a very few men that God calls to the celibate priesthood “for the kingdom of God” and to singles who are called to celibate life – all same sex individuals and all heterosexuals who are not called to marriage.

      You really have no business preaching in here since you are completely out in the weeds on Christian teaching.

      • Francisco Carson

        Are you serious you poor attempt at being an armchair scholar? The old testament is dead to us because we are not under the rules that were meant for the children of Abraham. It makes sense to know what you’re talking about before you come on here and make some feeble attempt to try to refute me. If you don’t believe me just go to Scripture (Matthew 22:36-40, Rom. 7:6, Gal 2:21. Need more verses? What about the one where Paul says those like you who try to cling to the Old Laws are under a curse? (Gal 3:10). Say what you want, it’s the Bible you have an issue with if you want to hold on to old Jewish customs for dear life and not the Gospel of Christ that brings new and eternal life. The irony).

        So you say even mere thoughts will make you lose Heaven. How long do the thought have to last? The 5 minute rule? lol. Kinda weird aren’t you?

        Only a rabid homophobe would see a homosexual relationship as ‘self harm’ without one iota of truth to back it up other than your imagination who sees homosexual evils behind every tree, but I forgot, you’re the one equating homosexuality with a nuclear bomb and abortions like a fanatical kook.

        I love your line that; “We are not to nag just to belittle…” Isn’t that what you people do when you obsess over my sexuality that make you pace the floors at night? My God! What would you people do if you didn’t have homosexuals to fixate on? Why you would actually have to go out and live the life of loving others as yourself in meaningful ways other than to go stir-crazy over my sexuality with fighting anything that smells of homosexual equality.

        Nope, sorry, you are just wrong about eunuchs, Those who are “born eunuchs” are men who were born without desire for the same sex, could procreate and has sexual relationship with men (what we call the modern term “homosexual”). Look up the great research from scholar Faris Malik before you bleep out your stupidities in an attempt to look smart.

        And take your own advice:
        “You really have no business preaching in here since you are completely out in the weeds on Christian teaching.”

        • Invictus_Lux

          You are an extreme narcissist and ignorant as well.

          You imbecile the Old Testament is certainly NOT dead to us. Jesus told us straight out that he did not come to take away the law (not one single dot or twiddle) but to FULFILL it. And with your queer neo-gay-Christian exegesis you’d call St. Paul a homophobe and evil for preaching explicitly against homosexuality and other immorality:

          1 Cor 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [f]effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

          You are truth-phobic. – a man who invents his own theology to have it your way (hold the pickle and the lettuce).. The verses you cite to hold up your absurd thesis do not make your strange and perverse case at all. They mean that a person who REPENTS of his past behaviors is free of the penalty of the law if forgiven of their post-baptismal sins by apostolic absolution or initially by baptism (1 time on the latter). The verse about Love being the highest commandment means you MUST obey ALL that Christ commanded or else you do not love him (John 14:23 “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”).

          You pin your hope on an obscure gay supported researcher to justify not repenting and continuing in your disordered behaviors? What apostle or disciple of an apostle did Mr Malik take instruction from? You might as well say Jim Jones or David Koresh for all the legitimacy they had. The man has no theological standing. You’re outrageous and infantile eisegesis would make Jesus a eunuch and gay for remaining celibate.

          Matthew 5:28
          But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

          • Francisco Carson

            Do you know what the definition of narcissism even is? Because you sure fit that definition in spades, talk about projecting.

            Why do we need true Christianity when we can just go with your version?

            Jesus did fulfill the whole of the law and that law died with Him on calvary to be replaced with what in the book of James is called the “Royal Law,” a law given by the King to trump all other previous laws and what is the Royal Law?” Loving your neighbor as yourself, the whole of Christianity, What Jesus states is what ALL the laws and the prophets hang on, not this half Christianity/half Judaic Law following patchwork you call “Christianity.” Go back and read the Scriptures I gave you and see how you can try to twist them when they clearly state what I’m saying

            Oh man, You really pulling 1 Corinthians on me? First, dummy, the word that you believe means “homosexual” is the Greek word “Arsenokoitai.” No where, and I mean no where is that word used to mean a homosexual all the other multiple of times that word is used after Paul’s writing. It’s a bad translation that evolved over several Bible translations (look it up the previous translations before the translation stating it as the word “homosexual”) by bias translators to mean a homosexual person when one word for a homosexual wasn’t even known to the ancient world. But I know why people like you gravitate towards that Scripture, it’s the only one that could mean a homosexual outside of all the other Scriptures that talk about homosexuality in the context of Angel rape or idolatry.

            Your are a perfect example of someone seeing the darkness as light, a man who refuses to see the truth because of your obsession with homosexuality you try to use the Bible to justify. You bring reproach to the Name of Christ with this ugly theology that is easily refuted if you bother to do even a little research instead of swallowing the lines from bad preachers and bigoted Church traditions that are far removed from the Bible. God forgive you for twisting Paul around.

            I figured you would even bother with Malik because he doesn’t support your view, I gave that for others to read, all they have to do is check it out and see if he makes a fair and balanced case, unless of course you’re afraid of what you’ll find. Jesus was not gay because He was not a born eunuch, remember, there are 3 kinds of eunuchs mentioned and Christ goes on to say let he who hears this take from it what he wants.

            “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.”
            1 Peter 4:8.

          • Invictus_Lux

            You are completely out of your league spewing this neo-gayish reinterpretation of scripture to give yourself license to commit lewd acts.

            You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about when you say the Greek Word Arsenokoitai is a bad translation. You imbecile, the reason its not seen in the Greek or in other places in the bible is because PAUL COINED this word from two separate Greek words to vividly illustrate the immediate perversity of the homosexual coupling textually and lexically. The words sss and xxxx lying literally side by side and juxtaposed unnaturally elicits the same unnatural image of two same sex males lying in kind side by side in illicit acts. It’s a play on words to italicize the illicit coupling.

            Paul was an expert in the Septuagint Pentateuch (the most popular Greek version of the OT at the time – the one quoted by Jesus often) and in the Greek language. He used the word, ἀρσενοκοῖται with the Greek text (Septuagint) of Leviticus 18:22: και μετα αρσενος ου κοιμηθηση κοιτην γυναικος βδελυγμα γαρ εστιν “’Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman;”

            The Greek words which translate “man” αρσενος (arsenos) and “lie with” κοιτην (koita-n). Put them together, of course, and
            the compound noun is ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai).


            It is indisputable that Leviticus18:22 and 20:13 forbid a man lying with another man as one would with a woman. So you would have it that Christ liberated everyone from that law just to liberate the homsoexuals to go commit illicit and perverse sex acts at te same time he was admonishing followers to not even entertain lustful thoughts???

            How OUTRAGEOUS and imbecillic. Your invalid read of scripture would make Jesus a liar when he told us that the law was NOT destroyed by his actions:

            Matthew 5:17-19 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.18 For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.
            19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.”

            You fall under the penalties of Matthew 5:17-19 in teaching the tripe you do here.

  • RoofinReality

    I believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
    The problem I have with my radically religious friends is that they will call out a gay lifestyle but will NOT call out a philandering man or woman who sleeps around.
    They will NOT call out themselves when they order porn on a regular basis.
    It’s a lot easier to be holier than thou if you truly are. But I have a co-worker who was sleeping around on his wife with various vendors and people in his office. Yet, he was critical of anyone who wasn’t signed up fir a bible study. And, very specifically called out Bill Clinton for the affair he had.