November 10th, 2010 at 8:51 AM ^

So if he'd said "that guy is a liar he must be a (insert political affiliation)" would you have responded the same way? Politics-bashing (and politics in general) have been banned from this board for very good reason, so is it unreasonable for people to show the same respect towards others' faith?


November 10th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^

In response to htownwolverine's

I hope there are tapes. If this one is true, Cam's dad is a real dick. Oh right, he's a pastor. LOL. We have seen enough of those false characters the last few years.

As a pastor I find this offensive.


November 10th, 2010 at 10:00 AM ^

As someone who was once planning to become a pastor (and maybe might still, who knows.), I can't say I blame him for this remark.

You can't deny there's a ton of hypocrisy among the clergy and Christians in general.  

And not just high profile cases like Ted Haggard or Eddie Long or Jimmy Swaggart, either.  A lot of times it seems like hypocrisy is the norm, not the exception.  


November 10th, 2010 at 10:11 AM ^

I agree with the fact that there is a ton of hypocrisy among us.

I've worked hard and done the best I can to live a life of integrity (FAR from perfect - just ask my wife) and it stings when another pastor makes poor choices.  It also hurts when we all get lumped together and "guilt by association" takes place when used in sweeping general comments.

By no means do I think htownwolverine was actually attacking me but it's tough to read the pastor comment and not feel like he could have chosen a different way to say it.


November 10th, 2010 at 2:38 PM ^

I agree that hypocrisy is a character trait of all people at one point or another.  We all hold each other to a higher standard than ourselves from time to time.  I also agree that it isn't relegated to religious folks.  However, this is all beside the point.

Religiously affiliated people will always be held to a higher standard in the eyes of the nonreligious.  Often times nonreligious people behave in a manner that doesn't cohere to the religious doctrine of the Christian faith.  This is understandable.  What is condemning is when self-identified Christians don't adhere to the doctrine they espouse.  Basically what I'm saying is, Christians are espousing a moral/ethical code whereas the nonreligious, in general, are not.  The simple act of asserting an objective morality means that you are now held to that standard.  Stealing isn't hypocritical unless one who steals claims it to be morally or ethically impermissible.  You can't fail to practice what you preach if you never preach to begin with.

People don't like being told what they can or can not do.  Preachers are the voice of authority in regards to morality.  When they fail to adhere to their own preachings, it adds a level of hypocrisy the average, nonreligious, person can avert.  When the authority fails to adhere to its own rules, it helps validate their own disobedience.


November 10th, 2010 at 10:44 AM ^

As a pastor I find this offensive

As a Christian I find it very offensive that so many Men of God with their pastoral titles and bibles are really crooks or sex abusers.

Assuming Cam's dad took the bribe, he will be another large disappointment to me.

As I get older, I am starting to assume that the men who lift the cross up the highest and proclaim it the loudest are usually the crooks.  I assume that is what the poster two posts up was saying.


November 10th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^

As a Catholic living in the South I have had my share of ribbing by Protestants. I probably should have not been as snarky but my original post was late last night so my snark synapse does not work quite as well.

I have had some experience with 'Pastors' that run storefront churches (Cecil has 5 of them) and needless to say some of them are not legitimate but only fronts for tax fraud and evasion. A man can collect a lot of donations and spread expenses when he controls so many non-profits. And Cecil's latest alleged activities do paint him with a stained brush.

However, poor taste on my part and my apologies to any one offended.


November 10th, 2010 at 12:48 AM ^

"After Newton committed to Auburn, another source said an emotional Cam Newton phoned another recruiter to express regret that he wouldn't be going to Mississippi State, stating that his father Cecil had chosen Auburn for him because 'the money was too much.'"



November 10th, 2010 at 10:50 AM ^

why would he tell people at Mississippi State?

This one seems easy enough: 1) he's just a kid and 2) with apparently questionable integrity (if the reports of academic cheating at UF are true).  As a kid, he may have genuinely felt bad about stringing Miss. St. along and then having his pops pull the rug out from under him.  I don't like letting people down, and maybe he doesn't either.  And some people, myself included, are exceptionally bad about letting people down without spilling the entire truth.  Sometimes, it's best just to deliver the bad news and then shut up.  This sometimes takes maturity, and again, he's just a kid.


November 10th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

he's just a kid, and felt close/comfortable with the person who had been recruiting him the entire time. probably felt bad about not going to MSU, and wanted to be honest with the person that he thought he could trust.

i work with teenagers daily, they can't keep their mouth shut for shit.


November 10th, 2010 at 1:57 PM ^

Old Cecil effed up when he started crossing state lines with this nonsense. Once the interstate commerce clause is invoked, the Feds will always take a look at it which is why I definitely believe that the FBI is at a minimum taking a cursory glance. There appears to be phone communications and I would believe wire or mail transfers as well. Auburn should be praying this does not spin the direction of an extortion charge since I am sure Cecil would roll pretty quickly on the details regarding how his son ended up at Auburn because the payoff to the family is not some small payment for college play, but Cam's NFL contract and there would be no need to put that in jeopardy. The most damning thing for the SEC is that this seems completely plausible within that conference, almost not even surprising. 


November 10th, 2010 at 11:09 AM ^

Sadly, Clarett's troubles really only came to light after the MNC.

It reminds me a little of the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa stuff in 1998, where everyone knew they were juicing and there was some evidence but not enough to tank them completely.  But if Newton gets nailed before the season's over, I've gotta think it'd be pretty unprecedented.


November 10th, 2010 at 12:51 AM ^

GOODBYE HEISMAN!!!! I mean after all the Reggie Bush stuff which took 5 years to come out...you really think people are going to be voting for him now? Good thing this is coming out now rather than in the future...there could possible be 2 voids in the Hesiman family.


November 10th, 2010 at 12:55 AM ^

I had previously thought that Auburn had nothing to lose by playing Newton because most of its season would already be vacated if he was ineligible.  In other words, it already is all or nothing for Auburn.  The one wrinkle is whether the NCAA would come down harder on Auburn if it had reason to suspect that these allegations were true, yet it continued to play Newton until the hammer actually came down. 


November 10th, 2010 at 1:03 AM ^

this is Auburn. Their record says where there is smoke there is fire. This will not turn out well for them. If so if the NCAA should come dome hard.


November 10th, 2010 at 1:03 AM ^

I just don't understand where people get the stones to think they can get away with this! It is unfathomable. I mean, all he has to do is wait a couple years and he'll have a chance at way more than he could get from extorting a college. It's sad really.