If the issue at hand is whether or not Davis is consistent in her professed religious values, then her actions are clearly relevant. After all, if a person claims to have a set of values and acts in ways that violate those values, then this provides legitimate grounds for accusations of hypocrisy<\/span> and even of claims that the person does not really hold to that belief set.\u00a0– Mike LaBossiere<\/a><\/p>\n “Critics are calling attention to the fact that Davis was married four times<\/a> as evidence of hypocrisy.” – Libby Anne<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not \u201cslut-shaming\u201d to point out the hypocrisy of a woman who marries and divorces multiple times, then says her faith prevents her from allowing gay couples to marry once. It\u2019s a fair point. It\u2019s also fair to note that she probably signed marriage licenses for people of mixed faiths and people who were divorced \u2014 none of that set off those religious alarms.\u00a0– Hemant Mehta<\/a><\/p>\n I guess I am shaming Kim, but it\u2019s for her hypocrisy<\/span>. –\u00a0JT Eberhard<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n With all this hypocrisy-shaming going around, we should probably\u00a0stop and ask ourselves if less hypocrisy and more consistency would actually make the world a better place, given the ideals embedded in the holy books which\u00a0true believers claim to follow. If everyone\u00a0who professes to follow Jesus took his advice to heart about the immorality of divorce\u2014treating it as adultery\u2014would that make our society a better place to live? If everyone who professes to be a Bible-believer took\u00a0Leviticus 20:10 literally and sought to reinstitute the death penalty for adultery, would that make our society a better place to live? Given all the draconian punishments listed in the Bible<\/a> and other holy books, do we really want to be encouraging people of faith to be fully consistent in\u00a0making their actions comply with their stated beliefs?<\/p>\n I would argue that we humanists should\u00a0focus on helping people\u00a0form correct beliefs about morality, rather than\u00a0faulting them for failing to live up to an\u00a0ancient and barbarous moral code. Not all hypocrisy is necessarily harmful, and deviations from stated beliefs can actually make someone more benevolent<\/em> if their\u00a0stated beliefs were harmful\u00a0in the first place.\u00a0If this sounds too radical coming from me, take it from someone who really knows what he is talking about when it comes to moral progress over time:<\/p>\n \u201cOf course most devout Christians today are thoroughly tolerant and humane people. Even those who thunder from televised pulpits do not call for burning heretics alive or hoisting Jews on the strappado. The question is why they don\u2019t, given that their beliefs imply that it would serve the greater good. The answer is that people in the West today compartmentalize their religious ideology. When they affirm their faith in houses of worship, they profess beliefs that have barely changed in two thousand years. But when it comes to their actions, they respect modern norms of nonviolence and toleration, a benevolent hypocrisy for which we should all be grateful.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"pic2\"](\"https:\/\/skepticink.com\/backgroundprobability\/files\/2015\/09\/pic2.jpg\")
<\/a>