Fait Diver: “Lovingly and Winsomely”

If this creature requires an introduction, here’s a good one —

Surely the facts are not in dispute.

“Colson . . .became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP or CREEP). At a CRP meeting on March 21, 1971, it was agreed to spend $250,000 on “intelligence gathering” on the Democratic Party. Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed E. Howard Hunt to the White House Special Operations Unit (the so-called “Plumbers”) which had been organized to stop leaks in the Nixon administration. Hunt headed up the Plumbers’ burglary of Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in September 1971. The Pentagon Papers were military documents about the Vietnam War which helped increase opposition to the war. Colson hoped that revelations about Ellsberg could be used to discredit the anti-Vietnam War cause. Colson admitted to leaking information from Ellsberg’s confidential FBI file to the press, but denied organizing Hunt’s burglary of Ellsberg’s office. He expressed regret for attempting to cover up this incident in his 2005 book, The Good Life.”

Regrets, he’s had a few. . .

“On March 10, 1973, Colson resigned from the White House to return to the private practice of law, as Senior Partner at the law firm of Colson and Shapiro, Washington, D.C.
On March 1, 1974, Colson was indicted for conspiring to cover up the Watergate burglary
As Colson was facing arrest, his close friend, Raytheon Company chairman of the board Thomas L. Phillips, gave Colson a copy of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, which, after reading it, led Colson to become an evangelical Christian. Colson then joined a prayer group led by Douglas Coe, and including Democrat Senator Harold Hughes, Republican congressman Al Quie and Democrat congressman Graham B. Purcell, Jr.. When news of the conversion emerged much later, several U.S. newspapers, as well as Newsweek, The Village Voice, and Time, ridiculed the conversion, claiming that it was a ploy to reduce his sentence.”

Which of course it was.

” In his 1975 memoir Born Again. Colson noted that a few writers published sympathetic stories, as in the case of a widely reprinted UPI article, “From Watergate to Inner Peace.”
After taking the Fifth Amendment on the advice of his lawyers during early testimony, Colson found himself torn between his desire to be truthful and his desire to avoid conviction on charges of which he believed himself innocent. Following prayer and consultation with his fellowship group, Colson approached his lawyers and suggested a plea of guilty to a different criminal charge of which he did consider himself culpable.”

A Jesuitical distinction elusive to all but a few.

“After days of negotiation with Jaworski and Gesell, Colson pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice on the basis of having attempted to defame Ellsberg’s character in the build-up to the trial in order to influence the jury against him. Journalist Carl Rowan commented in a June 10 column that the guilty plea came “at a time when the judge was making noises about dismissing the charges against him” and speculated that Colson was preparing to reveal highly damaging information against Nixon, an expectation shared by columnist Clark Mollenhoff; Mollenhoff even went so far as to suggest that for Colson not to become a “devastating witness” would cast doubt on the sincerity of his conversion.”

Excellent legal advice.

“On June 21, 1974, Colson was given a one- to three-year sentence and fined $5,000. He was subsequently disbarred in the District of Columbia, with the expectation of his also being prohibited from using his licenses from Virginia and Massachusetts.
Colson served seven months in Maxwell Correctional Facility in Alabama, — with brief stints at a facility on the Fort Holabird grounds when needed as a trial witness — entering prison on July 9, 1974 and being released early, on January 31, 1975, by the sentencing judge because of family problems. At the time that Gesell ordered his release, Colson was one of the last of the Watergate defendants still in jail, only Gordon Liddy was still incarcerated; Egil Krogh had served his sentence and been released before Colson entered jail, while John Dean, Jeb Magruder, and Herb Kalmbach had been released earlier in January 1975 by Judge John Sirica. (Although Gesell declined to name the “family problems” prompting the release, Colson wrote in his 1976 memoir that his son Chris, angry over his father’s imprisonment and looking to replace his broken car, had bought $150 worth of marijuana in hopes of selling it at a profit, and had been arrested in South Carolina, where he was in college. The state later dropped the charges.)
During his time in prison, Colson had become increasingly aware of what he saw as injustices done to prisoners and shortcomings in their rehabilitation; he also had the opportunity, during a three-day furlough to attend his father’s funeral, to pore over his father’s papers and discover the two shared an interest in prison reform. He became increasingly convinced that he was being called by God to develop a ministry to prisoners with an emphasis in promoting changes in the justice system.”

In 1978 his memoir Born Again was turned into a motion picture starring Dean Jones and Anne Francis and directed by Irving Rapper.


Regarding the “Manhattan Declaration,” which he discusses with leading 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee here —

As Hate propaganda goes it’s fairly clever. Drafted October 20, 2009 & Released November 20, 2009 it’s preety pro forma in its veneer of piety and oppostion to abortion. It really gets down to busienss, however in THIS passage

“The impulse to redefine marriage in order to recognize same-sex and multiple partner relationships is a symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of the marriage culture. It reflects a loss of understanding of the meaning of marriage as embodied in our civil and religious law and in the philosophical tradition that contributed to shaping the law. Yet it is critical that the impulse be resisted, for yielding to it would mean abandoning the possibility of restoring a sound understanding of marriage and, with it, the hope of rebuilding a healthy marriage culture. It would lock into place the false and destructive belief that marriage is all about romance and other adult satisfactions, and not, in any intrinsic way, about procreation and the unique character and value of acts and relationships whose meaning is shaped by their aptness for the generation, promotion and protection of life. In spousal communion and the rearing of children (who, as gifts of God, are the fruit of their parents’ marital love), we discover the profound reasons for and benefits of the marriage covenant.

We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives. We, no less than they, are in constant need of God’s patience, love and forgiveness. We call on the entire Christian community to resist sexual immorality, and at the same time refrain from disdainful condemnation of those who yield to it. Our rejection of sin, though resolute, must never become the rejection of sinners. For every sinner, regardless of the sin, is loved by God, who seeks not our destruction but rather the conversion of our hearts. Jesus calls all who wander from the path of virtue to “a more excellent way.” As his disciples we will reach out in love to assist all who hear the call and wish to answer it.

We further acknowledge that there are sincere people who disagree with us, and with the teaching of the Bible and Christian tradition, on questions of sexual morality and the nature of marriage. Some who enter into same-sex and polyamorous relationships no doubt regard their unions as truly marital. They fail to understand, however, that marriage is made possible by the sexual complementarity of man and woman, and that the comprehensive, multi-level sharing of life that marriage is includes bodily unity of the sort that unites husband and wife biologically as a reproductive unit. This is because the body is no mere extrinsic instrument of the human person, but truly part of the personal reality of the human being. Human beings are not merely centers of consciousness or emotion, or minds, or spirits, inhabiting non-personal bodies. The human person is a dynamic unity of body, mind, and spirit. Marriage is what one man and one woman establish when, forsaking all others and pledging lifelong commitment, they found a sharing of life at every level of being—the biological, the emotional, the dispositional, the rational, the spiritual— on a commitment that is sealed, completed and actualized by loving sexual intercourse in which the spouses become one flesh, not in some merely metaphorical sense, but by fulfilling together the behavioral conditions of procreation. That is why in the Christian tradition, and historically in Western law, consummated marriages are not dissoluble or annullable on the ground of infertility, even though the nature of the marital relationship is shaped and structured by its intrinsic orientation to the great good of procreation.

We understand that many of our fellow citizens, including some Christians, believe that the historic definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is a denial of equality or civil rights. They wonder what to say in reply to the argument that asserts that no harm would be done to them or to anyone if the law of the community were to confer upon two men or two women who are living together in a sexual partnership the status of being “married.” It would not, after all, affect their own marriages, would it? On inspection, however, the argument that laws governing one kind of marriage will not affect another cannot stand. Were it to prove anything, it would prove far too much: the assumption that the legal status of one set of marriage relationships affects no other would not only argue for same sex partnerships; it could be asserted with equal validity for polyamorous partnerships, polygamous households, even adult brothers, sisters, or brothers and sisters living in incestuous relationships. Should these, as a matter of equality or civil rights, be recognized as lawful marriages, and would they have no effects on other relationships? No. The truth is that marriage is not something abstract or neutral that the law may legitimately define and re-define to please those who are powerful and influential.
No one has a civil right to have a non-marital relationship treated as a marriage. Marriage is an objective reality—a covenantal union of husband and wife—that it is the duty of the law to recognize and support for the sake of justice and the common good. If it fails to do so, genuine social harms follow. First, the religious liberty of those for whom this is a matter of conscience is jeopardized. Second, the rights of parents are abused as family life and sex education programs in schools are used to teach children that an enlightened understanding recognizes as “marriages” sexual partnerships that many parents believe are intrinsically non-marital and immoral. Third, the common good of civil society is damaged when the law itself, in its critical pedagogical function, becomes a tool for eroding a sound understanding of marriage on which the flourishing of the marriage culture in any society vitally depends. Sadly, we are today far from having a thriving marriage culture. But if we are to begin the critically important process of reforming our laws and mores to rebuild such a culture, the last thing we can afford to do is to re-define marriage in such a way as to embody in our laws a false proclamation about what marriage is.

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. How could we, as Christians, do otherwise? The Bible teaches us that marriage is a central part of God’s creation covenant. Indeed, the union of husband and wife mirrors the bond between Christ and his church. And so just as Christ was willing, out of love, to give Himself up for the church in a complete sacrifice, we are willing, lovingly, to make whatever sacrifices are required of us for the sake of the inestimable treasure that is marriage.”

Ah yes, “We hate you because we love you”.

Make no mistake, we’re useful to Colson and his ilk. Why else would he hire noted homosexual Irving Rapper to direct Born Again, right on the heels of The Christine Jorgensen Story.

Still, in all fairness, Colson could have had Rapper’s most famous film in mind.

Ah but he didn’t cast Bette Davis in the lead. That part went to the star of THIS hit.

No, he didn’t get the car to play him, he got Dean Jones, who —

“After achieving success in film and television, Jones was set to return to Broadway as the star of Stephen Sondheim and George Furth’s new musical Company. Shortly after opening night, Jones withdrew from the show, allegedly due to illness, but actually due to stress he was undergoing from ongoing divorce proceedings. Director Harold Prince agreed to replace him with Larry Kert if Jones would open the show and record the cast album. Jones agreed and his performance is preserved on the original cast album (although it was Larry Kert who received the Tony nomination for Best Actor in a Musical).
In 1986, Jones, by then having become a Christian, starred in Into the Light, a musical about scientists and the Shroud of Turin, which closed four days after it opened. He had far more success touring in the one-man show St. John in Exile. In this production, Jones portrayed St. John, the last surviving Apostle of Jesus Christ, reminiscing about his life while imprisoned on the Greek island of Patmos. A performance was filmed in 1986. He made one more Broadway appearance, in 1993, at the Vivian Beaumont Theater, in a special two-day concert staging of Company featuring most of the original Broadway cast.”

How nice of him, especially considering the fact that —

“Jones’ first marriage to Mae Entwisle ended in divorce in the 1970s. He has two children from that union. He has been married since 1973 to actress Lory Patrick Jones and has a third child from that marriage.
Dean Jones became a devout born-again Christian in 1973–1974, before his father’s death in 1979. He has since appeared in several Christian films. A noted conservative, Jones also testified in favor of an amendment to the United States Constitution that would define marriage between one man and one woman.”

Meaning that he’s really married to Chuck Colson.

Render under Colson the things that are Colson’s and to Sondheim the things that are Sondheim’s.


  1. lawguy January 8, 2011 5:10 pm 

    Wasn’t Colson the one who said He’d run over his mother for Nixon. Of course after the conversion someone pointed that if that was what he’d do for Nixon, what would he do for Jesus.

    It is interesting that after his conversion he continued to be active in politics with just the same political point of view he had before, except now his justification was god. His prison reform stuff was mostly a scam, and got him a good amount of money if I remember correctly.

    Well when one watches these kind of born again creeps, one sometimes wishes that there was really an after life, with real justice, since I am sure they would not go where they expect.

  2. David E January 8, 2011 7:08 pm 

    Colson would run over his mother for sport.

    Nixon would give Jesus a blow-job.

Leave a comment