Augustine is a terrible example; his autobiographical remarks were mainly describing his prior life as a heretic, something it would not have been taxing to shun: the heresies he followed were usually austere, not debauched. One of these was the Manichaean heresy, which involved fasting. On the other hand, he also has the hilarious medieval tendency to attribute a laundry list of implausible vices to his sparring partners. I may not be Republican, but my next-door neighbor is and he's a really great guy. He's not debauched, probably never was, he uses correct grammar, he's thoughtful and generous, and he takes good care of his backyard. If I were Augustine, I'd tell you he has a cauldron in his backyard where he boils babies alive to conjure up the damned soul of Strom Thurmond, and his grammer is horrible.

A better example is Doctor Laura Schlessinger, the evangelical talk radio host who climbed her way to the top, divorced, and then renounced feminism. I might have used Clarence Thomas, an opponent of affirmative action who clearly holds his job because he was so young at the time of his nomination, was already a federal judge, and was prepared to vote in ways that were so anathema to African Americans. I recall spiritual leaders who were famous for having had, earlier in their lives, immense amounts of sex with numerous partners, who then renounced the ways of the flesh and denounced our materialistic society. I would think, "Well, maybe so, but you sure got yours while the getting was good, didn't you?" Not the most compelling argument to make, but it does tend to greatly weaken the credibility of certain people in my eyes.

In a way, it's not a legitimate objection. Yes, the speaker may have fulfilled his craving for sex before being sated and quitting; that doesn't mean his call for celibacy or for abstemious behavior is therefore false. The alcoholic member of the WCTU (in Spoon River Anthology) may be ashamed, but his hatred of the addiction which enslaved him is perfectly understandable. Doctor Laura is not very good at logical reasoning, but if she were, she could argue that women's liberation came with baggage she cannot condone. It would not be much of an argument; it would be a premise I disagree with; but it would be AN argument with some logical cohesion. Instead, she seeks a cult of personality. She's illogical for other reasons besides her political affiliations; so using logical arguments to defend them, could get listeners addicted to logic. And that would never do.

I think people can sense SAS even when they have no name for it. It isn't really hypocrisy, because the sufferer may be quite candid about everything ("Yes, young men and women, I used to be a swinger. Before I accepted Jesus into my heart, I had hundreds of sexual partners... At the time, I thought I was OK. I thought I was doing the natural, free thing. It felt good...") But the speaker leaves something out. He may actually point out that he got tired of all the sex, or the buzzes, or the aimlessness. His listeners are likely to be thinking, though, that he did capture the pleasure and now he's also got eternal salvation. Awesome deal. Where do I sign up? Oh, bummer. I could get be doing my hitch, getting down with the babes, when I get hit by a truck and go to hell. Bad timing, Dude.