I have to tell you that this whole Cain thing is a mess. First he can't settle on 9-9-9 or 9-0-9. Then he bobbles the ball on abortion. For or against? Can't really say because he appears to have taken both positions. Then he has not just one, but multiple accusations of sexual harassment. His defense is "Uh, uh!" To be fair, it would be difficult to mount a much better defense. These kinds of things are inherently "He said, she said." And now we have a new accusation of a 13-year affair. From a "friend" (his term).
All of this is, well, hard to evaluate. He could modify his 9-9-9 plan and still be qualified for the job. He could misspeak on abortion and still be qualified for the job. (I have to say that you can't favor the murder of babies and be qualified for the job.) And it is somewhat offensive to me that he is being tried in the court of public opinion on the harassment and affair charges and declared guilty when the American justice system demands "innocent until proven guilty". But the question I have is not about the any of these. The question I have is more basic.
Cain's constant denial is one thing. His lawyer's comments are another. "This appears to be an accusation of private, alleged consensual conduct between adults - a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public." Let's think about that. When Gary Hart was caught cavorting on a boat with Donna Rice, his candidacy was terminated. When Bill Clinton was accused of affairs with Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones, there was hardly a bump in the road. Ted Kennedy's event with Mary Jo Kopechne didn't seem to bother his political career much. Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky got him impeached ... for lying to Congress ... and not removed from office. Congressman Gerry Studds was censured by the House for engaging in a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old male House Page, but he won re-election. Rudy Giuliani shut down his bid for the GOP presidential nomination when the news of an affair with his current wife surfaced. What makes the difference? When is it acceptable or unacceptable to violate sexual mores?
In the days of the Clinton presidency issues, the question of character came up. James Carville assured us, "Character doesn't matter." Is that the case? Is it necessary for a politician to be a person of good character? Why not for some? I got a hint on this from the news report the other night. Herman Cain, according to his interview with CBN in March, is a Baptist preacher. "My faith is a big part of who I am and at my church now, which is the same one I grew up in, I’m one of the Associate Ministers there because I was called to the ministry." Ah, see? There it is. Could it be that Bill Clinton coasted past the allegations of affairs and stayed in office after the last one because no one expected any better?
It's tough, these days, to expect better. The Bible says that all have sinned, that we are sinners at the core. It appears that the public record is bearing that out. But it would appear that people who profess to be Christians are to be held to a higher standard than those who do not. I suppose that's the way it is. I don't guess that I'm particularly surprised. But I'd like to tell Lin Wood, Cain's lawyer, that character matters and that illicit sex is not "a subject matter which is not a proper subject of inquiry by the media or the public." I would classify that as mutiny, Mr. Wood. And I'd like to tell Mr. Cain that honesty is the best policy and that any damage done to the name of Christ is far worse than damage done to your own reputation. (I'm not saying that he's not being honest. I would simply encourage him to be forthright.) Politics is a messy business. Being a Christian in that particular venue is quite difficult. Finding a viable Christian candidate is rare. I'm just glad that I serve a living God who is not bound by humans to accomplish what He intends.
9 comments:
Stan...
But it would appear that people who profess to be Christians are to be held to a higher standard than those who do not. I suppose that's the way it is.
Clinton professes to be a Christian, too, you know. I think part of it is that the GOP/conservative types have set themselves up as moral arbiters and "the family values" party, so the hypocrisy of it all is more distasteful to the public at large than it is for those who admit to being fallen human beings with imperfect values/lives.
That is, IF you are going around saying "the gays" or the "Hollywood elite" are awful sinners for cavorting sexually outside of marriage and THEN you yourself are caught up in similar shenanigans, AND if you are busy creating public policy to penalize these sinners, then folk will judge you more harshly. And rightly so, it seems to me.
Sexual misconduct of a private, consensual adult nature is more readily forgiven than hypocrisy.
Jesus treated it that way, too, you know? He had no harsh words for the sexually immoral, but only gentle encouragement. His harsh words were reserved almost exclusively for religious hypocrites.
What do you think?
Oh, and I will point out that this comment of mine is in NO way an attack on Stan or on his comments. He asked a question, "Ah, see? There it is. Could it be that Bill Clinton coasted past the allegations of affairs and stayed in office after the last one because no one expected any better?" and I offered a politely worded response to that question.
Just to forego the usual sidetracks, hopefully.
"I'm just glad that I serve a living God who is not bound by humans to accomplish what He intends."
Me too.
And Christians are held to a higher expectation of "right" behavior, as well they should. We should expect it of ourselves and of others who claim the name of Christ. To me the incongruity is obvious and dripping in all the cases you listed. We hear all the time that what is done in private has no bearing on what is done at the job out in the public. If that's the case then why is so much done and made in public when those private things come to light? The punishment is not even the issue, as what happens to someone else may always be less or more strict that what we personally would ascent. But why is it even reported. "Another sports coach is accused of molesting boys, not big deal he was doing that in private - now what was the score in last night's game?" Shouldn't that be the response if it really is true that it really doesn't matter?
There is an implicit understanding that these things are wrong - not socially unacceptable right now - wrong. The question every person must answer is why? and how can we continue to teach that everyone can make up their own mind and private matters have no bearing on public actions and yet still punish people for what they do in private?
@Dan
Excellent! Since "claims to be Christian" is the standard by which we determine that someone is indeed a Christian, then 75% of Americans are Christians and we are, indeed, a Christian nation. On the other hand ...
Back in the Bush/Gore presidential race, Al Gore was asked, "How will you make your decisions in the White House?" He replied, "I will ask myself, 'What would Jesus do?'" Around the same time, George Bush was asked, "Who is your favorite philosopher?" He answered, "Jesus Christ." Oddly enough, while the public erupted over Bush's choice of philosopher, no one batted an eye that Gore claimed he would lead by following Christ. Why is that? Could it be that no one really believed him? Could it be that no one really thought that Clinton was a practicing Christian?
I've known far too many self-proclaimed "Christians" who were actually practical atheists.
It would appear, then, that all we need to do is admit that we're fallen and the standards can be dropped, the qualifications can be lowered, misconduct (of a sexual type or otherwise) becomes irrelevant, and we're all set ... right? (Rhetorical question.)
I also oppose hypocrisy. But it does appear that you're saying that those with moral values are held to a higher standard than those without.
Stan...
But it does appear that you're saying that those with moral values are held to a higher standard than those without.
I apologize if I was less than clear, then. Allow me to clarify:
I'm speaking specifically of those who preen and make a bigger noise about their "high moral standards" - I think they are likely to be castigated more severely in the public arena when their pecaddiloes are revealed than the person who is more humble about their own virtue and who does not publicly castigate other sinners.
I'd suggest that those with the highest moral values won't spend so much time advertising their own virtue and will be more likely to be humane (or Christ-like, if you prefer) in their treatment of those who have become "public" sinners.
I'm thinking of Jesus and the woman accused of adultery, for instance. Jesus had only compassion for her, NO public condemnation or "whipping."
I'm thinking of the "poor sinning publican" and the preening Pharisee as they prayed.
I don't think this is that astounding of a conclusion, Stan. Wouldn't you agree that those who preen most and castigate others the most over their sins will be most likely to be treated more harshly when their sins arise?
It seems to me that this is a bit of human nature and it further seems to me that it is endorsed/supported by the biblical witness. Do you disagree?
Perhaps I've been unclear.
Question: Is Person A qualified to be the president (or whatever office we're discussing) of this country?
Answer (apparently): If Person A states that he has moral values and is perceived to have violated them, then, no, he/she is not qualified to hold that office. If Person A does not appear to hold to any specific moral values, then violating them is not significant and he/she is qualified for the office.
Apparently, then, we're perfectly happy to elect an openly immoral person, but we will not tolerate a perceived hypocrite.
(Again, please note, the post is under the category of "Politics". You seem to be discussing personal lives; I'm discussing political figures.)
Stan...
Question: Is Person A qualified to be the president (or whatever office we're discussing) of this country?
Answer (apparently): If Person A states that he has moral values and is perceived to have violated them, then, no, he/she is not qualified to hold that office. If Person A does not appear to hold to any specific moral values, then violating them is not significant and he/she is qualified for the office.
I believe you were clear and I answered your specific question. I'm sorry if I was not clear enough. One more time then, in response to your direct question:
Person A is qualified as long as they meet the legal requirements. Period.
Having said that, if Person A has put forth a persona and then some sin becomes public and it is in conflict with that persona, people are less likely to be forgiving.
Some examples:
If a conservative Senator A preens and opines against "the gays," condemning them as moral degenerates and writing laws that limit their freedoms, AND THEN that senator is caught in a men's restroom soliciting gay sex, the public will not be very forgiving of that sin.
IF on the other hand, Senator B is unmarried and has offered no public opinions or condemnations of others for their positions and then it turns out the Senator B has been in a live-in sexual relationship with his girlfriend, the public will likely not care so much about that sin.
Senator A has set himself up as a hypocrite while Senator B has not.
Or, looking at another angle: If Senator G has been a public environmentalist, encouraging people to live in smaller circles and trying to legislate rules to encourage "smaller" living, and then the public finds out that Senator C lives in a huge mansion driving multiple Hummers and SUVs around regularly, he will be perceived to be hypocritical and the public will be more critical of his behavior than they will of Senator R who has always been quite vocal in his support of Hummers and Big Mansions.
So, when you say...
Apparently, then, we're perfectly happy to elect an openly immoral person, but we will not tolerate a perceived hypocrite.
I think you're getting close to what I was actually saying. It's not so much that they're "openly immoral" but that they are consistent. The person who supports marriage for all and is not critical of others' sexual pecadillos will be less harshly criticized in case of an affair than the person who IS critical of others for their sexual sins and who limits the liberties of one group for similar behavior that he himself engages in.
It's consistency and hypocrisy that gets judged more harshly in the public realm and, frankly, in the Bible.
You seem to be agreeing with me, then. How about that?
We are understanding each other. I am not getting the connection between "hypocrite" and "not suited to lead" but "consistently immoral" and "suited to lead".
I know this isn't really relative to the main topic, but in response to Dan T and his examples of polluting Senators and non polluting Senators, we already have a political figure that is open vocal about living green and reducing our carbon footprint, and has been found to be a worse polluter than his opponent. Yet he is not torn down for his faults. It would seem that it comes down to mores, not politics.
Post a Comment