Opinion: Why do we use sex to measure a leader's morality?

It was refreshing to see this well-reasoned essay among the recent screeds related to the revelation that the Rev. Jesse Jackson fathered a child with a woman not his wife. Allow me to expound on the most important point Dyson raises, that our "obsession with sexual sin has distorted our understanding of the morality of leadership."

While it is understandable that the "Christian" right is enjoying a measure of satisfaction in watching an ideological adversary seem to fall from grace, the substance of its attacks on Jackson's moral authority reveals the essential wrongheadedness of what passes for "Christian" commentary these days. This is because the Christian right deems sexual continence the primary criterion for living a moral life -- thus its outright obsession with all things carnal (e.g., "correcting" homosexuality, abortion, lap dancing, etc., ad nauseam).

The problem with this is that Jesus actually said very little about matters of sex and sexuality. It was the apostle Paul and the early church fathers who were most concerned with that. What interested Jesus are the very principles that the Rev. Jackson has dedicated his life and ministry to promoting: economic and distributive justice, the equal worth of all people and a program of social justice that eschews violent prescriptions for curing society's ills.

Therefore, since we measure morality based on adherence to Judeo-Christian principles, one must recognize that whatever his sins of the flesh, Jackson has been remarkably consistent in his moral leadership. By questioning our unbounded capitalistic greed, railing against racism, sexism and classism, and protesting the execution of prisoners -- even those whose guilt is unquestioned -- he is merely following Christ's teachings regarding wealth, intolerance and turning the other cheek.

One wonders, then, why the leaders of the "Christian" right use matters of carnality as the ultimate yardstick for measuring morality when Christ clearly had a much different focus in his moral message. Could it merely be a clever strategy to divert our attention from truly Christian concerns -- poverty, racism and injustice -- in an attempt to cover for its shameful lack of meaningful moral leadership in addressing those concerns?

Could it be that the Christian right has become so pro-gun, pro-capital punishment, pro-segregation (which, let's face it, is the real impulse behind the school voucher and home-schooling movements), and so pro-greed-is-good that it hides behind a shield of sexual "morality" it knows will obscure our view so we don't notice just how un-Christian its philosophy and actions have become, which might in turn lead us to question the very moral authority it leans on to promote a political agenda that satisfies the bigotry and greed of the few instead of meeting the basic needs of the many?
-- Stephanie J. Chiariello, St. Petersburg

Jackson committed a terrible wrong

The responses to Jesse Jackson's infidelity appearing in this paper astonish me.

Immediately after the revelations of his indiscretions, his supporters rushed to the "everybody does it" defense (the same was offered for Clinton) submitting as evidence a list of dignitaries guilty of the same improprieties, starting with Thomas Jefferson. These defenders maintain that this was simply a "personal matter" and offer as mitigation all the good Jackson has done.

This is situational ethics at it worst.

What Jesse Jackson did was not a "mistake." A mistake is when I fail to program my VCR to tape one program so that I can watch another. This man consciously, deliberately and knowingly had sexual intercourse with a woman who was not his wife, and in the process he impregnated her.

What Jackson did was terribly wrong. What is worse, because he has become a hero for thousands of African-Americans (many of them in their teens), this becomes something more than just a "personal matter."

One of the greatest human tragedies of our times is the incredible number of African-American children born out of wedlock. The great difference between those children and Jackson's child is that these poor lost children have absentee fathers (many of them in their teens) who cannot afford $3,000 a month in child support.

Let me conclude by saying that Jackson's speedy return to the political stage suggests something less than profound remorse on his part.

I, for one, am not yet forgiving.
-- John H. McFadden, Inverness

New moral leadership is needed

I don't give a hoot about whether or not Jesse Jackson counseled Bill Clinton. Who knows? Maybe they spent that time comparing notes.

But I am concerned about the great numbers of children born out of wedlock, many of them black. Rather than embracing Jackson for "doing the right thing" by supporting his friend with whom he committed adultery and had a child, I hope the black community replaces his "moral leadership" with a new leader. I'll bet Colin Powell could make a recommendation. Listen to him!
-- Joyce Schwichtenberg, Oldsmar

Critics face accusations of racism

With a sense of disappointment I have read many of the Times articles about the Rev. Jesse Jackson and his recent peccadilloes. Many of us readers wonder if the Times would exercise such restraint in reporting a similar fall into disgrace by a prominent Republican activist.

In this instance, however, only minimal criticism dare be made (with hat in hand), lest the uncouth critic be deemed a bigoted racist. After all, the Rev. Jackson, may have violated his marriage vows (insulting his wife and five children) and violated his Baptist ministerial vows (insulting his church and his congregation), but he didn't perjure himself about it, and (so far, at least) none of his all-forgiving faithful have blamed a "massive right-wing conspiracy." He also insulted all decent Americans, black and white, but that is nothing new.

His return to grace after a few days of seclusion was extremely well-orchestrated, but unfortunately didn't allow the choir enough time to perfect their background rendition of "The Hallelujah Chorus."
-- R.J. Radford, Clearwater

Prayers did not exclude anyone

Re: Jan. 23 letters.

It is disturbing to me that people would complain about the prayers that were offered up at the inauguration of President Bush. Those clergymen were praying to their God and to Jesus who is the son of God. That is what the one saying the prayer was praying.

If some who heard or witnessed the prayers do not believe in Jesus Christ, so be it. That is their privilege. But the one offering the prayer, as well as the new president, do believe, and that is why they prayed that way.

That doesn't mean that the letter writers are excluded. The prayer was to the God that is worshiped by the one praying the prayer. And those who do not believe in God or Jesus Christ did not have to embrace that prayer. No one is jamming it down their throats.
-- Evelyn Justice, Pinellas Park

Childish behavior

I read with dismay the pranks of those Clinton staffers in the Executive Office Building, as they removed the "W" key from typewriters and computers before they left.

It reminded me of how true former Education Secretary Bill Bennet's remarks were, once the election was decided. I paraphrase: It will be nice to have adults in the White House once again!
-- Michele Shannon, Clearwater

Greater outrage is called for

Well, the St. Petersburg Times did print a very small article on an inside page about the Clintons taking nearly $200,000 worth of china, silverware and furniture from the White House as they left. However, it wasn't a piece written by a Times writer but came from the Associated Press and was played way down.

On another page there was a very small comment about the "pranks" played on the incoming administration by the outgoing employees. Nevertheless, such physical damage to government property can hardly be called a "prank." At this moment the Bush administration has decided not to press criminal charges, but for the life of me I can't imagine why not. We taxpayers will have to pony up the money to replace the damaged computer keyboards, file cabinets, and desks, not to mention the numerous other articles trashed as well.

Friday's Wall Street Journal gave these stories considerably more coverage, and quoted a number of prominent people about how they felt. Mary McGrory said, "The liberating effect of this terminal tackiness and greed was immediately felt." Michael Kramer in the New York Daily News said, "I won't use the label superior Northerners pejoratively use to describe Southern crackers. I won't call them "white trash.' But if not that, then what?"

Even the New York Times and Newsweek magazine came out with a blistering reaction to the crimes perpetrated.
-- Sam Lasley, Clearwater

Clinton's arrogant goodbye

Re: Clinton proves he loves a long goodbye. Mary Jacoby, Jan. 21.

I noted with interest former President Clinton's remarks at Andrews Air Force Base as he said his goodbyes last Saturday afternoon. However, my interest soon turned to disgust, as Mary Jacoby stated in her article that Clinton "thumbed his nose at his Republican successor and flouted inaugural day etiquette."

I was also upset by what he said and how he said it. It was alarming to hear his arrogance in claiming to his chief of staff, John Podesta, "we did a lot of good," when in reality, he has done a lot of irreparable damage to our nation in the areas of morality and personal integrity before the American public and courts.

The epitome of his arrogance came when he announced to the crowd, "You gave me the ride of my life and I've tried to give as good as I've got." To call dragging the American people through years of scandal and deception "the ride of my life" shows an abominable flippancy toward the great responsibility entrusted to him to lead our country. Speaking as someone who has been involved in parenting or education all of my adult life, I am profoundly disappointed in our former president and the example he has left for present and future generations of Americans!
-- Karla Davies, Clearwater

Clinton gets off easy again

Well, President Clinton gets away with it again. Almost everyone knew he was not telling the truth. And what happened? He was impeached and should have been kicked out of office then. But he went on with his term as if nothing occurred. This was wrong then. I'm sure another sitting president would have been out in a flash. But not Bill Clinton.

Now when the government should be prosecuting him for all his untruths, he gets away with it again. Anyone else would have been disbarred. But he gets a suspension of five years. Come on. He should have had to endure the trial and then been made to tell the whole truth. And he should not have been able to practice law again. How can you be a great lawyer, when you have lied yourself under oath? Perjury is wrong.
-- Suzanne Jennings, Largo

Share your opinions

Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to (727) 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number.
--

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page