Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Adultery and Politics (Religious conservatives often go wrong by focusing on sexual sins)
National Review ^ | 12/06/2011 | Dennis Prager

Posted on 12/06/2011 7:09:02 AM PST by SeekAndFind

With Herman Cain’s announcement that he was suspending his presidential campaign because of the charges of sexual harassment and of a 13-year-long affair, issues are raised that the country would do well to think through.

The two most obvious are whether we should care about a politician’s sexual life, and how much the press should report about these matters.

But there is a larger issue that needs to be addressed first: What does adultery tell us about a person?

For many Americans, the answer is, “Pretty much all we need to know.” This certainly seems to be the case with regard to presidential candidates. The view is expressed this way: “If he can’t keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?”

I am a religious conservative, but I know this statement has no basis in fact. It sounds persuasive, but it is a non-sequitur. We have no reason to believe that men who have committed adultery are less likely to be great leaders, or that men who have always been faithful are more likely to be great leaders. To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king, and even have the Messiah descend from him, despite a particularly ugly form of covering up his adultery (sending Bathsheba’s husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).

And while we are on the subject of leadership, another question for religious and/or conservative readers who believe that a man who sexually betrays his wife is likely to betray his country: Which would you prefer for president — a pro-life conservative who had had an affair, or a pro-choice man of the Left who had always been faithful to his wife?

• Jimmy Carter, to the best of our knowledge, has been faithful to his wife throughout their long marriage. That is certainly commendable. Did it make him in any way a better president? Has it given moral acuity to the man who wrote a book equating democratic Israel with apartheid South Africa?

• The American who may have singlehandedly prevented inter-racial war in America, Martin Luther King Jr., committed adultery on a number of occasions.

• Would John F. Kennedy, a serial adulterer while in the White House, have been any different a president were he faithful?

Just knowing that a man or a woman has had extramarital sex may tell us nothing about the person that is relevant to his or her public life. I have always wanted to know: Why is sexual sin in general, and adultery in particular, the one sin that many religious people regard as defining a person, as well as a sin that is almost unforgiveable?

Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife if I did it, and how much it would hurt me if my wife had an affair.

But marriage is too complex an arena to draw any immediate conclusions about a person. Are we to label a man who takes loving care a wife with Alzheimer’s and who has a discreet affair no more than an adulterer who merits disdain and mistrust? Is a woman who stays in an emotionally abusive marriage for the sake of her children someone with little integrity because she sought to be held in another man’s loving arms? The questions and nuances are innumerable.

And what is adultery? Women have called my radio show to tell me that a man who gets a lap dance has committed adultery. Others go further — saying that merely attending a strip show, or looking at Playboy, is adultery. To my mind this is emotion, not reason, morality, or religion. Yes, many Christians cite Jesus as saying that a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife has committed adultery with his heart. But Jesus made it clear that this is adultery with the heart. Jesus, a practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one’s heart. And if someone believes the two are morally identical, why not start asking candidates if they have ever lusted for any woman other than their wife?

In choosing a president of the United States, adultery would greatly matter to me if it were engaged in indiscreetly. I don’t trust the integrity or conscience of a man or woman who publicly humiliates his or her spouse.

Beyond that, I do not want to know anything about the sexual life of any candidate. Media reporting or questioning about candidates’ sexual lives constitutes a form of hypocrisy so deep that the English language does not have a word for it. Media people report on the sexual lives of candidates — for virtually any public office — on the grounds that since these politicians have great power, the public needs to know all about them. Yet, they offer no insight into their own sexual lives, even though some in the news media are far more powerful than almost any politician except the president of the United States. If we cannot trust a candidate who committed adultery, then why can we trust a news reporter or editor who has committed adultery?

The only thing this preoccupation with candidates’ sexual lives has achieved is to ensure that some of the best, brightest, finest, and most honest men in America never run for office.

— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: adultery; sin

1 posted on 12/06/2011 7:09:08 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Therefore, the answer to Cain’s alleged affairs is Newt Gingrich? He’s a confirmed serial adulterer!

If NOOT or Romney are the answer, the wrong question is being asked.


2 posted on 12/06/2011 7:16:14 AM PST by noprogs (Borders, Language, Culture....all should be preserved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

To summarize Mr. Prager’s article:

Everybody does it so it can’t be wrong, can it?


3 posted on 12/06/2011 7:22:03 AM PST by Cletus.D.Yokel (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alterations - The acronym explains the science.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

The MSM and the feminists have downplayed sins of the flesh for the last 50 years. Kids are having sex at 12, 13, 14 years old, and some are having children in their late teens. Have we degraded back to the middle ages when the avg. life span was 35 and having kids at 18 was necessary? We’re living longer but turning kids into adults earlier. Why?


4 posted on 12/06/2011 7:25:11 AM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel

RE: Everybody does it so it can’t be wrong, can it?

I re-read the entire article and nowhere in it does Prager say that adultery isn’t wrong.


5 posted on 12/06/2011 7:31:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"The view is expressed this way: “If he can’t keep his vows to his wife, how can we trust him to keep his vows to his country?”

I prefer saying it my way: "If your wife can't trust you, why should I?"

6 posted on 12/06/2011 7:34:07 AM PST by lovecraft (Specialization is for insects.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mr. Prager needs to read his Bible more closely. Yes, the Lord did not remove David from the throne but the consequence of his sin was that contention and rebellion came into his household. The united Kingdom of Israel did not last beyond his son’s reign and the line of the Messiah switched from unfaithful Solomon to the faithful heir, David’s son Nathan. This is, I believe, the whole issue behind the two genealogies of Christ recorded in the Gospels. For an exposition see:

http://sb.rfpa.org/printarticle.cfm?article=3015

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Galatians 6:7


7 posted on 12/06/2011 7:34:07 AM PST by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

A man who commits adultery loses respect in my eyes. That being said, when I vote for President I am not voting for pastor, and with very few exceptions I have to hold my nose when I mark the ballot.


8 posted on 12/06/2011 7:35:16 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I need to know about the candidates sexual lives. I care about it, not because I’m a nosy parker or a puritan, but because the President needs to not have a lot of skeletons rattling around in his closet. For one thing, the notion of having a president who can be blackmailed is horrific! And once you know they’re a cheater, a liar, you can never know whether there’s more, or whether they’re lying to you now.

Moreover, as is said downthread, the so-called sexual revolution has been an abomination to human decency. It degrades human beings to the level of animals, and has caused a holocaust of abortion. I am all for compassion for people who have sinned, but this has gotten ridiculous. It threatens civilization, therefore it must be stopped.

BTW, I don’t know that Herman Cain is an adulterer.


9 posted on 12/06/2011 7:40:03 AM PST by ichabod1 (Vote for Herman Cain 2012! Stop Letting Them Drive Our Candidates Away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The Bible is replete with condemnation of adultery. The Creator likened ancient Israel’s worshiping the Cananite gods as “whoring” after other gods, prostitution and adultery.


10 posted on 12/06/2011 7:40:30 AM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The liberals are the ones focusing on the sexual sins of Republicans. I know a lot of religious folks who voted for Clinton.


11 posted on 12/06/2011 7:42:02 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you really want to annoy someone, point out something obvious that they are trying hard to ignore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’ve liked Prager, the few times I’ve heard him, but I’m sorry, I just can’t wrap my mind around what he’s trying to do:
minimize sin’s effect on character.

I remember @ Clinton years, and it never is NOT true that “character matters”...

I also don’t get Prager’s assertion; “But Jesus made it clear that this is adultery with the heart. Jesus, a practicing and knowledgeable Jewish rabbi, would never equate actual adultery with adultery with one’s heart.”

umm, yes HE did to my limited understanding...

This all sounds like it’s tilling the field of conservatives’ conscience to accept, ummm, Newt, imo.


12 posted on 12/06/2011 7:44:57 AM PST by spankalib (The Marx-in-the-Parks crowd is a basement skunkworks operation of the AFL-CIO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: noprogs
Therefore, the answer to Cain’s alleged affairs is Newt Gingrich? He’s a confirmed serial adulterer!

People are falling all over themselves to prove to the world their IQ is below 100. But then Mark says 40% of the voters are illerate drones. The majority of which support newt.

13 posted on 12/06/2011 7:51:32 AM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and his fellow supporters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: noprogs
Therefore, the answer to Cain’s alleged affairs is Newt Gingrich? He’s a confirmed serial adulterer!

People are falling all over themselves to prove to the world their IQ is below 100. But then Mark says 40% of the voters are illerate drones. The majority of which support newt.

14 posted on 12/06/2011 7:51:50 AM PST by org.whodat (Just another heartless American, hated by "AMNESTY" Newt, Willard, Perry and his fellow supporters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Do not forget the forgiveness Jesus gave to a woman taken in adultery.


15 posted on 12/06/2011 8:00:59 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Mr. Prager needs to read Matthew 7 with a view toward actually understanding it.

God detests ALL sin in equal measure, but his Word makes it clear that you shall know them by their deeds.


16 posted on 12/06/2011 8:03:14 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Why, yes. I AM in a bad mood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madam Theophilus

But did not the family history on Mathew’s side also showed members that family that had a less-than-perfect past, to show that which Christ is SAVIOR?


17 posted on 12/06/2011 8:07:45 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cletus.D.Yokel
Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife if I did it, and how much it would hurt me if my wife had an affair.

Hogwash. Apparently you missed this paragraph:

Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife if I did it, and how much it would hurt me if my wife had an affair.

18 posted on 12/06/2011 8:12:53 AM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newheart; Cletus.D.Yokel
Ooops. Bad copy and paste on the quotes.

Let's try that again:

To summarize Mr. Prager’s article: Everybody does it so it can’t be wrong, can it?

Hogwash. Apparently you missed this paragraph:

Nothing here is in any way meant to be a defense of adultery. As a religious Jew, I believe it violates one of the Ten Commandments. As a married person, I know how much it would hurt my wife if I did it, and how much it would hurt me if my wife had an affair.

19 posted on 12/06/2011 8:16:36 AM PST by newheart (When does policy become treason?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Many/most real Christians have stoped watching tv for the most part since it is rotten, no good garbage from the enemy. Same now must be said about radio and all the fake, phony, hypocritical, spin meisters who have been bending, twisting God's Word, confusing Christians (did God not say? ie serpent in garden). Time to part company, turn off the radios also. Bible gives us instruction, guidelines who we are to get wisdom, instruction from. Turn off the radios.
20 posted on 12/06/2011 8:27:18 AM PST by Esther Ruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

RE: God detests ALL sin in equal measure, but his Word makes it clear that you shall know them by their deeds.

I don’t think Prager disagrees with you here. He is arguing however that out of all sins, we should not focus single mindedly on adultery to the exclusion of others.

Let’s put it this way, given the choice between a known adulterer who publicly acknowledged his sin and wants to move on, with GOOD, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES, and a man who has been faithful to his wife but with BAD, LIBERAL POLICIES, what should a good conservative religious person do?

A) Vote for the flawed conservative
B) Vote for the liberal
C) Stay home


21 posted on 12/06/2011 8:31:22 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Personally I don’t care to be French.

I never want to see a Presidential funeral where the
former First Lady and his former mistress lay a wreath
together.

I always presumed my great-great grandfather fled that country for the hills of West Virginia for some good reason.


22 posted on 12/06/2011 8:31:52 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madam Theophilus

RE: Yes, the Lord did not remove David from the throne but the consequence of his sin was that contention and rebellion came into his household

Which still begs the question — WHY WASN’T HE REMOVED the same way King Saul was?


23 posted on 12/06/2011 8:32:40 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler

The way I see it, Jimmy Carter was faithful to Rosalyn, but he was still a horrible President.

So give me the philanderer who cuts taxes and is for smaller government, over the faithful candidate who is for raising taxes and bigger government.


24 posted on 12/06/2011 8:33:35 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

RE: Personally I don’t care to be French.

I never want to see a Presidential funeral where the
former First Lady and his former mistress lay a wreath
together.

_________________________

Personally, what troubles me about France is even more than what you mentioned.

I can never live in a country that celebrates a bloody revolution that killed thousands of people in a mindless reign of terror.


25 posted on 12/06/2011 8:35:11 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

First off, my vote is MY vote, and I’ll vote however I want for whatever reasons I want. If I want to disqualify Newt Gingrich for being a serial adulterer, that’s my business.

Secondly, Mr. Prager may not being trying to justify or approve of adultery, but he’s certainly attempting to excuse it. Methinks that has something to do with him backing a serial adulterer for president. What fools the rest of us are for considering a person’s character when we vote!

Finally, we all sin. I’m a sinner. What’s important is whether or not one repents and tries not to repeat the same mistake. God forgives those who repent, but that doesn’t eliminate negative, worldly repercussions of sin. It also means all sins are not equal in this world. In other words, God may forgive you for cheating on your first two wives, but it may very well end up costing you a run for the presidency.


26 posted on 12/06/2011 8:37:33 AM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Aspire to be good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Christ is Savior for all God’s people, of course! However, I was just making the point that God’s mercy and forgiveness of sin does not remove the consequence of that sin. David was forgiven, but the consequence of what he did had terrible results in his family and in the manner in which God’s covenant promise was fulfilled. Mr. Prager overlooked that in his article.

As far as this truth’s application to our political situation, we should not be fooled. A man who breaks his vow to his most intimate companion for his own pleasure, will also be more likely to break the vow to his country for the same reason. If you read the history of the founding of this country, you’ll find that this was a common belief among men for picking their leaders. Adulterers were held in very low esteem until just recently.


27 posted on 12/06/2011 8:39:24 AM PST by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

RE: God may forgive you for cheating on your first two wives, but it may very well end up costing you a run for the presidency.

______________

Just remember this -— David’s sin of murder and adultery did not end up costing him his leadership the same way it did his predecessor.

God has His own reasons for doing so. Therefore, it is possible that the adulterer might very well end up with the presidency ( I am not closing my mind to that possibility ).


28 posted on 12/06/2011 8:44:54 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Madam Theophilus

That does not mean David was not a great King and leader. He was.

Nathan not Solomon is not Jewish belief nor mainline Christian belief.

Jewish belief is that the Messiah will be a descendant of David and Solomon through male descendants.

“And David said to Solomon, “Then He called for Solomon his son, and charged him to build a house for HaShem, the G-d of Israel. And David said to Solomon: ‘My son, as for me, it was in my heart to build a house unto the name of HaShem my G-d. But the word of HaShem came to me, saying: Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars; thou shalt not build a house unto My name, because thou hast shed much blood upon the earth in My sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be to Me for a son, and I will be to him for a father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever.’ “ (1 Chronicles 22:6-10).


29 posted on 12/06/2011 8:47:26 AM PST by dervish (female candidates: the last frontier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.

If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.


30 posted on 12/06/2011 9:36:40 AM PST by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.

If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.


31 posted on 12/06/2011 9:37:46 AM PST by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Madam Theophilus

Saul remained King of Israel until he died in battle. It was his descendants who were removed from inheriting the throne. This is exactly what eventually happened to Solomon’s line. God was merciful to David because of his repentance. However God’s eventual judgment was carried out later in history. But please note NONE of these men received their thrones AFTER committing their sins.

If anything is clear from these narratives it is that is definitely an error to suppose that sexual and spiritual sins have no consequence in politics or a person’s ability to hold political office.


32 posted on 12/06/2011 9:38:48 AM PST by Madam Theophilus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You don’t have to be religious to understand that a guy that can’t keep an oath can’t keep an oath.


33 posted on 12/06/2011 9:40:43 AM PST by discostu (How Will I Laugh Tomorrow When I Can't Even Smile Today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
To religious readers, I point to God Himself, who apparently thought that King David deserved to remain king, and even have the Messiah descend from him, despite a particularly ugly form of covering up his adultery (sending Bathsheba’s husband into battle where he would assuredly be killed).

David was not an adulterer. At the point he bedded her, Bathsheba was free woman, no longer married or engaged.

When King David sent Uriah back into the very front lines of battle it was for a number of reasons, none having any thing to do with wishing Uriah to die. Rather it was to determine if Uriah wished to bed Bathsheba, if she was in some state of marriage to Uriah. Uriah refused to bed her. Why? Either he was rejecting the marriage to her, or refusing to consummate the marriage to her.

David had spied Bathsheba at the bath. Under Jewish custom a bath is mandatory for a bride about to consummate her marriage, or for a wife after having completed the monthly menstrual period during which she and her husband may not have relations and ready to return to her husband for sexual coitus.

But Uriah refused to have her.

Still, David tried to heal that marriage. He ordered Uriah to be sent to the very dangerous front line of battle. If it was within the first year of marriage Uriah could, under Jewish law, have refused the order. Newlywed men are exempt from military service for the first year of marriage.

Thus King David forced Uriah to chose life or death. To live, but as the full husband of Bathsheba, or to risk almost certain death in battle. Uriah chose the great danger.

Why? We don't know. We know Uriah was a mighty warrior, but perhaps outside of the high intensity of battle, of action and danger, he was bored. Depressed. Not clear, afaik. But King David, an adept judge of men, would have known.

Like a good Doctor, King David was focused entirely on saving the case that was immediately in front of him. The marriage of Uriah and Bathsheba. And in that focus on the immediate case of one single marriage, David missed on his duty as King of a Nation.

As the prophets came to rebuke him -- APPEARANCES are critical for a King. As it was the circumstances of the story as evidenced to the public, to all but Davis, Bathsheba and Uriah, were truly problematic. It looked like what most people take it to have been.

34 posted on 12/06/2011 9:49:25 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I am CONVINCED that anyone, ANYONE who professionally puts pen to paper, fingers to keyboard, voice to microphone, face to TV, or comment to report are just a bunch of self-absorbed, carpet bagging, sellouts trying to convince GOOD people that they know best.

Guess what? F@ck them. All of them. I'm DONE gathering information about this candidate or that one. I know what I want, and I won't dissemble and watch this country be sold wholesale down the river with a RINO. If Obama wins again and does it, at least we all know where the evil is and can plan accordingly.

35 posted on 12/06/2011 9:57:24 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bvw

Am I to understand from your above explanation that a man who refuses to have sex with is wife forfeits her to another person and when she has sex with that other person (even when they are not married) , they are not committing adultery?

Is this your view?


36 posted on 12/06/2011 10:55:41 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

That’s not my view. The case of King David, Uriah and Bathsheba does not apply to today’s world, we do not have King’s of the sort that David was, nor is our divorce custom or marriage custom the same.

In that time and place, according to the laws of that place and time, either Uriah committed to a divorce, by refusing to go to his wife, and a action done in front of the King of the land. Or he refused to finalize a marriage, by the act of bedding his own wife.


37 posted on 12/06/2011 11:05:08 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bvw

RE: Or he refused to finalize a marriage, by the act of bedding his own wife.

__________________________

How do you know that Uriah never bedded his wife or never, EVER consumated his marriage? What verse tells us that?

All we know is he did not feel it was right for him to enjoy the special privilege of the comfort of his home and wife while he knew that his comrades were fighting and risking their lives in battle.

Also, when David bedded Bathsheba, did he know anything about Uriah and Bathsehba’s bedroom habits? Did he know when they had sex and how often? You will be hard press to tell me yes. All we know is that he saw her bathing and was attracted to her ( a married woman ). David then had sex with her and impregnated her.

Uriah was brought back after David found out that he had her impregnated and wanted to keep his fatherhood a secret. THAT was the reason he called Uriah back to his house ( hoping that Uriah would bed her and cover his adultery with Bathsheba, making the world think that the child was Uriah’s).

I think your explanation is quite fanciful.


38 posted on 12/06/2011 11:14:42 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Let’s put it this way, given the choice between a known adulterer who publicly acknowledged his sin and wants to move on, with GOOD, CONSERVATIVE POLICIES, and a man who has been faithful to his wife but with BAD, LIBERAL POLICIES, what should a good conservative religious person do?

With respect, that's a false choice. A good conservative religious person should realize that he or she is accountable to God for his or vote. I'm not staying home, but the person who gets my vote will be one whom I can trust. I still have that option, and if the GOP doesn't nominate someone who reaches my standards, that person will not get my vote. Period.

I don't vote single-mindedly on adultery and I know that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

I'd just like to know that the person I vote for is not willing to take moral shortcuts on other issues when he's already got a track record of taking shortcuts in an area where good judgment is essential.

I'd also like to see some of those "good, conservative policies" from Gingrich. What I'm seeing now is a flip-flopper who used to be conservative and is now a Beltway insider, as has been exhaustively documented on this site.

For now, I'll take Bachmann, who we know hasn't been in anyone else's bed but the one she shares with her husband. Then Santorum. Then, maybe, Perry.

39 posted on 12/06/2011 12:02:51 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Why, yes. I AM in a bad mood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

RE: With respect, that’s a false choice.

With respect it is most assuredly NOT a false choice. If you choose Bachmann and she is not the candidate, they you just might see a Gingrich vs Obama race. WHAT THEN?


40 posted on 12/06/2011 12:28:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It’s up to you now. Use what you know about today’s media. About what sells into the common marketplace.


41 posted on 12/06/2011 12:32:44 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Same applies. If the candidate doesn’t meet my test, I don’t vote for them.

Lots of people on this site say they won’t vote for Romney, and I’m one of them. I’m deciding whether I could vote for Gingrich if he is the nominee.

That is not completely based on adultery, though that does go to issues surrounding his judgment that are completely valid. In the end, my vote will be about conservatism, and I have serious doubts about Gingrich’s conservatism.

And, save any argument you may have about ‘a third party vote is a vote for Obama’. It’s a vote for the candidate of my choice.


42 posted on 12/06/2011 12:36:31 PM PST by Colonel_Flagg (Why, yes. I AM in a bad mood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: rarestia
We’re living longer but turning kids into adults earlier. Why?

You have it the exact opposite. This very question IS the problem. We now have 32 year old "kids" living in their mom's basement.

OWS is entirely made up of 20+ "kids".

In the time of the revolution people did not die at 35. Do not be silly. Ben Franklin and other lived to be nearly 100. And going back to even ancient times, perhaps centuries. Yet the Jewish traditions were adulthood at 14.

Adolescence is a 20th century psychological invention, intentionally devised to dumb down a society.

The average college graduate today would FAIL the end of year test of the 18th century 1st grader in the New England Primer.

Our low birth rate, declining population, abortion, debt, immigration, 100% of all our problems can be traced back to this 20th century German Socialism called K-12 education.

And we all better be doing some fast growing up or our real children will curse our names as slaves wondering how we ever let things come to this point.

43 posted on 12/06/2011 1:35:17 PM PST by Waywardson (Carry on! Nothing equals the splendor!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Waywardson

I had to go back and check my post... I said the MIDDLE AGES, as in plague, disease, filth, and pestilence middle ages.

Also, the original article was concerning sexual sins, not older kids living with their parents.

Now that’s out of the way, I don’t disagree with you. Our public schools have actually set progress in this country back more than it has moved us forward. Liberal progressivism and the more recent radical feminist movement have changed the landscape in this country for the worst.


44 posted on 12/06/2011 1:48:19 PM PST by rarestia (It's time to water the Tree of Liberty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

Dennis has forever been preoccupied with sex and adultery. He’s had 3 wives. It must be a subject he has struggled with. He knows that a good person can stray.

Strong bold men often take decades to learn how to tame their libidos. These are sometimes the kind of men we have running for office. Adultery is not good but there are Many sins and no candidates who don’t sin in some way.

We can and have lived with leaders that have been unfaithful to their wi ES. to their wives


45 posted on 12/06/2011 2:02:40 PM PST by Yaelle (Excuse the mobile device errors please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Just because all candidates sin, it doesn’t mean all sins are the same. My issue isn’t with Newt Gingrich so much as people who attempt to excuse sin. Plus, Mr. Prager insults Christians by making it look like we’re a bunch of unreasonable, narrow minded, holier-than-thou people. I’m sure there are some very few Christians who would make their decision about Newt based solely on his adultery, but I’ve never met anyone like that.

The Christians I know are generally very thoughtful people who reflect on the serious issues of life and morality. We understand sin and the good and evil forces waging war in men far better than unbelievers who often deny true good or evil even exist. Mr. Prager is ridiculous to suggest that we don’t evaluate the whole candidate, both good and bad, when we vote. Frankly, Newt Gingrich has quite a few problems beyond infidelity.


46 posted on 12/06/2011 6:42:24 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Aspire to be good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

I haven’t heard in the past Dennis insulting Christians. If he did so here I denounce that. I do think there are some bad things about Gingrich that have nothingbto do with his infidelity, I agree. I personally do not look forward to voting for him.

I wish Cain could have been more forthright. We would have been very forgiving.


47 posted on 12/07/2011 10:55:34 AM PST by Yaelle (Excuse the mobile device errors please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Mr. Prager carefully framed his words, but why would he even write an article like this if he wasn’t directing it at religious conservatives who he apparently believes focus too much on a nominee’s sins when voting? Like I wrote, that’s a veiled insult at religious voters for not being able to think beyond our religion. That is pretty much standard boilerplate from some nonreligious conservatives and nearly all liberals who pretty much see religious folk as irrational rubes.


48 posted on 12/07/2011 7:56:09 PM PST by CitizenUSA (What's special about bad? Bad is easy. Anyone can do bad. Aspire to be good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rarestia

Actually in the Middle Ages, at least in England, once people survived infancy, and women survived child bearing, they often lived to the 70s and even 80s. Barring plagues, of course. I also found that the nobility married very young - mid teens - beacause they were wealthy, but the working class - tradesmen and so on - had to wait until their mid to late 20s because they had to get the money together. A lot of new reserach using contemporaneous documents has turned up in the last decade or more. Very interesting.


49 posted on 12/07/2011 10:31:08 PM PST by little jeremiah (We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson