Adultery and Politics (Religious conservatives often go wrong by focusing on sexual sins)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 ).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.