Texas Faith: Do the political comebacks of scandal-marred politicians mean we’re forgiving or indifferent?

SHOULD MORALITY BE A FACTOR IN QUALIFYING A POLITICAL CANDIDATE?

Indeed we have become more tolerant and indifferent towards the morality of the elected officials; it appears that is not the issue with Weiner, Spitzer, and a host of others. As a nation we have to define what we want in our elected officials, sadly, fidelity in marriage will not be the one. The real question is do we want morality as a factor in qualifying the political candidate?  We are not looking for exemplary all round candidates any more? Are we looking for someone who can get the job done.  Mike Ghouse

 Continued: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2013/07/texas-faith-do-political-comebacks-of.html

Texas Faith: Do the political comebacks of scandal-marred politicians mean we’re forgiving or indifferent?

Dallas Morning News | Published on July 16, 2013, 2013
By Wayne Slater 

Whatever happened to shame? It wasn’t that long ago that a politician tainted by a sex scandal or caught cheating on a spouse was finished in public life. But a couple of political comebacks this year illustrate how things have changed. Two years after he resigned from Congress for sending a sexually suggestive picture of himself to a follower on Twitter, Anthony Weiner is in contention for mayor of New York City. Eliot Spitzer abandoned the state’s governor’s race in 2008 in disgrace following reports he frequented high-end prostitutes. He could be the city’s next controller.

And they’re not alone. Mark Sanford was elected to Congress in South Carolina after admitting an affair in 2009. David Vitter overcame scandal when his name showed up on the customer list of the “D.C. Madam” in 1999, winning reelection to the Senate and is at the top of the GOP list to be the next governor of Louisiana. And Bill Clinton, despite the White House intern scandal, is more popular than ever.

What’s happened? What does it say about the culture that behavior once considered inappropriate or indecent, doesn’t pack the same punch it once did. Are we more understanding, more willing to forgive? Or have we just become indifferent? In politics and religion, no narrative is more powerful than the backslider redeemed. But there’s another tradition in politics: we hold the leaders we elect to office to certain standards and believe that failure to meet those standards has consequences.

Here’s this week’s question: What do recent political comebacks by scandal-tarred politicians say about our culture? Have we become more tolerant and forgiving or grown more callous and indifferent?

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, speaker and writer on pluralism and interfaith cooperation

 A quarter century ago, the Presidential candidate Gary Hart lost the Democratic Party’s nomination to Michael Dukakis for his extramarital affair, who in turn lost to George Bush in the General Elections. The nation debated about rejecting a good candidate over sexual morality, the sentence I recall from that era was, “Are we electing a saint?” It particularly became relevant when George Bush broke the promise, “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

There were random discussions on John 8:7, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,” and Matthew 7:1, “Do not judge, or you too will be judged.” I have always wondered the impact of these conversations in assessing the moral caliber of the elected officials. Indeed, the shift was significant.

It seemed all the good candidates were blemished, and in desperation we were willing to overlook the morality for the right candidate. Bill Clinton established a new benchmark in that direction. In the recent primaries we blatantly ignored Newt Gingrich, a double cheater on his two helpless wives. It was a human failure and nothing to do with being a Republican or a Democrat; neither could cast the first stone.

The society has changed to a great extent as well; we treasured and looked up to long term marriages with awe, and that is not the case anymore. Many among us have affairs, and we have chosen not to judge others, as it became insensitive to someone or the other close to us. President Jimmy Carter with the cleanest record on morality failed us on the economic front, and George Bush with good morals ultimately lied to the nation about wars, and in the last election, the GOP gave a ticket to the one who hid his money overseas and was secretive about his tax returns.

Indeed we have become more tolerant and indifferent towards the morality of the elected officials; it appears that is not the issue with Weiner, Spitzer, and a host of others. We are not looking for exemplary candidates any more, but someone who can get the job done. As a nation we have to define what we want in our elected officials, sadly, fidelity in marriage will not be the one. The real question is whose morality? Do we want morality as a factor in qualifying the candidate?

To read all the contributions, please go to Dallas Morning News at: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/texas-faith-do-political-comebacks-by-scandal-marred-politicians-mean-were-forgiving-or-indifferent.html/

. . . . .
Mike Ghouse is a speaker, thinker and a writer on pluralism, politics, peace,Islam, Israel, India, interfaith, and cohesion at work place. He is committed to building a Cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day at www.TheGhousediary.com. He believes in Standing up for others and has done that throughout his life as an activist. Mike has a presence on national and local TV, Radio and Print Media. He is a frequent guest on Sean Hannity show and Bill O'Reilly show on Fox TV, and a commentator on national radio networks, he contributes weekly to the Texas Faith Column at Dallas Morning News; fortnightly at Huffington post; and several other periodicals across the world. His personal site www.MikeGhouse.net indexes all his work through many links. 

TEXAS FAITH: Does faith in God differ from dogma and morality?

Is there a distinction between faith in God and dogma and morality? As an example, he pointed to how dogma can become an idol of its own. People worship the tenets of their faith, not the God who is behind it.

Eight panelists respond to the question at Dallas Morning News including mine: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/11/texas-faith-does-faith-in-god.html

MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas

The first few thoughts that jumped out at me were the story of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the destruction of abortion clinics and denigrating other religions as cults.

Faith in God is personal; it’s been around from the inception of religion.  There never was a singular belief in God, even while Judaism flourished, there was the Zoroastrian religion in their neighborhood and other native traditions in Egypt and Africa, and farther out in China, India, and the Americas they had their own perceptions of God.

Today in America, we have more beliefs than one could imagine.   We have different thumb prints, eye prints, DNA and taste buds; if we can learn to accept the uniqueness of each one’s “religion bud” be it theist or atheist, and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.

Dogma is born out of arrogance and insecurities. We seek the short cuts to false satisfaction and believe that our rightness hinges on others’ wrongness. Dogma does not bring joy to anyone, including the believer; we are in eternal tension of righting others rather than living our own lives.  It is the religious, cultural and social Dogma that has created frictions and a generator of conflicts. Humans are born to be free, Dogma wants to chain and humans will resist it.   

Morality is a product of co-existence and survivability; it is the prism that can be laid out on all societies to find their own balance. Religion has added substantially to the morality as a mass media, but it is not the sole source, Morality was alive when the first men had to fight for limited resources and develop a system of trust for them to live in peace and leave their children and women behind when they went hunting.   

My understanding of Prophet Muhammad’s story goes something like this. He found out that some of his associates and disciples were planning on painting his portraits out of reverence for him. Prophet asked them to stop it immediately, and cautioned them neither to paint his pictures nor make his busts and place it on the street corners. The wisdom behind the idea was that someday, the picture will become the object of worship and he will become the idol.  He said, God alone is worthy of worship, I am a mortal being like you and do not worship me, worship the God, the one and only creator.

Thank God Muslims did not make a God out of the Prophet, nor do they worship him.

However his sane advice to keep people focused on God has become the dogma for a few.  A handful of Muslims took to the streets, murdered Van Gogh the cartoonist, burned the Belgium Embassy in Syria, and set cars to fire in Pakistan.  This violence goes completely against the teachings of the prophet and Muslims around the globe have condemned it. Indeed, it is the protests that challenged the cartoonist to draw more aggravating cartoons.  This is a classic example of advice becoming a dogma.

In our own backyard, the advice of God to save a life becomes a violent dogma to the point of murdering Doctors who perform abortions, passing laws against fellow Citizens and declaring others to be cults. Dictating who can and cannot marry each other.

Exchanges and discussions like this will bring awareness and freedom, true salvation to those who are entrenched in dogma. As a society it is our individual and collective responsibility to share the wisdom and learn to live and let live.

Mike Ghouse is committed to building cohesive societies and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day, his work is indexed at www.MikeGhouse.net

The article is also available at: http://theghousediary.blogspot.com/2011/11/texas-faith-does-faith-in-god-differ.html