The Reverend Jesse Jackson has announced that he has fathered a child out of wedlock. I suppose the genuine news is not that the Reverend has committed adultery, but that his supporters (by the legion) tell us; "Jackson's Moral authority hasn't been diminished... He's to continue his stewardship and fight for moral justice" and "His work is very important because somebody has to speak out" while others indicate, "Jackson's political work should not be connected to his personal life".
The real story is ( at least in the New Millennium United States) violating a fundamental precept of core beliefs is not quite enough to lose your leadership status - if you are among the preferred. By the way, just how many of the Ten Commands is one (of Judeo-Christian faith) allowed to break before they lose their (hard earned) right to call themselves a leader?
Sound Familiar?
Damn right it does. This is the same "advice" we received from this moral leader when President Clinton was 'on the lamb' from his moral compass and receiving "ethical guidance" for his own sex scandal. But, what happens when a "leader" who's 'trick-bag' includes leveraging the "need" for moral and ethical conduct and uses the tools of morality and conscience to garner support for his agenda is found to be immoral? Obviously (and if you are 'among the preferred') the post Clinton legacy requires that "we forgive and forget, as this is just a personal matter." The 'religion of politics' is now recognized as a higher calling'- exhalted above all else.
What happens to a Society that abandons it's fundamental precepts? In the absence of principle we have anarchy. Leaders without their own firm values are standing in the quicksand of shifting mores and are ill equipped to guide us through this chaos.
When we follow or allow ourselves to be lead by the immoral "stewards of justice" who have abandoned their own core believes are we too tainted by following their path?
The real story is ( at least in the New Millennium United States) violating a fundamental precept of core beliefs is not quite enough to lose your leadership status - if you are among the preferred. By the way, just how many of the Ten Commands is one (of Judeo-Christian faith) allowed to break before they lose their (hard earned) right to call themselves a leader?
Sound Familiar?
Damn right it does. This is the same "advice" we received from this moral leader when President Clinton was 'on the lamb' from his moral compass and receiving "ethical guidance" for his own sex scandal. But, what happens when a "leader" who's 'trick-bag' includes leveraging the "need" for moral and ethical conduct and uses the tools of morality and conscience to garner support for his agenda is found to be immoral? Obviously (and if you are 'among the preferred') the post Clinton legacy requires that "we forgive and forget, as this is just a personal matter." The 'religion of politics' is now recognized as a higher calling'- exhalted above all else.
What happens to a Society that abandons it's fundamental precepts? In the absence of principle we have anarchy. Leaders without their own firm values are standing in the quicksand of shifting mores and are ill equipped to guide us through this chaos.
When we follow or allow ourselves to be lead by the immoral "stewards of justice" who have abandoned their own core believes are we too tainted by following their path?
Jazzosopher 
Carl Spatazza 
Rick Richbourg 
