http://blogs.the-american-interest....-matters-the-missing-dimension-of-leadership/ A concept I heartily agree with, the call to Leadership is the call to Ethics, and such Ethics cannot be situational, when they are based on Faith and the duties that are entailed in having a belief in a higher, supranatural world view, decisions become easier to make as well as avoiding the rocks and shoals of life. I must admit when Lawrence Taylor got into trouble, my first thought was "well if you call 1-800 Call a Ho" chances are good things will go wrong, ditto Tiger Woods, as well as a host of other "famous" people, when there are bright ethical lines drawn based on Faith, such poor decisions may be avoided. Instead of "can I get away with it" the thought process is "should I do it, what is the cost of engaging"?
I agree with your point Padre and I want those of us who are people of faith to step up first. Bill Clinton talks about faith and has an affair. George W. Bush talks about the importance of his faith and supports revenge as national policy defending torture and who knows what else. We who claim Christ as LORD as well as Savior need to step up as witnesses by our lives.
Well, eh, the thing of that view is that it is mainly a politcal view, not that such a call to ethics isn't needed in politics, rather that such a precept is applicable to all walks of life, to expect Ethical leadership of a people who are not called to Ethics simply will not work. If anything, such a conjoining diminishes the idea of Ethical leadership as the nature of politics is that of choosing sides, "if' one side is claiming Faith grounded Ethics the "other" side then casts stones at the simple concept of Faith grounded Ethics. To me, that is a massive mistake as the the principle then moves out of the realm of personal decision and into the realm of competition that means "the sooner these Ethics are shed, the sooner my side can win".
Padre, I was not trying to use politics as a place in need of ethical advancement, though I think we both agree politics could use more positive ethics. What I was trying to point out were two high profile "Christian" leaders whose personal ethics brought discredit upon themselves and thus upon the faith they publically embrace. I would have used the leaders of Enron or Wall Street if they were equally well known and if they had been publically professing their faith ahead of their fall.
A match is no more the only source of fire, than faith/religion is the only source of ethics. One could even argue, that there is no direct correlation between faith and ethics by using examples such as the Catholic Church, Scientology, muslim radical terrorists, cults, Mormons, etc. The individual sets his own ethics. The lack of ethics in leadership/government has more to do with the nature of the beast of politics. The way the current political process works, one would be hard pressed to have strong morals and ethical fortitude, to even get elected. Leadership in other roles, like a sports role model, are so inundated with temptation that even a man that can stop in the middle of his back swing, will break and give in. To me, a strong ethical background, almost always has one common denominator, its not faith, its good parenting.
The problem with that view is any Institution can be shown to have failed, and even failed in implementing it's own Ethical guidelines, however that does not nullify the basis for forming those Ethical guidelines or the applicability of such guidelines. Of course, the question then becomes "what is the standard"? Here I disagree, in fact it would be refreshing and probably election winning if politicians simply said whatever it is they base their Ethics on without the symbolism of the American Flag in the background or sloganeering such as "I'm for the little guy". All the more reason for an athlete to be ethical and not play the role of married man whilst having a harem on the side, sooner or later that will be exposed and the mask removed, such a future orientation is what is missing from that thought process. Hard to tell, meaning there are scores of people who have succeeded, remained ethical, and come from nightmarish homes, to me the key is what the decision making process is grounded upon.
Amen. Also, NASCAR-esque jackets to show off all their campaign contributors. That would tell us all we need to know before electing him/her IMHO.
I agree, but your post seemed to insinuate that ethics can only come from those institutions. If that is not what you meant, I apologize. The standard is to treat people the way you want to be treated. It is the core of many religions...it is the core of ethics. Because it is part of so many religions and ethical standards, it is clear that it belongs to none of them. That makes it universal, and if its universal, then faith isn't required to follow it. I'm living proof. It would be refreshing. It would be how'd I run. Special interests always need to be appeased though, because they help get you elected. Sure, you could have the rare oddity of an honest and ethical politician, that would get press simply because they were refreshingly honest, but the more that happened, the less newsworthy (free publicity) they would be. That would mean, eventually, to mount a campaign, the pandering would have to start all over again. You cannot mount a campaign without the cash. Yes, all the more reason to. But most athletes already consider themselves people of faith and their ethics are well, crap. Its not they are all just inherently bad people, its just their entire life is dedicated to one thing...that sport. Tiger is very ethical on the course. Its also all that he really knows. Women always came along, they were secondary and a result of his golfing prowess and fame. That is also true. However, at some point, someone generally filled in the gaps of the missing parental guidance along the way. Very often, religion comes in there, but it could also be a counselor, a good samaritan, a friend or even a hooker with a heart of gold.
First let me thank you padre for finding this link, the above quote comes from it. I would like to come at this from a different angle, if I may. We can all point to leaders who have fallen, it is a favorite passtime in POFO (Which I'm NOT trying to turn this into), but I want to address this on a personal level. A disbeliever can argue about the fallacy of the church and in fact alot of believers can also, I'm a prime example of the latter. Never the less I got my moral compass and my start down the road to where my faith in God and beliefs have led me from attending the very institution that I now call into question. I believe strongly that there is a distinction between the two yet how else would I have started out if not the way I did. Remember that the Christian faith, the Church, is so very young in relation to the time we have been walking this earth. Before then there were and still are many other beliefs and no belief at all yet thruout history human kind has earnestly searched for any reason to believe and give reason to this thing we call life. Why am I here? is the question that burns in everyone's heart who really questions the happenings that attack us from all sides. It matters not which answer one finds but that one can find an answer which gives the heart peace and happiness plus the reason to really live not just exist. You may damn the church and christianity, you can not deny the truth of its growth and influnce on the world we live in and the billions of people it touches and that alone proves to me it is a positive force in our world for good. To those of you who will attack my last statement by pointing out the negative aspects of those in power in the church, who I might add are no different than anyother political leader, have nothing to do with the man and woman on the street who honestly want and yearn for answers to their questions. We are a secular nation with a firm belief in a creator as it's major underpinnings. It was born so that each of us could believe as we pleased and worship God without restriction as to how we do it, it is the very foundation of who we are yet we now want to deny those very underpinnings. This is why I believe we are headed in the wrong direction as a country, as I have said many times we are not a christian nation but a nation of christian believers, there is a real difference in that you know! Just as sure as I'm writing this I know some will disagree, which is their right, yet it is what I believe and the road I've traveled has proven it to be true, to me.
