Religious presumptions about sex outside marriage often produce a mismatched hodgepodge of sanctimoniousness and Manichaeism instead of righteous behavior.
In the public and political sphere of the United States, we too easily slip into the presumption of a generalized Christian norm that we impose on celebrities and leaders. The Christian norm borrows on the fear of the flesh in the ancient religion of Israel that struggled against fertility rituals in competing earth religions. Where do concepts like “monogamy” and “sacred vows of marriage” come from except a Judeo-Christian premise? People of faith are free to choose these as normative of sexual behavior, but in an increasingly diverse society they provide diminishing return.
I think our society is too diverse for the imposition of a Christian norm upon a social reality that has been essential to all humanity, independently of any religious meaning. Sex, like food, is pretty much defined as an appetite. People cook up different “dishes” and are attracted by different tastes both in the kitchen and in the bedroom. I question to what degree our society needs to predefine permitted sexual activity by notions taken from only one religion. Muslims in Brooklyn today, after all, should be free to practice their religion even if it means having more than one wife. I concede credibility to old-line Mormons who question the convenience of a divine revelation that monogamy was required just before Utah statehood. Perhaps they should have the right to adhere to the original teaching of Joseph Smith. Early Christianity also accepted concubinage as a legal institution, as will be remembered by anyone who has plowed through the juicier sections of St. Augustine’s Confessions. It makes sense that persons of faith would be attracted to a candidate with similar values, but it would be foolish to think that marital conformity is the only qualification for a political candidate.
The corrective, I think, is to revisit the notion of sexual sin. For me, “sin” is not breaking a law, but offending a person or persons by betraying trust. I recognize that not all religions have a God as personal as Jesus Christ is to me, but most faiths carry with them an anthropomorphism of some kind. In this way, “adultery” is worse than “fornication” because while the latter is contracted between unmarried persons, the former involves the double act of sex outside of marriage AND betrayal of a spouse. I think what should concern a voting public is not the acted-on sexual urge of prominent citizens but the proclivity to betray a spouse or lie about an escapade. I’d join the angels in being happier about the one sinner who repents of his/her erring ways than about the ones who never were tempted. That’s one of the advantages religion has over atheism: the ability to repent and find forgiveness.
My purpose would not be to relax the moral standards upheld by Christianity or any other religion. Rather, let us end the hypocrisy of clandestine trysts, overt denials and undue emphasis on sexual experiences over against policy matters of life and death. I believe that the candidate who is true to solid moral behavior in sexual matters will demonstrate character in politics as well. Ironically, the atheist with morals may be more “religiously faithful in marriage” than the believer who doesn’t practice what is preached.
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man,” wrote Shakespeare, and it is good advice for spousal relationships too.
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
