Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I have to agree with Dakini here. Any behaviour can be excused by saying that the guru is enlightened and exhibiting crazy wisdom. For every Drukpa Kunley there are thousands upon thousands of mere lechers and charlatans. How on earth would crazy wisdom account for the Vajra Regent giving his students HIV? And why is it in modern days that they are always crazy about sex, not wisdom?
The history of Tibetan Buddhism is not at all replete with that kind of behaviour. Certainly there were crazy wisdom masters, but they were not at all the norm. The norm was either the scholarly monastic or the married ngakpa. Read the namthar of Drukpa Kunley-- he was a scandalous figure, so obviously what he did was outside the norm. Also, the crazy wisdom masters were not institution builders... they were typically wandering yogis, in vivid contrast to Trungpa's empire building.
I am quite convinced that Trungpa Rinpoche was a siddha. I also think he made some grave errors in judgement. I have no problem putting the two together in my mind. A teacher must be sensitive to the role model they are setting for their students by their actions. I strongly believe that Trungpa Rinpoche failed in that respect. He did not act according to the highest conduct possible and I feel that this played a large role in his unfortunate early demise.
I agree with Palzang that this is really only the business of the teacher and his prospective students, not that of every gossipmonger and Internet shrew that takes up the cause. Caveat emptor. But putting the blame on students for "just not getting it" sounds far too much like "Did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it."
I also see a lot of misinformation and confusion, like the difference between the practice of Hindu tantra (which is highly sexual) and Buddhist tantra (which is not). I think we could spend our time better practicing true guru yoga than by engaging in nonvirtuous speculation.
There is no truth to this claim about Hindu tantra. Only a small subset of Kaula tantrikas practice the pancamakaras (the five "m's" of matsya, madhya, mamsa, mudra and maithuna) physically. The predominant Samayachara sampradayas all view these symbolically as they are most often practiced by Brahmins who must keep ritual purity.
Quite simply, there is little difference between Hindu and Buddhist tantric practice.
I myself think that Americans have too many hang-ups about sex and view the current fashion of serial monogamy as basically utter selfishness. Also, I do not buy into the concept of "cheating" too much, either. If you truly love someone, you'll want them to be free to live more spontaneously every now and then. I feel very strongly about this. But that's just me.quote]
Ah--I was wondering if you were around.
This (above) is interesting, if I may digress. Some say that vows are vows; the marriage vows are to be kept, not broken. But is there anything in the vows that specifies fidelity? There's "to have and to hold, cherish" blah blah. But is there anything there about exclusivity? An advice columnist once said, "Ladies, you can have fidelity, or you can have infrequent sex, but you can't have both." Also interesting. (I assume the same goes for men.) Oh, but what if "cheating" leads to a long-term parrallel relationship, or one that threatens the primary relationship? "Cheating" can be tricky that way. People can become attached, you know. Start a thread, Nirvana.
It seems to me that a thread titled Abuse of Power in Spiritual Settings & Elsewhere might have room for a few posts on abuse of power in the marriage contract. Undoubtedly the traditional marriage vows ("forsaking all others, be faithful only to" one's spouse) would preclude any extramarital sexual liaisons, in addition to excluding undue attachment to family of origin, one's children, job, civic duties, hobbies, or possessions. But what of other marriage contracts, throughout history, that did not stipulate such things? Some have even argued that the concept of adultery was Hebrew and distributed around the world through cultures influenced by Judaic preaching.
Putting aside any questions of personal obligation for the moment —as that is too deep and broad a matter for the time I have here— let me just touch on the patriarchal system in which we find ourselves historically rooted. Although the times are changing —and along with them the social milieu— the fact remains that marriage is traditionally an institution in which the man's rights far outweighed the woman's. Not even 150 years ago in many places a woman was not even legally allowed to own property in her own right. Men winked at each other's infidelities and women of wealth took on paramours. From antiquity people who had slaves had dalliances with their slaves of both sexes. The Power to do so came from their Wealth.
For the ancient Hebrews, divorce was an easy way to circumvent committing adultery. All a man had to do was make a declaration of divorce and throw a woman out to fend for herself. He could then take a new wife. No wonder that Jesus saw this as a social evil and spoke out against it —even insisting that it be called adultery anyhow. However, according to the purity codes of the Hebrews, the man had done no wrong (i.e., had not defiled himself by committing adultery). In addition, he was not committing a crime punishable by death. Funny, funny world— they didn't have the municipal and jurisprudence systems we had, so everything was ruled by a religious code. A sin was at once both sin and crime.
I want to keep this post short, so let me now sum up: Abuse of Power to gratify oneself sexually is perhaps endemic in any society. It all depends on how narrowly you define abuse. If you define it as taking unfair advantage of one's situation, then those with the greater wealth, power, prestige, or position are better poised to force their way (although not necessarily to get their way). In our more egalitarian society in which our mobility and riches make us all moderately "wealthy"*, the Question is increasingly becoming: What's so bad about a little more love being released responsibly to a few more people? Why be so stingy? And finally, is this abuse of our social nature or in many cases is it making good use of our social nature, if our pleasures be not immoderate?
_________ _________
*wealth=wellness, being well-off*
I think it is quite true that there is a complex of US attitudes to sex that puzzle us Europeans.
The fact that adulterous Presidents such as JFK and Clinton become more popular after betraying their vows suggests that the public actually like to see powerful men demonstrating that power sexually.
As there are some here who want to explain all human behaviour in terms of evolutionary forces, perhaps this sort of behaviour has benefit: intercourse with the pack leader moves the female up the pecking order.
Adultery within the circles of power appears to be the rule more than the exception, as demonstrated by the high level of divorce among the rich and powerful, and, of course, among 'celebrities'.
Whenever there are institutions with a heiarchy and people with authority over other people, there will be people who abuse that authority, expecially when it comes to sex and power. Buddhist organizations are no different.
It's not even about the sexual act, and if people should or should not be expected to be celebate. If that were the problem, a tissue, a volume of diverting lithographs and a few minutes privacy will take care of it. It's about the fact that our nature revolves around the pack, and we're social creatures, and sex is tightly woven into the desire to find our place in the social order.
Get a dozen people together, and no matter how democratic you want to make it, you will have leaders and followers as they learn to function as a group. It takes a conscious effort and acknowledging the pitfalls of human nature to design safeguards against people stepping over the line.
The biggest pitfall of our search for Enlightened Teachers is that we expect perfection, for them to be superhuman. The Sangha doesn't need rules that say no private sessions between the Teacher and woman, because he's Enlightened and that would show doubt and get other followers mad at you for suggesting it might be wise.
It's going to happen once in a while. The biggest difference we can show as Buddhists is how we deal with it, when it happens. Do we hide and ignore the fact that even our Teachers are subject to human failure and we need to design safeguards for everyone's sake?
It's going to happen once in a while. The biggest difference we can show as Buddhists is how we deal with it, when it happens. Do we hide and ignore the fact that even our Teachers are subject to human failure and we need to design safeguards for everyone's sake?
Cinorjer, could you rephrase this? I am confused as to what is meant here.
I meant we're not surprised when we find out the Catholic church has been hiding their sexual predators and excusing it as not such a big deal, considering the reputation of the church to be more important than the welfare of the lay people. We read about Preachers who are caught abusing their authority, and wonder how stupid that congregation must be to refuse to believe their spiritual leader could have done such a thing.
But they're just being people, and people tend to get attached to their institutions and respect for a great Teacher slides into worship. So we should acknowledge that, and in our own institutions use the tools that we know work. The one thing are temples are good at is developing rules, but the conduct should be extended to everyone, even the head monk or great Teacher.
No one person should have absolute authority, not even the founding Master. Especially over money or discipline. Acknowledging that sex can be a huge problem, some rules about private contact between Teacher and student are common sense.
Thanks for the elucidation, Cinorjer. I just couldn't see where you were going in that last paragraph.
I think that the pedophilia in the Roman Church was simply inexcusable and was wanton abuse of the "authority" the Roman clergy are so proud of having. It amounted to inopportune exploitation of the many opportunities they had to be alone with boys. It is a scandal that is simply unforgivable in someone in holy orders. For a layman this sort of thing would also be inexcusable, but unfortunately, as in all things, the laity are held to stricter standards than the clergy are. Does this make any sense?
I think it is quite true that there is a complex of US attitudes to sex that puzzle us Europeans.
The fact that adulterous Presidents such as JFK and Clinton become more popular after betraying their vows suggests that the public actually like to see powerful men demonstrating that power sexually.
Simon, I don't think these are the best examples to illustrate your point. I'm not even sure the point applies to the American public, which I think doesn't react the same way to these matters as Europeans (those puzzling sexual attitudes, again), but I'm open to the possibility. I just want to comment on your two examples.
JFK's "dalliances" weren't publicized until years after his death. Back in his day, the press didn't pry into the President's private life, there was a policy about that, if not stated overtly by media bosses, it was tacitly agreed upon and followed. And I don't think these revelations about him made him more popular after his death; he and Jackie always were popular.
As for Clinton, I don't recall him becoming more popular after the Lewinski affair. The media continued to hound him about everything, he continued to struggle against a conservative Republican Congress. The American public regarded the whole thing as tawdry, the more liberal members of the public criticized the Republicans in Congress for pursuing the matter and embarrassing the US internationally. I did notice, though, in parts of Europe people were sympathetic to Clinton's plight, the political harrassment. I didn't hear anything on either side of the Pond along the lines of celebrating Clinton's macho prowess, or whatever. I don't recall that he became more popular with our public. He may have benefited from some public outrage against the Republicans. He did manage to stand up to the Republicans and forge ahead with his Presidency, after all.
I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, from your European vantage point. I do remember reading articles about how Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, with regard to Clinton. ("So he had a fling, big deal.") How do Europeans in general view Berlusconi and his "extracurricular activities"?
As I recall it, whatever the attitude of the media, President Clinton's popularity ratings improved.
As for Signor Berlusconi, thoughtful commentators are more concerned by his corruption, media domination and abuse of power (including favouring neo-fascists) that his fondness for young women which we find distasteful.
As I recall it, whatever the attitude of the media, President Clinton's popularity ratings improved.
As for Signor Berlusconi, thoughtful commentators are more concerned by his corruption, media domination and abuse of power (including favouring neo-fascists) that his fondness for young women which we find distasteful.
Sorry Simon, but that is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning with regard to Clinton. His popularity surged because of Republican overreach after the '94 wave election. People hated Ken Starr and the GOP witch hunt and felt that Clinton was being unfairly treated by both Congress and the media. His rise in popularity certainly wasn't on account of his dalliance with Lewinsky.
Sorry Simon, but that is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning with regard to Clinton. His popularity surged because of Republican overreach after the '94 wave election. People hated Ken Starr and the GOP witch hunt and felt that Clinton was being unfairly treated by both Congress and the media. His rise in popularity certainly wasn't on account of his dalliance with Lewinsky.
Naturally I bow to your superior local knowledge. What I was pointing out is that we are treated to barrages of hypocritical puritanism (silver ring stuff, etc.) from your side of the Pond which appears to be shallower than oppositional politics. Am I wrong in my impression that, even though the general public know know that JFK was a serial and almost daily adulterer, the Kennedy mystique remains strong?
I am not trying to say that the North Americans are in some way more peculiar in their attitudes towards sex and sexuality than other groups. It is simply that there are so many strident voices over there. Time and again, just like our ex-Prime Minister, Sir John Major, the preachers of 'family values' are exposed (just the right word, I think) as deceivers. It has led me to conclude that those who claim the moral high ground most loudly are also the most likely to abuse their power and position.
In the context of this thread, I notice that many of the great spiritual teachers fall into the same trap (vide the Mahatma Gandhi as an example). I wonder whether Ignatius of Loyola was aware of this danger when he originally laid down that members of his new Society were not permitted to accept promotion, or to run schools - a rule which was changed within a generation.
It seems like there is two ideas. That sexuality is rewarded. Like Kennedy being rewarded for his sexuality. I think many americans are amused by such things as "Mr. President" song by Marilyn Monroe. I imagine a few immature people admire him for being "a pimp". Some probably hate the Kennedies for being Catholic. Or a democrat. Etc. Theres a "levi jeans commercial" America, a bible belt america, a california america, etc....
I think that whole issue is an over generalization big time.
I also agree to some extent that people who claim morality are hypocritical often. But also it is a generalization. There must at least be some people who are truly ethical (relatively) who try to benefit others by setting an example. Not Tiger Woods, who is not admired, but others.
There is a tremendous divide in the American body politic. Those that shout the loudest about "family values" never liked Kennedy and certainly think there is no mystique now or ever. Those that romanticize him are typically educated, social progressives who don't really care about a person's sexuality. After all, he was voted President not husband.
You are absolutely correct that amongst those carping on morality, there are a disproportionate number of philanderers, closeted self-hating homosexuals, etc. I personally think the causality works in the other direction: their words are an overcompensation for their failings; their persona is part of a cover-up.
Naturally I bow to your superior local knowledge. What I was pointing out is that we are treated to barrages of hypocritical puritanism (silver ring stuff, etc.) from your side of the Pond which appears to be shallower than oppositional politics. Am I wrong in my impression that, even though the general public know know that JFK was a serial and almost daily adulterer, the Kennedy mystique remains strong?
I am not trying to say that the North Americans are in some way more peculiar in their attitudes towards sex and sexuality than other groups. It is simply that there are so many strident voices over there. Time and again, just like our ex-Prime Minister, Sir John Major, the preachers of 'family values' are exposed (just the right word, I think) as deceivers. It has led me to conclude that those who claim the moral high ground most loudly are also the most likely to abuse their power and position.
In the context of this thread, I notice that many of the great spiritual teachers fall into the same trap (vide the Mahatma Gandhi as an example0.
RE: Kennedy, yes, you're correct that the discovery of a scandalous private life didn't detract from the Kennedy mystique.
I think there are a lot of conflicting messages coming from the US that contribute to the confusion Europeans feel. The "silver ring stuff" (is that the youth churchbased, no-sex-before-marriage movement you refer to?) is part of the fundamentalist Christian movement that gained a lot of ground under the various Bush presidencies. FundamentalistChristianity used to be a fringe phenom. until the Bushes gave the movement a pedestal to stand on. Historians note that G.W. Bush helped organize his father's run for the presidency, and in so doing, discovered that if he pitched his father's politics a certain way. the fundamentalist Christians were enthusiastic; their votes could be scooped up effortlessly. After this experience, when it came time to consider his own run for the Presidency, "W" began setting the stage by courting the Christian right well in advance of announcing his run, and then went into high gear with the religious right during his campaign. that's how all those extremists got into Congress. And began passing laws like "no government funding for teaching birth control or for funding abortions nationwide, and worldwide, in relation to foreign aid abroad". This type of extreme position shouldn't be taken as the opinion of the mainstream, though I can see how it would add to confusion on the part of observers of America. And then there are all those TV shows like "Sex in the City" (I've never seen it, but plenty has been written about it) that portray the opposite tendency from the religious right. So foreigners get confused. Well, TV is fiction, it's entertainment. It doesn't intend to portray reality. Think of the show back in the 70's or 80's, "Dallas". This was shown in Eastern Europe and everyone tuned in to see "how the Americans live". HAH!
Possibly N Americans react differently to authority figures committing adultery because in part it's an integrity issue, that's how I see it. Many Americans still quaintly hope to get politicians who are clean, uncorrupted by the system. The American public wants integrity in their leadership, and observing the marriage vows is a sign of integrity. Maybe (as Nirvana implied) Americans are more into monogamy than others, maybe that's a Puritan holdover. But plenty of Europeans seem happy in monogamous relationships; maybe it's a question of relative percentages of the populations.
Most Americans that I know realize that the system itself is hopelessly flawed. It is ultimately about money more than one's stand on policies, and this becomes more pronounced at the higher levels of governments. Sure, local leaders may be elected on policy, but at the state and national levels the two-party system that has come into play in the US is inescapable.
And Dakini, I am happy that you see the difference between reality and American TV. I'm certain that not all French people have sex out in their driveways on the bonnets of their cars, either, even though I caught that on TV when I was in Clermont-Ferrand last October.
You're right, Q; in the last 10-15 years there have been enough stolen elections*, plus the issue of huge campaign contributions by Big Business has come to the fore more then ever, so people have lost that naivete I described (I must've been dwelling in the past when I wrote that).
*Just because Obama won by a landslide doesn't mean the Repubs didn't try to subvert the vote. Records show that 7 million of votes for Obama were lost or compromised, or Obama voters weren't allowed into the polling stations, etc.
I used to have to explain to East Europeans that the American TV shows are just fantasy. But now I'm surprised at how often I have to explain that to Americans!
Comments
The history of Tibetan Buddhism is not at all replete with that kind of behaviour. Certainly there were crazy wisdom masters, but they were not at all the norm. The norm was either the scholarly monastic or the married ngakpa. Read the namthar of Drukpa Kunley-- he was a scandalous figure, so obviously what he did was outside the norm. Also, the crazy wisdom masters were not institution builders... they were typically wandering yogis, in vivid contrast to Trungpa's empire building.
I am quite convinced that Trungpa Rinpoche was a siddha. I also think he made some grave errors in judgement. I have no problem putting the two together in my mind. A teacher must be sensitive to the role model they are setting for their students by their actions. I strongly believe that Trungpa Rinpoche failed in that respect. He did not act according to the highest conduct possible and I feel that this played a large role in his unfortunate early demise.
I agree with Palzang that this is really only the business of the teacher and his prospective students, not that of every gossipmonger and Internet shrew that takes up the cause. Caveat emptor. But putting the blame on students for "just not getting it" sounds far too much like "Did you see what she was wearing? She was asking for it."
There is no truth to this claim about Hindu tantra. Only a small subset of Kaula tantrikas practice the pancamakaras (the five "m's" of matsya, madhya, mamsa, mudra and maithuna) physically. The predominant Samayachara sampradayas all view these symbolically as they are most often practiced by Brahmins who must keep ritual purity.
Quite simply, there is little difference between Hindu and Buddhist tantric practice.
Putting aside any questions of personal obligation for the moment —as that is too deep and broad a matter for the time I have here— let me just touch on the patriarchal system in which we find ourselves historically rooted. Although the times are changing —and along with them the social milieu— the fact remains that marriage is traditionally an institution in which the man's rights far outweighed the woman's. Not even 150 years ago in many places a woman was not even legally allowed to own property in her own right. Men winked at each other's infidelities and women of wealth took on paramours. From antiquity people who had slaves had dalliances with their slaves of both sexes. The Power to do so came from their Wealth.
For the ancient Hebrews, divorce was an easy way to circumvent committing adultery. All a man had to do was make a declaration of divorce and throw a woman out to fend for herself. He could then take a new wife. No wonder that Jesus saw this as a social evil and spoke out against it —even insisting that it be called adultery anyhow. However, according to the purity codes of the Hebrews, the man had done no wrong (i.e., had not defiled himself by committing adultery). In addition, he was not committing a crime punishable by death. Funny, funny world— they didn't have the municipal and jurisprudence systems we had, so everything was ruled by a religious code. A sin was at once both sin and crime.
I want to keep this post short, so let me now sum up: Abuse of Power to gratify oneself sexually is perhaps endemic in any society. It all depends on how narrowly you define abuse. If you define it as taking unfair advantage of one's situation, then those with the greater wealth, power, prestige, or position are better poised to force their way (although not necessarily to get their way). In our more egalitarian society in which our mobility and riches make us all moderately "wealthy"*, the Question is increasingly becoming: What's so bad about a little more love being released responsibly to a few more people? Why be so stingy? And finally, is this abuse of our social nature or in many cases is it making good use of our social nature, if our pleasures be not immoderate?
_________ _________
*wealth=wellness, being well-off*
The fact that adulterous Presidents such as JFK and Clinton become more popular after betraying their vows suggests that the public actually like to see powerful men demonstrating that power sexually.
As there are some here who want to explain all human behaviour in terms of evolutionary forces, perhaps this sort of behaviour has benefit: intercourse with the pack leader moves the female up the pecking order.
Adultery within the circles of power appears to be the rule more than the exception, as demonstrated by the high level of divorce among the rich and powerful, and, of course, among 'celebrities'.
It's not even about the sexual act, and if people should or should not be expected to be celebate. If that were the problem, a tissue, a volume of diverting lithographs and a few minutes privacy will take care of it. It's about the fact that our nature revolves around the pack, and we're social creatures, and sex is tightly woven into the desire to find our place in the social order.
Get a dozen people together, and no matter how democratic you want to make it, you will have leaders and followers as they learn to function as a group. It takes a conscious effort and acknowledging the pitfalls of human nature to design safeguards against people stepping over the line.
The biggest pitfall of our search for Enlightened Teachers is that we expect perfection, for them to be superhuman. The Sangha doesn't need rules that say no private sessions between the Teacher and woman, because he's Enlightened and that would show doubt and get other followers mad at you for suggesting it might be wise.
It's going to happen once in a while. The biggest difference we can show as Buddhists is how we deal with it, when it happens. Do we hide and ignore the fact that even our Teachers are subject to human failure and we need to design safeguards for everyone's sake?
Cinorjer, could you rephrase this? I am confused as to what is meant here.
But they're just being people, and people tend to get attached to their institutions and respect for a great Teacher slides into worship. So we should acknowledge that, and in our own institutions use the tools that we know work. The one thing are temples are good at is developing rules, but the conduct should be extended to everyone, even the head monk or great Teacher.
No one person should have absolute authority, not even the founding Master. Especially over money or discipline. Acknowledging that sex can be a huge problem, some rules about private contact between Teacher and student are common sense.
I think that the pedophilia in the Roman Church was simply inexcusable and was wanton abuse of the "authority" the Roman clergy are so proud of having. It amounted to inopportune exploitation of the many opportunities they had to be alone with boys. It is a scandal that is simply unforgivable in someone in holy orders. For a layman this sort of thing would also be inexcusable, but unfortunately, as in all things, the laity are held to stricter standards than the clergy are. Does this make any sense?
Simon, I don't think these are the best examples to illustrate your point. I'm not even sure the point applies to the American public, which I think doesn't react the same way to these matters as Europeans (those puzzling sexual attitudes, again), but I'm open to the possibility. I just want to comment on your two examples.
JFK's "dalliances" weren't publicized until years after his death. Back in his day, the press didn't pry into the President's private life, there was a policy about that, if not stated overtly by media bosses, it was tacitly agreed upon and followed. And I don't think these revelations about him made him more popular after his death; he and Jackie always were popular.
As for Clinton, I don't recall him becoming more popular after the Lewinski affair. The media continued to hound him about everything, he continued to struggle against a conservative Republican Congress. The American public regarded the whole thing as tawdry, the more liberal members of the public criticized the Republicans in Congress for pursuing the matter and embarrassing the US internationally. I did notice, though, in parts of Europe people were sympathetic to Clinton's plight, the political harrassment. I didn't hear anything on either side of the Pond along the lines of celebrating Clinton's macho prowess, or whatever. I don't recall that he became more popular with our public. He may have benefited from some public outrage against the Republicans. He did manage to stand up to the Republicans and forge ahead with his Presidency, after all.
I'd be interested in hearing your perspective, from your European vantage point. I do remember reading articles about how Europeans couldn't understand what all the fuss was about, with regard to Clinton. ("So he had a fling, big deal.") How do Europeans in general view Berlusconi and his "extracurricular activities"?
As I recall it, whatever the attitude of the media, President Clinton's popularity ratings improved.
As for Signor Berlusconi, thoughtful commentators are more concerned by his corruption, media domination and abuse of power (including favouring neo-fascists) that his fondness for young women which we find distasteful.
Sorry Simon, but that is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning with regard to Clinton. His popularity surged because of Republican overreach after the '94 wave election. People hated Ken Starr and the GOP witch hunt and felt that Clinton was being unfairly treated by both Congress and the media. His rise in popularity certainly wasn't on account of his dalliance with Lewinsky.
Naturally I bow to your superior local knowledge. What I was pointing out is that we are treated to barrages of hypocritical puritanism (silver ring stuff, etc.) from your side of the Pond which appears to be shallower than oppositional politics. Am I wrong in my impression that, even though the general public know know that JFK was a serial and almost daily adulterer, the Kennedy mystique remains strong?
I am not trying to say that the North Americans are in some way more peculiar in their attitudes towards sex and sexuality than other groups. It is simply that there are so many strident voices over there. Time and again, just like our ex-Prime Minister, Sir John Major, the preachers of 'family values' are exposed (just the right word, I think) as deceivers. It has led me to conclude that those who claim the moral high ground most loudly are also the most likely to abuse their power and position.
In the context of this thread, I notice that many of the great spiritual teachers fall into the same trap (vide the Mahatma Gandhi as an example). I wonder whether Ignatius of Loyola was aware of this danger when he originally laid down that members of his new Society were not permitted to accept promotion, or to run schools - a rule which was changed within a generation.
I think that whole issue is an over generalization big time.
I also agree to some extent that people who claim morality are hypocritical often. But also it is a generalization. There must at least be some people who are truly ethical (relatively) who try to benefit others by setting an example. Not Tiger Woods, who is not admired, but others.
You are absolutely correct that amongst those carping on morality, there are a disproportionate number of philanderers, closeted self-hating homosexuals, etc. I personally think the causality works in the other direction: their words are an overcompensation for their failings; their persona is part of a cover-up.
RE: Kennedy, yes, you're correct that the discovery of a scandalous private life didn't detract from the Kennedy mystique.
I think there are a lot of conflicting messages coming from the US that contribute to the confusion Europeans feel. The "silver ring stuff" (is that the youth churchbased, no-sex-before-marriage movement you refer to?) is part of the fundamentalist Christian movement that gained a lot of ground under the various Bush presidencies. FundamentalistChristianity used to be a fringe phenom. until the Bushes gave the movement a pedestal to stand on. Historians note that G.W. Bush helped organize his father's run for the presidency, and in so doing, discovered that if he pitched his father's politics a certain way. the fundamentalist Christians were enthusiastic; their votes could be scooped up effortlessly. After this experience, when it came time to consider his own run for the Presidency, "W" began setting the stage by courting the Christian right well in advance of announcing his run, and then went into high gear with the religious right during his campaign. that's how all those extremists got into Congress. And began passing laws like "no government funding for teaching birth control or for funding abortions nationwide, and worldwide, in relation to foreign aid abroad". This type of extreme position shouldn't be taken as the opinion of the mainstream, though I can see how it would add to confusion on the part of observers of America. And then there are all those TV shows like "Sex in the City" (I've never seen it, but plenty has been written about it) that portray the opposite tendency from the religious right. So foreigners get confused. Well, TV is fiction, it's entertainment. It doesn't intend to portray reality. Think of the show back in the 70's or 80's, "Dallas". This was shown in Eastern Europe and everyone tuned in to see "how the Americans live". HAH!
Possibly N Americans react differently to authority figures committing adultery because in part it's an integrity issue, that's how I see it. Many Americans still quaintly hope to get politicians who are clean, uncorrupted by the system. The American public wants integrity in their leadership, and observing the marriage vows is a sign of integrity. Maybe (as Nirvana implied) Americans are more into monogamy than others, maybe that's a Puritan holdover. But plenty of Europeans seem happy in monogamous relationships; maybe it's a question of relative percentages of the populations.
And Dakini, I am happy that you see the difference between reality and American TV. I'm certain that not all French people have sex out in their driveways on the bonnets of their cars, either, even though I caught that on TV when I was in Clermont-Ferrand last October.
*Just because Obama won by a landslide doesn't mean the Repubs didn't try to subvert the vote. Records show that 7 million of votes for Obama were lost or compromised, or Obama voters weren't allowed into the polling stations, etc.
I used to have to explain to East Europeans that the American TV shows are just fantasy. But now I'm surprised at how often I have to explain that to Americans!