I know it's preferable, but is it necessary to be of good moral character to be a good leader? Have there not been good leaders in the past who were lacking in morality or honesty?
Register below, and respond.
__________________
Register at the bottom of the screen to join the room and its discussions. Start your own topic by clicking "Start a new topic", above. Reply to THIS topic by clicking "reply", above.
"Moral" is a relative term. Some people think drinking is immoral. Some think smoking, dancing, or having an alternative sexual orientation is immoral. As for me, I don't care what people do with their lives as long as they don't harm others. For example: If a single man has an intimate relationship with a consenting single adult woman, I don't care. I wouldn't call them immoral. But if a married man/woman has a relationship with another person then I would consider that immoral because he is harming the person he committed to. He has shown that his character is not one of integrity and is terribly flawed. He can't be trusted to keep his word. If you look at our current leader you will find him lacking in all things moral. He is an adulterer, he is a liar, he is rude and has a propensity to insult anyone he suspects is not supporting him and he does it in the most vile and crude ways and by using the most vile and crude language to do it. His type of immorality is one that makes him not trustworthy as a leader. His type of immorality constantly hurts other human beings. He gives knee jerk reactions to everything. He is showing us that he can't make very good decisions. He makes himself appear to be mentally unstable by reacting like a spoiled child. This is why the media and the public need to keep calling him out on his poor behavior. He needs to rise to the level of a leader or get out.
If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.
Samuel Adams
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
In the culture of today, the term "moral" would have a fluid definition. It seems the term has become very flexible and adaptive to the person or the situation. For instance, in the previous comment by ThatGirl, the writer defined a sexual relationship between two single people as moral, but such a relationship between married people (not married to each other) as immoral. However, there was a time in our country when both were considered immoral. I am not being critical of the commenter, but simply stating the evidence of my first statement of the term "moral" being fluid in definition today.
Yet, I do not believe the term is fluid. I feel certain that many others do not find it fluid either. Then the question becomes, "What is the authority to define the term?" Can it be culture? No, because culture is also fluid. Can it be man's opinion. No, because opinions are as plentiful as belly buttons. Then, what would be considered an authoritative and definitive source of defining it? For me, that source is God's Word (i.e., The Bible). It is a tried and proven Book, which has withstood the attacks and rigors of time. Thus, the biblical definition of the term would be to be pure and have integrity.
Now, having said that, I want to address the question. As the question stated...morality is preferable, but is it required? As a Christian, I would love to say an emphatic "Yes." However, does the Bible support that answer? I do not believe that we can unequivocally say "Yes." Throughout the pages of the Scriptures, we encounter many people who where in leadership, but had questionable morality at times. There are no perfect or flawless leaders found in the Bible. Yet, they were men and women whom God chose to use. For instance, Abraham was a man who was not committed to one woman. His main wife was Sarah, but he also had numerous "concubines" (i.e., 2nd class wives, whose purpose was for sexual gratification). Moses lost his temper and killed a man, and then was on the run for 40 years. Jacob had at least two wives (Rachel and Leah). Wise King Solomon wrote a whole book about his exploits with wine, women and song (i.e., Ecclesiastes). King David had a number of wives, and then committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband to try and cover it up. Samson was known for his womanizing and prideful boasts.
We could go on with the list. Yes, I believe that moral leadership is the best. However, all persons are flawed and all flawed people can still accomplish great things. I believe the real issue is not about who occupies the White House or any place of leadership. Rather, the real question, is who is the leader following. Psalm 33:12 states, "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord." Even a flawed leader, if he/she is following the Lord, can be effective.
You've misunderstood my comment. I wasn't saying one was immoral and the other was moral. I was making a distinction between doing things that harm no one and things that harm others. Our current president does things to hurt others. This is the kind of immorality that I cannot tolerate and I think it makes for a very poor leader.
__________________
You are the result of 3.8 billion years of evolutionary success. Act like it.
Thank you, ThatGirl. I wasn't trying to be critical of your comment, but just using it as an illustration. I do understand what you are saying, and your comment is well-written.
I suspect the author of the OP is referring to national leadership under our President......and that requires a specific answer. But for starters, and this is my maiden voyage here, let me make a more general response:
First, as MWynn has stated, in the context of human culture morality is relative. For those of us who are Christians, there is an absolute morality established by the Bible. We don't practice it fully but are expected to.
In human situations, it seems to me, "morality" is needed sometimes, sometimes not. Military leadership in combat: do we need a squadron leader who is moral? Or do we need a fearless monomaniac driven to protect his men and kill the enemy? In road construction, do we need a "moral" foreman, or a man who knows his job and is capable of showing his crew how to get it done?
In the Presidency, however, morality is helpful--the more the merrier. Politicians are scarcely overloaded with the quality; some more obviously so than others. The current one seems possessed of less than any other President in my experience with 12 of them. More than anything, I think a President reflects the morality (and other characteristics) of the electorate. 45 shows just how low-class our culture is these days.......in that he is so base, so vulgar, but the people love it so!
The Cypress Room would like to welcome you, Alien are Ed. We hope you will contribute often.
__________________
Register at the bottom of the screen to join the room and its discussions. Start your own topic by clicking "Start a new topic", above. Reply to THIS topic by clicking "reply", above.
The Cypress Room would like to welcome you, ThatGirl. We hope you will contribute often.
__________________
Register at the bottom of the screen to join the room and its discussions. Start your own topic by clicking "Start a new topic", above. Reply to THIS topic by clicking "reply", above.
MWynn, thanks for returning and for posting in such a gentlemanly manner.
__________________
Register at the bottom of the screen to join the room and its discussions. Start your own topic by clicking "Start a new topic", above. Reply to THIS topic by clicking "reply", above.
I know it's preferable, but is it necessary to be of good moral character to be a good leader? Have there not been good leaders in the past who were lacking in morality or honesty?
Register below, and respond.
The Bible is full of stories of immoral people who were good leaders. David was a murderer. Soloman had a thousand concubines. Paul was an ex mass murderer. When God decides to use you, it doesn't matter what you past is.
