c. 1998 Religion News Service
(Samuel K. Atchison is an ordained minister and has worked as a policy analyst and social worker to the homeless. He currently is a prison chaplain in Trenton, N.J.)
UNDATED _ A recent article by The New York Times columnist William Safire sheds light on the struggle many Americans feel in attempting to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys in President Clinton’s sex, lies and impeachment scandal.”Sin is private and crime is public,”Safire wrote.”To pretend otherwise for political or commercial gain is the height of hypocrisy.”Safire wants to repudiate”the excesses being committed by the exposers of adultery”in an effort to end”the erosion of personal privacy in public life.” Such excesses, Safire argued, are the work of vigilantes attempting to turn the tables on Clinton’s accusers:”For daring to expose the real crimes committed to cover up moral transgressions, political figures are being `outed’ for their adultery.” The effect, he suggested, is to muddy the current legal and political waters as well as to establish a dangerous precedent for the future. “Today, adulterers are the targets of choice. Tomorrow, the hypocrimoralizers will demand answers from female candidates about ever having had an abortion; from youthful candidates about masturbation; from the unmarried about ever having had homosexual thoughts …” In other words, we are approaching the point where, whether from the right or the left, Big Brother will be ever present, waiting to expose any private indiscretion.
According to Safire, one way to address this problem is for journalists to stop asking prurient questions and for public figures _ even those who are morally pure _ to refuse to answer them. “The rationale is this: When an absolutely faithful spouse boasts, `I have never strayed,’ he or she puts pressure on all other candidates to violate their families privacy or to lie.”Such bragging, he added, rewards sexual snoopiness, and encourages those he calls”pornalists”to delve into all sorts of private sexual matters.
Thus, Safire said, legislation should be developed providing for a”citizen’s privilege”not to answer potentially embarrassing personal questions.
Curiously, at no point does Safire argue that moral indiscretions should cease. His proposal would ensure their perpetual privacy, but he evidently assumes most of us will continue to sin. And, given the history of human events, the assumption has merit.
The problem is that Safire assumes such a clear distinction between sin and crime there appears to be no connection between the two.
Yet the reality is that both are merely points on the same continuum. Indeed, left unchecked, the same character flaw that produced a private indiscretion can lead to a public felony.
Safire’s old boss, Richard Nixon, provides a case in point.
An insecure, vengeful person, Nixon created an atmosphere in which the now infamous”dirty tricks”associated with his administration _ including electronic surveillance and”misinformation”campaigns against political enemies _ could proliferate.
The crimes for which Nixon was eventually pardoned, including obstruction of justice and abuse of power, were the very public outgrowth of his private sin of hate. Moreover, to the extent that they undermined the integrity of the government over which he presided, the crimes he committed were immoral as well.
Thus, I fear Safire’s desire for a”citizen’s privilege,”however well-intended, should be found wanting. Better to remember a wise adage from long ago:”He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy”(Proverbs 28:13).
DEA END ATCHISON
