Richard Dawkins on Bill Clinton "had a positive duty" to lie about his affair

Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster
Richard Dawkins

"Is sex outside of marriage a sin? Is it a public matter? Is it forgivable?"
No, of course sex outside marriage is not a public matter, and yes, of course it is forgivable. Only a person infected by the sort of sanctimonious self-righteousness that religion uniquely inspires would apply the meaningless word 'sin' to private sexual behavior.

It is the mark of the religious mind that it cares more about private than public morality. As the bumper sticker slogan put it, "When Clinton lied, nobody died." Officially, Bill Clinton was impeached not for sexual misconduct but for lying about it. But he was entitled to lie about his private life: one could even make a case that he had a positive duty to do so. Tony Blair should have been impeached for lying to the House of Commons about alleged evidence for weapons of mass destruction, because his lies persuaded Members to vote for a war when they otherwise would not. Lying to Congress by saying, "I did not have sex with that woman" should not be an impeachable offense, because where a man puts his penis is none of Congress's damn business. Nor is it any journalist's damn business whether a politician once took drugs at university. Or whether he is gay.

And please don't say the right answer to an impertinent question about your private life is "No comment", because we all know how that would be interpreted. Telling a lie is often the only way to convey an effective "No comment."

A censorious culture in which public figures are forced to answer impertinent questions about their past, or their private affairs, would lead to open season on everybody. Who, if challenged with a point blank question, could honestly deny some secret from the past that they know society would condemn? What is more, the revolting hue and cry that our religiously inspired society habitually raises over private sexual 'morality' serves as a dangerous distraction away from important matters of public morality such as the Blair/Bush lies about Iraq’s weapons.

more:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/richard_dawkins/2007/11/banishing_the_greeneyed_monste.html

Still do, actually.

I feel the need to add, to the DUers who keep posting that Bill is open for non-stop nookie, STOP THAT. THERE IS NO WAY BILL CLINTON, FORMER HEART PATIENT, CAN SERVICE ALL THE WOMEN WHO WILL APPLY. It is simply cruel to raise their hopes like that. Cruel. Didn't your mama teach you not to be cruel?

Clinton was being impeached?" and I almost didn't click on the link.

But then, I did.

This guy has an interesting take on fidelity/jealousy. He had to clarify it at the end, too, because I was thinking along the lines of others who commented, as well.

I especially liked the bits about Romney in the article.

Like it or not, Monica Lewinsky had been called as a witness in the Paula Jones lawuit. Now ... I am sure that most here think Paula Jones was a gold-digging opportunist or worse and should have been shown the door by the first judge who heard her case. Yada yada yada.

But that ain't what happened. The lady had a case, the courts let it go forward, and Lewinsky was a witness. Sexual harassment and sexual assault are serious matters. Bill Clinton should have kept his hands off Paula Jones and kept his zipper zipped in the Oval Office. But he didn't and wound up in court. There, he had an obligation to testify truthfully.

Dawkins indirectly acknowledges this in his added comment. Clearly in his initial statement he went off half-cocked on the "it was all about sex" theory, which has never been more than a smokescreen to divert attention away from the underlying court case. It's understandable that a furriner might have misunderstood the issue based on sketchy reporting, but he seems to have gotten an education since his first statement.

Btw, it's good to be back. Been without a computer for awhile.

not worth arguing about.

According to Jones herself, Clinton did not lay a hand on her (you mention assault), though she says he exposed himself. Jones was used by the right, and "like it or not," the use of Lewinsky as a witness was a way to get the whole country talking about Clinton and Monica.

Yes, sexual harrassment is serious. If Lewinsky thought she was harrassed, SHE should have brought a lawsuit.

Yes, I do think Jones was a gold-digging opportunist and at the same time a patsy for the right. She may have told the truth -- I can't say -- but in her own words, Clinton propositioned her, she said no, and that was the end of it.

I also think it was about sex more than any other matter. Hard to forget reporters riffling through the Starr report, hot off the presses, to paraphrase the salacious bits.

Can't do it.

I certainly don't.

an attitude towards women as objects.

BC's zipper problem is one of the reasons Gore did not win in 00 by a theft-proof margin.

Beyond that, I am tired of the BC/Monica topic. Unfortunately, if Hillary becomes the nominee, we are going to revisit the topic again and again.

I also don't think, as the OP suggests, that lying about an affair is a duty, nor is it positive. It was BCs parsing with works that got him into trouble as much as his affair.

Gee...what an original thought....lying about an affair is a good idea!

I don't think BH should have been impeached. That does not mean it was his duty to lie.

It is this looseness with the truth that may not only have had an impact on Gore but also on his wife, as she tries to overcome the view held by many that she too is not as forthcoming as we would like.

Firstly...the reason this article is out there is to "immunize" Rudy or to revive the evil Clenis or both.

The game here is that since people thought that Clinton's "affair" was none of anyone elses business, neither should Rudys. Or, if you're pissed at Rudy's filanderings, then just remember the "wosrt" violator and that he may be back in the White House. Either way, it plays into the village memes.

Rudy's affair is not a sloppy hummer...this was a full-blown, big money Broadway production. Rudy wasn't just "sneakin' some nookie" but was using taxpayer money to support his mistress and all but waiving it in the New York taxpayer's face. The moment Rudy dipped into the taxpayer's pocket, his affair no longer was a private matter.