Ray Ciervo Ministries

I recently read Al Mohler’s blog concerning an article he’d read on politics and extra-marital affairs. He was referring to John Edwards’ adulterous affair with a campaign worker. So, according to proper training, “never use anything but a primary source,” I had to go read the article. Happens it’s from Psychology Today’s blog. It was about how we need to get over sexual sins committed by politicians.

In fact, the article’s author, Prof. Roy F. Baumeister, suggests we’ll “widen the pool” of politicians if we allow them to have “extra-marital affairs.” To be fair to Professor Baumeister, he claims to be an “evolutionary psychologist,” and from his persuasion it is perfectly normal for politicians to look for these “extra-marital affairs.” In fact, (again) he says that men who are attracted to politics have a greater amount of testosterone and that’s what brought them to politics, and the affair.

But take heart, Roy (Prof. Baumeister) really wants to help the American public:

My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office.

And,

The best hope to do this, I believe, is to enlarge the pool of qualified candidates. One good way to do this would be to stop disqualifying people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with governing.

Put simply, there is probably a limited supply of people who are willing to go through all the risk, stress, and hassle required to seek major public office. The ones who will govern well is a subset of those. If we lose some of those good ones because they had extramarital sex, our chances of getting good government are further reduced.

Is it just me or does Roy think that extra-marital sex is okay? Well, as an evolutionary psychologist he, of course, doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with adultery. In fact, he wouldn’t use the term. As evolving human animals having an extra dose of testosterone just means we’ll have more than one sex partner. Part of his proof is to go to the “polls” that tell us half of all married men admit to adultery. Actually, they wouldn’t phrase it that way. They’d say they’d had an affair. Adultery is judgmental and passe. But Roy really exposes the extremity of his ideas when he states this:

Indeed, part of the attraction of a political career, at least for some men, may be the promise of more women to bed. Evolutionary data back this up. Linda Betzig's research on powerful men throughout history found that they often had many sex partners and many children. To an evolutionary psychologist, that is the pudding in which lies the proof, the goal lurking behind all other behavior. To chuck men out of office for having multiple sex partners is thus a quixotic, paradoxical quirk of modern society, for whether they realize it or not, many men are drawn to seek that office in the first place by the sexual dimension of political ambition. It would be a bit like disqualifying swimming champions because they like to get their hair wet. 

The drive for political career, for some men, is more women. News flash! We thought the draw was public service. “The goal lurking behind all other behavior?” I’m sorry; I must be from another planet. Roy then follows this statement with more poor logic skills by stating that powerful men throughout history have had multiple partners and many children. (My apologies for drooling on the keyboard. There’s just too many things to go after here.) This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow. Just because the sun rises after the rooster crows doesn’t mean the rooster made the sun rise. It just might be that the unguarded morals of a man in power make him think he has the right to adultery because of his position.

Roy doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with being unfaithful either. He thinks that this is part of life. I must quote Roy at length because without reading the direct quote you wouldn’t believe I’m being fair to him. 

I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. [What a great refutation!] A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.

So, for Roy a person’s character would be impugned for missing a few of say his gas bills, but not by being unfaithful to his wife. That is, the vows he made to his wife on their wedding day are null and void when his testosterone is pumping; and that's okay. Would it be okay if his wife was aware of his promiscuity? I wonder if it’s okay with Roy for politicians to break their word for anything, or is it just okay for adulterous relationships? Is it okay if they lied about paying their bills on time?

The key word’s Roy used to identify himself were “evolutionary psychologist” and that’s where the differences (absurdities) lay. Baumeister is an evolutionist and has no basis or grounds for morals and believes all morals are social constructs, that is, constructed by society. There are no absolute moral standards according to evolutionists who happen to be naturalists. So, he sees this as perfectly normal and has no qualms about espousing his morality, or lack of it. In fact, he’s trying to impose his morality on the rest of us.

[You may think I’m a bit cheeky by calling Prof. Baumeister, “Roy,” but I’ve read this article so many times I feel we’re on a first name basis.]

So, the point of Roy’s article is that we are hurting ourselves by judging men who commit adultery because they’re wired that way. Therefore we ought not be judging them; it’s only natural for them to have “unsanctioned sex.” The way we’re hurting ourselves is because when we judge these people we’re narrowing the pool from which we can draw our leaders. Look how well Europe is doing.

Baumeister’s logic is pathetic. His one “statistic” doesn’t prove anything and how it is presented makes any true logician roll their eyes. Anyone who understands ethics would grimace at his observations and conclusions. Finally, any moralist would know this “ain’t the way it is.”

An article such as this shows how wide a gap there is between what Christianity purports and where the world is and where it is going. In the gap are the untold numbers of society looking for what is right. Sadly, the “educated” are leading down the slippery slope without any restraints. Heck, they’re wearing skiis down this greased slope.

On the other hand, those that represent the Christian message ought to stand for what is morally and ethically correct. This sort of gap continues to widen as the natural evolutionist determine to call themselves the intelligent voice of reason. We ought to take this seriously as the moral slide in the West affects more and more of our lives.

Become informed. Pay the price of understanding the times from a biblical point of view. Take a stand. Get involved in your church to help present a authentically biblical view of reality. Follow Jesus. Be the salt and light God has made us to be. 

Okay, let’s take a closer look at who Roy is. Well here’s the blurb off the web site:

Roy F. Baumeister is Eppes Eminent Scholar, Professor of Psychology, and head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University.

For those who want to read the article for themselves here’s the url:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200808/sex-and-politicians