blog traffic analysis
This is Previous-Essay <== This-Essay ==> Following-Essay Click HERE on this line to find essays via Your-Key-Words. {Most frequent wordstarts of each essay will be put here.} ========================================================== %SELF RIGHTEOUS ARROGANT PRIVACY VIOLENCE SINS+980819 %LEADER HIGHER STANDARD GREATER VULNERABILITY 980819 There often are arrogant and self-righteous people who believe that they have the privilege, right and duty to hold leaders to higher standards of behavior in regards to private intimate relationships --- than they expect of people who are not in leadership positions. They may claim that people in positions of great trust should be unusually trust-worthy in regards to private intimate relationships. Their claims seem plausible --- until the implications of their claims are carefully examined by people who are not being threatened by them. The following questions need to be given careful consideration: 1. Is it possible to articulate standards for private intimate relationships which are clear, unbiased, helpful, and enforceable in ways which will in practice promote both personal and communal integrity? Have such standards been articulate in those ways? Where? When? By whom? 2. Where have such standards been published in formal ways; and who has standing to enforce them; to "cast the first stone" in instances when there are doubts as to whether named leaders are abiding by them. 3. What are the proper standards to be met by those people who move to enforce standards for private intimate relationships on the part of leaders? Where have those standards been articulated and published? Who has standing to enforce those standards? 4. What accusations may people properly make? What privacy-threatening-questions may people properly demand be answered by accused leaders? 5. Within what context may people demand that such privacy-threatening-questions be answered? 6. To what level of explicit detail about kinds, levels and qualities of intimacy, desires, fears, emotions and physiological responses --- must questions be answered? 7. How far is it proper to inquire into the private lives of participants in the private relationships which are called into question? 8. What responsibility is there to examine the communal contexts of the private relationships and how the communal contexts have played roles in motivating particular aspects of the private relationship(s). 9. With levels of objective evidence (which was gathered independently of information from the accused) must the accusers justify their accusations? 10. Are the leaders to be treated as innocent--- until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; or must leaders prove their innocence---once they have been accused by anybody powerful, arrogant and self-righteous enough to get wide public attention? 11. Should accused leaders have equal rights to inquire into the details of the private relationships of all who accuse them of improper private relationships? To what level of degree of involvement in alleged improper private relationships --- should the accused by abel to inquire into the lives of their accusers? 12. What should be the criteria be for judging the level of success in inquiries into the private lives of accused people? Should the overall net effect of the accusations and inquiries upon personal and communal integrity---be a prime criterium? If not, what should be the prime criteria? (c) 2005 by Paul A. Smith in (On Being Yourself, Whole and Healthy) ==========================================================