For one thing, the content of the story is challenging.
Note that the issue here, although the politics is somewhat dated, is over the use of sexual harrassment laws. The support of the Paula Jones lawsuit by Catherine MacKinnon -- "When Paula Jones sued Bill Clintonmale dominance quaked" -- seemed merely to result in the marginalization of MacKinnon from elite opinion -- her earlier Stalinism and anhedonic political moralism had not been sufficient.
Clinton continues to be treated as a serious political influence, appearing extensively in television promotions for California Proposition 87 in the election.
That the proposition failed should cause some enthusiasts to reevaluate Clinton's influence. Nevertheless, he continues to act and be regarded as a venerated elder statesman.
A long time Governor of a Southern State is elected President of the United States on a platform that includes strong support for laws against sexual harassment. After he is in office, it comes out that he may have used State Troopers, on duty to protect him as Governor, to pick up women for him.
One of the women named in the national press stories as having been brought to the Governor for sex felt defamed because she had actually rebuffed his crude advances, even though he had said that he knew her boss -- she was a State employee.
She decides to clear her name by suing the now President for sexual harassment. The Supreme Court allows the suit to proceed against the sitting President. Because the sexual harassment laws have been recently expanded, over the President's own signature, to allow testimony about the history of sexual conduct of the accused harasser, the President is questioned under oath about rumors of an affair with a young White House intern.
He strongly denies that any sexual relationship had ever taken place, and professes not to remember if he was even ever alone with the intern.
Later, incontrovertible evidence is introduced -- the President's own semen on the intern's dress -- that establishes the existence of the rumored sexual relationship.
The President then finally admits only to an ambiguous "improper relationship. Is it hypocritical of the President and his supporters to continued to support the sexual harassment and perjury laws if they do not want him to be subject to the ordinary penalties for breaking them?
Or, are the political purposes of the President's supporters in keeping him in office more important than this? On analogy with the Gibson and Pinnochio Scales, which rate general craziness and lying, respectively, here is a "Clinton Scale" for sexual misconduct.
This begins modestly, with Gennifer Flowers, who announced during the Presidential Campaign that Clinton had conducted an extended sexual affair with her. Clinton and Hillary Clinton then went on national television to deny what Flowers said.
In a later deposition in the Paula Jones case, Clinton admitted that Flowers had told the truth. Thus, although there was nothing intrinsically wrongful about Clinton having a sexual relationship with Gennifer Flowers, it was adulterous, and it did result in a blatant lie to the American people.
The next level, named after Monica Lewinsky, also involved a consensual relationship with an adult. However, this was also adulterous, and Monica Lewinsky was a young twenty-ish White House intern.
At least Clinton did not coerce her into it, since Lewinsky had already told friends that she was going to the White House with ambitions of seducing the President.
That Clinton allowed her to do so, in a room right next to the Oval Office, was shameful; but, as with Gennifer Flowers, it became more serious when Clinton denied, again, on national television, that it had ever happened "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false". But Monica had saved her blue dress, stained with Clinton's semen. Despite this evidence, the remarkable claim was made by Clinton defenders that Clinton had not lied because oral sex, which stained the dress, is not sex.
Polls were commissioned and learned experts were all lined up to claim that oral sex is not sex. Such a thing, of course, has never been heard before or since, and all this proved was the insincerity and dishonesty of Clinton apologists.
But the Lewinsky affair might never have become public if it had not gotten caught up in the Paula Jones case. The next level, named indeed after Paula Jones, ended up involving legal issues.
This began with a press report about how Clinton, as Governor, had used Arkansas State Troopers to procure women for him. Jones realized that one of the women mentioned in the story, from the details of the circumstances, was actually her, and she went public to clarify that Clinton had not succeeded in seducing her but had exposed himself and implied that what she did could affect her job with the State.
This sounded like sexual harrassment, and Clinton exposing himself "Just touch it"apart from the impropriety at least of having the police bring her to him, was both shameful and indecent. This was grounds for a sexual harrassment lawsuit, which the Supreme Court allowed to go forward against a sitting President.
Details are given in the dilemma above. Eventually, Clinton settled the lawsuit but was then disbarred for having delivered perjured testimony.I read Silence as Endo’s response to a unique fact about Japanese church history. For centuries, Neither Kichijiro nor Rodrigues’s apostasy can be excused, but neither does their denial of Christ put them beyond forgiveness any more than Peter’s denial of Christ did.
Christian Research Institute Our Mission: To provide Christians. Love demanded that identification, and Christ’s grace was sufficient, not for a western hero, but for a fully broken and humiliated man. I am not arguing this is perfect theology, only that this is where Endo takes us in Silence, to a place where, like in Pastoral matters, neither of the two options is fully good nor evil.
Rodriguez’s apostasy in the book is, . Some Moral Dilemmas. The following is a list of some moral dilemmas, mostly adapted from Moral Reasoning, by Victor Grassian (Prentice Hall, , ), with some caninariojana.comas from Grassian are given in his own words, with comments or alterations in brackets.
The novel was notably compared to Graham Greene's The Power and the Glory, leading Endo to be referred to as "the Graham Greene of Japan." Adaptations Stage. Besides Endo's stage version, The Golden Country, there have been several adaptions. Films.
Masahiro Shinoda directed the film Silence, an adaptation from the caninariojana.com: Historical fiction. the protagonist, Fr. Sebastian Rodrigues’s apparent “apostasy,” done in answer to what he believes is Christ’s silence-breaking command.
Much of . To my eyes, though, all Silence portrays is caninariojana.com is no triumph because triumph comes in enduring to the end. Jesus would not have triumphed had he gotten off the cross, knowing that his death and resurrection would eventually lead to the brutal execution of all but one of his apostles.