Is adultery any reflection on a man's suitability for leadership positions? Why or why not?

If he isn't capable of leading his own self in an honest manner, there is absolutely no way he can be a trustworthy and steadfast leader in any other facet of life. Shady is as shady does.

What is curious to me is why the question is stated as though it is assumed that only a male leader would or could commit adultery...

But to answer your question...

I think that the reflection is dependant on the actual role & the circumstances of the adultery.

For instance, the personal betrayal of a marriage is really between the individuals involved however, when you hold a position of power, those dynamics change. I had no problem with Clinton cheating on his wife. The problem was that he did so with an intern & then committed perjury while in office. If the president of my college or a local school principal slept with an intern, he would have lost his job due to the abuse of power involved & he would have been jailed if it was discovered that he lied under oath about said relationship.

Also if an individual does not feel bound by loyalty & honesty enough to not break vows made to another, then why should we believe that they will suddenly be honest &/or loyal to promises made to strangers, for example, vague constituents back home. In this day & age, people can & do divorce everyday, so in reality there is no reason to stay married to one person if you wish to sleep with various other partners.

Now, I do believe that not all people believe that honesty is a requirement of a good leader as powerful people are often in positions where honesty may not be the best policy. If that is the case, then there is no reason why this would be an issue as then it would not matter if a person could or would betray those close to themselves.

So basically it depends on what qualities you believe a leader should have & what values you believe are represented by the adultery of the individual.

In between the Jewish faith and the creation of Islam, is a few thing called Christianity. Jesus took the finished question of marriage and sexual morality right into a clean realm. he forbade divorce except once you've been cheated by ability of your companion He suggested that in case you divorce, you're forcing your spouse to bypass off and dedicate adultery he suggested that if a guy seems at a woman lustfully, he replaced into already committing adultery. Paul taught that a accountable individual should be the honest husband of one spouse at the same time as Islam replaced into set up, the finished issue replaced into taken back back to the way the Jews were behaving for hundreds of years, a useless ringer for no longer a issue that Jesus had suggested mattered any more beneficial for sure that's way harder to obey Christ's teachings about sexual behaviour than those of Islam. below Christ's training a married guy might want to no longer even evaluate who his next spouse may nicely be, a lot less proposition her to marry him because basically pondering yet another relationship will be adultery.

It depends on who he's leading and where he's leading them to.

In a bible study group... probably not so good.

In the Hell's Angels ... I'm thinking that would be expected.

For middle of the road type of leadership positions, it would depend upon how he handles the adultery and the circumstances involved. If he were tactful about it and the marriage was already going downhill, it may not affect the leadership position... though its still not a good recommendation for picking up women. ;)

Cool question. Hmmmm. I believe that it would definitely affect how they are in terms of leadership suitability. If the man can't actually do good in terms of his relationship with his wife, what more to the people. It just reflects how trustworthy the guy is, how he can handle things and the environment around that influences him, etc.

A great leader must display integrity at all times.

If the moral law of the land is that a man and woman who are married must stay faithful to each other, then a leader must stay faithful to his wife, unless he made a mistake in the marrying.

If the moral law of the land expects a powerful man to take a mistress (France take note), then a leader should take a mistress, otherwise he will lose the respect of his supporters.

It depends on the position. There are different types. Maybe he wants to be head of the liars' club or something. (I assume by adultery you mean he is married and took a vow).

Now if you were talking about king of the world, I wouldn't vote for him. With a million new mouths to feed every four days, net, I wouldn't vote for anyone that has sex on their minds, period, homo, hetero, married, or not.

i think it shows what kind of integrity he has and i think i would have a hard time following a leader like that. plus it shows he can't make a decision and stick with it. he would have a hard time convincing any woman to follow, and hopefully good men as well. i hope this isn't a personal question. also as far as presidents go they should be punished the same way any man or woman in the service would be.

Yes it is, and President Clinton was one of the WORST Presidents of all time. It's a problem because it's an integrity issue. When you get married, you're making a promise to your wife. If you can't keep a promise you make to your wife, how can anyone trust any promise you make or anything you say? Cheaters are untrustworthy.

I dont think so. When I seen your question I automatically thought of Bill Clinton and he's my favorite of all. I am a woman, and dont agree with what he did but people make mistakes. Your private life doesnt show what you can do in a leadersip position. Your private life is supposed to be private, and shouldnt be judged for your profession.