woman to put so much sex in a book andrnyour banal ideas were the sort—”sex isrnfun and liberating too”—that the publicrnseemed to want to have articulated in arn(supposedly) serious book. She thoughtrnthe President’s intimate hours with an intern,rngross imbalance of power though itrnwas, were just wonderful.rnConservatives have jumped on thisrnpoint, but in the wider world of the dominantrnmedia, which is usually so eager tornexpose hypocrisy, not a word was said ofrnit. A writer in the New York Observerrncame close in a story titled “N.Y. FeministsrnStand by Their Bill,” but after admittingrnthat the feminist leaders’ criticsrnhad a “valid point”—a phrase journalistsrnuse before dismissing an argument asrntrivial or irrelevant—he declared that thernpoint “is by now so obvious and so wornrnwith repetidon as to waste the words ofrnthose who make it.”rnThe religious world has its own examplesrnof this remarkable reversal of principle.rnAt last summer’s Lambeth Conferencernof the world’s Anglican bishops, thernsexual liberationism of the Western liberalsrnwas trounced by the determined oppositionrnof African and Asian bishops —rnsome of whom have received a goodlyrnamount of money from those Westernrnliberals, and will presumably do so nornlonger.rnBarbara Harris, the suffragan bishop ofrnMassachusetts, who is herself black and arngreat advocate of sexual “diversity,” announcedrnthat the African bishops hadrnbeen bought off with “chicken dinners.”rn(She really did.) Harris had made herrnpre-episcopal career on righteous indignation,rnand had anyone else used such arnracial, if not racist, stereotype, she wouldrnhave howled with outrage—and howledrnand howled and howled —and howledrnand howled and howled.rnOther liberal bishops have offendedrneven more grossly against the hitherto requiredrndeference to racial sensitivity andrnmidticulturalism. The bishop of Arizona,rnwho is white, declared that thernAfrican bishops “want to condemn homosexualityrnquite soundly while turningrna blind eye to the instances of polygamy,rntribalism, genocide and even female mutilationrnin their own culture,” and thernbishop of Rhode Island announced thatrnthe Africans had taken money (meaningrnbribes) from American bishops. (She apparentlyrnassumed that, had they not beenrnbribed, they would have voted with herrnand the other Western liberals.) Otherrnliberal bishops have spoken in similarrnways, without one word of criticism fromrnany other American liberal.rnBut as with President Clinton, so withrnthe bishops: The revelation that theirrnclaims to complete moral enlightenmentrnare bogus will have no effect on theirrnpower or on their confidence. They arernstill in office, shll in control, and still, onrnall other matters, particularly innovationsrnin the sexual order, insisting on buildingrnthe new kingdom of sexual diversityrnwhich, they think, only reactionaries andrnhonrophobes would resist.rnSo, as it turns out, the last remainingrnfeminists seem to be moral conservatives,rnwho think the imbalance of power argumentrntiue but would have called a manrnwho desired sex of his secretary a creeprnand a worm long before any feministrnthought up the charge.rnConservatives would also say, whilernthe feminist establishment would not,rnthat even two people of equal statusrnshould stay out of bed with one anotherrnunless they are married. This rule, hadrnthe sexual liberals not removed it, wouldrnhave helped protect the secretar}’ by givingrnher a transcendent reason to rejectrnher boss’s advances. The traditionalrnmoral canon is, if you will, a feministrnstatement.rnThere is an advantage to having a fixedrnmoral code: Our standards would notrnchange if the sexual predator were ourrnpolitical ally. The man with a fixedrnmoral code cannot look as self-serving,rnunstable, and unprincipled as feministrnleaders look—or, to be precise, have revealedrnthemselves to be. (Such a manrnmay be a hypocrite, certainly, but that onlyrnmeans that he can be called to accountrnin a way the relativist cannot be.)rnOur feminist leaders and liberal bishopsrndo have a fixed desire, if not a fixedrnprinciple. They insist on the absolute necessityrnof affirming almost any sexual activit)’rnanyone prefers. (Sex with childrenrnis, for the moment, still unacceptable,rnbut there are some on the fringes of liberalismrnwho propose even that.) Episcopalrnbishops may place a few more restrictionsrnthan the feminists by requiring that suchrnactivity be “life-enhancing” and “mutual”rnand perhaps even “monogamous” (anrnambiguous word, these days, meaningrnonly “for a period of time”).rnThis explains the feminist who wouldrngladly service President Clinton to rewardrnhim for his support for abortion, becausernabortion must be legal in the sexuallyrnunfettered world she desires. Itrnexplains the American bishops’ assault onrnthe African bishops, because the sexuallyrnlibertine insist not only on having theirrnway, but on having their way approved byrnothers.rnPerhaps a psychologist should investigate,rnbecause it all looks ver’ much likernan addiction. Only an addiction —forrnboth ideology and disordered sexualityrnenslave the will —can explain why thernfeminists and the bishops transgress thernliberal pieties.rnDavid Mills is the director of publishingrnat Trinity’ Episcopal School for Ministryrnand the editor of The Pilgrim’s Guide:rnC. S. Lewis and the Art of Witnessrn(Eerdmans). He is also a senior editorrnof Touchstone: A Journal of MerernChristianity.rnIMMIGRATIONrnPoster Illegals . . . andrnthe Rest of Themrnby ]ohn VinsonrnIhave seen this woman and her childrnmore times than I can remember. Shernis the poster mother for illegal immigration.rnIn article after article on illegalrnaliens in the mainstream press, sympatiieticrnjournalists describe her sufferingrnand hardship in a land where peoplernhave too little compassion.rnAnother such poster illegal is the thin,rnsad-eyed man who tells the reporter thatrnhe is only here to provide for his familyrnand do work no American is willing tornperform.rnI don’t deny that sympathetic illegalrnaliens exist. At an official count of fivernmillion (and the real figure is probablyrnhigher), it would certainly be surprising ifrnthere weren’t at least a few illegals withrnhearts of gold. But after nine years of researchrnand studv of immigration, legalrnand illegal, I can testify that many illegalrnaliens are not nearly so heartwarming asrnthe poster people.rnMy education on this subject began inrn1990, when people from Southern Californiarnbegan contacting me at the AmericanrnImmigration Control Foundation.rnIn voices of alarm and despair, they relatedrnhow their state was being overrun byrnAUGUST 1999/47rnrnrn