So the campaign equivalent of a daisy-cutter bomb was dropped on the Roy Moore campaign yesterdiddy. There are certain things we don’t know, and certain other things are stinking obvious.
Let us begin with what we don’t know. The allegations have been made, and Moore hotly denies them, calling them defamation. So, not having had a trial yet, we don’t know if the allegations are true.
“The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17, ESV). ““A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established” (Deut. 19:15, ESV). “You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice” (Ex. 23:2, ESV).
That noted, the first obvious thing is that this was rolled out in the midst of a nasty political campaign. The allegations concern the late seventies, which means that the story is almost purely a political instrument—that instrument being a hatchet.
The second thing is that a host of RINOs moved into action almost immediately, looking like one of those choreographed swimming routines from the 1950s. John McCain called for Moore to stop burning daylight and to step aside right now. There was also the more cautious maneuver (Flake, McConnell), where they opined—and opine is the only real verb for it—that if the allegations are true, he ought to step aside.
If the allegations are true? Well, of COURSE. If the allegations are true, the citizens of Alabama ought to do more than politely request that Moore step out of the race. If the allegations are true, they ought all to pitch in, buy the world’s biggest frying pan, fill it with about half a foot of piping hot bacon grease, and fry the good judge a deep brown on both sides.
Now I will admit it—that previous paragraph was a tad flamboyant. But I put it that way for a purpose. A defense of the presumption of innocence ought never to be read as a defense of the guilty. If he is guilty of this, he deserves everything he is getting and more. If he is guilty, to have this revealed in the course of a political campaign—where he is campaigning as a defender of the law of God—would not even be a dirty trick. A grand defense against any lawsuit for defamation is to show that the charges are true.
This is because the following statements are not equivalent. They do not mean the same thing:
1. The accused did not ever molest a fourteen-year-old girl.
2. There is nothing wrong with molesting fourteen-year-old girls.
But we live in a time when to mildly suggest that #1 is a possibility is taken as a thundering and full-throated defense of #2. Not a bit of it.
So if anybody suggests that I am defending Moore because he is “my guy” for the Senate, this would be false. I am defending him because he is the accused. But I do know the world is a sordid place, and I do not know the judge personally. I therefore acknowledge that there is a possibility that the charges are true.
So if he confesses that they are true, or if they are shown by biblical criteria to be true, then I am here and now promising a future blog post on the subject. I further commit to have it set to at least 300⁰ F, and you will be able to hear the bacon grease from at least three blogs over.