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.
The fact that the main accuser, Ms. Corfman (the ONLY accuser under any legal age of consent) scrubbed her Facebook and LinkedIn accounts, nor is there any mention of her on her son’s Facebook – despite being quoted in a newstory in 2013 regarding searches at his prom – is highly manipulative and suspect.
And isn’t she supposedly a Republican who voted for Trump? If so, why not make her allegations during the Alabama Republican primary? That way another conservative would still have a very good chance of winning the Senate seat.
Ah, well one accuser is a hard-core Democrat:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/_one_of_roy_moores_accusers_wo.html
It goes a lot further down the rabbit hole than that article, too. She worked for Hillary and Biden, wants Trump removed from office, “likes” some very far-left groups and has already posted (then deleted) things supportive of Doug Jones.
It’s very convenient when pro-Democrat political beliefs are implied to be a reason to disbelieve an accuser, but pro-Republican political beliefs are not considered a reason to believe an accuser. Whenever all potential evidence can only be cherry-picked to be relevant in one direction, then you will always end up believing whatever you wanted to believe.
It’s very convenient when you try go ignore a mountain of evidence with a comment like that, too.
Mountain of evidence of what?
Exactly what I said earlier: “She worked for Hillary and Biden, wants Trump removed from office, ‘likes’ some very far-left groups and has already posted (then deleted) things supportive of Doug Jones.”
If you’re going to so harsh on Christian, Southern conservatives, then her politics need to come into play as well. Or is she somehow exempt?
By “she worked for Hillary and Biden”, you appear to mean that her self-owned translation business did sign language work for them. And she’s a democrat. What do you think being a democrat and doing sign language work is evidence of? Roy Moore has already admitting befriending her after he spoke to her high school civics class and conceded that he might have dated her, but “doesn’t remember.” So since he’s conceded what she alleged, it’s hard to make her out to be some liar. The only thing I have been hard on “Christian Southern conservatives” here is their actual… Read more »
How do you feel about Moore’s ambiguous denial/acceptance of that very accuser’s claims?
Moore has admitted getting to know her after he met her when he spoke to her high school civics class: “I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did, but I do not remember that.”
It’s also convenient how WaPo failed to disclose the political affiliations. And they wonder why the credibility of mainstream media is lower than Trump’s. Jonathan wrote: Whenever all potential evidence can only be cherry-picked to be relevant in one direction, then you will always end up believing whatever you wanted to believe. It’s interesting how quick Jonathan is to believe the worst in us, however, the political leanings of accusers can actually be quite relevant, especially given the timing of things. It’s something that ought to be disclosed, for the sake of transparency. Contrary to Jonathan, no one said it… Read more »
How do you feel about Moore’s ambiguous denial/acceptance of that very accuser’s claims?
Moore has admitted getting to know her after he met her when he spoke to her high school civics class: “I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did, but I do not remember that.”
It sounds like a cautiously phrased reply which might not be true. But it also might be. If you asked me if I dated John Jones in 1979, I would have to say, “I don’t remember a John Jones, but if he says I dated him, I probably did.” Jonathan, who remember whom they dated during the 1970s, that decade of disco delight?
I bet if John Jones was twice your age, you would remember him. Now, if you had dated dozens of men twice your age, maybe not. Either way, it seems as if Mr. Moore had/has a young girl fetish and that’s Icky.
Clay,
You’ve turned around the situation, haven’t you? The claims are suggesting that Moore dated many much-younger girls. Using your logic, it’s not surprising that Moore might not remember all the details for all of them.
Just like Jonathan, and many others, your personal perception of the propriety of a relationship between an older man and young girl (“that’s Icky”) is impacting your thinking on the Moore situation.
OKR, as to the charge of allowing my personal perceptions of the impropriety of a thirty-something man dating 16 and 17 year-olds, I plead guilty. How do you plead?
Clay,
Since your sentence is incomplete, I ask if your guilty plea is an admission that you are biased to suppose that Moore must be guilty, or simply an acknowledgement that you find such a relationship improper?
I would find such a relationship to be suspicious and watch it carefully as it is unusual. However, I do not presume that such behavior is predatory or even inappropriate.
OKR, I have no way of knowing if Moore is guilty. I do find his admitted behavior is improper. I’m sorry, but I can find no justification for an grown man dating a 16 of 17 year-old girl. It raises a red flag.
Clay,
Jonathan avoided answering this question, so I’ll ask you. At what age does one
become a “grown man”, and thus ineligible to date 16-year-olds?
OKR, certainly by the time Roy Moore was dating them. Wouldn’t you agree? Let’s try to stay on topic. Deflection is AdadO’s game. See below. FYI, that’s not snark.
Clay, I have already provided my opinion on that question, and, no, I don’t agree. My question is just as relevant as you and Jonathan expressing your personal distaste for a romantic relationship with the ages given. Since that is a large part of your approach to this issue, I am trying to ascertain how either of you would determine, based on ages, the acceptability of a relationship. If you are unable to do this, then your personal objections are purely subjective. If so, then the question of the propriety of Moore’s behavior is also purely subjective. When it comes… Read more »
From The Washington Post article: “She recalled her mother saying she was “the luckiest girl in the world” that Moore wanted to date her, noting that he “had this godlike, almost deity status” … Gibson alleged that she and Moore only kissed twice and said in retrospect, she’s “glad nothing bad happened.” “As a mother of daughters, I realize that our age difference at that time made our dating inappropriate,” Gibson told The Washington Post.” How is this a story?
Melody,
Some consider it inappropriate that a 32-year-old was interested in dating teenagers, some still in high school. But I suppose you know that is not the entire story. One woman claims he sexually molested her on a date when she was 14 years old. That is a more serious allegation that should be investigated fully.
And despite 38+ years of Moore’s prominence she never said a word or called the authorities? Uh-huh. I am not fully disbelieving the accuser because I do not know anything firsthand, however the timing looks massively coincidental to this election (and I do not believe in coincidences).
OKR, once again you failed to recognize a grammatically correct sentence. It is a complete sentence. There is subject and a verb with a prepositional clause. Just because the prepositional clause is at the beginning of the sentence doesn’t mean that the sentence is incomplete or incorrect. Maybe a basic grammar refresher course is in order? I’d be happy to suggest one or two.*
*mild snark
Clay,
I presume you are saying this is a complete sentence: “OKR, as to the charge of allowing my personal perceptions of the impropriety of a thirty-something man dating 16 and 17 year-olds, I plead guilty.”
So, you plead guilty to the charge of allowing your personal perceptions to do what?
By the way, I seem to have missed your explanation of how I should write a proposed change to specific text.
OKRickety, having now seen the statements about his behavior by about a dozen women including former deputy D.A. Teresa Jones, alongside his very unconvincing denials, it appears he is lying at least, especially regarding his conduct with the main accused. It’s not even about a “he says, she says” differing interpretation or exaggeration of events. Either Miss Coffman , her mother, her friends from the time, and the Washington Post are all involved in a vast conspiracy AND a number of other women are badly exaggerating Moore’s conduct at the time, or Moore is lying about his conduct at the… Read more »
Jonathan,
It appears that you supposed that I am ignorant of the claims and denials. That is far from accurate.
It is my opinion that there is reasonable doubt that the sexual molestation allegations by Corfman are true. Apparently, you believe they are true. In reality, those specific allegations are, in fact, he said, she said.
I don’t think there is any point in anyone insisting that their own view is correct. There is insufficient evidence to say it is beyond reasonable doubt.
I believe that it is much more likely than not that Moore is lying about the degree of his contact with high school girls.
Rather than “reasonable doubt”, because this is not a legal trial, what do you think is the most likely explanation that explains the statements of Ms. Corfman, her mother, her childhood friends, and the other witnesses to Moore’s behavior while also taking into account the “denials” Moore made?
Jonathan,
Without specific evidence, possibilities are: political conspiracy (by either party), desire for attention, following the trend of #MeToo, a belief that they might get paid for later interviews, and regret for their immature decisions as teens. I think the first is the most likely, in light of the timing.
What evidence do you have for political conspiracy that would make that option more likely the the option that Moore engaged in inappropriate conduct? On “regret for their immature decisions as teens”, I’m not even sure what you mean. Moore has generally denied any pattern of dating teenagers and specifically denied even meeting Ms. Corfman, so how would that explain the story? On “a belief that they might get paid for later interviews”, how would that option even be possible considering that the Washington Post approached them rather than the other way around and you have 7 witnesses who would… Read more »
Jonathan,
I said “without specific evidence” for a reason: I don’t know the truth. You don’t either. I provided my opinion. Believe what you want. It is extremely unlikely that you would accept any reasoning I provided, so I am not going to bother.
Either Miss Coffman , her mother, her friends from the time, and the Washington Post are all involved in a vast conspiracy AND a number of other women are badly exaggerating Moore’s conduct at the time, or Moore is lying about his conduct at the time. Of course, the Washington Post has NO reason other than journalistic integrity to publish a story containing an as-of-yet unproven accusation of sexual molestation against Moore. I mean, it’s not like they endorsed his opponent or anything: Some Republicans may be tempted to overlook these shortcomings in deference to Mr. Moore’s party label. In… Read more »
So you consider a political endorsement to be meaningful evidence of political conspiracy?
Do you have any other evidence?
So you consider a political endorsement to be meaningful evidence of political conspiracy? I consider a political endorsement of the opposing candidate to be meaningful evidence of the Washington Post’s anti-Moore bias, as well as its eroding credibility. Can you say “conflict of interest”? The Post sought out these four women, only one of which has an accusation of wrongdoing. The Post printed a story potentially damaging to Moore. The Post endorsed Moore’s political opponent. Or are you so naïve as to believe the fact that the Post endorsed Doug Jones has no bearing whatsoever on their hit piece against… Read more »
I think you just posted an excellent survey of the actual ways in which a newspaper can get a story wrong. If those were the most egregious examples you can come up with out of over a million stories the Post has published within the 40-year period you cover, then you’ve given us a meaningful data point of the frequency and depth of their errors, as well as the degree of their willingness to admit fault.
Anthony Weiner icky?
Or
Bill Clinton icky? (27 year age difference)
Yes, and yes. What’s your point?
My husband’s grandfather was 23 years ‘older’ than his grandmother. She was fifteen when she gave birth to the first of their nine daughters. They were married for nearly 40 years until his death. This is such a silly story. Why weren’t these precious little girls able to speak up until now? He’s been in the public eye and a controversial figure for over 20 years.
Uh, you’ve been alive during the last year when a LOT of sexual misconduct allegations are only now coming to light, right? And the girls did not go public, reporters sought them out. “Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. While reporting a story in Alabama about supporters of Moore’s Senate campaign, a Post reporter heard that Moore allegedly had sought relationships with teenage girls. Over the ensuing three weeks, two Post reporters contacted and interviewed the four women. All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews, saying… Read more »
He claims not to remember dating teenagers at all but then says “maybe” in response to several specific allegations, people who knew him have come forward claiming that he made point of dating high school girls.
Could you really not remember whether or not you dated high school girls when you were 32? How is that something one could be unsure about?
My assumption is that she, like most people, cares about their own personal life a lot more than she cares about party politics. This is only a wild guess, but perhaps she hoped in the primary that Moore would just lose to Luther Strange and that would be the end of that and she wouldn’t have to say anything. But when he beat Strange and it became apparent that he would almost certainly win the seat, she was too disgusted by that idea and felt the only way left was to go public, with all the risks that entailed. Another… Read more »
I got the impression from the WaPo story that their reporters approached her.
You’d have to question how they found out, of course. But if it is true that she did not initiate the timing, then yes, that certainly makes that accusation moot.
I agree. Occam’s Razor would be well used here. re the desire to jump to conspiracy. Adjacently, victims of sexual abuse very often keep the experience to themselves for various reasons. Some glaringly obvious if you consider the comments here. Which is easier, to breathe a sigh of relief that you made it through and hope it will all fade to a bad dream, or put yourself through the wringer where even ‘christians’ sneer online and off, questioning your veracity.? The spouting here about complementary biblical principles concerning the ‘responsibility’ men have to provide for and protect women seems suspect… Read more »
Randi, material evidence is considered “witness” as well.
Think Bill Clinton, “the christian” and the stain on the blue dress.
In that case, the testimony that Bill Clinton was a lounge lizard,
matched the material evidence, the stained blue dress, proving Clinton’s guilt.
But when Bill Clinton was being impeached for being a lounge lizard,
who ignored the proof and voted not to impeach / convict Bill Clinton?
Oh! right. Liberal Democrats who were about as non-christian as Bill.
Many, including liberals, obviously always choose giving their brothers (like Bill Clinton) the benefit the doubt.
Wait, you’re following a principle from a friar-theologian? Next thing you’ll be quoting Aquinas!
Occam’s razor would more accurately suggest that a bunch of perfectly-fitting stories, some 38 years after an alleged event, is not what it seems.
“sneer online and off, questioning your veracity.?” This is hard to take as an honest statement. The overwhelming majority of the comments have done nothing approaching sneering. Rightly not assuming the word of one stranger to be of more value than another’s is not mocking disdain. ” Many including Wilson obviously always choose giving their brothers the benefit the doubt. ” You’re interjecting sex where none exists in the principle. You give doubt the benefit of the doubt. “After all, the bible says you need 2 or 3 witnesses yes? I guess just too bad for her that the 14… Read more »
The only thing that’s highly suggestive to me of is that pretty much any normal person, on becoming exposed to millions of people who want to destroy you, would not want those millions of people digging into their personal life and disrupting their places of work and the lives of their friends.
Your quick attack, by name and going into unrelated details about her children, being a case in point.
“going into unrelated details about her children” – Oh come on. This is all over the internet. When you’re willing to accuse a public figure of something like this, you’ve opened yourself to that kind of scrutiny.
I bet you didn’t got out of your way to defend Barron Trump during the election. If you did, please send links.
I’m confused by what you think I said – you’ve proven my exact point. How do you think that your reply supports Maeve’s suggestion, and what would defending Barron Trump have anything to do with anything?
One of the other accusers was 14 at the time as well, no?
From the WaPo article: “Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates….”
Without knowing what “first approached her” means, it’s hard to say what happened before she was 16.
One article I read indicated that Wendy Miller’s parents were approached at 16, but that she wasn’t allowed to actually begin dating him until 17. I don’t recall that Miller accused Moore of any sexual misconduct either.
Since the allegations are way past the statute of limitations, they will only be tested in the court of public opinion, not in a court of law. So the only things we have to go on are the accusers’ narratives and Moore’s denials. By that score, the charges presented by the accusers are weighty and have significant indicia of truth, including specificity, consistency, lack of hyperbole, and numbers (notwithstanding the delay of several decades in their assertion). In contrast, Moore’s denial presents no facts that would provide a basis to dispute these accounts–it’s essentially just a Bulverism attacking the source… Read more »
To many, it really isn’t important to determine or know if the allegations are true or not. It’s only important to ‘make’ the accusations. People remember the accusations and assume there must be something to them if they were made at all. In addition to this, if the allegations are false, or at least not proven, the accuser should face criminal charges, as well the accused, if guilty.
Hi Davis, as a Roy Moore supporter and someone who actually knows him personally (I worked for him during a summer internship while I was in law school, and was hired to clerk for him last year prior to his removal from office), I obviously am predisposed not to believe these allegations against him. What is more, the allegations are inconsistent with the man I know, and with his consistent commitment to his Christian faith even when it has cost him dearly. On that basis, his case is distinguishable from Weinstein &co (beyond the basic fact that those men admitted… Read more »
Zach, I think that’s a really fair analysis from someone ideologically and personally tied to Judge Moore. And I think that you frame nicely a test for the truth of the allegations: absent evidence that they are the product (and not just the instrument) of a sophisticated political attack, the best explanation for the allegations is that they are true. I also hope that Judge Moore and his supporters will investigate the sources rather than just attacking the motives of the accusers.
Moore has now followed up the boilerplate denial with an interview on Hannity. I found his further denial credible, and I believe him.
I’m quite surprised you find that denial credible. He denied having dated teenage girls despite a rather large body of reports that suggest that he made it his pattern to date teenage girls, and that this was well-known. Then he turned around and sort of unclearly admitted that he had dated teenage girls. He admitted knowing Glorida Deason, the 18-year-old cheerleader who claimed she had dated him for months, but wouldn’t admit to dating her, denied giving her alcohol and then claimed she was definitely 19 at the time. He denied ever having met Leigh Corfman. That would mean that… Read more »
Great comment. Like literally 100X better than some in the previous post…who assume Moore is guilty because the Washington Post and the rest of the MSM are always reliable…as are people who wait 38 years to accuse someone at the most critical point imaginable. Anyone who refers to Moore as a “sexual molester” with no caveats is nothing more than a rabble rouser at this point.
“Anyone who refers to Moore as a “sexual molester” with no caveats is nothing more than a rabble rouser at this point.” Exactly…part of the modern “give us Barabbas” crowd employed to do nothing more than defame (“Here, we’ll pay you a Hundred Grand to lie about this good man so we can steal the election.”) It’s part of the common theme of destroy first…really took hold with Justice Clarence Thomas. It’ll get a lot worse…case in point: If you haven’t heard the tape, listen to yesterday’s Dennis Prager’s first hour repeated from the other day, his interaction with an… Read more »
BTW, the exploding heads are all around, just without the visual (ala, Kingsman: Secret Service).
Sadly, in the case of Judge Roy Moore, his detractors are likely within his same political party…they simply cannot have their exclusive club infiltrated by good Christian’s.
Then you watch the Dem’s going after one of their own, Donna Brazile, who is now backtracking her allegations.
Satan is sure working overtime.
It sounds like you know him from working with him recently.
When these allegations were alleged to have occurred, Moore was 32, single, and a Democrat.
I am not saying anything about his guilt or innocence, only that he may have changed over time.
It’s very interesting that he was a Democrat. I wonder how the current situation would be viewed if he were still Democrat.
Three things are rather obvious.
1. He wouldn’t have a chance in hell of being elected in Alabama.
2. Most or all of those who are supporting him now would be denouncing him.
3. Some of those who are denouncing him not might instead be supporting him.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. If Barack Obama had been accused of the same, how do you really think that you and everyone else, especially our host, would have responding differently? Do you believe he would have had even the slightest chance at election?
Jonathan,
If Obama had been accused of the same, I expect that “everyone else”, including the media and other influencers of public opinion, would have responded differently. So much so, that I believe he likely would have been elected regardless.
That’s not the question I asked.
If that article with that degree of evidence gets written in the middle of Obama’s campaign, there is no chance on God’s Green Earth that he is able to continue as a viable candidate. None.
Jonathan,
Really? You asked two questions. I answered the first one, at least partially. I certainly answered the second question.
Would Wilson have responded the same? I don’t know but I like to think so. For me, I like to think it would be the same, too. As to other commenters, it likely would be different, and I suspect that your response would be different, too.
One of the differences in response is that I greatly doubt that the article would have been written about Obama. Again, your belief about Obama’s election chances is purely conjecture, as is mine.
“If that article with that degree of evidence gets written in the middle of Obama’s campaign, there is no chance on God’s Green Earth that he is able to continue as a viable candidate. None.” If anyone is still taking Jonathan seriously, you can stop now. Obama was treated with the most delicate of kid gloves by the media. We still know very little about what he did during the 47 years before he became president. Anyone who dared to ask was given the “What are you, a racist?!” treatment. This would never make it close to the desk of… Read more »
“We still know very little about what he did during the 47 years before he became president.” That’s a patently ridiculous claim. Virtually every detail of his life, from who his parents were to where he was born to where he lived to what exact elementary schools he was enrolled in to what he studied to who his friends were to who his pastor was to every job he held and what he did there and what his coworkers said about him, and every ideological belief he held or demonstrated along the way, was dissected in microscopic detail during the… Read more »
I would like to see the mainstream media source that gave “Obama is a secret Muslim” any traction whatsoever.
Just because people complained about Obama over silly reasons does not mean that the media gave him a hard time about it. The media discussed every negative point of Hillary’s too……for about 3 seconds…halfheartedly. Obama provably lied to the American public numerous times and it was nigh on impossible to get a mainstream news source to care.
There was no traction to be gotten because the story was ridiculous,to this date lacking any evidence whatsoever. There wasn’t a single fact to report to give it traction which they failed to report. But they STILL reported the story, so the claims that they wouldn’t report on a negative story remain groundless.
And it wasn’t “3 seconds”, the story was regularly covered from early 2008 through the election by hundreds of news outlets even though there was nothing new to see there.
That’s garbage and if you have even hint of objectivity or honesty, you’ll admit it.
The MSM made very little of the Obama-Ayers connection, even though it was much more significant than Obama admitted:
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/32072-obama-and-bill-ayers-together-from-the-beginning
Imagine if McCain or Romney had similar connections with the co-founder of a neo-Nazi group that conducted bombings of public buildings. They’d be out of the race as soon as the news was released.
That’s just one example. There are dozens of others.
I’m glad you picked an example that was already widely known, had been a campaign issue from start to finish, and got enormous media attention. There were literally hundreds of articles written on the subject. Far more attention than Donald Trump palling around with Gerry Adams at a Sinn Fein fundraiser, eh? Of course, literally raising money for a terrorist-associated group just months before the cease-fire broke and Sinn Fein’s allies bombed London isn’t nearly as bad as….which of Obama’s actions exactly? Obama’s associations with Ayers were broken by the mainstream media in Feb 2008, a good 6 months before… Read more »
Then there is this from someone who actually worked with him as a peer- not a summer intern:
Former Dep. DA Theresa Jones, who worked alongside Roy Moore, tells CNN: “It was common knowledge that Roy dated high school girls, everyone we knew thought it was weird…We wondered why someone his age would hang out at high school football games and the mall…”
RM2, Fake news. Left wing conspiracy. What’s wrong with an adult man Roy’s age dating high school girls? After all, it’s in the Bible.
Clay,
You haven’t changed. Still being snarky. In the first place, I don’t believe there was an equivalent to dating in Biblical times. More importantly, please show where the Bible makes any statement suggesting age differences in male-female relationships are of importance.
So, you’re saying it’s not fake news or a left wing conspiracy? It is fine with you that a thirty-something man liked to serial date 16 and 17 year-old girls? Didn’t the Alabama state auditor invoke Joseph and Mary in defense of Roy Moore’s proclivities?
Yes, at times a can be snarky. It’s a failing that I’m not terribly proud of.
Weird but not necessarily criminal. I dated professors. My friends married professors they had dated. My daughter had teachers who invited her out after she had graduated and turned 18. I don’t think this is as unusual as you think.
Of course it’s not necessarily criminal. But that certainly isn’t the behavior I would expect from someone seeking the office of mayor of my small southern town, much less the office of US Senator. Nowadays, dating one of your students is the surest way for a professor (male or female) to lose their job. Would you agree that generally there is a significant difference in the maturity of a 16 year-old and an 18 year-old? Regardless of their maturity, 18 year-olds have reached the age of majority in the US (with a few slight exceptions). What would you have said… Read more »
Clay, my daughter’s first boyfriend was 19 when she was 16. His parents were a lot more nervous than I was because of California’s sometimes tough enforcement of stat rape laws. But they were well supervised, and he was protective of her. Her second BF was 12 years older, but they didn’t start dating until she was 18. That relationship lasted five years. So maybe I’m not the one to ask! I would have had a problem with a teacher asking her out on a date while he was still her teacher. I would not have been okay with it… Read more »
Jill, you’re right. Times have changed greatly in our lifetime. Some for the worse, some for the better. I would expect that had your daughter’s first boyfriend been two or three years older and was also dating several other 16 year-olds, you would have taken a different tack. But then what we are really talking about is a thirty-something man with what appears to be a proclivity for dating young teenage girls. That’s a lot different than a well supervised 19 year-old dating a well supervised 16 year-old where both sets of parents are on the same page. But even… Read more »
Clay,
Both here and to me elsewhere, you say “also dating several other 16 year-olds”? This implies that the guy is dating multiple teens simultaneously. I have seen no suggestion that Moore was doing such a thing. Why are you using this phrase?
It certainly isn’t ideal, and I am sure it is no coincidence that this happened right after her father left and stopped having contact with her for a long time. She is now dating within her age group which I do think is healthier. When a girl dates a much older man, she tends to develop a facade of maturity that really isn’t there under the surface.
The whole ‘dating’ culture is fraught with peril. It’s a dumb and dangerous way to do things, and I wish we wouldn’t participate.
The age gap relationship in itself needn’t be any kind of a big deal and I think it’s often a good idea because of developmental differences. An 18 year old girl is likely to be too old for an 18 year old boy.
I have known teachers to get fired for that. It is considered extremely inappropriate as it opens the door to “grooming” your own students as you wait for graduation day. In fact, at least one of the girls Moore dated has turned out to have met him in Civics class. I cannot recall ever, ever having met a respectable man in his thirties who could be described as eschewing woman his own age to serial date high school girls. I wonder if there’s a single Republican in the country who honestly believes that Barack Obama wouldn’t have been run out… Read more »
Jonathan,
Let’s be clear that, contrary to way your comment reads, Moore was a guest speaker at the Civics class. That is a far cry from a teacher grooming students.
Your personal experience of older men dating high school girls is of little value as it is purely anecdotal. It is countered by others’ experiences (as shared her by Jill Smith and perhaps others).
I don’t think that Jill said he knew respectable men in their 30s who made a point of eschewing women their own age in order to date high school girls.
Clay,
I don’t know if it’s fake news or a left-wing conspiracy, although I think the latter is a possibility. But I do object to a person who claims to be a Christian objecting to a behavior, implying in the process that it is non-Biblical without any support.
“Yes, at times a can be snarky. It’s a failing that I’m not terribly proud of.”
Rubbish. It’s a vital and necessary skill to have.
MeMe, unfortunately around here snark is a necessary skill. But I’m still not terribly proud of it. Thank goodness I can sit down regularly with folks that I agree and disagree with and have reasoned conversations and debates. I have found that I learn more from those who see things differently than I do.
Clay, the Lord can take anyone and put them to good use. One of my favorite sayings is, “you’ll either serve as a good example or you’ll serve as a stern warning, but either way you’ll serve.” There are some people in my life who have served as a good example of “yeah, don’t be like that.” I try to cheerfully receive them. :)
Funny, the Bible sure doesn’t mention “snark” as a good or helpful behavior for women:
“Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.” I Peter 3:3-4
“Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.” I Timothy 3:11
JP,
I cannot immediately think of a Scripture to support it, but I don’t think snark is good or helpful for any Christian. It’s certainly not edifying.
I think there is God-inspired snark in the bible. How about “what went ye out for to see, a reed shaken with the wind? … A man clothed with soft raiment?”
That’s quite a bit different than bashing others here for being “bitter divorced” people “with no friends” isn’t it? Or have you not read much MeMe?
Remember, not only no friends but no life and no church either! In smearing someone, you want to make sure you cover all the bases.
OJR, would some please tell that to Mr. Wilson.
The bible doesn’t explicitly say not to burn a cat alive for fun, but I am guessing you know somehow that would be morally repugnant.
RM2, thank you. I wish I were as quick witted as you.
Clay,
I am always astounded when a so-called Christian is willing to consistently align himself with an avowed agnostic, atheist, et al. In your case, I should learn to expect it.
I was even more surprised when 80% of White Christian evangelicals were willing to consistently align themselves with a practical agnostic who by all appearances only takes on the Christian label to draw support.
This is a REALLY poor time to suggest that aligning oneself with a non-Christian is a sign of moral failing.
At least, AFAIK, Clay has not compromised himself on issues of sexual morality, greed, or truth in the process of aligning with a non-Christian on some issues….which is far more than I can say for others.
Jonathan, Now that I’ve figured out that the “practical agnostic” is Trump, I’ll give you my reply. I’ll stick with my contention that it is amazing to see Christians align with agnostics, atheists, et al. You see, I did not vote for Trump. In fact, I voted for no one for President. My state is one of many that do not allow write-in votes, so that was not an option. I made no claim that such an alignment is a moral failure. In my opinion, it’s more of an intellectual failure, which can, though, lead to moral failure. The fact that… Read more »
OKR, right is right and wrong is wrong. If a Christian assures me that, according to the Bible, the earth is flat ,and an atheist astronomer shows me photos of the earth from space, whose picture of the earth should this Christian align with? Calling someone a so-called Christian because they don’t agree with you is a cheap shot. You’re better than that.
Clay,
Right according to what standard? I am fairly certain that there are many “Christians” who believe abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce for incompatible differences, etc. are acceptable. However, they are sin according to the Bible. It’s not a question of whether they agree with me, but whether they agree with God.
Consistently aligning with a non-believer on spiritual or moral questions is akin to being unequally yoked, which Christians are commanded to avoid.
The shape of the earth is not a moral question, and it’s one that humans have the ability to verify without God. Neither is the case the here.
As a human, you are fallen. Your personal sense of morality is tainted. That’s why you’ve been given a moral handbook. Your argument essentially boils down to “morality is how I feel it is” which is a fundamentally anti-Christian view. If you take anti-Christian views, it’s hard to fault someone for calling you “so-called”.
Off topic, Justin, but I wondered if you had seen this:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pope-reaffirms-conscience-heresy-debate-divides-church-160315741.html
Not that specifically, though I did make a lengthy facebook post about a month ago when the story about the conservatives calling it heresy came out.
The gist of it was:
“I completely relate to the conservative faction. They just have the rotten luck to be in the only faction of Christianity where they have to care what Francis says.”
Randmann,
It’s weak evidence. How many peers did he have there? Why has only one made this claim?
OKRickety, would you accept that among 70-something-year-old small-city Alabama folk who were privileged enough to work in a law office in the 1970s,the large majority would likely be of a political persuasion that would lead them not to cast aspersions on Roy Moore’s character? Not to mention that most people, no matter what they saw or who they were voting for, just would rather not go public speaking negatively about any public figure. Not to mention, of course that in Alabama such an act could have serious negative consequences for one’s employment or associations. She said that not only she… Read more »
Zachary, now combined with the statements of other persons who knew Moore at the time and Moore’s very unconvincing denials, I believe it highly likely that Moore is lying, especially regarding his conduct with the main accused. It’s not even about a “he says, she says” differing interpretation or exaggeration of events. Either Miss Corfman , her mother, her friends from the time, and the Washington Post are all involved in a vast conspiracy AND a number of other women are badly exaggerating Moore’s conduct at the time, or Moore is lying about his conduct at the time. “I was… Read more »
It looks like he’s suing for defamation”, which I guess would give his accuers ample scope to prove their case.
That’s a political ploy – there is absolutely 0% chance of him winning a defamation suit on those facts. It will go nowhere.
As far as his accusers having “ample scope to prove their case”, what exactly would you consider proof in a case such as this?
Looking like a political ploy does not prove that it is such. Presumably, you are intelligent enough to recognize that the article and accusations also look like a political ploy.
I suppose that “what Pastor Wilson says about how we SHOULD react is also very helpful” means that you will be applying that principle. Unfortunately, your comments suggest that you are instead supposing that “The one who states his case first” is indeed right.
One of the accusers (Deborah Gibson–not the singer) definitely sounds like she fits the “political ploy” description.
https://thepolitistick.com/bombshell-roy-moore-accuser-worked-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-campaigns/
Because she’s a democrat with a sign language interpretation business who did interpretation work for democratic political campaigns?
That doesn’t mean anything other than that she’s pro-democrat and has a useful skill, which I believe still allows you to make non-conspiratorial sexual advance allegations.
In fact, she’s one of the ones who Moore has admitted knowing after he met her when he spoke to her high school civics class: “I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did, but I do not remember that.”
That’s one of the accusers whose story Moore has already admitted could well be true.
Moore has admitted getting to know Deborah after he met her when he spoke to her high school civics class: “I knew her as a friend. If we did go out on dates, then we did, but I do not remember that.”
No, of course not. But “prayersofadoration” appears to think it is relevant or evidence of something, while in reality there’s literally no information to be gained from the filing of that suit. There are accusations which are also so clearly political ploys that they give one very little information. Obama being accused of cocaine-binging with gay prostitutes in his limo was one of those. Tom Cruz being accused of adultery by the National Enquirer by anonymous witness who were not the women themselves was partly in that direction. This one does not fit those nearly as well. And to go… Read more »
I think he meant to say Ted Cruz, not Tom Cruz, or Tom Cruise.
hahahahahaha. That was a fairly hilarious typo. I seem to making them more often recently, which likely means I’m not getting enough sleep as I really shouldn’t be old enough for that yet.
I may be misreading you, but it almost seems that you’re suggesting we should accept a lower standard of proof of guilt in light of the fact that this will never see a court of law. Is that what you’re saying? And isn’t that kind of backwards?
The standard of proof is commensurate with the consequences of the finding. To imprison or execute someone in a criminal case, we require that a jury of their peers find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To take someone’s money or property in a civil case, we only require a finding by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not), which may be made by judge or jury. So when the consequences are not judicial at all because of the passage of time, but political or personal, I submit that the standard of proof is more informal–you don’t need a… Read more »
Davis, isn’t “the standard by which we adjudicate the character and fitness of a candidate for public office.” Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner?
AKA, the looooooooooooowest common denominator?
; – )
I don’t know what the case is with Moore and I know nothing about his accusers, but I’m not generally intimidated by charges of Bulverism. In real life, motives and the credibility of sources are rightly taken into account.
According to ‘biblical principles’, Roy Moore did nothing wrong except not be married no? So much for biblical principles.
Also, there is no statue of limitations for sexual crimes to minors under age 16 in Alabama.
randallmanntoo wrote:
Roy Moore is married.
What ‘biblical principle’ says that not being married is wrong?
When Moore was 32 and preyed upon a 14 year old girl. By ‘biblical principles’ marriage would make this perverse idea of a ‘relationship’ acceptable. My point.
randallmanntoo wrote:
Marriage makes all the difference between fornication and honorable sexual union. However, randallmanntoo has shown a pattern of jumping to conclusions based on no evidence, and testimony of only half of the parties involved.
I have heard the testimony of Roy Moore. He flatly denies it. I think Moore is a liar and a predator. I believe the accusers, none of who knew each other. Many who told friends and relatives about Moore decades ago. This is corroborated by an incredible well sourced article by a respectable newspaper.
Sex aside. A 14 year girl and a 32 year old man should not be having any kind of romantic relationship. Only the morally bankrupt here or bible-blinkered would try to rationalize this via marriage.
I have been told (haven’t looked myself to see whether it was true) that 14-year-olds were not considered minors in Alabama in the early 1980s.
I found this: http://chnm.gmu.edu/cyh/primary-sources/24
Delaware!!! I thought I knew you!!!
Be aware that minor status, or age of consent status, doesn’t directly relate to legal marrying age. I understand that about half the states allow marriage at very young ages, such as 14, with parental and/or legal consent.
@randallmanntoo,
The WaPo article says “In Alabama, the statute of limitations for bringing felony charges involving sexual abuse of a minor in 1979 would have run out three years later….”. So, why should anyone consider anything else you say to be true?
Davis Wilson said:
Davis Wilson should have stopped right there; everything else he said was superfluous.
Actually, no – the Washington Post reported that the accusers’ mother and two of her childhood friends stated that the victim told them of what happened decades ago long before Moore was a national figure. And the fact that there are three other girls of similar age who state that Moore pursued and/or kissed them is meaningful too. Of course, what Pastor Wilson says about how we SHOULD react is also very helpful. Because many other Moore supporters in Alabama are saying quite the opposite, even to the point of claiming that they’ll support Moore’s election whether or not he… Read more »
Actually, yes Jonathan — the Washington Post also records Moore’s denial: In a written statement, Moore denied the allegations. “These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign,” Moore, now 70, said. Just like Davis Wilson said: So the only things we have to go on are the accusers’ narratives and Moore’s denials. Anything wrong with that statement, Jonathan? This also from the Washington Post: Aside from Corfman, three other women interviewed by The Washington Post in recent weeks say Moore pursued them when they were… Read more »
FP, I simply don’t know how to respond to someone who ignores what I’ve already said. You have claimed that 1 person’s word is the only thing to go off of, but there is clearly other corroborating evidence, including what three other witnesses said they were told by the accuser at the time and what three other young girls said about Moore’s behavior towards them, as well as circumstantial evidence about Moore’s behavior with young girls that has been confirmed by witnesses. So yes, your statement is false. What evidence would you admit as sufficient? As far as Christians defending… Read more »
Jonathan, what specifically did I say that was false? Did you read what I wrote, or did you ignore it? …there is clearly other corroborating evidence, including what three other witnesses said they were told by the accuser… What “three other witnesses”, Jonathan? The only information they have IS from Corfman; they weren’t there to witness Moore allegedly molesting Corfman. And how do you know they’re telling the truth? If I found out any of my kids were molested, you can bet your bottom dollar that I would have notified the authorities immediately and that there would be hell to… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: As far as Christians defending Moore go, once again I am referring to the ones who have said that they will defend him EVEN IF HE IS GUILTY. That includes both public Republican figures in Alabama, private citizens in Alabama, and posters on this thread. No doubt Jonathan could dredge up some random private citizen saying such a thing, but can Jonathan quote “posters on this thread” claiming that they would defend Moore even if he is guilty? I hadn’t seen any. He also needs to provide citations for “public Republican figures in Alabama” who have made such… Read more »
Katecho, those comments are all over the board (bdash alone has made at least three) and I posted the Alabama officials’ names and quotes on this thread more than 14 hours ago. It looks like you’re the one people should stop trusting, as you made these claims about my failure to prove my point at least three times and once stated explicitly that I hadn’t done it when I clearly had. Bibb County Republican Chairman Jerry Pow said he’d vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. Marion County Republican chairman David Hall… Read more »
I’m not going to dig through all of this, but the majority of your citations aren’t examples of people defending Moore’s actions. Voting for him does not necessarily require you condone any of this. Many voted for Trump. Few did so as an endorsement of Trump’s personal life.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to parse, but my exact original quote was “Because many other Moore supporters in Alabama are saying quite the opposite, even to the point of claiming that they’ll support Moore’s election whether or not he committed sex crimes against young girls.”
“Defending Moore” was a shorthand for that.
Although Zeiger, Hall, and Seibenhener are certainly minimizing the sinfulness of the actions if not outright defending them. Pow and Blocker are disgusting in saying that they would still support Moore even if he committed criminal sexual abuse against a child.
“Pow and Blocker are disgusting in saying that they would still support Moore even if he committed criminal sexual abuse against a child.” It’s only disgusting if they share your view of what a vote is. Suppose we live in a very physically dangerous time. Roving gangs of thieves and murderers place normal people in danger every night. You’re looking for someone to keep guard at your house while your family sleeps. You have one, and only one applicant, but it you know that he molested someone decades ago. Do you send him away, leaving you and your family vulnerable… Read more »
How is it that in just two years, White Evangelicals have gone from the group most likely to say that a candidate’s personal sin can disqualify him from office to the group least likely to say it? It’s not just the inappropriateness of the rationalizations being put up. It’s the fact that all and sundry can see that Christian rationalizations on these issues have shifted abruptly in recent history, and can see exactly why, and it reflects terribly on the church. This all demonstrates a view of the world where you’ve become far more afraid of man than of God.… Read more »
Well, not carrying this view, I tend to agree with you. I’ve opposed sexual deviancy and dishonesty on the right in Trump, didn’t vote for him, and paid dearly in personal relationships for doing so. That said, the response if I did see things that way would be “20 years ago we weren’t as a society on the edge of a cliff, about to go over.” The idea is that, politically, RIGHT NOW is more important than virtually every other time in our history, so right now we need to worry about victory, not decades old ethics issues. If you… Read more »
Except that the people driving that ridiculous idea are those who seek votes. There have been Republican majorities in 2/3 of the branches of government for something like 90% of the last forty years. They control all three branches now. Electoral distribution, gerrymandering, and the ages of Supreme Court Justice makes that likely to continue for the near future. If society is going of the cliff, it’s probably time to pull our faith out of politians, especially really messed up ones, and put it somewhere else. Damaging our Christian witness in order to put our future in the hands of… Read more »
Jonathan,
“There have been Republican majorities in 2/3 of the branches of government for something like 90% of the last forty years.”
Looking at Presidents and control of Congress, you will find that Republicans have had the majority in 2/3 of the branches in 20 of the past 40 years, that is, 50% (including the current session, 22 of the last 42 years, giving 52%). A far cry from “something like 90%”. I don’t think your math skills are that bad, so it would seem your perception is quite mistaken. Based on your comments here, I am not surprised.
Look at all three branches of government instead of just two of them and you’ll get a more accurate answer.
Jonathan,
Not being inclined to care much about the specifics of our government, I had stupidly forgotten about the Judicial branch, which has had a Republican majority for all of the past 40 years. Going back to the page I previously linked, I think I correctly count a total of 14 Congressional Sessions where there has been either a Republican President, or the Republicans have held a majority in both the House and the Senate.
From that, I get a “more accurate answer”, that is, (14 * 2)/40 = 70%, which is still not near 90%.
Thank you for quickly clarifying the most obvious error and the self-rebuke! That is refreshing here, and I completely accept it. On the math I was speaking with slight imprecision – by “the last 40 years”, I was thinking back since the Reagan administration, which was actually started only 37 years ago. Since that time, the only periods in which the Democrats controlled 2/3 of the branches of government were 1993-1995, and 2008-2010. As that will remain true through 2020, that would have given the Democrats control over 2/3 of the branches of government for only 4 of 40 years,… Read more »
Jonathan, “So going back to my original claim, if society is going off of a cliff, then “let voting for Republicans take precedence” appears extremely unlikely to be the fix.” Since the Republicans have not acted upon their stated platforms, I strongly agree. Neither they nor the Democrats have shown an interest in turning society in the right direction. A Christian might suppose that the church would be pushing society in the right direction. Unfortunately, that is not true. It is my opinion that the church has been far more influenced by the world, than the opposite. I know many… Read more »
I do believe that is dismissing of the faith and hope that God speaks into our lives. Not that I blame you – I get down too. But I have to believe in something more, and I have to believe that it will happen through God’s hand, and I have to believe that I am to do everything I can to be His instrument in that. I agree that in many times and ages the church becomes influenced by the world. I believe that is particularly bad now. I do not believe that it always true, or necessary. We are… Read more »
And it would be good to be one of those people laying off the repeated personal attacks against me simply because I hold the “wrong” position. The number of those personal attacks which have backfired in this one thread alone is astounding.
And more now:
“Yeah!” Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me he’d consider voting Moore even if hard proof of sexual abuse emerged.
“There is NO option to support to support Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. When you do that, you are supporting the entire Democrat party.”
“Other than being with an underage person – he didn’t really force himself,” Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener tells me. “I know that’s bad enough, but I don’t know. If he withdraws, it’s five weeks to the election…that would concede it to the Democrat.”
It’s interesting that Pastor Wilson quoting the Biblical passage asking for multiple witnesses. I’m wondering if he’s aware that the mother of the victim and two childhood friends of the victim stated that the victim told them of Roy Moore’s activities at the time, and three other teenage girls (ages 14, 17, 18) have stated that they were kissed and/or pursued in a dating relationship by Roy Moore at the time.
At the same time, interesting that Roy Moore has issued general vague denials, but no denial of specific acts that I have seen yet.
Was he married at the time? If not, what is wrong with pursuing a relationship with a 17 or 18 year old?
Having a daughter around that age and having spent much of my adult life working with youth around that age, I’d be more likely to reject my nonviolent principles then let a a 30-something-year-old-man make out with my daughter, especially a man who appeared to particularly target girls of that age, especially one who appears to have done so behind their parents’ backs. There’s no magic maturity line crossed at 16 – a 17yo high school girl is far more like a 14 year old than she is like a 32 year old.
Jonathan, you are going from a kiss to making out, and you are letting your modern prejudice show. I would rather let a 16 year-old daughter marry a godly, virginal 30 year-old man than date an 18 year-old player.
his morality is based on age!
apparently having large age gaps, is a sin
he keeps inventing various sins based on his own morality
it is hilarious!
You’re the person who said the victims shouldn’t be believed because they’re women and women are natural liars, right?
bdash, even your buddies have pointed out how silly you are. Of course morality can be based on age. A 32 year-old man passionately kissing a willing 29 year-old woman is vastly different that the same man doing the same with a willing 14 year-old girl. Please tell us that you can see the difference. If you can’t, then any further communication is pointless, and I hope you don’t have any daughters. Or, come to think of it, any sons.
bethyada, wouldn’t having your 16 year-old daughter wait a few more years before marrying that 30 year-old godly, virginal suitor be even a better idea?
Clay Crouch, Would it be better to wait because A. the daughter is 16, or because B. the suitor is 30? I’m going with A myself, I would’t approve the 16 year old marrying a 18 year old any more than I would approve her marrying an 30 year old. For that matter, outside of a shotgun wedding, I really wouldn’t approve an 18 year old, male or female, marrying. The age difference matters some too, but it isn’t what matters most. I make that point because I get the impression some people are of the opinion age disparity between… Read more »
bethyada, I don’t have a problem with an older man marrying a younger woman or vice versa. Obviously the age difference between a 42 year-old and a 30 year-old is not the same as that of a 30 year-old and a 16 year-old. Life experience and individuation and all that. As to your comment about shotgun weddings, I’m an ardent subscriber to the aphorism, “two wrongs don’t make a right”.
bethyada didn’t make any comment about shotgun weddings, but marrying at 18 isn’t categorically a wrong, it just isn’t generally the best idea. Single motherhood and a child with no father in the picture is generally a worse idea. Having accomplished together something that should have waited for marriage, the closest the couple can come to making it right is to marry.
I agree the difference between a 42 year old and a 30 year old isn’t the same as that between a 30 year-old and a 16 year-old. Would you say the latter case is categorically wrong?
JohnM, sorry about attributing the shotgun wedding to bethyada. I’m not sure that a shotgun wedding is ever right. Perhaps the parents should be willing to help the young mother raise her child. Even if the couple is madly in love, 16 is too young, 18 is not much better. Who knows, maybe the couple will mature to the point that a marriage would be fine. Being married at a young age is hard enough. Adding parenthood, in most instances, would make it nearly impossible. A 16 year old marrying a 30 year old is categorically unwise. Wrong, as in… Read more »
Exactly.
The age is a problem, the age gap only accentuates that problem.
It depends. In many situations yes, in some situations no. And better they marry than start fornicating.
I wouldn’t want my daughter to date a player either – how is that relevant?
Have you seen the Hannity interview? Moore sounded a lot more like the player than virginal. He said he “dated a lot of young ladies” after he came back from the military and answered a number of questions with “generally” and “I don’t recall” and suggested at several points that he couldn’t even remember who he had and hadn’t dated or how he had approached them.
Jonathan, I am three years younger than Judge Moore. I could not possibly tell you with any accuracy the number of young men I dated or how they approached me! If you don’t marry young, chances are good that you have dated far more people than you can remember in later life. And I am talking “dates,” not one night stands.
I’m betting you can remember whether or not you were dating high school boys in general when you were in your 30s. Moore either is unable to remember that entire stage in his life, is being subject to a vast conspiracy, or is lying.
I used the term player to mean sexually promiscuous, not dating with no sexual behaviour.
I’ve been reliably informed that “man whore” is the current G-rated expression.
Jonathan, Apparently, your “nonviolent principles” are weakly grounded when you are willing to reject them at your own whims! Your argument about the propriety of relationships between older men and teenage girls seems to be based primarily on your own standards. There is no Biblical command specific to this type of relationship, but you infer that it is Biblically wrong. You are opposed to a 30+ man “making out” with your daughter. Would you be opposed to an 18-y-o doing it? Where is the line? Who gets to decide that it is inappropriate? You, society, the Bible, the church? Let’s get… Read more »
My feelings about the general propriety of relationships between teenager girls and older men is indeed based on my own standards – obviously all of us base our feelings on our own standards. In this case, they come from a great deal of both experience and counsel. When I was in high school one of my 17yo friends had a sexual relationship with a 51yo volunteer on the track team. The relationship was quite disturbing, he took advantage of his greater maturity to manipulate her vulnerabilities. He ended up in jail, thankfully. When I went to university the school strongly… Read more »
Jonathan, I can’t feature a 17 year old being an appropriate object of a affection for a 51 year either, but what do you mean by ” manipulate her vulnerabilities”?
Frankly I’d tell a 30 year old he ought to be able to do better than a teenager, and I’d think him pitiful if he really couldn’t find anybody closer to his own age who would have him. I tell the teenager to get real and not kid herself about the one thing he could really want with someone as young as her.
My friend had a lot of deep insecurities, as many teenage girls do. The good thing is that most teenage boys are bumbling fools full of hormones too, so they tend to be on a rather similar playing field. But I have seen many times that a more mature person who has been “playing the game” for a little while and reached mental maturity has a very easy time identifying and exploiting the vulnerabilities of young women even if they are quite incompetent around women of their own mental age.
That is probably generally true, but there are some emotionally and intellectually mature 18 year old women. (I wasn’t one of them.)
Jill, outliers are exceptions that prove the rule.
Clay, the “rule” is Bill Clinton, right? ; – )
” reached mental maturity has a very easy time identifying and exploiting the vulnerabilities of young women even if they are quite incompetent around women of their own mental age.”
(and incompetent around women who can throw lamps and ash trays.)
Jonathan, the age of consent has to be set somewhere. In my state, it is 18. This is at the highest end of the range, and I have no problem with it. But, we have to be willing to concede that, the law having set it there, 18 year old girls can date older guys without automatically gaining victim status, and older men can ask them out without automatically being predators.
And when I see a 60 year old walking around with an 18 year old I can automatically feel he’s a sleezeball.
Criminal charges are not at issue here. Clinton’s behavior would have been despicable whether or not he broke any laws as well.
True. But would you argue that–leaving the 14 year old out of it–Christians should reject a candidate on the basis that, as a man in his early 30s, he dated 17 and 18 year olds? Would it make a difference if the dates featured kissing but not intercourse? I might see this as a reflection of a man’s immaturity but not necessarily of his morality. Depending on what he got up to on those dates.
Jonathan,
It’s interesting that you wrote, emphasis mine, “Clinton’s behavior would have been despicable” rather than “Clinton’s behavior was despicable”.
Why is that emphasis interesting? I said that Clinton’s behavior “would have been despicable even if he did not break any laws.” Clinton did break a law, but I was making clear that it was not merely the act of law-breaking that I found despicable.
Jonathan,
Because of your wording, it seemed to me that you implied that Clinton did nothing despicable. Your intention would have been much clearer if you had said “Even though it was not illegal, Clinton’s behavior was despicable.”
By the way, your failure to quote yourself accurately here leads me to generally question the accuracy and truth of the quotations you provide to support your position.
But he did do something illegal, so it wouldn’t have made sense to write it that way.
Jonathan,
My mistake. So I suggest “Criminal or not, Clinton’s behavior was despicable.”
OKR, did you accidentally misquote Jonathan or was it intentionally? Either way you owe him an apology.
Clay, The first quoted phrase is what Jonathan wrote. The second quoted phrase was my suggested rewording. I think that my intent was quite clear. However, if that is the wrong way to suggest different wording, please educate me on the correct way to do it. EDIT: I thought you were referring to comment 210761. Perhaps you were instead referring to comment 210803. In the latter case, it is quite clear that the quote was a suggested wording, and, as I understand it, that is an acceptable use of quotation marks. My statement about Jonathan not quoting himself accurately was a… Read more »
You eliminated four words from the phrase that made it clear that I was not at all saying what you claimed I was saying.
Jonathan,
My primary point was that the grammatical tense you used (“would have been”) implied that Clinton had not actually done anything wrong, whereas using “was” would have made it clear that he had.
I cannot figure out which four words I eliminated. I did include “would have been” which are the words of importance to my perception of your meaning.
No, “would have been” no longer implies that when it is followed by “whether or not”. “Obama would have been eligible for the presidency whether or not he was born in Honolulu!” You can quickly see that someone making such a statement is OBVIOUSLY telling you they think Obama was eligible for the presidency, right? The only thing it is vague on is Honolulu. Similarly, “Clinton’s behavior would have been despicable whether or not he broke any laws” is OBVIOUSLY telling you that I think Clinton’s behavior is despicable. The only thing it is vague on is law-breaking. Seriously, get… Read more »
The manner in which the comment section is now more focused on misrepresenting every statement I make… EVERY statement, Jonathan? You’ve probably made more comments on this thread than anyone else. Or are you going to say that I’m misrepresenting you when I quote your exact words and tell me that EVERY STATEMENT you make doesn’t actually mean all of them? JP Stewart is right. You are not to be taken seriously. Have fun further beclowning yourself. P.S. Glad to see you’re still whining and moaning over being called out on your stupidity regarding the whole illegal aliens thing. Must’ve… Read more »
The irony.
Jonathan,
The fact that it is obvious to you is hardly surprising, as you were the author. It wasn’t to me. Ask your favorite expert on English for an unbiased opinion.
OKR, Jonathan’s statement, as written, clearly indicates that he believes Clinton was guilty of immoral behavior regardless of the legality of it. I’m sorry that the grammar tripped you up. Sometimes that happens.
Really? Ask my wife. She’ll tell you in a skinny minute.
Witnesses still need to be cross examined to see if they are truthful. Otherwise, we get situations like what happened to Naboth.
I think the fact that prominent Alabama republicans (and commenters here) have already suggested that sexually using a 14-year-old is no big deal and he should be elected even if he’s guilty is an important issue.
That proves that they are idiots or hacks. It does not affect Roy Moore’s guilt or innocence.
Agreed – my MAIN issue at this point is Christians that excuse sexual misconduct for political reasons, not the specifics of whether Roy Moore is innocent is guilty. Roy Moore’s guilt or innocence says little about anyone other than Roy Moore (I’m not the person here who makes broad generalizations about a particular political party whenever any single member of theirs is accused of sexual misconduct). I believe that there are people involved in sexual misconduct across all lines, and I believe that faithful committed Christians are less likely to be such people than anyone else. But broad-scale rushes to… Read more »
Jonathan wrote:
Who here has said such things? Naming names is not sufficient. There needs to be quotations, with citations to provide context. These are not trivial accusations for Jonathan to be tossing around.
Katecho, I posted the names and quotes multiple times over 14 hours ago: Bibb County Republican Chairman Jerry Pow said he’d vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. Marion County Republican chairman David Hall said it was irrelevant and wouldn’t affect his vote because it was 40 years ago and all that happened was they kissed and he tried to get her to touch his genitals. Alabama State Auditor Jim Ziegler said that even if the Washington Post’s report is completely true, it’s “much ado about very little. There is nothing to… Read more »
And more now:
“Yeah!” Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me he’d consider voting Moore even if hard proof of sexual abuse emerged.
“There is NO option to support to support Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. When you do that, you are supporting the entire Democrat party.”
“Other than being with an underage person – he didn’t really force himself,” Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener tells me. “I know that’s bad enough, but I don’t know. If he withdraws, it’s five weeks to the election…that would concede it to the Democrat.”
where in the bible does GOD SAY 18 is the legal age?
I don’ t think it’s a hard cut-off at 18 – like I said earlier, I wouldn’t let mid-30s Roy Moore anywhere near my 18-year-old daughter either. One could make the argument that Paul’s warnings against being “unequally yoked” apply, but I would say it’s a more general prescription towards protecting children from sin, avoiding fornication, being beyond reproach, etc. “where in the bible” used in a blunt manner is of limited effectiveness when dealing with sex acts with a child, national borders, birth control, slavery, and many other issues. You have to go off of more general principles, because… Read more »
Exactly God doe s not seem to police the age at which people have sex…. you have issues with it- those are your views you are applying your personal views not Biblical principles to other people and judging them based on your personal views. also you have no say over your daughter – we live in a feminist age…. u condemn those who still support him if this were true, how are they doing any different to christians supporting pro gay candidates?!! in fact the bible says a lot about gay sex, not so much about 14 year old sex…… Read more »
Jonathan, please bear in mind that this is the same group of folks who applauded Mr. Wilson for bravely marrying a convicted pedophile to a young, albeit adult woman. It speaks volumes that these same folks see nothing wrong with a 32 year old man approaching 16 year old girls in a romantic context. Though considering their arguments in defense of Jamin Wight’s abuse of a young teenager, that’s not surprising either.
Jonathan, for legal purposes, it has to be a hard cut-off. Once a girl has reached legal age, her parents can continue to try to protect her from unsuitable men but the law cannot. It seems to me that effectively protecting a quasi-adult child from fornication and sin would require prohibiting her from dating altogether. Especially the nineteen year olds in her college dorm.
I agree that it must be a hard cutoff for a “legal purpose.” But we are not talking about legal purposes here, nor were we talking that when the morality of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair was the question.
In fact, the much more recent Anthony Weiner case wasn’t about “legal purpose” until the final incident last year, yet long before that he was buried by his party (resigned after the first incident, then had his campaign manager resign and got destroyed in the election when he tried to make a later comeback), not to mention regularly lambasted on this blog.
@Jill Smith,
Preventing fornication for many children today would require the parents to keep them in isolated confinement. I am quite certain that would be illegal, and I am not advocating it.
Jonathan wrote:
Jonathan needs to immediately provide citations for this claim, or else retract it. Which commenters here have said any such thing? Which prominent Alabama republicans? Names and cited quotes, or else Jonathan needs to stop bearing false witness and breaking the ninth commandment.
“Names and cited quotes, or else Jonathan needs to stop bearing false witness and breaking the ninth commandment.”
I’ve read the quotes from prominent Alabama republicans, the comments here, and Pastor Wilson’s post. Clearly Jonathan is not bearing false witness. Most reasonable people would come to the same conclusion he has, and many have.
Katecho, your insinuation that I have borne false witness and broken the 9th commandment is ridiculous and you need to apologize for that. I already provided the quotes FOURTEEN HOURS AGO. It looks like you’re the one people should stop trusting. Bibb County Republican Chairman Jerry Pow said he’d vote for Roy Moore even if Moore did commit a sex crime against a girl. Marion County Republican chairman David Hall said it was irrelevant and wouldn’t affect his vote because it was 40 years ago and all that happened was they kissed and he tried to get her to touch… Read more »
Jonathan said:
Jonathan said in another thread (comment #210427):
Jonathan, if Roy Moore is in fact not guilty of sexual molestation, then you are in violation of the 9th commandment.
I’d be careful if I were you.
No FP, I was referring to the 3 Alabama Republicans in leadership positions (now at least 5) and others who explicitly said they would support Moore even if he did commit sexual acts against 14-year olds (even crimes in some cases).
That was correctly interpreted by others and confirmed by me long before you posted this comment. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you missed those explanations, because a Christian so well ware of the dangers of falsely representing others almost certainly wouldn’t have done so themselves so cavalierly, would they?
Jonathan, you also referred to Moore as “the sexual molester of teenagers”. Or did you forget that part?
That is what I was addressing. As an additional bonus, I even bolded it so you would get a clue.
Apparently, I’ve overestimated your ability to comprehend the written word, Jonathan.
That’s rich coming from the guy who declared Moore guilty without evidence, let alone a trial.
Holy hypocrisy, Batman!
FP, the five Alabama Christians I quoted said they would support him even if he was guilty of the accusations, therefore they were certainly saying that they would defend the sexual molester of teenagers.
Though I should add, now combined with the statements of other persons who knew Moore at the time and Moore’s very unconvincing denials, I believe it highly likely that Moore is lying, especially regarding his conduct with the main accused. It’s not even about a “he says, she says” differing interpretation or exaggeration of events. Either Miss Corfman , her mother, her friends from the time, and the Washington Post are all involved in a vast conspiracy AND a number of other women are badly exaggerating Moore’s conduct at the time, or Moore is lying about his conduct at the… Read more »
I have to apologize. When I looked back at an earlier thread and saw there were more comments, I read all my original comments and saw that in some of them I HAD suggested that Moore was guilty. That’s of course not the suggestion that Katecho is talking about, nor is it what I was saying in the statement that you quoted, but it was what I was implying in other statements so I can see how it would be assumed of that statement as well. I think at this point the evidence points strongly towards his guilt, but I… Read more »
And more now too:
And more now:
“Yeah!” Covington County GOP Chairman William Blocker tells me he’d consider voting Moore even if hard proof of sexual abuse emerged.
“There is NO option to support Doug Jones, the Democratic nominee. When you do that, you are supporting the entire Democrat party.”
“Other than being with an underage person – he didn’t really force himself,” Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener tells me. “I know that’s bad enough, but I don’t know. If he withdraws, it’s five weeks to the election…that would concede it to the Democrat.”
I think there is no doubt that some people would support him even if they knew the allegations to be true. I don’t understand that because my support for him–if I had any–would be predicated on the presumption of his innocence. I don’t think those people are doing him any favors. If I were innocent of a serious moral charge, I wouldn’t appreciate any defenders who said that if true, it is no big deal! I think it is also unarguable that many Christians no longer require sexual morality of their chosen candidate. But I think this change pre-dated Trump,… Read more »
Too many women lie about rape for a mere accusation to be considered proof of wrongdoing. If Moore steps down, barring incontrovertible proof, then he isn’t man enough for the position anyway.
Wrong. He may decide that even though he is innocent, his prospects are too damaged to continue.
Or he may be guilty and repentant, and step down even though no solid case can be made against him.
375 is the preferred temp for a golden-brown crust. Otherwise, spot-on!
Unless you are cooking some Philly Habbersett scrapple, need about 400 deg. sit for 10 minutes per side to get the right crust. Yum.
I understand that Wilson has a low view of reporters but surely 30 interviews is at least an inch closer to corroboration than the baselessness that is suggested. Saying, “prove it to me” but willfully not reading the proof. Isn’t it wilson always saying that “sin comes in bunches” and that “ideas have consequences” all things that say context matters and the outline, the structure of a life has implications. Moore knew these girls. Confirmed by multiple sources. That fact alone and the likelihood of his time spent with them is enough of a contour to suggest something was up.… Read more »
and before I hear it, the courts are not an infallible arbiter of truth. They at their best try to recognize and apply externalities to their own authority. They are in place FOR truth and FOR justice but the absence of a criminal conviction, especially for child predators, does not constitute innocence, only slipperiness. Wilson should know this from his own experience.
” the absence of a criminal conviction, especially for child predators, does not constitute innocence, only slipperiness. ”
Then what, by your standard, would allow an innocent man accused of such a crime to go back to a normal life? He was alone with a woman, and she says he did it, so even though the courts can’t find him guilty you can just persecute him for the rest of his life? How can an innocent man avoid disdain?
A pattern of creating opportunities to pull a young girl away from safety, to be alone with her in a way that willl flatter her for whatever his devices. That is not merely being alone with someone. I hear people in the comments saying “number of interviews doesn’t matter” or some approximate but the content revealed by talking to the people who knew the shape of Moore’s life (yes many of them!) was this pattern. To the man who does these things and follows this pattern I say as Wilson says, “knock it off” It’s not persecution, it’s description. Make… Read more »
We have all made the mistake of being in a place where we realize this may appear as it isn’t (the proverbial innocent picking up the murder weapon the moment the police arrive, conclusions are jumped.). Busy people often do this when they are innocent in their thinking and action (not saying Moore is innocent, no one but him and God know for sure, and I wasn’t there so have no say in the matter…just saying anything can look like whatever anyone wants it to, innocent or not.) The real trick in all of this, especially when confronted with a… Read more »
“A pattern of creating opportunities to pull a young girl away from safety, to be alone with her in a way that willl flatter her for whatever his devices. That is not merely being alone with someone.” This description includes presumed intent. You don’t get to assume your conclusions when evaluating the evidence. Every time a man is innocently alone with a woman and accused of wrongdoing, it is always placed in this light regardless of what actually happened in the meeting. “I hear people in the comments saying “number of interviews doesn’t matter” or some approximate but the content… Read more »
Milwaukee matt says: “There might not have been two witnesses there, but by that standard Cain would be innocent.’
There were at least three witnesses against Cain: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Four if you count his brothers blood crying out from the ground. I rest my case.
Cain was not innocent, nor would he have been rightly convicted in court absent the testimony of two or three witnesses.
” but surely 30 interviews is at least an inch closer to corroboration than the baselessness that is suggested. ‘ A thousand interviews is not necessarily more or less evidence than 1. ” Saying, “prove it to me” but willfully not reading the proof.” Coming to a different conclusion than you does not mean he isn’t reading the evidence. “Moore knew these girls. Confirmed by multiple sources. That fact alone and the likelihood of his time spent with them is enough of a contour to suggest something was up. ” No. No it doesn’t. I’ve known and been alone with… Read more »
If Moore did what these four girls claim that he did, what would you consider “good enough” evidence that we should not support his election to the Senate?
Wait, in Doug’s previous post you called him a sexual molester as soon as the news came out. Now you’re qualifying that with “ifs”?
No, I was referring to the statements by several Alabama Republican officials who stated that they would support a sexual molester. They stated very clearly that they would support him even if he was guilty of the acts in question.
No, here’s your very first quote, shortly after the news broke out, on Doug’s prior blog post:
“And White Southern Christians are now openly defending the sexual molester of teenagers because voting for Republicans is more important than….literally anything.”
No qualifications or caveats. You and MeMe both bought into the story prima facie. If you can’t admit this was premature, I don’t think there’s any point discussing this further. It appears he was guilty in your eyes the moment the story hit the newsfeed.
JPS, that’s not the only way to read the quote. Isn’t it true that white, southern Christians have come out and said that even if Moore is guilty, they would support him? Jonathan was just taking them at their word.
Clay, no I’m not changing the subject. He called him a molester in his first post on the topic.
If you and Jonathan want a Clintonesque discussion of what “is” is, fine, but I’m not going down that postmodern route.
Clay,
Reading that quote any other way requires willful suspension of disbelief. I understand his point about the political support, but there is absolutely no doubt that Jonathan clearly stated that Moore is “the sexual molester of teenagers”.
Do you agree with those supporters? Would you still vote for Moore? Is that a fair question to ask?
I don’t know enough information yet. Let’s keep the goalposts where they should be for now.
Clay interpreted me correctly, and I have 3 quotes of prominent Alabama Republicans saying exactly what I claimed they said.
Now 5 prominent Alabama Republicans.
No, you’re trying to completely dodge the issue. You called Moore a sexual molester as soon as the allegations were made. Your biases are very obvious and everything else you’re saying has to be taken with that grain of salt.
Alabama Republicans said explicitly that they would defend a sexual molester. They SAID that whether or not Moore is a sexual molester. I never once said “Moore is a sexual molester”, I said Alabama Republicans affirmed that they would defend voting for a sexual molester.
Jonathan, your exact words, and I quote:
THE sexual molester. Definitive article. No caveats. The context makes it clear you were talking about Moore being THE sexual molester of teenagers.
Stop the lying, Jonathan.
Yes, I’ve already stated five of them saying quite quite clearly they would defend the sexual molester of teenagers.
They said that they would support Moore even if he had committed sex crimes against teenagers, thus they are admitting to being willing to defend the sexual molester of teenagers.
This is not the first time you’ve tried to make a ridiculous argument of literally no benefit to anyone based solely around the claim that I lied about my own grammar.
As supporting evidence, I’m willing to put up literally EVERY other one of the dozens of statements I made about the case over the next 24 hours, every single one of which aligns with what I already told you I meant. Your interpretation relies on me having strangely held a different view in everything else I said, but letting it slip what my “real” and inappropriate view was in that one sentence because you don’t like the article I used.
That’s frankly ridiculous for an internet board.
Yes, I’ve already stated five of them saying quite quite clearly they would defend the sexual molester of teenagers. That is not what I was talking about, and you bloody well know it. Stop dodging. Your interpretation relies on me having strangely held a different view in everything else I said, but letting it slip what my “real” and inappropriate view was in that one sentence because you don’t like the article I used. You said again, without qualifiers: …thus they are admitting to being willing to defend THE sexual molester of teenagers. Time for an English lesson. Definition of… Read more »
Jonathan, I understand your point about political support of Moore in spite of the allegations, and I do not argue that such statements have been made. However, you did refer to “the sexual molester of teenagers” and it was not quoting someone else. Who was this a reference to, if not Roy Moore? If it was a reference to Moore, then you, in effect, did say Moore is a sexual molester. If that was not your intent, then clarify exactly where you stand on the question of Moore’s guilt in light of the allegations by Corfman. Do you consider him… Read more »
It was a reference to the hypothetical “Moore who had committed sex crimes against children” that prominent Alabama Republicans were stated they would still defend. Once again, I can put up as evidence literally every one of the dozens of statements I made about the case in the following 24-48 hours. The silliness of this comment section has gotten beyond defense. There are far too many commenters who are expending far more energy putting on trial a single “the” I used on a different post days ago, even after I’ve clarified my meaning a dozen times, than they’ve expended on… Read more »
Jonathan,
“The silliness of this comment section ….”
Try understanding that your comments are not as clear as you think. When specific objections are made, acknowledge your lack of clarity and clarify when possible, rather than supposing the reader does not understand your point. I have tried to do this myself on this comment section.
Jonathan’s comments are intentionally unclear, at best. He’s banking on being able to weasel out of what he says — and the implications of what he says — based on technicalities. The few times he makes clear statements, it’s your fault for not “interpreting” him “correctly” when you call him out.
Remember, this is the same guy who initially dismissed Moore’s denials because they were “vague”.
Reminds me of the adage: If it weren’t for double standards, he wouldn’t have any.
False.
My statements about where I have stood on Moore as the evidence has emerged are all you need to know where I stood on Moore. You don’t get to take one vague statement that doesn’t even mention Moore (because he wasn’t the focus of the statement) and then pretend that all the statements I made regarding Moore were not my opinion, and your interpretation of a statement about something else was my real opinion all along.
My statements about where I have stood on Moore as the evidence has emerged are all you need to know where I stood on Moore. You don’t get to take one vague statement that doesn’t even mention Moore (because he wasn’t the focus of the statement)…thus they are admitting to being willing to defend THE SEXUAL MOLESTER OF TEENAGERS Who are you to say what I can and cannot use when it comes to your statements? You don’t get a pass simply because you fail to understand a little concept known as “context”. Learn your place. And no, this one… Read more »
I said, clearly in your very quote, that they admitted being “willing to defend” the sexual molester of teenagers. It is clear that they have declared themselves “willing to defend” the sexual molester of teenagers. It is also clear in that very thread where all this started, that more than five days ago I said, “My issue is the men who are claiming that we should support Moore even if he is guilty.” That should be all the clarification you need. Unless attacking me and claiming that I am lying in my repeated clarification of my beliefs is more important… Read more »
I very immediately clarified every statement I had made. when asked The response in every case was to immediately dismiss my clarification and proceed as if I was crazy and a liar. Every other statement I made about the case was in line with my clarification, even though many of them came before I was asked for a clarification. That context was also ignored. Other posters supported my own explanation of my meaning. That was also ignored. Therefore, your suggestion that clarification is the issue has clearly been proven false. FP is a perfect example of this. Have you seen… Read more »
I have to apologize. When I looked back at an earlier thread and saw there were more comments, I read all my original comments and saw that in some of them I HAD suggested that Moore was guilty. That’s of course not the suggestion that Katecho is talking about, nor is it what I was saying in the statement that you quoted, but it was what I was implying in other statements so I can see how it would be assumed of that statement as well. I think at this point the evidence points strongly towards his guilt, but I… Read more »
Matt wrote: I understand that Wilson has a low view of reporters but surely 30 interviews is at least an inch closer to corroboration than the baselessness that is suggested. I haven’t seen the Emerson College poll, but I was led to understand that mainstream media credibility is 10 points lower than even Trump’s credibility ratings. However, is Matt saying that the raw number of reporter interviews somehow accumulates as evidence of guilt? What’s the legal theory behind that notion? How many times was Crystal Mangum interviewed in her accusations against the Duke lacrosse team? Matt wrote: Isn’t it wilson… Read more »
The evidence to back that claim is that the girl’s mother has confirmed that Moore asked to be alone with the girl, that the girl told her mother what Moore had done several years later, and that two of the girl’s childhood friends have stated that she told them about the relationship at the time. As far as the three other girls (who were aged 14, 17, and 18 at the time), I would consider dating and kissing teenage girls who are not your spouse to be gross misconduct for a 30-something Christian man, regardless of whether you consider it… Read more »
Jonathan, I don’t like Judge Moore and wouldn’t vote for him in the first place. But I am having trouble seeing any misconduct in dating a girl who is over the legal age. My daughter had a boyfriend 12 years older than she was, and he waited until she was 18 to ask her out. We may find it weird but I can’t see that it is gross misconduct. The underage girl is a different matter entirely. Has anyone explained why this allegation never surfaced during his previous campaigns? It seems to me that if I knew him to have… Read more »
Would you vote for his pro-abortion opponent or just not vote?
I don’t know anything about his opponent. If he (the opponent) is an enthusiastic pro-abort, I would probably not vote. If he is a centrist Democrat who does not support the pro-abortion plank of the party but is good on other issues I care about, it would be a tougher call. As a npncitizen, I have never been in the position of having to vote for an explicitly pro-abortion candidate. I live in a state where that will become an issue for me in the future. Catholics are taught that if everyone on the ballot is pro-abortion, vote for the… Read more »
As in the recent Presidential race, the inability of the “conservative” party to put forward candidates above reproach is a problem that can’t be overstated. It’s almost like we are under some kind of judgment, or something.
Perhaps the recent run of women willing to name their abusers that started with Cosby, then to Trump, then to Weinstein, and now has taken off had an influence on her. Perhaps the fact that news about him has greatly increased and become far more frequent, and in the area of him gaining power, is what pushed her to finally make it public. In the past, Judge Moore’s two most news-worthy events were both in the context of him getting kicked out. It’s possible that she was hoping he’d lose the primary and she wouldn’t have to come forward. It’s… Read more »
J’, I think the long, drawn out Anthony Weiner perv. Conduct case broke the dam on this issue.
That, coupled with Weiner’s initial conspiracy to try and blame Breitbart for a hack.
Once people saw that a protected, lying Democrat perv could still be exposed, that likely gave people some hope that their reports of wrongdoing by people in power, could weather the resulting storm.
Thanks Bill Clinton!
Thanks Anthony Weiner ‘
????????
Anthony Wiener was forced to resign less than a month after the allegations first surfaced, and that was just sexting, not even physical contact. When he tried to run for mayor two years later, his campaign chair resigned when a second instance of sexting surfaced and he only got 4.9% of the vote in the end. When a third incident surfaced his wife left him, and now he’s in prison because one of the incidents involved a 15-year-old, who should have been plenty old enough according to a few posters here. That was a good example to bring up, though… Read more »
Do keep in mind that the electronic material evidence, Weiner’s sexts, proved the testimony of the accusers.
Just like the stained dress material evidence proved the testimonial accusations made against Bill Clinton!
Material evidence is a form of “witness”, which in the cases of Weiner and Clinton, proved their guilt.
With this Moore case, it sounds like there is only testimony so far.
Finally, Jesus was falsely convicted on the basis of false testimony and no material evidence.
This is one reason why Godly people insist, as does the Word, on corroborating evidence, that supports testimonial accusations.
Ye t there are a large number of Republicans and Christians claiming they would still support Moore even if he was guilty. While Weiner was immediately destroyed, even though for the first five years the accusations against him did not constitute a crime.
Jonathan,
Where do you stand on the subject of forgiveness? Specifically, do you believe that God forgives those who repent?
Would you express repentance if you were accused of sexual molestation if you did not do it? Would you repent if you do not remember doing it, but others say that you did?
1. Yes, I believe God forgives those who repent. I even believe that someone guilty of criminal or inappropriate behavior, who repents in a meaningful way and can work through his behavior, is eligible for public office. Of course, there would be exceptions (for example, if the inappropriate behavior was a massive abuse of power, he’d probably be better off permanently disqualifying himself from such power). 2. I would express repentance if my own inappropriate actions had led to the accusations, if I had put myself in a position to be accused by making other poor decisions. I would repent… Read more »
Jonathan, 1. What do you mean by repents “in a meaningful way”? What do you mean by “can work through his behavior”? I’d think just stopping it would be the requirement. Or since we are talking about eligibility for office, having long since stopped it. 2. Maybe. The thing is, alleged inappropriate actions are the substance of most of the accusations here. If you didn’t think you did anything that was inappropriate, but many people insisted you did, how would you respond? 3. I’m not sure why it would be tricky. If you honestly didn’t remember it, any expression of… Read more »
1. I wouldn’t be comfortable with someone who had merely stopped their sinful behavior without having paid a real penalty in terms of personal contrition and, if possible, attempts to make things right with the victims. Otherwise I have little hope they won’t fall right back into it again. 2. By being exceedingly honest about exactly what I had and hadn’t done and defending the appropriateness of what I did do. And ad we are human, there is almost always SOME fault of judgment or morals of ours within the situation which we can own. I have trouble trusting people… Read more »
Jonathan, 1. Why would you be so concerned with their having paid a penalty? Are you insisting on punishment? Do they need to punish themselves? Making things right with victims where possible would be a thing to do, yes, but I’d care more about their being a changed person such that it hasn’t happened in a long time and won’t/can’t happen again, more than I am with any expressions of contrition. In fact, I’m put off by demands for groveling apologies for every offense, real or supposed. 2. Rather begs the question. If you simply mean explain events frankly for… Read more »
1. Because I hear a lot of people say a fake “sorry” and move on without showing any evidence of true repentance. In my experience, along with true repentance comes a desire to make things right, which variably involves some cost to the person repenting. 2. Too often denials are based on playing games with the accusation. “That is a lie!” (I was wearing boxers , not briefs, when I assaulted her.) “I did not have sex with that woman!” (what is “sex”, anyway?) If I never met the woman, of course there’s nothing to apologize for, and I can… Read more »
1. I hear a lot of people say fake “Sorry”, with no change in behavior to give evidence of repentance. Not every wrong done is of a nature that recompense is possible.
2. If you didn’t cross the line you an break things down without apologizing for anything. Of course you can’t break things down if memory is as deceitful as you imply in #3.
1. Yes, that’s why my original statement said, “if possible”.
2. Yes on the first point, and “you do your best” on the second point. Because our memory and self-perception is indeed deceitful, a careful rendering of our recollection of events step by step is often exactly what is necessary to align accounts and get to the bottom of what really happened.
Jonathan,
You give the accuser and the WaPo much benefit of the doubt. How about doing the same for Moore?
I’ll remind you again that you said “… what Pastor Wilson says about how we SHOULD react is also very helpful. “ Do you truly follow that principle, or is it another instance where you drop it on your own whim?
I have to apologize. When I looked back at an earlier thread and saw there were more comments, I read all my original comments and saw that in some of them I HAD suggested that Moore was guilty. I think at this point the evidence points strongly towards his guilt, but I was wrong to suggest it so strongly in those first posts, and even more wrong and embarrassing to have defended myself extremely misleadingly on that account. That is very much my bad, and I think I have to shut up now.
Jonathan wrote: I have to apologize. When I looked back at an earlier thread and saw there were more comments, I read all my original comments and saw that in some of them I HAD suggested that Moore was guilty. I think at this point the evidence points strongly towards his guilt, but I was wrong to suggest it so strongly in those first posts, and even more wrong and embarrassing to have defended myself extremely misleadingly on that account. That is very much my bad, and I think I have to shut up now. I accept Jonathan’s apology here.… Read more »
And the new explanation that some posters have suggested is that the Washington Post approached the girl, having apparently found out about it through the rumor mill that had widened over time (possibly one of those teenage friends who she told).
The original article has quite a bit of detail on why the woman never went public. However, she did tell her mother and two friends.
She did not initially choose go public now either. The Washington Post had heard rumors about Moore’s behavior with teenage girls and did extensive investigative journalism to uncover who those girls may have been. They apparently convinced her to finally go public after several interviews.
” I would consider dating and kissing teenage girls who are not your spouse to be gross misconduct for a 30-something Christian man”
Well in many parts of the world–and in many times in history–that would be perfectly acceptable. If you look at everything through a 20th-21st Century U.S. perspective, maybe, but even then it’s not always considered gross misconduct in all places and circumstances.
Also, he was single at the time…the “who are not your spouse” part is a bit misleading.
@JP,
It seems that Jonathan personally finds it offensive when a 30-something Christian man is dating and kissing teenage girls, but he will accept it, I presume begrudgingly, if they are married.
I agree that being outside marriage is certainly an additional issue that I have with it. Those who are defending “kissing a 14yo isn’t bad in all cultures!” are ignoring that kissing an unmarried 14yo behind her parents’ back could get you killed in many of those cultures. As far as marriages go, I think that most such marriages are inappropriate and examples of gross misconduct as well. I’m probably the only person on this forum who has publicly disrupted a child marriage. I wouldn’t say that “always” been the case, but it could only be otherwise in places where… Read more »
I’ve been in places in the world where it was “perfectly acceptable”, and it was clear that it was gross misconduct even then. It is very easy for a 32-year-old to manipulate and abuse a 14-year-old, even where it is legal, even where the 14-year-old has been pushed into marriage with him. I agree that there could be very certain circumstances in very different cultures from ours, where children are raised completely differently, it would be merely “non-ideal” rather than “gross misconduct”. I don’t feel that anyone alive today who grew up in America fits into that category. I don’t… Read more »
The WP quotes seven women who either describe Moore pursing a sexual relationship with them as teenagers, or hearing from the other girls about his predation sometime before he became known in the media. That is a little different than one accuser giving 30 interviews herself. From the WP: “Wendy Miller says she was 14 and working as a Santa’s helper at the Gadsden Mall when Moore first approached her, and 16 when he asked her on dates, which her mother forbade. Debbie Wesson Gibson says she was 17 when Moore spoke to her high school civics class and asked… Read more »
Republican Senate Committee has withdrawn funding.
Deep State running scared. Trying to keep this guy out.
How coerced was this female to come forward What does she stand to gain?
Stinks to high Heaven.
Good luck proving something from 40 years ago.
What do her mother, childhood friends, and the other victims have to gain? Cause they’ve all corroborated the account too.
Are you presuming they have nothing to gain? How would you know? You don’t know, do you?
And it wouldn’t be hard to make sure everyone keeps to the same story…as long as you keep secrets pretty well and don’t make your circle too big.
Why are you responding to me, rather than saying virtually the exact same thing to the person I was responding to? As I said about, when literally any evidence can only be interpreted to mean anything in one direction, then the outcome is obviously pre-determined. At this point literally anything can be taken as evidence that they are lying (one Republican official responding to the information that the accuser was a Trump voter with “that’s exactly the profile of the kind of person the Democrats would use”), whereas absolutely anything that points to them telling the truth is following with… Read more »
“Why are you responding to me, rather than saying virtually the exact same thing to the person I was responding to?”
Chill, dude. I was simple following the chain and flow of comments. As for everyone’s stories supposedly matching so well after 38 years, I’d say that’s very suspect and may point to collusion. Often in these cases, the stories don’t match very well just a few years (or even months) later. Human memories and perceptions are far from perfect and full of biases and holes. There’s a lot of literature on that .
This is a bit hilarious, because a large proportion of Moore defenders are currently running with “did Corfman speak on a phone from her bedroom or from a different room in the house!” as the key discrepancy which shows that either Corfman or the mother is lying and thus cannot be believed. So which is it – that the slightest discrepancy points to lying and thus the stories can be dismissed, or that the lack of discrepancies is very suspect and may point to collusion? If feels like there’s an attack ready to launch at the witnesses for literally any… Read more »
The mother has come forth contradicting the account. WaPo has admitted “encouraging ” this person to come forward after 6 interviews! http://tinyurl.com/yav898od
That’s old news, and relatively insignificant. I see nothing in the article about “encouraging” them to come forward.
Directly above you is someone claiming that human memories are faulty and the general agreement of the witnesses against Moore thus suggests collusion….and then right here we have you (following Breitbart) claiming that the SMALLEST discrepancy in a detail is enough to discredit the whole thing.
Do you realize how silly Brietbart’s conclusion is when you think about it? We’re down to, “In which room of the home did she speak to Moore on the phone?” as the supposed linchpin of the case.
“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.” Here is something different about me when it comes to abuse, I do not wish to deep fry people. Yes, this would be an atrocity that likely caused a great deal of harm, but frying Moore is not going to fix anything on a societal level. I should like the entire debate over rape and exploitation to evolve somewhere beyond… Read more »
I don’t disagree with much of what you said, but I do think you’re taking Doug’s hyperbolic, satirical language a little bit too literally. I think he was primarily trying to make sure the point got across that he wasn’t defending Moore if he is guilty, he’s defending Moore’s presumption of innocence until proven guilty (if he is).
Since some people will take statements literally, I think it would be better if Doug (and everyone else) would avoid the hyperbole.
Also since it would be helpful to know exactly what frying him means. Are we talking demanding that he step down? Just this time, or never run again? Excommunicate him from his church? Sue him? Denounce him publicly? Lynch him? It could be a lot of things.
I think you’ve been around here long enough to judge the reasonable range of possibilities when Wilson says something. Throwing up every possible range of meanings, after having read Wilson for years and knowing what sorts of things he does, and does not, support, does not seem like a fair approach at all.
Can you explain what you think he is referring to then? Honestly hoping to know.
I wasn’t trying to defame Wilson at all, didn’t think throwing out those options would do that, just pointing out that it leaves it imprecise.
I’m not completely sure what he means but surely lynching is off the table, based on experience with Wilson’s views?
I believe you weren’t trying to defame Wilson. Still the degree of experience you have with Wilson should eliminate from your mind the possibility that lynching was among the options, so including it could be unintentionally defamatory, and IMO shows a lack of care for his reputation on your part.
I only included “lynching” to point out that the semi-literal interpretation of his words remains on the table when the actual interpretation is unclear. I still honestly don’t know what he actually meant nor has anyone else offered a clear interpretation.
But it’s worth pointing out that Pastor Wilson is not opposed to the execution of those who commit sexual sins against minors, though I full well know that he doesn’t agree with doing it under the current government.
Memi, I think the root of “these issues” is God’s truth, and people administering justice in a Godly fashion, which our host outlined.
After that, God’s truth is always offensive to the ungodly, so truth working its way out, will always look like “ whack a mole” at some points.
Sometimes the best we can hope for is a wise word, spoken at the right moment, which silences the unjust.
When that happens, Justice can proceed.????
Excellent, biblical response to any serious allegation like the one Roy Moore is being accused of. I think it is also important to note that that Scripture passage talking of multiple witnesses is saying that charges can’t be brought until 2 or more witnesses. It doesn’t necessarily mean those witnesses make the allegations true, but it doesn’t mean they are false either.
Roy Moore needs to organize a press conference laying out his denials in detail point by point, telling his side of the story.
Problem is the horses are already out of the barn…it’s the “When did you stop beating your wife?” scenario, — a no win. The people wreckers know by striking first they place doubt that is very difficult to overcome.
Exactly. So far his denials have been quite vague.
Of course, specific denials would merely put him on par with the accuser…except that she has others from the time period supporting her allegations, which places her story ahead.
Madonna propositioned me in exchange for me to vote for Hillary Clinton .
Does anyone believe me? ????
His shifting “denials” are looking very unconvincing now alongside the accusations and additional witnesses to his behavior that have come forward. “I was a deputy DA in Gadsen with Roy Moore. I have no doubt these stories have validity. Roy was known to eschew dating his own age and preferred teenagers. I challenge all of my colleagues in the Bar and on the bench at that time to come forward to support that Roy Moore should not be elected to represent the place of my birth and my home for many years.” “It was common knowledge that Roy dated high… Read more »
While I have no doubt some allegations about Weinstein, et. al. are true, I have to wonder about this mass allegation hysteria we’re experiencing. It reminds me a bit of hundreds of people claiming to be abducted by UFOs…or seeing some human-bird creature flying in W. Virginia once an initial sighting is reported. Add in the fact that we live in a heavily drugged (both legal and illegal) society where some can barely distinguish between reality and virtual reality (social media, entertainment, gaming, etc.)…and you almost have to question some of it. Especially when there’s a huge push for all… Read more »
Case in point, Hope Solo has joined the parade (circus?).
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/hope-solo-accuses-former-fifa-president-sepp-blatter-sexual-assault-204752918.html
Never mind that she’s been arrested for assault herself.
Or this: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/jenny-mccarthy-says-steven-seagal-asked-her-undress-205453631.html
A lady who was photographed in her birthday suit multiple times (and seen that way by millions of men) claims she was traumatized and cried when asked to do the same for a movie. Next we’ll hear that a XXX porn actress was horrified when a Hollywood actor told her she “looked hot in that dress.”
I don’t see how, after all this time, anything can be proved or disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. If he was guilty of illegal behavior with an underaged girl, the time to investigate it was 38 or 30 or even 20 years ago. I am sympathetic to women who feel they can’t press charges, but they have to understand that justice can’t be done 40 years down the road. There are so many episodes in this judge’s career where one would think an accuser would have spoken out. “He cares about the ten commandments? Well, let me tell you…” Why… Read more »
While you are likely correct that he won’t be convicted by a court of law, I think the preponderance of evidence is not looking good. How do you feel about his claim that he didn’t date teenagers…or, um, doesn’t remember it – despite a rather huge body of evidence that suggests that he not only did it but went out of his way to make it his pattern? How do you feel about his claims that he never met the Ms. Corfman, despite her being extremely detailed in her accusations, NOT being the one who came forward to the pres… Read more »
I think we are seeing a new wave of media-fed hysteria. Innocent people went to jail in the 1980s because it was considered hateful to question the testimony of four-year-olds. Our past experience with frenzies of mass accusations should make us more, not less, reluctant to assume guilt without real evidence.
In light of this fine post, I offer the following all in good fun and invite additions/corrections and other half baked thoughts by the peanut gallery. Postulate: The effect on the candidacy of those accused of sexual immorality is inversely proportional to the truth of the accusations. Examples: Bill Clinton – truth of accusation 10 / effect 0 Donald Trump – truth of accusation 9 / effect 1 Herman Cain – truth of accusation 1 / effect 10 Clarence Thomas – truth of accusation 1 / effect 6 Roy Moore? – BTW, I only put the truth of accusation numbers… Read more »
I’d put Trump’s effect at a 2 or 3. It’s had some notable effect. Just not as much as the material demands.
Does anyone remember the 11th hour allegations against Ted Cruz for affairs and adultery? Remember the scandal story run by the National Enquirer with the five pixelated women ready to testify? Where did they all disappear to after the primaries? Not one of them wanted to throw the first stone?
Who will ever know the truth of the accusations, but the effect was certainly a 10 against Cruz.
While I’m usually the first to stand up for Cruz and the dirtiness that happened in the primaries, I don’t think the lies told about him are what beat him. He serves in the senate as a fighter. He’s ready to clobber his opponents whenever it’s called for. I don’t know who was advising him, but as soon as he entered the primaries he started campaigning as Mr. Rogers, ready to put on his sweater and loafers and be everybody’s friend. Sure enough, the guy who won the nomination is the one the audience saw as the fighter.
Why is Clinton a zero but Thomas a 6?
Thomas became a Supreme Court Justice after a couple weeks and remains in almost the highest position any judge could ever attain, with no obstruction to his power whatsoever. Clinton didn’t lose the presidency, but it definitely detracted from his agenda and was used as a weapon against him repeatedly, even against his wife 20 years later.
“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.”
Then there’s this from Challies’ A-La-Carte this morning:
http://www.flare.com/news/child-star-millie-bobby-brown/
You really worship challies don’t you?
If apostle Paul voted for Nero over high priest Ananias as judge in his (Paul’s) case, one can vote for Mr Moore over Demo Doug Jones even if the charges are true. A Senator’s job is to vote. Mr Moore would vote better than Mr “I will…stand with Planned Parenthood”– i.e., I will grope in your pants for money to murder little babies with–Jones. Mr Jones wants to do worse today than Mr Moore may have done 35 years ago. The establishment wants to do evil, stupid, arrogant things today (along with some sensible things and some for which its… Read more »
This is disgusting, but quite in line with Alabama’s Republican establishmetn right now.
The above blog advocating ‘biblical’ restraint written by the man who took the the side of an adult sexual predator who groomed and abused a 13 year old girl in his very own parish. Oh and yes and the same one who married off another young parishioner to a known repeat pedophile. For the sake of a thought experiment, you all might try to plug in your own daughters as the integer in any of these cases. To be fair, I guess it IS possible that the 14 year old in question in the Roy Moore case intuited that Moore… Read more »
Randall, if your mastery of this case is anything like your mastery of the details of our situations, then Moore is in great shape.
Huh. It doesn’t take a whole lot of mastery to see where you went wrong in either of those cases involving your own parish. With benefit of the doubt, I place your mistakes under the banner of Steven Weinstein’s maxim: “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil – that takes religion.” I am always impressed at the juice you are able to muster to defend some awful human at the expense of the innocent under the banner of biblical principles. But of course, if biblical… Read more »
Randal, you really should know more of the facts instead of spouting internet nonsense.
There are Biblical principals against lying. Unfortunately one of the most vocal individuals you champion is a liar and those who don’t know the facts continue to harp on falsehoods spread on the internet.
Who exactly is a liar? Please be specific.
Randman said:
Hey Randman, did you know that the guy who just shot up the church in Texas was an outspoken atheist?
Epic fail, Randman. To save yourself further embarrassment, you might consider going back into hiding, but if you want to demonstrate just how many podiatrists it takes to remove your lower extremities from the upper opening of your digestive tract, then please, by all means, keep commenting.
If anything, I’d prefer the latter. There’s more than enough popcorn for everybody, and I do like popcorn.
Not believing in god was not his rationale for murder. Nor was his lack of belief in leprauchans. Anyway, you miss the point.
Those looking into the case a lot more closely that you haven’t totally ruled out religious (or anti-religious) motivations:
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/texas-church-shooting/texas-church-shooter-may-have-been-targeting-his-mother-law-n817961
But maybe you have inside knowledge…from the leprauchans (sic)? It’s actually spelled “leprechaun” if you’re interested.
Randman, you’re right: The guy who shot up the Texas church wasn’t a good person who did evil because of religion; he was a bad person who did evil because of atheism.
By that same logic he did evil because of non-astrology-ism.
This just in randi:
“Godwin’s law, now also applies to the mention of leprechauns, in addition the mention of Hitler.”
????
If the little green shoe fits…
randallmanntoo wrote: It doesn’t take a whole lot of mastery to see where you went wrong in either of those cases involving your own parish. It also doesn’t take a whole lot of mastery to at least get the ages correct, which randallmanntoo apparently couldn’t even be bothered to do. From the CREC Presiding Minister’s Report, the court minutes from the sentencing hearing of Wight show that the judge held a strong distinction between “child sexual abuse” and “teenage sex”. The judge said: Mistakes were made here. I don’t want to detract from the seriousness of it. But this wasn’t… Read more »
Read her account for yourself. http://jorymicah.com/how-complementarianism-played-into-my-sexual-abuse-under-my-former-pastor-doug-wilson-by-natalie-greenfield/
Right. Natalie disagrees. The judge agrees. It’s pretty clear we’re ALL going to pick sides based on which side we’re inclined to agree with, since there are conflicting takes on the situation from those close to it and/or supplied with all the information to judge — and we are neither.
The three people who know Jamin’s true nature the best, out of those who have come up publicly, would probably be his victim, his pastor, and his now ex-wife.
All three are giving us clear evidence that Jamin is NOT who he was portrayed to the judge to be.
Why would we still treat the judge’s opinion as meaningful when those who supplied the information that led the judge to form his opinion now state that the information they gave was lacking?
I believe it is inappropriate to use that judge’s statement as evidence of the truth when Jamin’s own pastor, Pastor Peter Leithart, has declared that the court case was partially misdirected by Jamin’s deception and lies, and that he now knows Jamin to have behaved far worse than what they knew at the time. Natalie’s statements further confirm that, and of course Jamin’s criminal abuse of his now ex-wife should be the nail in the coffin. Do you find this statement from Pastor Leithart unconvincing? “It is clear now that I made major errors of judgment. Fundamentally, I misjudged Jamin,… Read more »
Welcome back my friend to the show that never ends.
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
I love it when liberals refuse to show love to pedophiles but show lots of “love” to gays
Do you really not see a difference between gays who have consensual sex with adults, and anyone of either sex who preys on children? I don’t know any liberals who have sympathy for adult gays who have sex with minors.
God does not see a difference so why should I.
and yes liberals have zero sympathy for pedophiles, that was my point!! – hypocrites
To be fair, I know liberals who are quite sympathetic to adult gay men who target teenage boys, and am disgusted by that.
Thanks. We can agree here. Not many say this publicly, but it’s a real issue.
That is horrible.
I don’t know any liberals who have sympathy for adult gays who have sex with minors. Jilly, ever hear of NAMBLA? The fact that they even exist ought to tell you that liberals, if not having outright sympathy for them, tolerate their presence. Did you know that Nancy Pelosi marched in the 2001 San Francisco pride parade with none other than the late Harry Hay, the founder of NAMBLA? Hay once said: “If the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely… Read more »
TCFKAfp, I’m sure Jilly doesn’t personally know anyone, liberal or conservative that has sympathy for adult men, gay or otherwise, who have sex with minors. I know I don’t. That doesn’t mean that we are so naive as to believe that they don’t exist. An adult would have live under a rock to have never heard of NAMBLA.
Yes, that’s true, Clay. I am surrounded by liberals. I have never heard a liberal whom I know personally express sympathy for gays who prey on minors. None of the people I know would defend Pelosi, Yiannopoulos, of the city of Seattle for going easy on adult sex crimes against children. (I would have said “my friends” but then I remembered that I don’t have any. According to MeMe who should know better than I do.)
Hi fp, I meant that quite literally as in I don’t know any, not that I have never heard of any. I have heard of NAMBLA, but I don’t think of them as liberals, I think of them as potential predators. I don’t support anyone who gives cover to them or who defends them. I think that disgust for people who prey on the young should supersede any allegiance to party or political philosophy.