So yesterday I had a conversation with my daughter-in-law about this, and then later in the day a friend in another state wrote me with the same basic question. Taking this for a sign, or perhaps an omen, or possibly a portent, I decided to take a swing at the topic here.
Given the same basic outline of events concerning Roy Moore, what would it take for me to abandon support for him? What would it take for me to encourage others to do the same? I have been emphasizing the basic rules of justice, but how are those rules to be handled in a situation like this one? What would a reasonable case against Moore look like in this circumstance? What would constitute the kind of evidence I would think we should pay attention to?
If I can’t answer basic questions like that, then it certainly looks like my commitment to due process is merely a form of partisan foot-dragging.
So then. We are not in a courtroom, but the processes that govern a judicious courtroom should be processes we can apply, mutatis mutandis, to this. And the first principle is that you have to admit evidence in stages. There is the evidence you require in order to indict someone, and there is the higher level of evidence you require in order to convict someone. The evidence for indictment is simply enough evidence to continue with the investigation. You have enough to hold a trial. You have the right to continue to ask questions. I believe that the evidence presented thus far against Roy Moore most certainly reaches that level. It would not be appropriate simply to dismiss the allegations out of hand.
The next thing is basic. You need to have a bailiff who is capable of “clearing the courtroom.” How do you conduct a trial when every participant is an interested party? This is a hotly contested, very important, crucial to the future of Very Important Things election. So if I were in charge of this thing, if people would listen to me, I would do everything I could to move the investigation out of the political realm. If Moore is not elected, the point is moot—the lynching worked. And by calling it a lynching, I do not mean that Moore had to be innocent. Lynching parties often succeeded in hanging guilty men; they didn’t get it wrong every time. But the process is still ungodly and wicked.
But if Moore is elected, I would ask the governor of Alabama, to appoint a commission to investigate the whole affair and to deliver a report in a year. It would not be a criminal investigation because of the statute of limitations. It would simply be an investigation in the public interest. And I would appoint men and women to the commission who would be capable of serving a jurors, if this were a trial. As things stand now, every witness and every investigator and every juror is an interested party. How would you like to conduct an “impartial” investigation when every person involved was related to the accused, or stood to make 100K if the accused were convicted? When you are dealing with things like this, you have to get it out of the realm where feelings run high.
And if you don’t believe that feelings are running high, just look at the accusations I have received for simply wanting to take this carefully. “Make sure you are hanging an actual child molester” is taken as tantamount to “Child molesters should be given a pension for life, along with chocolate treats.” But I take it as a badge of honor to be vilified by people who should never be allowed within one hundred yards of a jury room.I take it as a badge of honor to be vilified by people who should never be allowed within one hundred yards of a jury room.
Never forget the fact that Roy Moore is the kind of man who had multiple enemies in both political parties, and he had those enemies prior to any word being spoken about these allegations. If you don’t take that into account, you are a babe, as they say, in the woods.
But, you might say, wanting to adjudicate this in a calm room is unrealistic. Suppose the thousands of people involved in this do not agree to stop yelling, and do not agree to allow a judicious investigative process. Is there anything a conscientious individual could look for in the meantime—prior to the election—that would warrant changing our minds? Yes, there is. Would it be possible for me to change my mind about Moore in the middle of this particular scrum? Yes, there is.
As things now stand, I am not willing to simply convict on the basis of what the accusers say, for the reasons outlined above. I am willing to indict on the basis of what they say. In addition, I am willing to change my mind based on the words of the one accused. File these under confession (and oblique confession) and contradiction (to known facts).
Sure, open confession would do it. But since that is unlikely in the extreme in this situation, what good does that do? But I am also leaving room for oblique confession. “I never met that woman before in my life, and besides, her mother said it was okay.” If someone says that people don’t do that kind of thing, my response would be that Al Franken just provided us with a textbook case of it the other day. He did not openly and honestly confess anything, but his words certainly convicted him. If Moore did anything like that, I would certainly be willing to change my mind.
By contradiction to known facts, I do not mean the accused contradicting the accusers. That is baked into any he said/she said situation. I mean the accused contradicting known or verifiable facts—e.g. saying that he never went to that town, and someone produces a flyer for the event where he gave a speech in that town. Once I know that the accused is telling me falsehoods about the circumstances, I consider it increasingly likely that the falsehoods run deeper than that. One demonstrated lie is sufficient to impeach the witness, even if the witness is the accused.
These two criteria return us to the need for a well-run courtroom. I do not mean gotcha variants of these things. I mean the real thing. A real investigative reporter—not a hack and not a partisan—could distinguish himself by carefully documenting the pros and cons of each side, weighing the evidence, giving due consideration to judicious arguments on both sides. And you can identity a partisan hack by his avowed position that there are absolutely no judicious arguments on the other side. “Which is why we have to act now.” Here is an assignment for you. Go online and try to find an objective account of this mess, where the arguments for both sides are treated with respect, in parallel columns. Good luck.
One last comment. It cannot be denied that we live in a time when our culture believes, and many Christian leaders unfortunately echo it, that it is our duty to simply say I believe you to any woman who accuses any man. No investigation necessary. This is a false, pernicious, and wicked lie. But we also live in a generation, catechized as it has been by porn, where genuine abuse between the sexes is by no means unusual, and where powerful leaders know how to circle the wagons to protect their own. Many of the accusations are true. But to refuse to sort them out is not to fight the corruption, but in fact it is to surrender to it.
True Christian courage is the kind that is willing to stand up to any mob that wants to bypass due process. And true Christian courage is also willing to stand up to any entrenched power-brokers who want to carve out sexual perks for their martinets. But in doing this, the Spirit must provide the courage, and the Scriptures must provide the definitions of justice.
I’m sure there’s something in this piece where Doug has clearly and plainly defended child molesters and pedophiles and criminals, and said they should just be given their freedom. Oh and that all women are guilty of lying and wanting alleged abuse. In an effort to protect that evil patriarchy from those perfect, sinless feminist women who can do no wrong. I can’t see it, but somehow the haters will be able to find it somewhere buried and hidden deep within this carefully crafted piece. Or something like that.
Technically I don’t think they even need to see it. As long as it’s their narrative, they can infer it from anything Pastor Wilson says, including a report on today’s weather.
Today’s weather will be bad for women, and Pastor Wilson won’t care.
Touche to that Trey!
Pastor, thanks again for your great insight!
I thought I’d beat them to it so they didn’t have to bother trolling this piece.
You continue to draw a false equivalence between this case and a criminal trial. The accused in a criminal proceeding possess a right to due process with a high standard of evidence because the consequences are great if they are wrongfully convicted. There is no such right to sit in the Senate of the United States, and the consequences Roy Moore faces are not significant. No one is talking about tossing him in prison, executing him, or lynching him. They just don’t want to be responsible for voting in a child molester when the preponderance of the available evidence, combined… Read more »
John,
It is clear that Wilson knows that this is not a criminal trial. However, he believes the same principles could be applied to determine the truth, and that is the basis for his position.
While it is true that the personal consequences for Moore are less than they would be in a criminal trial, the consequences for the nation are quite significant. On that basis, it seems reasonable to expect a higher standard to be used in determining Moore’s guilt or innocence.
Agreed, OKR. The consequences for the nation, among others. would include the validation of such political mudslinging tactic and their escalation, as Pastor Wilson has pointed out in previous posts. Not to mention the election of a man who supports baby killing.
If the standard of evidence must be higher because the “consequences for the nation are quite significant,” it is a partisan issue. Mr. Wilson denies that is his position and you can’t have it both ways. Mr. Wilson also does not hold that the same standard as a criminal trial should apply in all cases. He has written in the past that 2-3 witnesses are all that are necessary to assume that accusations should be considered damning: “The thresholds of proof in the Bible require independent confirmation of guilt (two or three witnesses), which is where we get our ‘beyond… Read more »
John, there is a difference between 2-3 separate accusations and 2-3 witnesses of a crime.
Similar accusations are not witnesses to each other by virtue of their similarity.
“No one is talking about tossing him in prison, executing him, or lynching him. They just don’t want to be responsible for voting in a child molester when the preponderance of the available evidence, …”
But okay for them to vote him in twice as Chief Justice of Alabama? Doesn’t scan.
Juanita Broaddrick didn’t come forward about Bill Clinton until 20 years after she said he raped her, during his second term as president. Victims of sexual violence are often afraid of reprisal if they come forward, especially if their assailants are powerful figures and they don’t think anyone will believe them.
Surely there’s a difference between voting for someone about whom you know nothing bad, and not voting for someone of whom you have come to learn (and believe) something quite bad?
Of course, however there have been ample opportunities for these woman to come forward. In that they came out now looks suspicious. (Which is not an automatic denial of allegation, but they are still just allegations since no one has proved a thing, which further adds to the suspicious nature of the entire mess.)
I find this post kind of baffling. Someone losing an election with national attention due to allegations of child molestation is not a low punishment. It’s life destroying. Even if it weren’t, within the context of a Christian blog the process of determining innocence or guilt does not care very much whether or not an earthly prison sentence is on the line.
What standards would you have an accusation meet before ending someone’s public life in utter disgrace?
“…is not a low punishment. It’s life destroying.”
Then they move onto the next target.
Losing an election is not a punishment, nor is it censure. Do people have an individual responsibility to ignore the available data just so their opinion of Moore will remain unbiased? I personally would not want to vote for a person with a bevvy of evidence indicating that they were a hypocrite and moral bankrupt. If Moore wins because I decided to ignore that evidence, and the accusations are true, I am answerable to God for that.
“Losing an election is not a punishment, nor is it censure. ” Helpful that you left out half the sentence. “due to allegations of child molestation” was not an irrelevant part of the equation. You are not entitled to your current job. If you lost your job, that’s not a punishment. If you lost your job because someone accused you of being a cannibal, and your boss fired you, that is clearly a punishment for concluded guilt. ” If Moore wins because I decided to ignore that evidence, and the accusations are true, I am answerable to God for that.”… Read more »
I left that part out because it is honestly irrelevant, Moore will not face repercussions any more serious than retirement from public life. Those who believe him will continue doing so, and if the allegations are false he can try to demonstrate so and go back with an even stronger moral imperative. The evidence against Moore is frankly, excellent. The only things that could make it stronger would be audio, video, or a direct confession. Willfully ignoring the testimony of the assurances is foolish at this point. Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast… Read more »
“To elaborate a bit, would it make a difference to you if Moore’s accusers repeated their testimony under oath?” It would certainly make a difference, though to what degree is hard to measure. False accusations are much harder to make when there’s a penalty for making them. Perjury does that. That the accusations come up at the most convenient possible time in politics, and the accusations are such that there is no conceivable penalty for lying about them, certainly demands some amount of extra scrutiny than they otherwise would if they were made 18 months ago and within the statute… Read more »
Just because the accusations are convenient for Moore’s opponent does not inherently mean anything. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and accusations of sexual impropriety arising during a widely-publicized campaign for Senate is not necessarily indicative of a manufactured conspiracy by WaPo to slander Moore. Even if, and I don’t know if they did, they sat on the story for awhile, it doesn’t mean the information isn’t valid. The reason we’re in conflict about willful ignorance is because even by the standard Mr. Wilson has used in the past for assessing the truthfulness of an accusation, no Christian should… Read more »
John,
Try and educate yourself. There is no testimony, and further, no evidence against Moore.
Here is what those terms actually mean:
“the difference between testimony and evidence is that testimony is (legal) statements made by a witness in court while evidence is (legal) anything admitted by a court to prove or disprove alleged matters of fact in a trial.”
There are publicly aired ALLEGATIONS , against Moore, with the only possible “evidence”, being the alleged yearbook, which is likely exculpatory.
Do you understand?
Biblical testimony also carried with it the possibility of suffering the consequences befitting the crime, if one turned out to be a false accuser:
Upvote on this comment!
To elaborate a bit, would it make a difference to you if Moore’s accusers repeated their testimony under oath?
Its telling that you rush to mob-rule-usher-Moore-out-of-the-election before election day, but you do not account for any version of due process (the same due process you’d cry for under similar circumstance), nor do you do not account for the possibility of election shenanigans — the likes of which in prior election years certainly eclipsed this moment.
I think it is equally telling that her highness, Nancy Pelosi, considers that the other accused, Conyers, is worthy of due process — but not Moore. (Yes, Conyers is an icon, but not of any virtue).
Life destroying to lose an election? Justin, I’m usually on the same page with you but that’s not what an election is. If your life is destroyed by losing an election, you shouldn’t be running. I understand that it’s life destroying to have an accusation of child molestation become widely believed about one, but that happens regardless of whether someone wins or loses and election, and has nothing to do with what standard of evidence we use for a vote. That’s just a function of an accusation getting traction in the media, and how a given Alabaman chooses to base… Read more »
I believe he meant it is being done as a means to an end (loss of election), which results in destroying a persons life in reputation.
Jane wrote: Life destroying to lose an election? Careful. Parris’s statement was in response to John’s assertion that “the consequences Roy Moore faces are not significant”. Parris was clearly referring to “public life”. Parris was establishing that the consequences of losing such a high profile election *due to such a serious accusation* would be rather devastating to one’s future public prospects. Jane wrote: I understand that it’s life destroying to have an accusation of child molestation become widely believed about one, but that happens regardless of whether someone wins or loses and election, and has nothing to do with what… Read more »
Okay, but one’s public life and one’s actual life are not the same thing, so to equivocate them as a basis for arguing for the same rules of evidence seems like a sleight of hand. The point is not that the context of an election “changes the rules of evidence” the point is that there ARE no “rules of evidence” that absolutely bind the question, “Do I trust and admire this guy enough to vote for him?” The question of “should I vote for this guy that I have concerns about” falls somewhere between the question of “should I marry… Read more »
Jane wrote: Okay, but one’s public life and one’s actual life are not the same thing, so to equivocate them as a basis for arguing for the same rules of evidence seems like a sleight of hand. This was my point of caution. I don’t see that Parris was equivocating them. He very specifically said “public life”, and he directly conceded that this case was unlikely to ever result in a criminal charge (let alone one with a threat of a capital sentence). Parris was referring to the context of the “court” of public opinion (such as a Christian blog),… Read more »
” Nor was Parris arguing about whether we should admire, or feel comfortable or wise in voting for Moore. He was concerned with how Christians handled accusations. Parris’s central argument was a refutation of John’s assertion that losing an election is of no significance to Moore.”
It is really difficult to follow the threading here. If this is the case, and I will to defer to katecho grasping the conversation better than I did, then I withdraw my objections.
– Dwight Schrute
He basically admitted to the allegations. Your first type of confession happened. There are reputable people attacking him, the cops, which Republicans are usually so quick to defend. But I guess it doesn’t benefit you now so now they are untrustworthy.
Also you say you want to depoliticize the issue, then stop bringing up the case of Al Franklin. No one is still defending him, he actually did confess. I was confused at the place where you said he had not confessed, he did and apologized. Which of course be no means excuses it.
Bravo. I personally think Franken SHOULD resign, and Moore should never be seated.
I completely agree.
Which cops? The lady with the outrageous wig? Anyone else? Someone said an off-duty cop told him about various people to look out for, including Moore. Has that cop been contacted to confirm this? Otherwise, we’re talking “cop” in the singular.
Three cops have confirmed the allegations, though two of them withheld their names. There was also an Assistant D.A., by name, in addition to those three cops.
The fourth cop you refer to, the one who the mall employee said told him to look out for Moore, is mentioned by name in the article. He was contacted and stated that he had no comment.
So if we’re talking cops who are willing to give their name and make a statement, we’re down to 1…singular again.
But nobody contradicting.
Them not giving their doesn’t disqualify them. If you consider the area where they live, not giving their names in this issue makes a lot of sense. Reading Johnathans breakdown of the evidence if pretty convincing. It’s absurd to me that people still defending him. It’s so clearly partison and political. I guarantee if it was a democrat who was pro abortion everyone on this blog would hate his guts.
Why do the police not count if they don’t give their name publicly? They’re still cops. It counts for less because it makes it more difficult to publicly debate aspects of their case than if they had given their name, but you can’t say it doesn’t count at all. You have a police officer giving her name and speaking publicly on the record, an Assistant D.A. giving her name and speaking publicly on the record, two cops who spoke on the record but withheld their name, and one cop who was named publicly by friends but says “no comment” in… Read more »
Everybody seems to ignore the assistant DA. It’s not very convenient for the Moore is innocent narrative.
It’s all a smokescreen…cop or cops means the same to their desired outcome, differentiation means nothing.
Now the haters state that Moore is a “child molester”, and over the weekend someone said he was a “pedophile.” I’m curious what’s next on the subversive options list when these two [false] characterizations don’t work and Moore’s poll numbers continue to show him winning the election? Wouldn’t surprise me if they trot out some person who said Moore confided that he was actually an atheist and closet cross-dresser.
To make the point more relevant, should have added at the end:
“…38 years ago.”
You would defend him not saying it didn’t happen but that it happened a long time ago? I really don’t care how long ago it was. You can vote for him if you’re okay with someone who did these terrible things a long time ago if that’s okay with your conscience, but personally, no matter how long ago it happened I can’t vote for someone like that.
I guess it’s my turn in the barrel with you…but hey, I’m game. First, I don’t vote in Alabama so anything I say is only relative to what is occurring, not whether I support Moore. Second, accusation is not guilt by any rational thinking person. Lastly, don’t torture my words, which were stated to make one point that the timing after nearly 40 years stinks to high heaven…and, no, I certainly would not defend him simply because it happened 2/5/10/20 or 38 years ago, that would be idiotic. Time matters little in the abuse column. But, memories and facts tend… Read more »
Let me say first that all you said is reasonable, through I would disagree in some places. First of all in this instance you can’t let the law do it’s work because due to the statute of limitations he can no longer be indicted. Next this is one of the many times when women didn’t come out before for fear of not being believed, and have done so now with the me too movement. Same thing happened with Franklin, and no one is disputing his case just because the woman waited to come out about it. Even Harvey Weinstein’s case,… Read more »
Fair enough…we shall see if any real investigation ensues, otherwise after the election Moore could be vindicated, albeit tarnished.
It’s funny to me that athirst and cross dresser are the worst things that you think Moore could be. And “haters” is being very wrongly used here. And if you are using it in the normal way then it is hilarious. Sorry for hating on someone who feels up little girls? I’m actually going to keep hating on that.
“It’s funny to me that athirst and cross dresser are the worst things that you think Moore could be.” I had written “murderer” but thought that was over the top for making the point. “Atheist” and “cross-dresser” weren’t the worst things I could think of (as you assumed was my intent, it was not), but I needed something to juxtapose him being a 30 year married Christian man. Incidentally, the “haters” label was aimed at the leftist media types and weak-minded commenters who automatically go after the jugular on everything they don’t like. These types are mental children who get… Read more »
Okay fair point, my bad. And on the note of the left wing media, I knew what you meant, and still would answer in the same way. The “haters” are justified. And as for the rest of your rant, that is completely rediculous, try reading it to yourself. They are never happy? One counter example to everything in that paragraph is crooked media. Listen to a podcast from the weeds or something similar. They don’t attack except in an academic way. The whole podcast is very intelligent, they analyze a lot of things besides just attacking the right. And they… Read more »
Name me one leftist who is truly a happy joyful person desiring to make America a better place. I’ll clarify what I mean…In the angry bunch I’d include; most activists such as BLM, Occupy anything, and rabid enviro’s who think being a good steward isn’t good enough. Then there’s Morning Joe, CNN, a good portion of tenured university academia, Whatsaname Baptist who feel the need to protest military funerals…the list goes on. The haters are those who showcase their personal angst towards anything decent, normal, or American in their action and rhetoric, and desire to tell others how to live… Read more »
Great points. As a side note, Malik claims to be a white Christian. If he’s telling the truth, that’s a very unusual name. I’ve only known black Americans and Muslims with that name…
Generally, yes. But my Berkeley-dwelling socialist brother-in-law gave all his children African and Native American names to express his solidarity with oppressed people. And they were Jewish-Catholics like my own conventionally named daughter!
Jill,
He probably needs more children, because I doubt that he covered all of the people groups who are oppressed. Would leaving out a group qualify as racism?
He left out Asians, Hispanics, and the Inuit, Which is a shame because Nanook is a very nice name.
Asians are the politically-incorrect minority, though.
Ah, there is that possibility.
I am telling the truth, but would u have a problem if I was black or Muslim? Side note Malik isn’t my birth name. It’s a nickname, one that is easier to pronounce for my friends who don’t speak English as a first language, and one that you can write in Korean. I also want to stay anonymous on this blog as Doug knows my family and my family reads this.
“I am telling the truth, but would u have a problem if I was black or Muslim? ”
If you were a Muslim impersonating a Christian (as you claim to be on here), then yes, that’s a problem.
I’m pretty sure you said you were white earlier, but now it’s not clear if you’re white or Korean. Or is this is the Rachel Dolezal phenomenon?
JP, he has a Korean girlfriend and is interested in learning about and participating in that culture. Nothing suspicious in that.
I never said that was suspicious. I dated a Chinese girl in my single days.
I’m not accusing you of racism or xenophobia. I thought you came across as unduly suspicious that Malik might not be who he said he was. If that was not your intention, I apologise.
He has said somewhere earlier that he has a korean girlfriend, and propably thought people remembered that. Nowhere above does he say he is korean himself. And he clealy stated that it was a nick. So no reason to believe his real name is african/arabic, just as there is no reason to believe Katechos real name is koinegreek.
“Great points”
Must have been the cold meds talking. (can’t get a cold from being outside, but you can get one from being in town.)
As for my interaction with Malik there was some common ground. Goes to show that respectful discourse can be had with those we differ, especially on a commenting section when so much can be lost in translation.
Not everyone who is born a Muslim remains a Muslim.
But not many WASPs are raised in Muslim homes in the U.S. and later convert to Christianity. Are you suggesting he’s one of the 3?
WASP is only a subset of white. A vast number of Muslims are “white,” depending on how you define that.
Obviously, he’s not any of those things — he’s someone who’s using that name for his own purposes and I don’t find any value in making an issue of his name, rather than dealing with what he writes. I just find it odd that suddenly middle easterners (which is what people think of first when they think of Muslims) aren’t white anymore, when officially they were for most of my lifetime.
That wasn’t the point. Based on some things he’s written, I don’t think he’s necessarily who he says he is…but that’s as far as I’ll go right now. I brought up his name because practically no Caucasian Christian in the U.S. would be born with it. And I should’ve said “Caucasian” instead of WASP. Where I’m from, the terms are pretty much synonymous.
Virtue signalling noted, though.
Or WASC for people like me. But it sounds a bit like a carpet cleaner. Or a screening test for mental illnesses.
Jane, I was amazed to discover the number of Muslim countries I had never realized were Muslim. In my teens, one only heard about the ones around the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. The Armenians and Turks I know think of themselves as white, and certainly the Syrians and Lebanese look no less white than some Mediterranean Europeans. My daughter is often asked where she comes from, and when she says she was born in LA, people follow up with, “Yes but I expect your parents were Armenian.” This inexplicably makes her angry, but it makes me laugh because it… Read more »
I once disussed politics ( in real life) with a swedish nationalist in the 1980s. He thought Hitler was a hypocrite, because he claimed to support whites, but allied with the italians who ”are the worst kind of darkies”. That shows how subjektive the categories are.
I think you would call me a leftist but I’m very joyful as a person. And I’ve known many others. All of the crooked media and vox staff for starters. Many of my friends. Anyway, I think it is odd to suggest that all left wing people are unamerican and unjoyful
“I think it is odd to suggest that all left wing people are unamerican and unjoyful”
I said leftist, not those on the left…a huge difference in my book.
I swing left on some issues, and I’m usually pretty happy. But I tend to like people regardless of their politics (excluding anyone who espouses violence or is a Neo-Nazi) which I think makes a difference. I come from the old style do-gooder school on account of being Canadian. It’s in my blood to go around telling people to wear warm clothes, get their yearly check-up, and make sure not to waste their money on lottery tickets! But I try to control myself and not to say “Here, let me do that’ when I should mind my own business.
Why just neo-nazis and not all totalitarians? Communists have killed a LOT more people than nazis/fascists.
Yes, my disapproval extends to all totalitarians and to anyone (in general) who uses force to bring about regime change. (I have to tiptoe around that one because, as a Canadian, I was taught that the U.S. should not taken up arms against King George, but now that I am on the verge of becoming American, I have to make an exception, especially now that I have seen Hamilton and fallen in love with George Washington.) I suppose I have a special resentment for Neo-Nazis because I married into a Jewish family. The first person who called my daughter “Jewbeak”… Read more »
Jill: “…and I’m usually pretty happy.”
Okay, serious understatement of the year! (at least as observed from interaction here.)
BTW “…when I should mind my own business” doesn’t mean you can’t be a woman with gumption.
Malik,
Your reference to hating reminds me that MeMe, if I recall correctly, insists that hate is always sin. The Proverbs writer listed seven sins the Lord hates (6:16-19). Do you wish to agree with MeMe?
And let me guess…all of her vitriol on here is somehow not really “hate”?
Yes and no. I haven’t thought about it much but the Bible says that God hates lots of things, actions, idea etc, but loves all people and want all men to acknowledge him and accept salvation. In another place we are clearly told not to hate others, and we are told to love one another. So after thinking about it for only a few seconds my initial opinion would be that we are called to hate many things, actions etc but that hating people is a sin. To have a better argument and any better idea we would probably need… Read more »
” I haven’t thought about it much but the Bible says that God hates lots of things, actions, idea etc, but loves all people and want all men to acknowledge him and accept salvation. In another place we are clearly told not to hate others, and we are told to love one another. ” A concise treatise, nicely stated. As for us, as long as the “hate” is not kept in our hearts we are okay to hate those things that God hates (evil, etc.). If we hold hate in our hearts then there is no room for love. (sounds… Read more »
” the cops, which Republicans are usually so quick to defend. But I guess it doesn’t benefit you now so now they are untrustworthy. ”
We defend the cops when they’re the target of bigoted collectivism, labeling them all broadly as racist thugs for the actions of a tiny minority. We’re against blindly trusting their word, because that would be bigoted collectivism. See a trend?
I’m saying that in cases such as Michal Brown or rice or Garner the fact that the killer was a cop changes people’s opinions automatically, and makes the person who was killed guilty and the cops word invariably true. Now it is convenient so cops word doesn’t matter at all.
I understood what you were saying. The problem is that you didn’t. In the Michael Brown case the police officer is the accused, and benefits from the presumption of innocence. In this case, Moore is the accused and benefits from the presumption of innocence. No hypocrisy. The principle is exactly the same in both cases. You see it as hypocrisy because you baselessly assumed that conservatives took the side of police officers out of bias, because that’s precisely what leftists do.
Makes sense, I get your point now. Careful with the end, I lost you there but it sounds like you are very confidently assuming the root cause and my motives.
https://youtu.be/OCVqiMSMy0I
“I’m saying that in cases such as Michal Brown or rice or Garner the fact that the killer was a cop changes people’s opinions automatically, and makes the person who was killed guilty and the cops word invariably true.” Very honest point, but here’s the rub: For those without an axe to grind against the police or don’t believe the MSL media’s inherent leftist bias, if an officer shoots a suspect, that NEVER changes my opinion of the police – I automatically think they were doing their job of protecting, either themselves or others because they have a higher standard… Read more »
Right and I’m not saying every cop is bad. That is a proffesion that I am considering. But the system is racist, and when a bad apple kills someone wrongly they are not punished. I don’t have an axe to grind I just want the system to start holding the cops accountable. Police brutality is way too high in America in my opinion.
“Police brutality is way too high in America in my opinion.”
I believe the stats refute this. Being an officer is a very tough job anymore with little respect by people who think cops are way to brutish, especially when one considers they put their lives in danger everyday.
There have been something like 3000 shootings by cops last year in the US as opposed to tree in Canada. There are lots of interpretations for that, maybe the cops are brutal, or jumpy, or poorly trained, maybe they don’t have enough nonlethals, maybe there are too many guns, or Americans are too violent and cops don’t have another choice. Any interpretation is bad. There are the stats, and here is the anocdotal. Maybe all y’all don’t think cops could be brutal if you live in the suburbs. The difference between city cops and suburb cops. City cops are really… Read more »
https://youtu.be/PVMqbUBAOUg
If cops are so great why are the beating each other, and commiting other horrible acts. Maybe you have different police, but here, they are pretty bad. The cops trying to stop protests beat an undercover officer until he was bloody, they removed people’s goggles and then sprayed them in the face, the used illigal tactics to arrest people. The system or the people are messed up, and I believe it’s the system given how many good cops there are. Watch this video.
Malik: “But the system is racist, and when a bad apple kills someone wrongly they are not punished.”
Here is where we part ways, this kind of rhetoric just stops conversation.
How can you say such a thing with a broad-brush? What is racist about “the system” you potentially may join?
The “bad apples” I suspect you mean – that have killed in the line of duty – have all been acquitted in a court of law. How can that not provide you with enough factual truth to change your broad accusation?
Listen to majority 54, the first full episode, it explains it, also intelligence squared us has a debate over it, the prop is policing is racially biased. If you really want to know how it is racist you’ll have to dig in, I can’t give much in a comment, there is too much. But one of the ways it is biased is like the difference between the punishment for crack and powder coke, one is used more by white people one more by black, and the one black people use more has a much harsher penalty, even tho they are… Read more »
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/01/six-officers-acquitted-in-freddie-gray-case-now-back-at-work.html
I can’t believe I’m posting a story from Fox news, but it makes the point. None of these guys were convicted.
If you really believe “the system is racist,” then don’t be a cop. The last thing we need are more SJWs pushing PC madness into the profession. I have a friend who’s in that field and it’s already bad enough. He’s Asian, BTW, and gets called lots of racial slurs–but not by whites. I’m quite sure I’m considerably older than you and have experience in the corporate, academic, government and military worlds. I can assure if the system is biased against anyone, it’s biased against white males. And no, you won’t hear about that in government schools, the MSM or… Read more »
Lol, ig I’ll take that into consideration? Lol
This is why people chant FTP, this isn’t who I want “protecting” me.
https://youtu.be/u-13VOdMaR4
Malik,
Have you considered moving to another country? If there is another place better, then you will be in a better situation. Of course, it won’t help others.
Yes I have considered it. Unfortunately, if I get into the proffesion I want I won’t be able to. But it would be incredible to live abroad. And that is why I don’t completely want to leave is because then I’m leaving the problem not trying to fix it.
We had an officer shooting in my very own intersection a week ago. A man in a stolen car was cornered in a car chase and got out of the car and began shooting. The intersection was full of kids coming home from school, and the officer had no choice but to shoot him. I think that kind of incident is probably much more typical than the ones we hear so much about. I felt very bad for the officer.
Jill:
In the immortal words of Jesse Stone, “Taking a life…it’s not like in the movies, use of deadly force…it stays with you.”
This can never be easy, no matter the circumstance…must be gut-wrenching. And I pray for those men in blue who have to deal with the consequence of taking a life.
I am sure it must be. And the police officer probably won’t be told that he is a hero to the mothers of all those children in the intersection who could have been killed by some young thug who thought it was better to go down shooting than be busted for car theft. So close to Halloween, the children thought the shots were firecrackers and started running towards the shooter. When my daughter was young, her school did drive-by drills and I am very glad they did. Of course, we both look like fools when we hit the ground every… Read more »
Jill: …and it’s the job we ask them to do.
With your incident detail I recall this on the news, seriously scary time for the kids and parents. The officer made the exact right choice to take out the threat in order to save lives, a concept far too many living in their protected bubble fail to acknowledge.
Maybe part of the problem is that you live in a protected bubble. Let me say first that I’m very grateful for all that the police do. Now can I ask what part of town and the country you live in? In a white neiborhood cops come and protect the people who called. In the city the person who called is treated like a suspect. One lady called the cops because of an intruder. When the cops entered they shot her thinking she was the intruder.
Malik: “Maybe part of the problem is that you live in a protected bubble. ” Not on your life…here in ranch country the adage is “Shoot, shovel, and shut up” because when the perpetrator is on your doorstep the Sheriff covering 300 sq. miles may be hours away. I pray it never comes to that, but will defend my home and wife first, then deal with consequences later…and the sheriff will understand. Now that may sound rough, but the point is I don’t live in town for a reason, but when I did growing up the police were excellent. Times… Read more »
I didn’t mean you are safe, but you living in the country makes you viewpoint makes sense. You are protected from the bad cops, and those work in the inner city. The small town sheriff of course is a very different matter.
Also I should say ofc I agree that sometimes shooting someone is the right decision, which it seems like was the case in that situation you are talking about
Jilly, I think the incidents you think you “hear so much about” are far more common than you know. Have you read this site before? http://totrustingod.blogspot.in/2016/01/the-systematic-violence-of-broken-system.html That site lists 100 difficult-to-justify fatal shootings from 2014-2015 alone. Theautohr rights that dozens of others were left out. And as it notes, those are just the shootings that we know something about – as most shootings involve no witnesses other than the officers and the victim, and as officers virtually never turn in their own (only 1 shooting of those 100 includes an officer who was reported by his fellow officers, and that… Read more »
Conor at The Atlantic just wrote an article that, as usual, hits the issue quite fairly:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/12/a-police-killing-without-a-hint-of-racism/546983/
I would also press the case of Garner. It was a rediculous situation and no one was charged.
https://youtu.be/OCVqiMSMy0I
What about the cops here. This is awful.
Titus 1:5-9 The standards for conviction of a crime actually don’t prevail for all matters of reputation and leadership in all of Christendom, and this is easily proved– “…above reproach…not accused….” The idea that our consciences must be bound to receive Roy Moore as innocent until a standard of proof is met against him is purely the invention of a human mind, not taught in the Word of God, and it’s a covetous disrespect for the conscience and vote of the individual Alabamian voter, who is free to do as he or she believes is best with whatever reproach and… Read more »
The presumption seems to be that a politician–or at least a very conservative politician–has a natural right to whatever office he desires, and that not selecting him to take that office (in the church, or in the civil sphere), only because he’s under suspicion, under reproach, and accused is tantamount to convicting him of a crime and throwing him into prison.
Simply, he doesn’t have any such right, and these things aren’t even alike.
Well put, Ms. Jacobsen. Now, duck!
Clay is right. People taking this position need to be extremely evasive to dance around clear cut logical and Biblical arguments.
The concern is about the trend in political motivated slander. Who is there that an enemy politician would be unwilling to slander in order to win an election? If the voters switch votes with each new set of accusations, do you think we will get more slander, or less, in the next election? And don’t think the objects of the slander will be only politicians flinging poo at one another betwixt the bars of their monkey cages. Remember Mike Nifong of North Carolina who tried to send several men to prison on false rape charges just to help his re-election… Read more »
Valerie, You are conflating, intentionally I believe, the standards for a Christian for leadership in the Church and leadership in the civil state. Please provide a Biblical basis for doing this. And, while you’re at it, please avoid misleading quotations, and provide the complete quotations. For example, the phrase “not accused” you provided is not a reference to the elder candidate, but to his children. Here is the complete verse: “if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination.” [Titus 1:6 NKJV] “The idea that our consciences must be bound… Read more »
Oh, you must have missed the point. :-) I am responding to the conflation of the standards of evidence for the conviction of a crime with the standards of evidence for election to leadership anywhere in Christendom, as has been done on this blog, repeatedly. If this idea doesn’t apply in the church, and it clearly doesn’t, then we’ve lost the option of forcing its application everywhere in Christendom, including the civil state. |
Sin is the transgression of the law, not transgression of the legalistic recommendations of mere mortals.
Valerie,
It’s easy to miss your point when you make grossly inaccurate statements about what the Bible says as evidence to support your claim. I notice you avoided any attempt to deal with those mistakes on your part. Until you do, I will treat the rest of your comments accordingly.
Valerie, actually the Bible does put the same standards for justice outside the courtroom all the time. When trying to decide the truth about an accusation against an elder we must have multiple witnesses (1 Tim. 5.19) and Paul uses the same standard for accusations in the church at large (2 Cor. 13.1) and of course Jesus uses the same standard for church discipline (Matt. 18.16). While we have multiple witnesses in the Moore case to multiple different events, what we can extrapolate is that the biblical guidelines for justice and rendering judgment given to us in the OT are… Read more »
James, he’s accused by multiple women of heinous acts. Of course it’s a political hit job, as it should be. After all, he’s a politician. Hypothetical. Your 18 year-old daughter who is a freshman at New Saint Andrews College calls you and through nearly uncontrollable sobs, tells you that this afternoon one of her professors groped her in his office while she was there for a consultation regarding the paper she is writing on John Calvin’s Legacy in Church Music. He also warned her of dire the consequences for spreading malicious accusations. He then quotes several Bible verses about the… Read more »
Clay, I thought you were supposed to be “brave”, at least compared to some others. (?) You asked an equivalent question here: “adad0, so a woman making the claim that Judge Moore, as Mr. Wilson so delicately put it, copped a feel in the front seat of his car when she was 15 needs to provide a corroborating witness? How does that work?” Clay Crouch and you did not answer it here: “The same way it worked for Paula Jones. There was witness that they were both in the same place, and Clinton’s mo was known at the time. I… Read more »
We are just going to have disagree. As Ms. Jacobsen so eloquently explained above, this is not a trial in the judicial system. It is a trial in the court of public opinion. But if I understand you correctly, by your standards, if your son came home and accused Mr. Smith of inappropriately touching him in the bathroom at school, you would require him to have two or more witnesses before you would pursue the accusation. For what it’s worth, I never claimed to be a “Navy Seal” commenter nor brave. That was your cheap shot. I do consider up/down… Read more »
Clay, your disagreement is with The Word, not me. Material evidence is a form of witness. If a woman says someone beat her, and she has bruises consistent with being beaten, then there is witness that she was beaten, though the bruises don’t prove WHO beat her. If someone allegedly molested a family member, or anyone, unobserved by anyone else, then the “Paula Jones” example re: “preponderance of evidence” would apply, just as it did in the Jones / Clinton case, and many others. I think you do understand me correctly, you are just not inclined to admit it. Finally,… Read more »
Didn’t think so. Down votes are just so much easier than crafting an intelligent response.
Clay,
Many times an intelligent response is wasted effort, making a downvote a much wiser use of time.
OKR, you have always been thoughtful in your responses. We have seldom, if ever agreed, but I have respected your push back. I certainly hope you have not joined the ranks of the lazy, and I hope you don’t think that a truly intelligent response is wasted on me.
Umm…… ; – )
Clay,
Thank you for respecting the quality of my responses. That is usually my intent.
Proverbs 25:8
James 1:19
James 4:11-12
I could go on for some time, those are merely a few. I think the Bible teaches rather exactly the opposite of what you claim it does. We’re specifically required to *not* judge on this basis. The verse you reference is the criteria for being a church elder , a relatively intimate relationship where some manner of reference for personal character can be ascertained. It directly, objectively doesn’t apply that logic to judgements at large.
There is not really an objective answer, but it is fair to hold someone running for public office to the standard of an elder. If you choose not to fine, but don’t condemn people for holding public leaders to a high standard, and a biblical one at that.
I have no problem if someone concludes based on the evidence that Moore is guilty, and doesn’t vote for him accordingly. I have a problem with the assertion that he is guilty because doesn’t it look like he’s guilty? So it must be fine for us to destroy his life. I also have a problem with applying meaning to Titus that clearly wasn’t there. There is no rational way to read it into the text. You could theorize that it’s a reasonable standard for potential government officials, but that isn’t the same as claiming it as Biblical edict.
Malik,
Do you hold to that standard for all candidates for public office? If you only do that for Christians, that would be inconsistent.
So this means if MLK had ever run for office, you wouldn’t vote for him…right?
Not if I knew then what we know now. That standard would have ruled out a lot of our presidents!
Valerie, that is brilliant! Now being one who understands that passage in Titus so well, I am sure that you also reject Jesus, for it was said of him ” ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard” (Luke 7:34).
Do you think there might be a little more to the context of Paul’s instructions to Titus than what you take from it? Because if not, then nearly every Christian leader would need to step down the moment a an unbeliever chose to slander them.
soylentg wrote: Do you think there might be a little more to the context of Paul’s instructions to Titus than what you take from it? Because if not, then nearly every Christian leader would need to step down the moment a an unbeliever chose to slander them. Indeed. Christ is the perfect example to invalidate Valerie’s argument. Valerie’s abuse of Titus 1 rests on a false premise, that “above reproach” means “without accuser”. Above reproach refers to an actual verified disgrace, not just any idle accusation. What Valerie is proposing would have set her against Jesus Himself, and it places… Read more »
Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Val, if you want the presumption of innocence for yourself, then you have to presume the same for others. This is the essence of The Word, taught by Jesus Himself. Jesus is right. You are wrong. Your error is an invention of your own human mind and is at odds with God’s Word. Go with God Val, not your own understanding. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” Ex. 20:16 “These six things… Read more »
Doug,
The most evenhanded summation of the evidence I have seen is from Quin Hillyer in Yellowhammer News (an idiosyncratic conservative Alabaman outlet). He wrote a piece on why it isn’t crazy to quesion the stories and a follow-up about why they are probably substantially true.
I’m pretty much in agreement with what he says.
I believe you are referring to this article?
http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/allegations-roy-moore-look-credible/
And this one: http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/reasonable-case-roy-moores-defenders/
He has some helpful comments in a couple of other posts as well. I had never heard of the guy, but I am favorably disposed toward his tenor and analysis.
DemoD, Hillyer’s articles remind me of other political reporters using the fair and balanced position to push their opinion of one candidate over the others.
Don’t think so, bro. A quick look at the guy will show you he is deep in tribe red.
https://spectator.org/saul-alinsky-leaves-the-white-house/
DemoD, Hillyer writes columns for several conservative publications and has been around the block. That being said, I will continue to look carefully before making judgement. Just like all of us should look carefully at the purported facts on both sides of the Moore issue.
“But I take it as a badge of honor to be vilified by people who should never be allowed within one hundred yards of a jury room.”
True, but unfortunately there is not much of a test to determine a jury member’s qualifications, and almost no test to determine if a voter is eligible to vote.
The court system in Los Angeles is so short on jurors that breathing seems to be enough of a qualification for the judge to pass you. It used to be that a surefire way of evading jury duty was either to say “The cops are always lying” or “The defendant must have done something wrong or he wouldn’t have been arrested.” Not anymore. But, once the judge has refused to excuse you, the lawyers do their best to get rid of anyone who looks like an independent thinker! I am still snickering about the voir dire for the Martin Shkreli… Read more »
Due process rights only apply when the government is prepared to deprive someone life or liberty. Being elected to public office is not a protected “right.” The statute of limitations has expired so there will never be a criminal case. Therefore due process and innocent until proven guilty do not apply. To attempt to compare this to a lynching and mob rule is also hyperbole that has no basis in fact. It simply amounts to hysteria and rhetoric. You are deeply invested in protecting the reputation of men, but give no thought whatsoever to the suffering of women. That’s an… Read more »
Mr. Wilson well knows this. His is a lame attempt to cloud the issue. Typical doug-whisltling.
“The statute of limitations has expired so there will never be a criminal case. Therefore due process and innocent until proven guilty do not apply.”
Meaning any possibility of Moors innocence is irrelevant?
So there is no just way to deal with the situation, and the allegations are mere polotics?
Additionally, here are several posts you have made in the past where you say that 2-3 witnesses are sufficient for confirmation, not just consideration of wrongdoing.
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/109900.html
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/sexual-justice.html
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/like-a-muddied-spring.html
https://dougwils.com/books/two-and-three-witnesses.html
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/dirty-cops.html
So it seems then that you just don’t see the witnesses, or the 30+ corroborating statements supporting their claims as valid. If so, simply say so.
Two or three witnesses are sufficient. That does not mean, however, that the witnesses need not be examined. “A faithful witness does not lie, but a false witness breathes out lies” (Proverbs 14:5).
The need to examine witnesses does not contradict anything in the posts that you linked, nor does the context of any of the posts demand a discussion of witness examination.
“…that it is our duty to simply say I believe you to any woman who accuses any man.” I’m curious, have you ever said that in any other situation? If someone reports their tires were slashed, would your first thought be, they’re probably lying? I need to reserve judgment? Now you see the trashed tires and ten more witnesses come forward. Do you still withhold judgment, claim there are two sides to every story? Distress yourself over the potential harm this is going to do to the slashers reputation? Women need to be believed. Our gender should not automatically preclude… Read more »
MeMe,
You recently said: “I’m going to throw in the towel and let go of my hope that I can ever have a fruitful discussion with you or any of your red pill followers. […] From now on I’ll post my complaints about your harmful and damaging theology on my own blog and facebook.”
If you don’t do what you say you will do, why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?
“why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?” Since what I say will never be accepted anyway, I am now free to say exactly what I think and believe to be true. I much prefer the gentle words of Christ, “come let us reason together.” It’s a weakness of mine, one that often misleads me into believing Christians should be capable of finding their higher selves with two hands and a flash light and having a rational discussion. I have posted numerous complaints on my own blog and on facebook. I never promised not to post them here… Read more »
You sure seemed to imply that you weren’t going to post your complaints here anymore, just on your blog.
What a liar you are. Anyone who read your comment understood your intent. You even gave your blog’s link since you weren’t supposed to post here any more…and refrained from posting for several days (very unusual for you). Now you’re playing Clintonesque word games.
Well, to be fair, that depends on what the definition of the word “is” is. (or something to that effect) ;-)
MeMe “misspoke”. (the current ubiquitous euphemism for “I lied.”)
Where is it recorded that Christ said, “Come let us reason together”?
I think it’s from Isaiah 1:18.
Yes, it is. Now, it is theologically defensible to ascribe the words of YHWH to the Son, and John (chapter 12) makes a pretty strong assertion of an identity. But we won’t find the saying on the lips of Jesus in the gospels.
The context of the phrase in Isaiah is also a bit different than MeMe seems to want to make it. Instead of being a plea to be reasonable, it’s more of a warning to Israel to get its spiritual act together
Ken, Thank you for pointing out the true meaning of that verse. When God says, in effect, “You and I need to talk”, it is quite clear in the context that God is not interested in arguing the pros and cons, nor does He even care about being nice about how He says it. Look at the text that follows: “If you consent and obey, You will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, You will be devoured by the sword.” Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.” [Isa. 1:19-20 NASB] You obey and… Read more »
Are you saying that she LIED? That cannot happen – we MUST believe her, right? Isn’t that the whole point?
MeMe, wherever you are, I BELIEVE YOU, and I hope everyone will follow my lead and never speak to this new, evil impostor.
By your standard you are a hypocrite. Several women have accused you of slander. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence left on this site by your hand. You refuse to believe the testimony of these women. You need to repent of your slander and hypocrisy.
Where is my due process, where is the concern for my reputation? By your own standards, I should now be elected to public office. It’s my given right.
You lost it like 6,000 posts ago when you continued lying and slandering every chance you got. It’s all recorded and in print, unlike things that happened 40 years ago.
Now run along and quit commenting here as you promised you would do. That was another lie that anyone can look up and see the proof.
I don’t know if you are or not. One thing’s for sure: I wouldn’t take your word for it!
” By your own standards, I should now be elected to public office. It’s my given right.”
Were you about to be elected anyway and the position is only in jeopardy from sudden last minute unsubstantiated accusations? No? Ok, then I don’t see how this makes any sense other than to twist and lie about the opposing point of view.
“… where is the concern for my reputation?” ~ MeMe
“I’m going to throw in the towel and let go of my hope that I can ever have a fruitful discussion with you or any of your red pill followers. […] From now on I’ll post my complaints about your harmful and damaging theology on my own blog and facebook.” ~ MeMe
Your whole post seems to run the assumption that accusations made by men are automatically believed, and that believing in a base standard of evidence for accusations applies exclusively to women. Corey Feldman would like some words.
“Men seldom respect us, they dismiss us as crazy, manipulative, delusional.”
Did you ever see those men treating other women respectfully and wonder if maybe you’re the outlier here?
“Did you ever see those men treating other women respectfully and wonder if maybe you’re the outlier here?”
No. As a matter of fact, those who treat women disrespectfully are pretty consistent about it.
Justin,
I suspect MeMe considers herself to be an outlier here because she believes she is the one woman here who knows the truth and speaks it.
“I’m going to throw in the towel and let go of my hope that I can ever have a fruitful discussion with you or any of your red pill followers. […] From now on I’ll post my complaints about your harmful and damaging theology on my own blog and facebook.” ~ MeMe
MeMe, you say that women need to be believed when they report sexual assault.
Do you believe the women who have made allegations of sexual assault against Trump?
“If someone reports their tires were slashed, would your first thought be, they’re probably lying? I need to reserve judgment? ”
MeMe,
Did you read the part about accusers receiving the presumption of innocence re: possible slander?
If you told me your tires were slashed, prudence would require me to take a look and see for myself. If you said “Jane slashed my tires,” I should presume Jane innocent of the accusation until she is proven guilty. If you really couldn’t stand Jane anyway I would be sorely tempted to doubt your accusation from the start. And if Jane were attempt to join the school board and you jumped up and said she slashed your tires 20 years ago, I would just flat out disbelieve you.
“I never met that woman before in my life, and besides, her mother said it was okay.” Didn’t Moore say that he didn’t date teenage girls, then claim that he may or may not have dated teenage girls, then claim that he only dated them with their mother’s permission? And how does, “I don’t remember ever dating her, it was a dry county, and she was 19 at the time” not fit into that exact pattern? Moore claimed it was a dry county (a lie) in order to support the claim that he had given an 18-year-old alcohol. He claimed… Read more »
It doesn’t matter, Jonathan. When people have powerful biases like this, you could show them video tape of the crime, and they will simply rationalize that it was probably all the girl’s fault anyway. The important thing here is that Judge Moore is innocent always, so even if he were to confess outright, we would simply slide over to rationalizing, he just touched her butt, it wasn’t a big deal, she was so,so nubile,etc, etc.
Jonathan, you can’t remember what you typed a few threads ago; yet, you expect perfect memory from Moore. That is evidenced by your tap dancing when others catch you with your hand in the cookie jar. You accuse others of all sorts of lies while avoiding what you actually typed.
Why don’t you tell us about the people you met 40 years ago and all the details of those meetings? Oh — you can’t. I understand perfectly now.
Choose your path Jonathan. Social Justice Warrior or solid Christian because you can’t be both.
+1. To wit,
And White Southern Christians are now openly defending the sexual molester of teenagers because voting for Republicans is more important than….literally anything.
– Judge, Jury and Executioner Jonathan, November 9, 2017
https://dougwils.com/the-content-muster/content-cluster-muster-11-9-17.html#comments
Dave, I have expressed many billions of words, I don’t remember them all.
However, I easily remember ever single woman I have ever had the slightest degree of sexual contact or intentions with.
Equating those two things is ridiculous.
Your other accusations against me are just vague insults with no substance. I have repeatedly asked you to name ONE position on which I have chosen “Social Justice Warrior” over “solid Christian”, and you still have not replied with a single example other than the fact that I believe the Civil War was started over the slavery issue.
Jonathan, you are a foolish young man standing in the gates spouting foolishness. You don’t even remember the positions you espoused that did not correspond with scripture and when you were called on them. Perhaps, you type too much and cogitate too little before typing since your short term memory can’t keep up with the subjects. “Remember you “lied” about me calling you a non-Christian.” Dave “False, you have said repeatedly that I am not a Christian, such as when you claim that I am a Social Justice Warrior and then say that a Social Justice Warrior cannot be a… Read more »
Dave, there you go again calling your brother a fool. Jesus doesn’t like that.
you go again calling your brother a fool. Jesus doesn’t like that.
Not so certain Clay. Jesus said we should be careful about calling men fools because of the spirit it often came from, but using the term “fool” is not sinful—Luke 11:40
Yes, Dave, learn from Clay and MeMe how to be more loving!
Feet of Clay, Jesus desires the foolish to come to the foot of the cross and to stop their foolish lives and instead live productive Christian lives. You forgot that part.
You seem somewhat obsessed with Jonathan.
“Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:5 Micael, Jonathan continually pushes incorrect scripture interpretation and continually gets historical facts incorrect. When called for his thoughts, he posts seas of quotes — which may or may not fit the subject matter. He is a young foolish man standing in the gates expressing his displeasure with centuries of Christian thought. Since he is standing in the gates, typing volumes foolishly, frequently and incorrectly calling individuals he clashes with liars, or changing the subject when he is caught red handed, he should… Read more »
Jonathan, I could insult you specifically by calling you a liar, but I will suppose your claim was hyperbole, because, if you spoke one word per second, it would take over 31 years to express 1 billion words.
OKR, of course it’s hyperbole. Why don’t you address the substance of Jonathan’s post. I expect better from you.
The arguments are becoming poor enough that it looks like I’m safe just letting them all stand on their own merits at this point.
Jonathan, you cannot be a Social Justice Warrior and a strong Christian man. You must choose one or the other. You asked for example of the news covering up a story and I gave you two examples that you ignored. Dave@213092 You asked for one example where you took a Social Justice position over a strong Christian position. I gave you two examples that you ignored. Dave@213277 “The arguments are becoming poor enough that it looks like I’m safe just letting them all stand on their own merits at this point.” Jonathan@213336 No, Jonathan, you avoid the true issues at… Read more »
Let me note for the record that the example Dave gave of “the media covering up a story” was Dave claiming to have witnessed Bill Clinton trying to fire half the “cattle guards” in the West on national television. This is an urban legend, it never happened. Dave claimed to have witnessed this event himself on television, giving the venue and the occasion on which Clinton supposedly officially announced it. Not only would claiming Clinton said such a thing be RIDICULOUS, but the venue and occasion claimed by Dave don’t even match other versions of the urban legend online. It… Read more »
“Jonathan, you refuse to address issues. I told you what I saw on a live broadcast and you say that it is false. Did you watch the broadcast? I did and it happened as I described. Have you been in the tunnels under D.C.? I have been. How many posters have you called liars? How many posters have you told to seek medical help for their conditions? How many times have you called posters names because they disagreed with your reams of typing? Is that the response of a strong Christian man? Jonathan, as a young man, my Christian mentors… Read more »
“Jonathan, let’s think about this for a minute. You asked for an example where media covered up an event. I gave you two examples and you fired off for the moon like a Saturn V rocket using a fact checker. Isn’t the point of something being covered up to provide disinformation of the actual event? I watched the Clinton episode on live TV, yet you claim I am lying because you found a fact checker to meet your needs. Are you not concerned about the eye witness of a Christian brother? How many posters have you called liars? How many… Read more »
Dave, all can now see that you are speaking an obvious falsehood about a public event and then claiming you personally experienced it and your witness is unassailable.
No one needs the media to correct your obvious falsehood. They can just see that NO ONE else, whether they are involved in the media or not, was claiming at the time to witness what you claim to have witnessed on a national television broadcast.
Everyone can now see the reliability of your personal witness, at least in this case.
Jonathan, this is exactly why you are a foolish young man. I did indeed did see and hear what I typed; yet, you won’t accept an eye witness report. When I worked for Uncle Sam, everyone knew that when I said something happened it really did happen even if it did not suit the narrative. It is the same way in my current position. You are a foolish young man. and you demonstrate your foolishness on this point. How many posters on have you called liars this year? How many posters have you instructed to seek medical advice? You are… Read more »
I won’t accept an “eyewitness report” about a national event when 300,000,000 other eyewitnesses are there to say it didn’t happen. You haven’t been able to give ONE report of it happening at the time. If you have anything else to insult me on, then do it, don’t ask meaningless rhetorical questions. This is an issue with you, not me, and I haven’t seen behavior like this from any other poster. So stop trying to confuse people by pretending that this has happened before. Defend YOUR claim, attacks on my character don’t make your claim true. The incident you keep… Read more »
Jonathan, I am not insulting you at all, but rather pointing out hubris. You are arrogant, posting foolishly and not with a Christian attitude and cannot answer the two questions I posed. Where is Christ in your posts? How many posters have you called liars? How many posters have you told to seek medical attention? Jonathan, you don’t get the big picture at all. I gave you one (that’s ONE in your typing) eyewitness report of what I saw and you double down saying that it never happened because no one else said they saw it. You disregard the actual… Read more »
Yes, Dave, I can dismiss your supposed “eyewitness testimony” on a national event when all other evidence confirms that it NEVER happened. This isn’t something you saw alone in privacy. You claim to have been watching a national broadcast of the American president. And yet you can’t produce ONE record of someone else witnessing the same thing at the actual time it supposedly happened. It would have been a huge right-wing radio topic, local newspaper topic, Republicans would have mocked him left and right…and you can’t produce any of that. It didn’t happen. Everything else in your post is equally… Read more »
Jonathan, those of us who read your comments realize how many times you have called others liars. There is no need for me to cite the examples because you wrote them and we all read them. You know that you have done so. Unfortunately, your pride and arrogance prevent you from even realizing what you typed. That is a problem with Social Justice Warriors. Jonathan, where is your Christian witness in your responses? It is completely lacking. Jonathan, America is in today’s fix because our Christian leaders years ago were just like you — heavy on social fixes and weak… Read more »
Dave, your claims that I don’t live my daily life by Scripture are uncalled for. Literally every aspect of my life has been completely turned upside down by the Word of God. As far as pride goes, you keep claiming that you alone, Dave, are right about having witnessed Bill Clinton declare a reduction in cattle guards in a national broadcast on C-Span and having C-Span immediately cut away and express confusion before switching to pre-recorded programming. When I ask you to produce any evidence, ask you for the date it happened, ask you to produce any source from that… Read more »
Jonathan, please review your posts throughout the year. You insisted that you were correct and pounded out posts saying, well grounded Christian men, including our host, were incorrect. It is not just me who thinks that you are off base, but others. Who agreed with your posts? Clay, MeMe and a few others who are noted for being significantly incorrect or for being atheists. Take the time to review and consider if you typed Christian viewpoints or a worldly Social Justice Warrior views. Weddington successfully argued that abortion should be allowed in America by using her father’s false United Methodist… Read more »
Dave, please quote where you claim I called you a liar. I stated that Clinton did not make a national broadcast on C-Span where he called fora reduction in cattle guards, followed by C-Span cutting him off and quickly replacing it with prerecorded programming, followed by a national media conspiracy to erase all traces of the event from the internet and everywhere else. That that sequence of events did not happen is a FACT. I don’t know why you appear to think it happened when it clearly did not. But it did not happen and you did not witness it… Read more »
And your constant calls for me to “take the time to review and consider if you typed Christian viewpoints or a worldly Social Justice Warrior views” are extremely condescending. I’ve spent every day of the last 18 years of my life trying to hold up every single bit of my life to the light of Jesus as we know Him through Scripture, and dramatically changed my life as a result. My Christian faith is WHY I post what I do as strongly as I do. For you to just bludgeon me over and over with this, “reevaluate your views!” demand… Read more »
Jonathan, I have spent a year showing areas that you are not polished in or that you failed to present a Christian view point. Others attempted to help you also but you were not interested in their views of applying Christianity to our lives. Take a look at your post where you got after Katecho for a down vote. That was not a strong Christian response, instead it was a Social Justice, hurt pride snowflake response. Look at how you got after others who disagreed with you. Read the amazing expose you posted in sections when you got after me.… Read more »
Jonathan, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you previously said you “have expressed many billions of words”, supposing it to be hyperbole, but, in this case, I detest your choice to say “300,000,000 other eyewitnesses are there to say it didn’t happen”. I am not arguing for or against Dave’s claim of a Presidential broadcast mentioning cattle guards, but I strongly doubt that any Presidential broadcast ever has been viewed by 300 million viewers, and it is extremely unlikely that any have been watched live by that number of viewers. For myself, your willingness to make such… Read more »
OKRickety, one person in this conversation is saying something verifiably false, something that utterly didn’t happen in any way, shape, or form, and you’re trying to play games with the details of my argument instead? Explain why. OKRickety, it is a fact that 300,000,000 did not see that broadcast because NO ONE saw the broadcast. It didn’t exist. There was no such broadcast, ever, and Dave has not at any point produced such a broadcast, because he knows that if he started giving actual details like date and time, it would be that much easier for everyone to see that… Read more »
Jonathan, I am “playing games”, as you call it, because of the attitude you are displaying. Specifically, the arrogance that others have said they recognize in your writing. You do your credibility no favors in your usage of specifics that cannot be substantiated. In this case, “300,000,000 other eyewitnesses” is a ridiculous claim. I am detesting your usage of a specific number, instead of you simply saying that no one saw that broadcast because it never happened. If you had done the latter, I would have said nothing. Instead, you did the former, which I consider to be arrogance on… Read more »
The obvious difference between Dave’s Clinton claim and the Roy Moore allegations is that Dave’s claim refers to a public, nationally broadcast event. Date and time is not necessary. I don’t need date and time to prove, “Donald Trump has never claimed to eat babies on national TV during his tenure as president.” I don’t need date and time to prove, “Obama never admitted on television that he was actually born in Sudan.” Noteable, nationally broadcast statements by presidents leave an immediate paper trail, one that their enemies make even faster than their friends. Dave’s claim would have left an… Read more »
And if I used the kinds of insults on others that certain commenters here are frequently using against me, especially the insults regarding my faith, character, and intelligence, I’m sure you’d have an even bigger problem than you do with me now.
I make strong arguments on unpopular positions with occasional hyperbole, and I believe I’m right. If rather than simply arguing positions, I was repeatedly calling people idiots and fools, attacking their faith, and making a range of vulgar attacks against their character, I’m quite sure the attitude towards me would be even worse.
Jonathan,
There is little, if anything, new about the arguments in either direction. I look forward to seeing what happens with the election and afterwards. Until then, I see no need to further bang heads with anyone.
You don’t think Moore’s interview with Hannity — not exactly a withering cross-examination — falls into the “oblique confession” category? Granted there was nothing in there admitting the most serious allegations (Ms. Corfman’s and Mrs. Nelson’s). But he admitted enough to establish that in his thirties, he had a creepy attraction to teenagers, and acted upon it at least sometimes — which makes the more serious allegations more plausible and his denials less so. A Senate seat isn’t a liberty or property right. Moore therefore has no due process rights with respect to it. Between the accusations and Moore’s oblique… Read more »
I’d like to hear you speak to the issue of having multiple witnesses to EACH accusation. This is the standard in the civil Law but our Lord applies it to personal relationships and Paul to elders in the Church. I find it terribly frustrating that Christians are not following this very clear direction, but instead want to condemn it.
I see what you did with that profile pic. Good job.
I’m very excited about the new series
Oh, now this is interesting. I have had nice conversations on this blog about Jane Austen and some other classic literature, but not many about comics. I’m enjoying the series as well, though I’m worried King will take it too far in a nihilistic direction, considering the way Omega Men and Vision went. But both of those series also had a lot of hope, so…!
When you talk openly about your desire to “do things right,” you’re only giving the enemy more power. It reminds them of the fact that we are constrained by rules in a way that they are not, and that they can exploit that conservative “weakness” to victory. I’m not saying abandon your principles, but why not portray yourself publicly as a little more concerned with winning, even if you do intend to adhere to your principles to defeat? This would involve a complete rejection of everything the media say about Moore. Good whites who think like you and me will… Read more »
One of the most pernicious effects of the “alt-right” has been the push to restore the statue of Victoria to the Curia.
I have often disagreed with Pastor Wilson on minor issues, but I think too highly of him to think he would be flattered by the “good whites like you and me” reference.
With “friends” like Ben on Moore’s side, who needs enemies? But of course this is the internet so there is a good chance “Ben” is just a SJW posting racist garbage here to make Christians look bad.
Yeah, he and BDash both. The latter seems to mysteriously “dash” in here and shotgun posts then dash back out. He comes across as even more of a fake than Ben.
Ben is definitely not fake. He has been posting here for a long long time. He was an anarcho-capitalist back in the day – completely opposed to any sort of government, private police forces and defense and the whole nine yards. He gradually became enamored with the HBD and hate facts crowd, along with another formerly prolific poster, timothy.
I have seen a number of young men I know follow a similar path. And I think it will remain a common path for young men to take as long the stifling limits in public discourse are in place.
“I have seen a number of young men I know follow a similar path.”
Yeah, something like that is what I’ve gathered. Demo, why do you think that is? How does the path go from some version of libertarian-ism to some version of alt-right? What is the connection?
I can speak I this as someone who became politically aware during Ron Paul’s campaigns for the republican nomination. I was attracted because of some of the following factors: 1. Mistrust of institutions, especially government (in the abstract). 2. The desire to have big overriding theories that explain everything. 3. The desire to know/believe something that allows you to look down on the normies. 4. Disaffection with incremental change, or an observance of the great ratchet, that makes you feel like revolutionary change is the only path forward. 5. A feeling that the Overton window is stifling, and that perfectly… Read more »
This makes excellent sense but why does it push them into the far right rather than the left?
First, two prefatory remarks. 1. Some do move left, or move to a generally less ideological stance (this is me). 2. The alt-right, NRx, and white identity people aren’t conservative in any meaningful sense, and using left-right is more likely to confuse than help. They have more ideological underpinings in common with the radical left than with trad conservatives. Many of the thought leaders are atheist, which is the most radically anti-conservative position anyone can take (all culture is cultus). That being said the modern left is very unattractive to these sorts of people: A. There is nothing transgressive about… Read more »
Because nationalism is equated with the right currently.
That said, Nazis are called right when they clearly are left.
What is ”HBD”?
Human biodiversity. The completely obvious idea that dfferent groups of people are distributed differently along a number of traits, not just skin and eye color.
However, what is most latched upon are the cognitive differences. There is a lot of IQ worship in the lost boys segment of the ‘alt-right.’
If you are interested JayMan’s blog is pretty good and accessible. if you prefer more of an excitable writing style HBDchick has good content.
Thanks
Welcome
Demo, the fact that my house is a mess is the direct result of your steering me toward interesting websites that I spend the next few days reading, Ones with maps are especially irresistible. I am puzzled by assertions that political views are heritable, and it goes against personal observation. Is the heritable trait perhaps the contrary streak that makes the child of liberal parents conservative, or vice versa? On Slatestarcodex, I was disappointed to learn that Meyers-Briggs personality types are about as reliable as the messages found in fortune cookies. Reading about myself as an INTJ, I felt understood!… Read more »
Unfortunately this thread has bogged down and I am unable to discuss further, maybe next thread.
Don’t twist my words. I said “Good whites who think like you and me.” I wasn’t trying to flatter at all. Furthermore, I bet Doug agrees with me a lot more on this stuff than he can let on. That tends to be the case when I talk to guys like him (boomer conservatives), especially church guys. We’re not that different. But people in his position, as opposed to working class types, simply can’t publicly deal with the obvious truths about race.
Ben, on the one hand you accuse Jill of twisting your words, and on the other you assert that Doug’s words should not be taken at face value. You do not accord Doug the respect that you are demanding for yourself.
But to take your ‘bet’ on its own dubious merits, I’d say that Doug has amply demonstrated his willingness to hold and publish unpopular views, careless of public pearl-clutching. If he shared your views on race, you’d be able to quote him on it.
Why is this difficult????
” ….but how are those rules to be handled in a situation like this one? ”
Easy: They should be ignored.
True courage is the kind that is willing to discard self-serving interpretation of scripture that allows and even encourages one to turn their back on those truly in need, while simultaneously calling it virtue.
In the past, randallmanntoo (RandMan) wasn’t successful in his limited attempts to convince me that he, as an atheist, has any consistent basis for morality, let alone a virtue-based morality. Apart from that, he hasn’t shown that Scripture encourages turning our backs on the needy. So that’s an empty charge. However, Scripture does speak directly against partiality toward the small and poor, or to the rich and great. Partiality is a miscarriage of justice regardless of which direction it is extended.
Now as in the past you have yet to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality. I’ll wait.
The utter lack of evidence for divine origins notwithstanding, you seem to have missed a word in your mischaracterization and pivot. Interpretation. Same old moves eh katecho?
Hi Rand. That there is no basis for atheist morality is only a negative in the way it is phrased. One could posit instead that a godless society would have to artificially invent grounds for morality. But in any case, proving a philosophical negative is a whole lot different from proving an empirical one. You said in another thread that ‘it is clear from the absence of evidence that there is evidence of absence.’ That is an empirical and not a philosophical argument, which is strange because there couldn’t possibly be any empirical evidence of a supernatural divine being. So… Read more »
Hi indighost, In the other post, I was referring to the lack of any credible evidence to support a specific narrative. I would be willing to change my mind provided with actual evidence. Until then I can sleep at night not knowing- my point there. Katecho posits there is a supernatural god from which morality flows. He is therefore required to provide evidence for that or be dismissed. An atheist will not say that the existence of katecho’s god cannot be proven- he would then have to prove the negative, just as katecho is required to do regarding his claim… Read more »
Law implies a lawgiver. It is the belief that morality exists which is evidence for God.
bethyada wrote: Law implies a lawgiver. It is the belief that morality exists which is evidence for God. Law or expectation certainly implies intent and purpose, and therefore a purposer. Although, I wouldn’t suggest that belief in morality constitutes direct evidence for God any more than a nihilist’s disbelief in moral expectation amounts to evidence against God. However, the persistent belief in moral expectation is certainly evidence against materialistic atheism, specifically. I don’t accuse such atheists of lacking morality because the tighter they clutch it, the more obvious it is that they can’t account for it in their system. Their… Read more »
Rand, thanks for the reply. It’s interesting that you describe yourself as not knowing, and yet call yourself an atheist and not an agnostic. Do you have a special reason for this? I’m just curious. Katecho posits there is a supernatural god from which morality flows. He is therefore required to provide evidence for that or be dismissed. Is he, though? This deity-as-moral-compass is a very old idea, common to almost every society in thousands of years of history. And since it has been the commonly held position by the human race for so long, might it not be on… Read more »
As far as the term atheist goes, it starts the conversation at least.
What I as an ‘atheist’ will say is that no such proof of god has surfaced, and I don’t believe in things for which there’s no evidence.
It is maybe a descriptor that should ultimately be unnecessary: like being a non-astrologer. A position I am fairly certain we share so you get the idea.
I don’t think there is any good case for god of any kind. But would be open to the evidence if any should appear, as unlikely as that is.
I guess ‘nonbeliever’ is a pretty good descriptor that covers all the bases.
Rand, I notice that you return often to a kind of mantra that consists of:
“No proof for God. Can’t prove a negative.”
It seems to me that you are taking refuge in it, instead of engaging with what I say about evidence or what Katecho says about polarity. It seems to me that you are trying to avoid a search. I hope you don’t mind me saying that I will pray for you.
There no refuge in it really, just that there is just nothing more to say after it- and katecho knows it. It’s pretty simple. Thus katecho’s slippery attempts at redefinition and paragraphs of word salad about moral expectations etc.
“What I as an ‘atheist’ will say is that no such proof of god has surfaced, and I don’t believe in things for which there’s no evidence.”
The sunrise is enough proof for me…thereafter everything alive and vibrant strengthens that baseline. You can hear the voice of God whispering in a forest, not so much the audible but the way the environment stirs the soul.
I appreciate your appreciation of the poetry of life. I share it with you. It doesn’t make god true. You would have attributed many explicable things once mysterious to god. Science has pulled back the rug for the most part and what mysteries that remain are no more deserving of ‘i don’t know so god must exist’ than any that came before. Feelings aren’t facts.
RM2: “It doesn’t make god true.”
Better hope you are right.
I would add: Science proves God. And the “feeling” that stirs the soul isn’t so much of a feeling but more of a sense, a knowing.
Discussion of your Pascal’s Wager aside, I look forward to your providing said scientific proof. I must have missed it.
The intricacies of life proven through scientific discovery clearly show intelligent design versus random happenstance. I once knew a highly intelligent and brilliant engineer who said “anyone with any power of observation knows this wasn’t random.” Akums Razor also comes to mind.
Intelligent design is a pseudo science. Where it has faced the scrutiny of the law, the court system has appeared to consider it a form of creationism, so there is that. I don’t know what you mean by mentioning Occam’s Razor, but even if it were relevant for your argument, it is not an invitation to ignore actual evidence. Such as the mountains of it we have for evolution. Finally, evolution by natural selection (or artificial) is not random. The mutations are random. There is nothing else random about it. You certainly could read the top evolutionary biologists and get… Read more »
RM2: “Intelligent design is a pseudo science. ” So says the model to the model-maker. Evolution is clearly happening (adaptation is critical for survival in a changing environment), but not in the way non-believers think. Humanity did not evolve from nothing (nothing comes from nothing), nor did we evolve from some goo then to apes (regardless of some clear DNA similarities.) Over-thinking God’s existence justifies your argument, hence my Razor reference…the simple explanation tend to get lost on the those looking to discredit. As for the internet, that is not a credible resource in many cases, anything can and is… Read more »
randallmanntoo wrote: Now as in the past you have yet to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality. I’ll wait. Attempts at burden shifting are of no help to randallmanntoo. I’ve argued, without refutation, that a purposeless, accidental universe (materialism) can offer no expectation for the motion of matter within it. None. Period. Since morality is a form of expected behavior, it’s out by definition. The materialist can object that individuals or societies are free to invent expectations, but that’s equivalent to saying that individuals or societies are free to invent gods. If… Read more »
I stand by my previous comment. Your protestations reduce to god of the gaps argumentation. Easily dismissed: just because we don’t know, or may never know some things does not beg the insertion of the supernatural. You presuppositionalism is empty and does not absolve you of the need to prove the negative of there not being a basis for me to have morality. Nor are you absolved of the need to prove that your supernatural being exists (and is therefore the font of morality.) Moral propositions, and values in general, deal with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society.… Read more »
randallmanntoo wrote: Your protestations reduce to god of the gaps argumentation. Easily dismissed: just because we don’t know, or may never know some things does not beg the insertion of the supernatural. Randallmanntoo is welcome to try to show where I offered God to fill a knowledge gap in my worldview, because randallmanntoo has presented no gap for me to fill and I offered no such argument. Ironically, randallmanntoo is the one claiming a gap of knowledge regarding how expectations and values and morality can be supported in his worldview. He simply extends the hope that such things magically emerged,… Read more »
Hardly a dodge and weave. I stand right here. Once you address the original idea without pivoting to apologetic blather I would be happy to move on to other notions. Here is is again: I don’t need to explain that which I do not claim. I do not claim to be able disprove that god or that said imaginary god is the font of morality. Merely that there is zero evidence. Unlike you who shoulders both proof for your claimed god and negative proof for your claim that I have no possible basis for my morality. It is you that… Read more »
Randmann,
I doubt it’s greatly significant, but I would like an explanation of your statement in comment 213163 as I requested in comment 213240. Is there a reason you have not answered?
RandMann,
For those who, like me, do not understand whom you reference in your statement, who is it that is calling it virtue to turn their back on the needy, and who are these needy and what is their need?
@randallmanntoo, I’d really like to understand what you were saying. Please answer my questions regarding “true courage” and “virtue”.
The Statute of Limitations has most likely run on any criminal charges, so Moore will never get the “due process” necessary for a just adjudication. The answer to this whole thing is simple: Moore should publicly demand that the accuser(s) take a polygraph, and he should take one first. Same polygrapher, all on the same day, the results of all the tests to be published at the same time. I’m in a line of work that uses those things on a regular basis, and they’re not a easy to beat as commonly assumed.
And this should only be for those accusing him of molestation. Not the “mall employee thinks an off-duty cop told him once that Roy was someone to watch out for” stuff.
I’ve always heard polygraphs were pretty inaccurate, but I’ve never really looked at the data. Maybe they’ve gotten better over the years?
Are they as accurate when they deal with memories of things that happened long ago? I would be worried that my caution over being 100% accurate in every detail might come across as deception due to nervousness.
Jill, that was my thought too. Memories are such slippery things. We sometimes ‘remember’ things that never happened and as long as we believe we’re telling the truth, a polygraph would never know.
polygraphs are junk science. Even with a really good operator, they simply aren’t accurate enough to rely on.
If you were telling the truth, would you take a polygraph that you knew had a 30% chance of getting you wrong, knowing that a certain # of people were going to believe whatever the polygraph said?
“polygraphs are junk science. Even with a really good operator, they simply aren’t accurate enough to rely on.” But we can rely on Washington Post witch hunts?
Not to cavil too much, I hope, but contradiction to known facts, as presented here, would not be enough to convict a person in court. The person might have another reason than guilt of what they’re accused of to lie. So there is a prudential element not to elect on this account.
Alex,
Facts are indisputable pieces of information. There is little in the allegations that is “known fact”. Much is disputed. Very little can be proven, and some of what could be proven has not been subjected to examination (e.g. the yearbook). Be careful as what you believe to be fact.
Doug Wilson: “Sure, open confession would do it. But since that is unlikely in the extreme in this situation, what good does that do? But I am also leaving room for oblique confession. “I never met that woman before in my life, and besides, her mother said it was okay.” If someone says that people don’t do that kind of thing, my response would be that Al Franken just provided us with a textbook case of it the other day. He did not openly and honestly confess anything, but his words certainly convicted him. If Moore did anything like that,… Read more »
A column in Yellowhammer News by a man Roy Moore served with: http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/roy-moores-war-buddy-knew-altogether-honorable-decent-respectable-patriotic-commander-soldier/
There are similarities there with the defense of Greg Gianforte that Pastor Wilson made after the accusations against him. “I know Greg Gianforte, and he is a conscientious, generous, well-spoken Christian gentlemen. He will serve Montana well as a representative in Congress. Knowing him, I knew that if an apology was warranted, it would be forthcoming, and if he did not believe it was warranted, an explanation would be forthcoming.” Pastor Wilson even called out the (now confirmed as accurate) news report pointing out contradictions in Gianforte’s statements. Remember that after Pastor Wilson wrote those words with the assumption that… Read more »
Jonathan wrote: Remember that after Pastor Wilson wrote those words with the assumption that Gianforte’s explanation was honest and legitimate … Jonathan seems to be attempting to take a swipe at Wilson for practicing a qualified presumption of innocence with regard to Gianforte. Wilson had above average reason to presume Gianforte’s innocence, based on personal acquaintance with him, yet Wilson qualified his support by saying: “Knowing him, I knew that if an apology was warranted, it would be forthcoming, and if he did not believe it was warranted, an explanation would be forthcoming.” Jonathan’s own quote shows that Wilson didn’t… Read more »
Katecho, you appear to have missed that in the very next sentence Pastor Wilson claims that Gianforte HAD already made the necessary apology. In fact, Gianforte had not yet made the apology that was necessary (which did not come until three Fox News reporters publicly testified to witnessing the events and strongly disputing Gianforte’s account). Pastor Wilson claimed that Gianforte would either righteously apologize or righteously defend himself before he wouldn’t need to apologize. He did neither. Instead, he lied about what had happened and issued a limited apology that did not cover the actual sinful things he himself had… Read more »
“In addition, I am willing to change my mind based on the words of the one accused. File these under confession (and oblique confession) and contradiction (to known facts).” This reminded me of the Greg Gianforte incident. After the incident, you strongly defended Gianforte, including a defense of his character, a defense of his suitability to sit in Congress, and a defense of his initial response to the allegations of assault. After you posted that, Gianforte was forced to admit that his initial response had been a lie, personally apologized to the reporter he had attacked, and pled guilty to… Read more »
Jonathan, don’t hold your breath. Mr. Wilson’s many things, but contrite isn’t one of them. He doubles down with a doug-whistle post like this one.
I don’t know what MeMe did, but right now I see 24 responses to my comment (none of which are MeMe) and only 1 of the 24 addresses my comment.
I hope that Pastor Wilson did delete MeMe’s comments though, because that would be a clear acknowledgement that he read the post they were in response to, and thus I should get the opportunity to see him respond to it soon.
Jonathan wrote: This confession, as far as I am aware, didn’t result in any further statement on your part. Instead, you’re letting your vocal support of what we now know to be a lie to stand. Why? I’ll take that back if you walked back your defense of Gianforte at some point, but as in other issues, I think it would be appropriate for you to attach the retraction to the initial post where the inaccuracy is immortalized. Ever in search of a pound of Wilson’s flesh, Jonathan supposes that Wilson’s presumption of Gianforte’s innocence is something that needs to… Read more »
Katecho, what Pastor Wilson presumed was that Gianforte not only WOULD make any necessary apologies on his own accord, but also that he HAD already done so. In fact, Gianforte had not yet made the admission of guilt and apology that was necessary (which did not come until three Fox News reporters publicly testified to witnessing the events and strongly disputing Gianforte’s account). Pastor Wilson claimed that Gianforte would either righteously apologize or righteously defend himself before he wouldn’t need to apologize. Gianforte did neither. Instead, he lied about what had happened and issued a limited apology that did not… Read more »
Notice that Jonathan was simply unable to cite any lie that Wilson is somehow continuing stand behind. That’s very telling. Curiously, if a judge follows the Biblical principle of presumption of innocence during a trial, and the accused is finally found guilty, would Jonathan call out the judge to demand an apology and retraction from the judge for having obeyed the Biblical principle? As Jonathan must begrudgingly acknowledge, Wilson was merely extending the Biblical presumption of innocence and at the same time qualifying that Gianforte could actually have some wrongdoing that needed to be apologized for. Jonathan needs to put… Read more »
Gianforte clearly lied, as he later alluded to. He initially claimed that Jacobs was aggressive and initiated the physical contact. That is the statement whose consistency and honestly Pastor Wilson gave credence to. This was Gianforte’s initial campaign statement: “Jacobs was asked to leave. After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground.” Afterwards, he apologized: When you make a mistake you have to own up to it, that’s the Montana way.… Read more »
And now GARRISON KEILLOR? The devil’s having a heyday.
Garrison Keillor’s a leftist, same as most of the other people on the list.
I would regard him as a “liberal” not a leftist.
Keillor ‘s situation sounds very different from the Weinsteins et al.
The Keillor one sounds….odd. I think we need to wait on that one. Not sure if anything sexually untoward happened there at all.
Matt Lauer sounds like a verifiable creep though.
I’m fully on your side on this issue, but I presume that you know much more about it than I do. You mention that it is difficult to find a side-by-side comparison of the facts. I don’t have time to do the research. Seeing that this kind of comparison is both valuable and difficult to find, and that you seem to be expert in the subject, could you put together a side-by-side comparison with references to the evidence from both sides?
Moore’s vague responses to whether he dated some of the women in question skirts close to the contradiction to known facts, at the very least.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-now-claims-he-knows-none-of-his-accusers-contradicting-his-earlier-defenses/article/2642549
Pastor Wilson, there is a major problem with your proposal. Republicans are now appearing to coalesce around the “let the voters decide” proposal. Rubio and Cruz have already suggested publicly that any sort of consequential investigation of Moore after the voters have elected him would be problematic and unlikely to happen. So you simultaneously have a lot of people saying, “vote for Moore now and let someone else deal with it later” while the ones who matter are saying, “we’re not going to deal with it later.” You simultaneously have people saying, “we trust the voters to judge whether the… Read more »