So I begin these ruminations with a most necessary qualifier, necessary at least in these troubled days of ours. To defend due process is not to defend the dirty deeds that must be prosecuted or rejected under a system of due process. A civilized society, in order to institutionalize a bias against lynchings—against a populace taking what they might call “direct action” based upon what “everybody knows—must insist upon due process.
That said, here is the qualification yet again. I indent it so that certain people can find it more easily. If Roy Moore is guilty of what his accusers say, then he deserves everything he is going to get, good and hard. With a career and reputation in shambles, he would have no complaint against the Almighty over what transpired. As the bluesman Paul Butterfield once put it, trenchantly enough, “Ain’t no one to blame but myself.”
But if he is not guilty of the charges, then the Washington Post and the suborned women who accused him are the guilty ones. Not only are they guilty of false accusation, but they are guilty of something every bit as bad as what they accused Moore of doing. “And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you” (Deut. 19:18–19).
We have an accusation of a disqualifying sexual crime; if guilty, Moore ought not to be a senator. We have the counteraccusation that WaPo was offering money to women if they were willing to accuse Moore. This too is disqualifying; people who do this should be run out of the business of journalism. But notice that I am withholding judgment in both cases. I do not know if Moore molested a girl decades ago, and I do not know if the WaPo paid women to lie about Moore. Let’s investigate and examine the evidence. But that means getting all the evidence, both ways, out on the table. After that is the time for decision. Until then, let’s not play “ready, fire, aim!”
So a defense of due process is not a defense of the guilty, considered as such. It is a defense of us all. It is a defense of civilization against anarchy.
The biblical view of justice requires the presumption of innocence, due process, the right to cross-examination, and more. Now David French tries to argue against this, and is quite right that there are certain venues where a certain kind of due process does not and cannot apply. But this should make us more careful, not less. Why?
The requirements of our justice system are requirements that are derived from the general biblical approach to justice. They apply in a particular way to courts, but because they are matters of justice, they also apply everywhere else. For example, the requirement of two or three witnesses to condemn is tantamount to the presumption of innocence. This is required in a court system (Deut. 17:6; 19:15), but naturally—since we are talking about justice—it also applies to disputes within a church (2 Cor. 13:1). If school teachers are wise, it would apply to disputes that boiled in from the playground, and if parents are wise, it would apply to arguments between their teenagers.
The principles of justice apply anywhere it would be possible to act in an unjust fashion. French is quite right that with regard to the courts, it only applies to such things that courts have jurisdiction over. But this does not mean that justice is a matter of indifference so long as prosecution is out of the question. If the adage that you get more of what you subsidize is true—and it is true—then do we really want to encourage scurrilous accusations at the moment of maximum vulnerability? If you think that Moore is a skunk because of these charges and the Clarence Thomas is a statesman because he survived charges of a similar nature, then the day might come when you think Moore is a statesman too.
If you are a resident of Alabama, you shouldn’t change your vote based on these accusations. If you were already against him, stay that way. If you were already in his corner, stay that way. If you were in the process of making up your mind, then his behavior in the course of this controversy is fair game. Public statements are also fair game, of course. But don’t change anything on the basis of a late hit.
I will put it this way. If you change your vote because of unsubstantiated allegations, you are actually voting for political campaigns to get increasingly dirty. You are voting for more of what apparently works. You are voting for our October surprises to get exponentially more lurid. Why? Because it changed your behavior last time. What did you think would happen?
A few other things should be noted.
Someone asked somewhere online why I am taking this line with Roy Moore, and didn’t with Harvey Weinstein or Kevin Spacey. And the answer is simple. If Moore had said it was a long time ago, and he couldn’t remember because there were lots of girls, and then checked himself into some rehab, then I would have treated him the way I did Weinstein. And if Moore had said that he was done with his double life and that it was time to come out as “a gay man,” then the same. But he is denying everything stone cold. This is a he said/she said, and that could not be said about the Hollywood scandal.
The Scriptures treat false accusation as a big deal, which means the possibility of false accusation is also a big deal. One of the Ten Commandments is aimed at it. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Ex. 20:16). Notice that this is perjury in service of accusation. This is false witness against someone. This is a lying heart using the court system as a weapon. There is not a huge difference in principle between that and using the WaPo as a weapon.
Important notice, also indented, as above. By saying this, I am not defending either sins or crimes, committed by anybody, whether right, left, or in the middle. I am defending American liberties. We are up against an astonishing ignorance, like the juror in the Menendez trial who asked, “What is a senator?” “What is the presumption of innocence anyway? What is due process?”
Apart from Christ, slanderous accusation is the natural language that men speak. “Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good” (2 Tim. 3:3). And this is not a temptation limited to men. Women are told specifically to guard themselves against it. Older women are to set a good example for the younger women in this area. “The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things” (Titus 2:3).
“Thou shalt not follow the [click traffic] to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” (Ex. 23:2).
“The insolent smear me with [memes], but with my whole heart I keep your precepts; their heart is unfeeling like fat, but I delight in your law” (Ps. 119:69–70, ESV).
Hey Doug, if Moore is being slandered, in contrast to him being a decent guy, how “joyful” should he be?
Your position seems to be that there is a certain rejoicing that should take place when a godly person is slandered. (Assuming Moore is innocent.)
Agreed. If this is slander, he should wear it like a crown. If not, he should wear his repentance in some comparable but fitting way.
Burger King crowns are a lot less complicated. ????
Thanks for the response!????
Doug — you’ve nailed in Chestertonian fashion again.
May we point out, though, how you & French both assume too much?
He restricts “due process” to courts only.
You restrict wisdom to Scripture only.
Neither of you mean either.
Wisdom gave birth to Bible.
Due process, to courts.
Is this indent-to-emphasize now a real thing?
There is no due process here because there is no criminal act in which to launch charges. The charge is not sexual abuse, it is hypocrisy, perversion, and double dealing. This is a cultural indictment against the far right, against conservative Christians in general, and the way we often promote sexual abuse and mistreat women and girls. I being one, would like us to address this major flaw, this sin that has harmed so, so many people. It drives people away from faith itself. When women are perceived only as Potiphars wife, only as creatures permanently cursed by Eve, than… Read more »
So you’ve already played the part of judge/jury/executioner and proclaimed Moore guilty? I guess there is no due process in your world.
I’m cheerfully enjoying all the swamp draining. It’s been a long ,long time coming. You’re quite right however, there is no due process in my world. Those of us of us on the other side of the rich and powerful have never had anything that remotely resembles due process.
” Those of us of us on the other side of the rich and powerful have never had anything that remotely resembles due process.”
Citation needed.
“Those of us of us on the other side of the rich and powerful have never had anything that remotely resembles due process.”
Total bunk. I know a real estate investor whose Section 8 clients regularly rip him off..and the courts almost always take the side of the “poor.”. You’re only interested in pushing your agenda. Even if all of the witnesses later admitted they were lying and framing Moore, you’d hold your “men = bad, women = good” spin on the situation.
Prove it.
Cher – So what. I know ten real estate investors that regularly screw their Section 8 renters. You’re only interested in pushing your agenda. Even if Moore does admit that the charges are true and he was lying, you’d hold your men = good, women = bad spin on the situation. See how that works?
Clay, 1) I was responding to MeMe’s ridiculous statement: “Those of us of us on the other side of the rich and powerful have never had anything that remotely resembles due process.” I never made the counterargument that the rich/successful never get due process. She’s the one taking the absurd, absolute position. 2) Your childish rewording by substituting a few words only makes you look, well, childish 3) Unlike your comment, my example was true (I know the details) and there are many similar cases. 4) You picked a strange time to come here and defend MeMe with silly drive-by… Read more »
It is incredibly naive to assume that all rich people are crooks and all poor people are honest. I have always found honesty to be fairly even distributed among all social classes. And the law courts are not always tipped toward the so-called rich. I used to have to take deadbeats to small claims court on behalf of the HOA, and it was rare for a judge to side with the creditors. Which was colossally unfair to the regular homeowners who managed to come up with their dues every month.
That’s just Marxism – the victims should become the victimizers once they get power. That’s very disappointing.
So Memi, is Moore guilty of the accusation?
Was Stephen guilty of any charge against him? (Why was Stephen stoned to death?)
Who held their coats for them?
For Stephen, that “Christian murderer” Saul held the coats. But later, Jesus met Saul on the road to Damascus, and said “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me?” (For murder etc. of Christians.) Jesus blinded Saul, and gave Saul some instructions. Saul obeyed the instructions, “flipped”, became “Paul”, admitted he was “the worst of sinners” for murdering and slandering Christians. And Saul became an Apostle.
Moore does not appear to have any “coat holders “ in the same sense, except for maybe CNN and the WaPo.
But anyway, what was Stephen guilty of again? What were the unsupported accusations?
adad0 – serious question. Why could Paul claim, despite his past claim “as to the law, blameless”?
Sorry, make that, why could Paul claim, that despite his past, “as to the law, blameless”?
I think I got it.
Well, first my point croucho, Stephen was innocent of the testimony against him, and there was no material evidence to support the testimony against him. Stephen was none the less stoned on the basis of false testimony. As for Saul, I suppose he could claim “blamelessness” to levitical law, even including his prosecution of “heretics”, the Christians. As for Moore, I am hearing just now 11/13/2017 pm, that another woman is claiming Moore put a move on her. She at least, has a yearbook with a note from Moore. So she has material evidence that they at least knew each… Read more »
Thank you.
Why do you tend to use some iteration of someone’s name? I’d prefer that you would address me as either Clay or Mr. Crouch. That’s the standard in polite society. Either way, I appreciate your response.
Whoops! ‘Thought we were OK that “croucho” was vetted, and funny.
Why do I do it? In my own mind, it always adds a grain of salt at the start, that all blog comments desperately need.
On the Paul/Saul thing, why do you ask? Any bearing on the topic at hand?
If Levitical law can be obeyed by jumping though its’ hoops, Saul was likely pretty good at it, which may not be the same as being righteous. He probably had his mint and cumin donations down to the gnats ass! ; – )
The yearbook has some serious issues:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/fake-analyst-says-judge-roy-moore-signature-inside-gloria-allred-accusers-yearbook-forged/
If this was forged, how much other evidence is fake as well?
I hadn’t even seen the yearbook yet when I mentioned that this one is not passing the smell test (and I don’t know enough about writing to know if his claims are legit – some people might have one habit of writing numbers and another habit of writing structured dates or something.). The account of the event sounded far more made up and exaggerated than the other accounts with some questionable dialogue, and for it to be exposed with her standing there next to that lawyer as opposed to being carefully investigated by another party… She has a lot of… Read more »
“Careful examination” is one of the Word grounded requirements in these situations.
It is hard to come by though.
The Washington Post, if their account is true, does appear to have done quite careful examination in their reporting. The large number of follow-up interviews with the alleged victim, follow-up interviews with associates of the victim, and discussions with others in the community attest to that.
In fact, it was the Washington Post that broke the discrepancies in the Rolling Stone UVa story by doing careful examination of the other supposed witnesses:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-students-challenge-rolling-stone-account-of-attack/2014/12/10/ef345e42-7fcb-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?
Yes. The Washington Post asked an actual handwriting expert to explain what you could tell from the yearbook signature,, he basically said that there’s nothing certain except that the writing is fluid, you would need 5-10 samples from the time period in question to even evaluate the signature, more for the writing.
Sort of shows why people shouldn’t be forwarding claims from random people on Twitter as proof.
Under further review, it turns out that the “analyst” quoted by The Gateway Pundit is just some random guy with a twitter account who has been publishing fake news all year. There’s no evidence at all he knows anything whatsoever about handwriting. And it turns out that journalists have revealed evidence (a 1978 directory with the restaurant’s name and address listed) that shows the restaurant in question did indeed exist in 1977, refuting the claims otherwise. I’m still not pinning things on her account, but the claims that she has been proven to be lying have gone very poorly so… Read more »
“There is no due process here because there is no criminal act in which to launch charges.” The Bible doesn’t require this merely of criminal charges, but in social interactions amongst Christians which Moore claims to be. ” The charge is not sexual abuse, it is hypocrisy, perversion, and double dealing. ” All of which depends on the sexual abuse being true, so in terms of determining innocence or guilt, the arguments are interchangeable. ” This is a cultural indictment against the far right, against conservative Christians in general, and the way we often promote sexual abuse and mistreat women… Read more »
The solution to an unjust and corrupt system is not to make it unjust in the opposite direction. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot, and victims were always believed and accusers always declared guilty no matter what, such that liars who claimed to be victims were putting the falsely accused to death left and right by their charges. Would we really repair justice by deciding to always disbelieve the victims and believe the accused instead? It is not Biblical justice to take away false justice from one party just so you can give false justice to the other… Read more »
Yes. Put absolutely innocent men in prison as a peace offering to all the women who have been disbelieved over the centuries. That’ll show them.
Sadly, there are people who think that way.
We don’t have to put them in prison, but we do get to say absolutely anything about them we want and are exempt from having our words questioned, because that would be blaming the victim and condoning abuse. A bonus is if our public castigation of them causes their careers and families to be ruined. It’s only fair.
I’d settle for Weinstein & Co! ????
Doug, you said:
The Washington Post has a history of journalistic malpractice, which is well-documented and thus makes it more than a mere accusation.
That fact alone makes the WaPo unworthy of lining a bird-cage, or wrapping fish.
In the spirit of the picture of C.S. Lewis, from his article “After Priggery, What?”…
To abstain from reading—and a fortiori from buying—a paper which you have once caught telling lies seems a very moderate form of asceticism. Yet how few practice it!
“after priggery… what?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE4oZ6F-gQM
Nice – I’ve seen these before. Whoever makes those C. S. Lewis doodles is absolutely brilliant.
The examples you cited for that accusation in another post were relatively minor, had been admitted and corrected promptly by the Post, and have little in common with the accusations you are trying to make here.
The Washington Post has had over a thousand reporters and over a million stories over the last 40 years. Perfection is not possible, and the examples of errors you gave did little to nothing to dispute their reporting on this story. If fact, the generally quick retractions of other errors lends them credibility.
Jonathan, I guess publishing a story with the headline, “Russian operation hacked a Vermont utility, showing risk to U.S. electrical grid security, officials say”, even though it may not be quite true is just another day at the office for the staff at the Washington Post. After all, it’s not like a hack into our national grid is anything to worry about, right? According to the Washington Examiner, the original headline was even worse: “Russian hackers penetrated U.S. electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, officials say.” Yeah, because “Russians hacked U.S. Grid” isn’t really all that different from “Laptop… Read more »
This is hilarious. The Post didn’t retract the story about Trump sharing classified information with the Russians because IT WAS TRUE. Are you going to add Fox News and Israel’s Defense Minister to your list of liars? “Last week, Israeli officials downplayed the damage caused by the president’s disclosure of classified intelligence with senior Russian officials. ” “Israel’s defense minister appears to have confirmed that his country’s intelligence was leaked by President Donald Trump during a meeting with Russian officials this month. When asked about the affair in a radio interview, Avigdor Lieberman said Israel made a “specific correction” in… Read more »
Trump also hilariously confirmed the story on accident: “For his part, Trump said: “I never mentioned the word or the name ‘Israel’. Never mentioned during that conversation. They’re all saying I did, so you have another story wrong. Never mentioned the word ‘Israel’.” The president’s eagerness to defend his own conduct, coupled with his failure to deny that he shared intelligence or that Israel was indeed the source, appeared to confirm that the latter point was accurate and that he had mistakenly assumed the media reports accused him of naming Israel.” https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/22/trump-appears-to-confirm-israel-source-intelligence-russia McMaster himself admitted later that Trump had shared… Read more »
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/16/15646762/trump-russia-classified-information-explainer
This would probably explain to you the best, showing how McMaster and Tillerson were careful never to actually deny the allegations in the Washington Post story (because they were true) while saying just enough to get people like you to think that they did.
Overall, the Washington Post comes off looking really, really good in this one….and THAT was the example you tried to use of them not being trustworthy.
Well, it was definitely an example of someone not being trustworthy.
“It’s not that they ‘excuse; sexual misconduct, you see, they just want to wait for trial that will never happen.”
Yep. French really nailed it there. It is not that they excuse sexual misconduct, it is just that they do everything in their power to silence victims and to create a culture where women are always guilty and always to blame.
I think French’s turn of phrase is good, as well–waiting for a trial that is never going to happen–and it’s given me something to think about, as well as an occasion to examine myself for hypocrisy. But I do not see these sorts of people “doing everything in their power to silence victims and to create a culture where women are always guilty and always to blame.” I can’t even think of a far-right provocateur who actually thinks what you’ve said here. Instead, what I see in our culture is actually the opposite. I see (mostly the left, but lots… Read more »
There are witnesses to all or part of nearly all of the story, there were 30 corroborating witnesses and Roy Moore himself has corroborated parts of it. As for the “WaPo paid the women” thing, that quote is sourced to a random twitter account which is probably a bot. Funny how those two vastly disparate standards of evidence are equal in your eyes, almost as though you don’t really care about the accused’s crimes just so long as he has the right theology. You’re also smart enough to frame the controversy as though it’s a criminal proceeding so you can… Read more »
I don’t think the twitter account was a bot, but the tweet was deleted, and later the entire account deleted, after someone pointed out that it made the exact same allegation last year, but about Donald Trump instead of Roy Moore and LA Times/NY Times instead of Washington Post. Even had the same dollar amount.
A senator’s job is to vote. If Mr Moore would vote better than Mr Jones, Alabama could hire Mr Moore even if the charges be true. If doing bad things 35 years ago disqualifies Mr Moore for senator (as opposed to church elder), surely Mr “I will..stand with Planned Parenthood”–i.e. I will pay for the murder of babies with money taken from you–Jones is even more disqualified. And what do we know about Mr Jones’s sex life? Can he say “I’ve never had sex except with my wife starting after we got married?” Can he say, “I’ve never done anything… Read more »
I agree the alleged accusations against Moore shouldn’t disqualify him to be Senator, but if evidence does come out showing that the accusations are true, then he should both repent and resign. He shouldn’t stay Senator long. And I say that as a supporter of Moore and a defender of due process in general principle.
why not?
we will have zero senators if everyones past sins was brought up
funny how the masses expect everyone to be like Jesus
one day the masses sins will be exposed to everyone – their hypocrisy clearly seen
“we will have zero senators if everyones past sins was brought up”
If we have zero senators because of it, then we don’t deserve to be a nation as we are currently structured. We have far deeper sin problems to deal with than whether or not we have elected Senators.
hahaha good luck finding sinless men with no past….
I doubt that, bdash. I am sure most of us have not led perfect lives. But I doubt that most of us could be accused of even adultery let alone sexual impropriety with a minor. If that happened. And I don’t know, and can’t know, whether or not it did.
a sin is a sin
in God’s eyes it is no different
a liar is no different to an adulterer
there are no definitions of Minor in the bible except for biological maturity..
“Not only are they guilty of false accusation, but they are guilty of something every bit as bad as what they accused Moore of doing. ” Pastor Wilson, basically what you and others have done is to automatically condemn those women as delusional, diabolical, easily deceived, liars, prostitutes for Wapo, guilty of a crime even worse than sexually molesting teen agers and allowing those wounds to fester for decades. You’ve granted those women no due process, no opportunity to be heard, you haven’t even granted them a right to their own testimony. James 2:1-4, 1 Timothy 5:21, Leviticus 19:15, Deuteronomy… Read more »
“Pastor Wilson, basically what you and others have done is to automatically condemn those women as delusional, diabolical, easily deceived, liars, prostitutes for Wapo, guilty of a crime even worse than sexually molesting teen agers and allowing those wounds to fester for decades. You’ve granted those women no due process, no opportunity to be heard, you haven’t even granted them a right to their own testimony.” You’ve ripped the statement from context to slander him. The paragraph started with “But if Moore is not guilty”. The statement was speaking to what would be true *if* something else were the case.… Read more »
Wait! What?
“We” thought we were warning against another “Rollingstone Style UVA fake assault story”.
That story where a couple of college kids woke up one morning and found that the Rolling Stone had them down as disposable monsters.
But then it turned out that the story was based on bad, liberal biased “reporting”, and a single, dishonest “witness”.
God is right to require thorough investigation of sins and crimes Memi.
You do agree with God don’t you?
Not to mention that his “trial” here on earth, went about as bad as a trial can go.????
“Me, you DO agree with god don’t you?!’ Implicit is: Be silent sinful woman with an independent opinion! To disagree with Wilson’s (men) self-serving biblical reading is to disagree with god himself. Christianity: the original authoritarianism.
I for one believe the testimony of these girls who shared their stories decades ago with friends and family members and who have since courageously come out against Moore. .
Well RAndi, you are almost right about one thing, God is the original, and enduring Authority. His Authority is not, however “authoritarianism”, for instance, God lets you say whatever you want! As long as you speak any truth, (it could happen) you will be ok. If however you speak falsely, ( at times you do) God is the Just Authority, and He will Judge Justly. Finally, I never “silence” Memi. ( as if)???? I simply remind her of what God has said on a topic, and she typically agrees! ???????? Not to mention that we could all do a better… Read more »
“Implicit is: Be silent sinful woman with an independent opinion!” Absolute nonsense. Unlike you, MeMe professes to believe in God’s word. This makes her, like me, bound by it. If I disagree with God, I have to back down or give up the pretense that I’m trying to follow God. Same for MeMe. This is why people use the Bible to argue against her with, but not you. Similarly, if someone claims to believe in the principles of the Constitution, but then marches against free speech, it’s perfectly sensible to point out that this violates their already stated allegience. She… Read more »
Sorry. But you either mistake my point or purposefully pivot on it to make your own. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt My point is that christianity is authoritarian at it’s very core and christians like Wilson and most here crave unquestioning acceptance of a patriarchal interpretation of the bible. In their pursuit of this like authoritarianism in general their fear generates defensive aggressiveness: if you question anything, you question the state and supreme ruler himself. Adjacently, another critical element of christian authoritarianism (like authoritarianism in general) is anti-intellectualism: a feature of the Trump/Bannon base. A base that… Read more »
So Randi, is that your authoritative statement? ????
Oh! And if it is, your statement may be less authoritative than you think.
The quest for fact is as intellectual as anything gets.
Conversely, fabrication of fake “facts” is as anti intellectual , and comical as anything gets.
Junior detective, meet junior comedian! ????
Randmann,
Your comment clearly associates the “authoritarianism” of Christianity with men subjugating women.
I’m surprised at your claim that Christianity is the original authoritarianism. I would have expected your great intellect to give that credit to any number of other, earlier religions and societies, for example, the Jews.
Or amoebas! ????
I think christianity is authoritarian at it’s core yes. As far as you are concerned, is not your god-christ the original? Is your supernatural being not the one in question? Can we not assume judaism with christianity? You guys did kind of bogart their hill to build your castle on after all. Isn’t religion just kind of an evolving spiritual wikipedia? And finally, yes I think a feature of evangelical christianity is men subjugating woman. So… let me know if I can be clearer.
“Isn’t religion just kind of an evolving spiritual wikipedia? ”
Ok. Nobody should take you seriously. Noted and ignored.
Justin,
RandMann is an avowed atheist, agnostic, or some such; I don’t remember which. Perhaps he hopes that he can rescue some individual from the evils of religion, especially Christianity.
I think Wiki is a pretty solid analogy. What mound do you think christianity is built on? Islam after that? Mormanism too?
Where do you think your totemic ritual of human sacrifice comes from? I wonder if there are any other instances in human history/prehistory of sacrificial offering and eating the flesh of the totem animal to imbibe it’s power/honor it’s sacrifice/appease the god(s)?
Randall, I think we get it. You were brought up in an authoritarian church and you subsequently lost your faith, partly due to some pretty tragic events. But nobody is trolling you about that. So why this display of condescension as if you hold the corner on intellectual honesty? I am always startled by paragraphs like your last one. Do you think I am going to say, “Oh my stars above, now I see that my whole religion is derived from the Golden Bough and sacrifices to the corn god and how could I have been so stupid all these… Read more »
First of all growing up in an authoritarian church (seriously, is there any other kind? Unitarian?) was a weird kind of gift. I got to see the end-game played the hard-core players. It caused me to test their beliefs and my own by extension as they were so extreme. Secondly, why not say what is true? Why not discuss the best and most ably-vetted ideas. Why not poke holes in superstition? Why not have science and reason be the basis for belief over superstition and faith? I have no illusion that I would change anyone’s mind here. So I speak… Read more »
Randall, what I find startling is not the content of the paragraph but the apparent belief that no Christian has ever grappled with these issues before. Do you think a serious and intelligent Christian could be unaware of what anthropologists tell us about the origins of religious belief? Do you think these parallels haven’t crossed the minds of most mature believers?
I find some religious beliefs (e.g. Scientology) weird but I hesitate to use the word despicable. It strikes me as a tad intolerant.
Fair enough Jill. I am indeed more than a tad intolerant of bad ideas and superstition. They should be challenged wherever they appear. What better place than here? The horrors of the OT biblical god aside. Telling a child who is able without a second thought to believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy that there is a place called Hell where you will burn in everlasting punishment is psychological child abuse. Plain and simple. Despicable is almost too kind. And no, I don’t think that many christians hare have actually grappled with those ideas on any practical level. I… Read more »
Randall, I think what you discount is that people don’t tell their children about hell in order to be cruel; they do it because they believe in it as firmly as you believe in the reality of New York. It’s not as if people sit down with a chart of religious beliefs and decide which ones they will teach their children while entertaining the possibility that any or all might be false. We believe what we believe. I could turn that around and say that your beliefs would require you to say to your child, “No, you will never see… Read more »
Randmann,
You know, more or less, what Christians believe. Regardless of my belief in Christianity, I would have supposed that there were multiple “authoritarian” societies and/or religions well before Christianity began. I am not so “anti-intellectual” that I am ignorant of world history before Christianity.
God is not in question, but whether or not one chooses to accept and follow His rules.
You know that Christianity followed Judaism, but the two are not equivalent.
Your interpretation that Christianity involves men subjugating women is incorrect.
Most of that is while an interesting sideline to me, irrelevant to my actual point that christianity is authoritarianism in practice with all that implies.
But to your response that interested me the most. God is utterly in question. Or should be to the intellectually honest.
Wait a minute, Randall. Are you suggesting that a belief in God is incompatible with intellectual honesty?
I think that authoritarianism and resistance to it are built into the human condition. It is hard to find a long lasting early culture in which women and children were not subjugated. If anything, Christianity made patriarchy less onerous and brutal.
If only the atheists would take over and show the world how to not be authoritarian. Maybe then everyone would be equal? Oh wait, that already happened. Turns out Christians don’t have the market cornered on authoritarian rule.
No they don’t. They just have a really airtight example of it.
Hey Randi, the fact, intellectually established, is that the below, non-christian liberals subjugate women. (and men, and children) And they are not “evangelical Christians. Right? Terry Richardson – Celebrity Photographer Accusations of sexual harassment. Roman Polanski – Oscar-Winning Director Admitted child rapist. Four other women claim Polanski assaulted them as minors. David O. Russell – Oscar-nominated Director Accused of groping,on-set verbal and physical abuse. Oliver Stone – Oscar-Winning Director Accused of groping a woman at a party. Ben Affleck – Actor, Oscar-Winning Director and Screenwriter Multiple allegations of groping, one he apologized for. Harvey Weinstein – Oscar-Winning Producer Removed from… Read more »
” Wilson and most here crave unquestioning acceptance of a patriarchal interpretation of the bible.” You’re unlikely to find many Protestants who are big fans of the “unquestioning” part. “In their pursuit of this like authoritarianism in general their fear generates defensive aggressiveness: if you question anything, you question the state and supreme ruler himself.” If this supreme ruler is God, sure. This is true. Though in the Christian worldview, God *is* morality. Wanting people to adhere to the direct command of morality is a logical extension of their existing view of the cosmos. If you mean anything other than… Read more »
Huh. You must know deep down even through the bluster that your paragraph about atheists is BS. Your personal anecdotes aside, the majority of actual (not creation) scientists are atheist so there is that to begin with. I can’t speak to your debate buddies, but for my part, I am happy to go over any points where you might suspect a fear of intellectual analysis anytime Justin.
” I am happy to go over any points where you might suspect a fear of intellectual analysis anytime Justin.”
“You must know deep down even through the bluster that your paragraph about atheists is BS.”
You’re already failing by applying a blind faith to atheists at large.
Atheism is not a belief in anything. There is no faith involved.
There is, though. No one describes newborns as atheists on the grounds that they don’t believe in anything yet. And what else would you call adhering to a position that is not falsifiable? Of course it’s a belief.
No logical atheist is going to say that the existence of god cannot be proven because that would put him in the position of trying to prove the negative. An atheist will say is that no such proof has come to light, and there is no reason to believe in things for which there’s equal lack of evidence. Like leprechauns. Or god.
Hi Randman. I hope a logical atheist would realise that to seek empirical evidence for a metaphysical being would be a nonsense errand. I also hope that he would not be under the impression that his atheism rendered him somehow neutral. A positive belief in leprechauns can operate completely independently of the worldview and moral compass of the believer. The same can even be said of something as sensible and probable as tectonic plate theory. If any evidence of the existence of leprechauns or a better theory than plate tectonics comes to light, I’ll be happy to review my opinions… Read more »
But, what do you make of all the Catholic Democrats? What do you make of Methodists like Doug Jones? I agree that Trump pandered to anti-intellectualism, but I don’t see how that proves anything about Christianity or its intellectual traditions.
Well Rand, one can hardly accuse MeMe of having an unquestioning acceptance of patriarchal interpretations and a fondness for authoritarianism. Nor anti intellectualism. :)
A bit funny too, but as to the Trump base,that would be me and not Pastor Wilson. As I’ve said a few times, I quite delighted to be watching the swamp drain.
MeMe,
“… one can hardly accuse MeMe of having an unquestioning acceptance of patriarchal interpretations and a fondness for authoritarianism.”
From your blog: “However, I happen to believe submission in all it’s forms, as it is written in the bible, including submission in marriage, is a very woman affirming, healthy, fruitful, blessing. A gift.”
I rather think that the above quote describes the “authoritarianism” that RandMann is deriding.
OK, there is a contradiction more fundamental than that one. MeMe has declared herself as a committed Trump supporter. She voted for him; she defends him. What does she make of the twelve named women who have come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct? Are they all lying? How can that be when women don’t lie about these things? Where is the support for what these women went through? Trump has been caught making comments far more damning than what we currently have on Moore. His saying that the 12 year old Paris Hilton was hot. His commenting that in… Read more »
* happily munching popcorn *
Randall, this is my problem. If accusations like this had been made about someone of my own party right before a hotly contested election–someone whom I really trusted and admired–I would be demanding a lot of evidence before I believed them. Because I would suspect this was a last minute hit job designed to sink my candidate, and I would be absolutely willing to believe that a far right wing media was complicit in it. I would be suspicious of the women who were silent through my candidate’s long career as a high media profile judge. I would find it… Read more »
Jilly, I actually do understand your position and why some voters would question this. Politics aside (While liberal on many issues I am not a democrat,) as someone who has a personal family understanding of sexual abuse, victimization and predation by adults, (and the shame and terror that goes along with carrying the burden of that,) I am not surprised at all by the timing. Victims often wait many years to tell their story. The straw that breaks the camel’s back can be quite random. I was silent for almost 20 years and just shuddered at the thought of anyone… Read more »
I’m sorry, Rand. This stuff truly can be disgusting. I often worry about how painful it is for victims of abuse to stumble upon this blog and see the complete lack of compassion, the outright hostility, the sheer ugliness of some of those claiming Christ’s name. On the bright side, it has taught me how to empathize better with atheists, with those who have been wounded by the church, and with women escaping some appalling religious situations. I get it,it’s real enough and it’s not pretty.
Fair enough. I wouldn’t call it painful as much as utterly disheartening.
Randall, I think there are people who voted for Trump who did believe the women claiming harassment. I don’t know how they squared this with their conscience. But it makes zero sense to me to support Trump while condemning Moore. I am willing to withhold judgement until the facts are in. But I can’t stand the hypocrisy of saying that sexual abuse only matters if I don’t like the candidate. White Catholics in red states also supported Trump in record numbers. It was not purely an Evangelical phenomenon. On the other hand, my heavily Catholic precinct recorded two votes for… Read more »
I agree. I don’t know how one can support Trump and have any leg to stand on regarding Moore, Weinstein, Louie CK, Brian Singer or anyone else for that matter. You just gave away your right to be taken seriously as someone who cares about sexual assault or protecting girls/women.
Amen to all that Jillybean.
“You do agree with God don’t you?” ~ adad0
On what evidence would you base that assumption?
YOU are delusional, MeMe. But this is not an “automatic condemnation.” After reading your posts for the past few months, it appears obvious that you’ve been in a long, drawn-out, and ever-escalating slide into this delusion. Wilson is NOT trying to get Moore off the hook, discredit his accusers, or presume anything about women. If you weren’t steeped in this dark fantasy, you would have read what Wilson actually wrote instead of the invisible ink between the lines you think he wrote. Wilson has said quite the opposite of everything you think. He actually said that if Judge Moore is… Read more »
I’m not delusional at all. I’m cheerfully observing all this silliness. My observation stands, Pastor Wilson does not believe women, a statement made with all good grace and forgiveness. I’m not angry about it, it simply is what it is.
By the same token Memi, Wilson does not believe men either.
Wilson submits to the Word, and does not judge by appearances, but withholds judgement until a matter is established by two or three witnesses, as The Word requires.
Right?
No, wrong.
See what I mean?
This is what I see as the substance of the accusations against Moore and his defenses. For myself, the main questions I have in terms of how the issue relates to Mr Moore are whether his actions were immoral, whether they demonstrate poor character and discernment, and whether he is telling the truth now. I’ll stick to quotes, rather than inserting my own commentary. “I was a deputy DA in Gadsen with Roy Moore. I have no doubt these stories have validity. Roy was known to eschew dating his own age and preferred teenagers. I challenge all of my colleagues… Read more »
I would appreciate if someone could list the same in regards to the accusations regarding the Washington Post’s reporting on this particular case.
Also, would very, very much appreciate if this thread could stick with the details of the case and not dissolve into insults or character attacks on each other, Republicans, women, liberals, or Alabama.
I think we’re debating hearsay: half-remembered accusations from a generation ago that now, mysteriously, surface just when they will have have the maximum political impact. I don’t believe anyone entirely: a lie from Moore to defend himself fits the facts just as well as a newspaper smear campaign, and both are well within the realm of possibility. Only, there is this: I know perfectly well that the Post publishes lies. I have read enough not to trust it. Of Moore I know little or nothing; except he is a Republican and claims to be a Christian. My impression is that… Read more »
Nothing about how the accusations came about at this time is mysterious, the timing is clearly and credibly explained right there in the original article.
And what is your evidence for “half-remembered”? Moore definitely used a lack of memory to weasel around several answers, but the women included much specific detail, including at least four examples of the accusations being told to decades ago when they were not “a generation ago” but quite fresh.
And even as I write this, I’ve just found out about the string of new accusations. Some of these are quite credible.
Jonathan, do you have any thoughts about why apparently widespread rumors never surfaced during Moore’s other periods of intense media scrutiny? I have been aware of Moore for at least the last five years without ever hearing a whisper about this. The press has covered his more extreme positions thoroughly enough that out here in California I knew about them long before there was a Senate race. Why do you think the rumors–not the specific allegations, but the rumors about his alleged past creepiness–were never mentioned to the national press when they were in Alabama covering the ten commandments monument… Read more »
Yes, exactly this. Suddenly, the Post wants to write a smear – pardon me, they “heard newsworthy information and followed up on it like good reporters” – and now we are asked to believe, suddenly, miraculously, at the optimal moment for advancing the editorial agenda of the Post – that every single person living or dead in the entire state of Alabama knows Moore for a sexual predator. The idea is ridiculous on its face. Moore has been in the public eye for decades, now, without any hint of this scandal. So when a rag that has been many times… Read more »
And the New Yorker and Al.com are so quickly able to go into Gadsen and find their own witnesses willing to go on the record by name because….? The witnesses are in the three published articles, often by name. They include lawyers, police officers, mall employees, and the very high school girls Moore targeted. In some of the articles some of those witnesses even name names of other people who knew, who aren’t willing to go on record…but none of those other people are denying it either. If you were from Gadsen, and Barney who you grew up with and… Read more »
My best guess is that most people just don’t go around telling the media unsolicited dirt. I would guess that people over the age of 55 would be even less likely to go running to the press with dirt than most. I would guess that people over the age of 55 from small-city Alabama would be even less likely. And people over 55, from small-city Alabama, from a county whose White population over 55 is almost entirely conservative….how many people from that demographic are going to go to the effort of actually going to the press with 35-year-old dirt against… Read more »
Sorry if I was unclear earlier. I am not sure what to make of the claim that Moore dated teenagers. That seems likely as not, and I am not aware of that being controverted. What I strongly disbelieve is the allegations of assault.
When asked directly if he had dated teenage girls, he answered, “Not generally, no” and then added that he could not recall have done so and if he did, it “would be out of my customary behavior.”
That seems extraordinarily difficult to believe at this point,with 14 named witnesses now saying that in Gadsen, Roy Moore not only regularly dated high school girls while he was in his 30s but went out looking for them specifically and was widely known to do so.
So that seems wildly implausible to me. How old was his wife when he married her? You mean to tell me that everyone has been keeping this deep dark secret for the twenty or thirty years in which he has been a nationally prominent voice for conservative values, only it wasn’t a secret because everybody knew? Not one person thought to write a letter to the editor during the tumultuous 10 Commandments monument kerfuffle to point out “ya know the Christian hero is kind of a pervert”. That would have been a huge story. And yet we have nothing on… Read more »
You’re talking about “everyone keeping this deep dark secret”, but I don’t think they viewed it like that. People of around 55 and older from his hometown knew what he did (in general, I’m not speaking of the specific sexual assault allegations that happened to individuals) and talked about it. They just didn’t go to the press. That appears to me in line with what most normal people would do. Think about the alternative. Pretend that Roy Moore was NOT doing all these things that 20 named witnesses (and at least a dozen unnamed ones) have said he was doing.… Read more »
Jonathan,
“Then there should be literally thousands of people able to contradict that testimony.”
By that same logic, there should be thousands more who would also be corroborating the claims of those “20 named witnesses (and at least a dozen unnamed ones)”. Why are there so few?
The number of corroborating witnesses is now well over 30. The number who have been wiling to put their name on it is at least 22. That is not “so few”. I’ve answered the question repeatedly on why there aren’t more – because most people don’t go running to the press to share dirt on other people, that’s probably even more true in small-city Alabama, that’s probably even more true among people over 55 in small-city Alabama, and in regards to a conservative anti-establishment Republican politician of course its going to be true in a county where 90+% of the… Read more »
Jonathan,
“I think it’s fair to say ….”
I disagree. Your approach is why I doubt there would be any change in the perception of Roy Moore if “thousands” of people spoke out otherwise. Specifically, you discount the statement by the former mall manager, but give a premium to the statements of those “accusing” Moore.
In short, you’re going to believe what you want to believe.
OKR, the mall manager (who wasn’t even working in the mall during the years that most of the allegations were made) said that he could not recall Moore being on the banned list. That doesn’t contradict anything the many witnesses said about actual behavior of Moore’s that they witnessed or were told about or anything they said about the talk regarding Moore that went around. Even of the half-dozen or so that mentioned an anti-Moore policy, all but 2 or 3 suggested it was informal or were not sure whether it was formal or informal. Only a couple spoke specifically… Read more »
Jonathan,
I repeat: you’re going to believe what you want to believe.
An insult is not an argument.
Jonathan,
I say “half-remembered” because when you are talking about events from 40 years ago, there is no such thing as a clear and unambiguous memory. There’s a reason we have a statue of limitations for most crimes – the details get really muddled if you wait ten or fifteen years to prosecute, and testimony becomes less reliable. So the scores of people who just so happen to remember details from the Nixon presidency with perfect clarity is very suspicious all on its own.
This is the same blog whose author published a book with sections that presented as fact depictions based on people’s childhood memories from SEVENTY years earlier, right? And I can’t imagine what you must have thought of those totally unfair Catholic priest scandals, with poor priests being fired left and right from back before people could possibly remember was really happened. To say that a bunch of 55-year-olds are participating in mass historical hysteria because it just isn’t possible for them to remember 1980 anymore is ridiculous. I guess we’ll just have to stop taking people seriously when they tell… Read more »
I have no idea what book you are talking about. But my understanding is that the Catholic Church admitted to the abuse by and large, did they not? So there’s no argument there. It is possible that a priest here and there was accused who insists on his innocence, and I would in such a case want to respect his presumption of innocence. So I don’t know what you mean for these examples to prove, but they aren’t doing it, for me, at least.
I agree that “mass historical hysteria” is probably unlikely. I would say that someone is lying.
“Southern Slavery As It Was” by Pastor Doug Wilson in part bases its allegations about the mild nature of slavery and positive slave-owner relations by relying on the WPA slave narrative collection that was produced in 1936-1938, even though those narratives were recorded 75 years after the slavery era and most of the interviewed persons had only experienced it as very young children. In fact, those narratives are regularly cited by paleo-Confederates in their pro-Confederate arguments. I personally have issues with the narratives because expecting a bunch of segregation -era elderly Black persons in the South to tell the truth… Read more »
Yeah, sorry, but your quibbles with a book of Doug’s that I have not even read are not doing much for me. I have no idea of my popularity in “serious talk” about anything, but I can say with some conviction that the Gospels are reliable because of inspiration, not because they were within some 40-year window of witness reliability. So in your view, why have a statute of limitations at all? If everyone agrees, as you seem to think, that testimony is just as reliable after your grandchildren get married as before their parents did, why limit prosecutions to… Read more »
“but I can say with some conviction that the Gospels are reliable because of inspiration, not because they were within some 40-year window of witness reliability.” Luke himself at least seemed to think that the careful investigation of eyewitnesses was important to the reliability of the written Gospel. “Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to… Read more »
Exactically! To protect defendants… from having to swat down random unprovable (and hence unfalsifiable) slanders from before most of the audience was born. Because the evidence – which in the old days was almost exclusively a matter of witness testimony: the Roman Republic did not have a police forensics laboratory – is materially degraded with the passage of time. Why are you quibbling with this obvious fact? Luke was a careful guy, and that’s fine. But I don’t trust him with my soul because he told me he was careful. Herodotus and Livy were careful, too. And my normal approach… Read more »
If your only point is “their testimony is marginally less reliable than testimony regarding a hypothetical event that occurred yesterday”, then yes, I agree with that. If your point is that their testimony is so reliable that it should not be believed, even though we now have 20 witnesses to it on the record by name and more than a dozen more with names withheld, even though all of the most serious allegations have people by name who have corroborated that the victim told them of the incident long before this race, then I have to disagree. There is a… Read more »
I am not suggesting that all information from the past is to be rejected. Merely that testimony long-delayed is far less credible than ordinary testimony. When you have testimony about a disputed matter that is inherently difficult to prove, with a lot of circumstantial evidence to suggest that it is driven by underhanded motives (why are litigate this in the press instead of in the courtroom?), and the allegations are rather improbable and perfectly calibrated to fit the ideological convenience of the side that unearthed them – one might, with delicacy, call them a leftist fantasy scenario – then the… Read more »
“why are litigate this in the press instead of in the courtroom” Farinata, if you had read the original story then the question was already very clearly answered. These people are not looking to alter the course of their own lives in order to “get” Moore. (And yes, going through a high-publicity trial against a well-backed and powerful man would certainly consume your life.) When reporters covering Moore began hearing about their stories, it took a lot of work to get the the witnesses to come forward and be willing to go on the record publicly. By doing that, they… Read more »
It is improbable that a prominent Christian, who identifies as such on the national stage, has a widely established reputation of pursuing teenage girls. Can you imagine any of your grown-up Christian friends pulling that kind of stunt regularly? I would not say that a grown man wanting to date and marry a sixteen or seventeen year-old is sinful ipso facto – there’s quite a lot of precedent for it in the Bible and in the general history of the world – but just about everybody in our modern American culture finds that kind of behavior to be both improper,… Read more »
“How does one testify to a negative?” Haven’t we covered this already? 1. Former Deputy D.A. Teresa Jones has stated blatantly that Moore made a point of going after high school girls as opposed to girls his own age, that he trolled for teenage girls at the mall, and that this was known and spoken about among his courthouse peers. She challenged anyone else among them to come forward. Now, if that is untrue, wouldn’t it be quite simple to have the multiple people who worked with Jones and Moore come forward and say, “No, I never heard people talking… Read more »
Jonathan,
“By the time a stale claim is litigated, a defendant might have lost evidence necessary to disprove the claim.”
This seems extremely relevant to the claims about Moore. For example, suppose he was visiting family for Christmas on Dec. 22, 1977. It might have been easy in 1978 to prove that he was hundreds of miles from Gadsden on that date, but quite difficult to do in 2017.
Of course, there is very little substance in most of the allegations that would allow disproving the claim. That is very convenient if these claims are politically motivated.
The fact that 20 people put their names on record, with the names of exact location where these things happened, and stated a pattern of behavior that their coworkers and associates were well aware of and spoke about, gives a LOT of opportunities to disprove the claims or cast serious doubt on them. 1. Former Deputy D.A. Teresa Jones stated that Moore made a point of going after high school girls as opposed to girls his own age, that he trolled for teenage girls at the mall, and that this was known and spoken about among his courthouse peers. She… Read more »
Jonathan,
Your logic frightens me. I hope you are never in a position to decide the fate of an innocent.
That doesn’t advance the conversation at all, it’s just an insult.
I’ve been on two juries, voted foreman both times, verdict not guilty both times.
Jonathan, This conversation is stuck in a rut, partly because you are working so hard to spin your wheels. You refuse to see any possibility that others’ beliefs about the evidence have any validity. On the contrary, I believe that he might be guilty of the one “he said, she said” allegation of sexual misconduct by Corfman, but I doubt it it is true. The only other allegation of moral failure is the allegation by Nelson (also “he said, she said”) and even you question its validity. There is really no benefit to a regular, lengthy repetition of the claims… Read more »
You do not believe that grabbing a woman by the buttocks or forcibly tongue-kissing a 16-year-old who didn’t want to be kissed is moral failure? I mean, I think that for a 35-year-old man to troll malls looking for teenagers, or lusting after waitresses, or kissing teenage girls on dates is moral failure too, but at least the top two should be obvious. And is it really a “he said, she said” allegation if there are other witnesses to the victims having told them about the assault at the time, but not reporting it? What possible motive would there have… Read more »
Jonathan, I’m losing track of the specifics of all of the claims. I will agree that those actions are moral failures. ‘And is it really a “he said, she said” allegation if there are other witnesses to the victims having told them about the assault at the time, but not reporting it? ‘ Yes, absolutely! Do you really not understand this? This is an example of your “logic” that I referred to earlier. Although I know this is not a legal case, I choose to apply the same principles as far as reasonably possible. Apparently you do not. For what… Read more »
It’s tough to keep track of this many accusations! Not a good sign. OKR, in the hypothetical situation you give, the fact that you told people a year earlier is only minimally useful. It’s only one person making an accusation, and the gap between the accusation and the telling of others is short, suggesting the likelihood of a connection between the initial information shared and the later accusation. There’s an enormous difference in this case, in that we have MULTIPLE people who told others that Roy Moore had done inappropriate sexual things to them, but did not report it. That… Read more »
Jonathan,
I repeat: you’re going to believe what you want to believe. In other words, there is no point in trying to get you to consider otherwise.
An insult of another commenter does not help that commenter or anyone else. If you have a better argument which fits the facts, make it.
I meant to add – you can’t fairly make this “Moore’s word vs. the Post”. At this point, it’s “Moore’s word with no corroborating evidence and indications of deceit against the Post’s word with dozens of corroborating witnesses on details Moore has denied.”
If the people who spoke to the New Yorker reporter are willing to be named, it would be something closer to solid evidence. Two cops are reportedly saying Moore was banned from the local mall because of his harassment of girls. If this is true, it must have been widely discussed and there should be people willing to confirm it.
Teresa Jones, a deputy D.A. at the time, is on record by name saying that Roy Moore was known to troll the mall and target high school girls. Greg Legat, a mall employee at the time, is on record by name saying that he saw Roy Moore at the mall several times but was told by a police officer that Moore was banned from the mall and shouldn’t be there. He named that officer as J. D. Thomas. J.D. Thomas refused to comment for the story. He also mentioned his manager by name, Eddie Hill, but they haven’t been able… Read more »
You should read this. The Post clearly didn’t make these up:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/locals-were-troubled-by-roy-moores-interactions-with-teen-girls-at-the-gadsden-mall/amp
The article you linked states the “Gadsden police were unable to confirm…” anything, and one policeman cites “the general knowledge” and hearsay evidence from “some girls”. Some other fellow cites a whisper (!) from a concession worker at a theater. I am surprised the diligent reporters neglected to interview a little bird. This barely qualifies as rumor-mongering. Speaking of which, what kind of counter-evidence would you expect in this sort of case? Since when is it the business of an accused man to prove himself innocent? Let one of these people stop smearing him in the press and file suit,… Read more »
Counter evidence? Easy. 1. Former Deputy D.A. Teresa Jones has stated blatantly that Moore made a point of going after high school girls as opposed to girls his own age, that he trolled for teenage girls at the mall, and that this was known and spoken about among his courthouse peers. She challenged anyone else among them to come forward. Now, if that is untrue, wouldn’t it be quite simple to have the multiple people who worked with Jones and Moore come forward and say, “No, I never heard people talking about that in the office at all, Jones is… Read more »
If such people, or other exculpatory evidence, were found by the New York Times or the Post, would you expect their evidence to be presented fairly? Doesn’t your conclusion depend on a prior assumption that we are seeing a balanced portrayal of facts, as opposed to the hit job this so clearly seems to be?
As there are a great number of people in Alabama who would like to see Moore exonerated, including investigative reporters from the very publication that is driving his candidacy, I think it quite certain that such exculpatory evidence will be unveiled it ft exists, and maybe even if it doesn’t! Al.com has already published statements both from people accusing Moore and people defending him, so it’s certainly possible for the media to give both sides. Unfortunately for Moore, so far those people who have been publicly willing to defend his behavior with women don’t include anyone who lived in Gadsden… Read more »
We’re now up to 27 people who have made accusations that Moore was known to pursue high school girls, published in three different newspapers, with many of the people on the record by name.
I’d like to see the counterevidence – has anyone other than Moore denied that he pursued high school girls or that he was well known for pursuing high school girls?
The null hypothesis here is “no, of course he wasn’t known for pursuing high schoolers.” Because he wasn’t. No-one ever said that before last week. So the allegation that this not only took place but was “well-known” to do so is facially inaccurate.
No, there’s quite a bit of testimony that a LOT of people were saying it before last week.
They say now that they were saying it privately before, but why is there no written record of that? I mean, come on: Christian sexual ethics have not become so much more rigid in the past twenty years that a prominent Christian being publicly sleazy would just slip under the radar. The idea that this prominent evangelical spent his thirties trolling the mall for teenagers without anybody saying a word about it in public is simply absurd. It beggars belief. No-one is suggesting that, like Weinstein, he pursued and silenced his accusers. The claim is, as far as I can… Read more »
As the yearbook was produced by a publicity-happy lawyer and was not part of any of the actual investigations as far as I’m aware, I’m not jumping to defend its credibility either. I don’t even include that accuser in the counts/lists of the accusations made so far – in part because I have not heard how carefully she has been examined or if the other people she claims to have told have checked out. I don’t see any evidence yet that the yearbook is a forgery, but due to my own doubts regarding the wording she used in her testimony,… Read more »
I don’t want to delve too deeply into this, because it’s likely I won’t have the time to do it justice. I just wanted to note that people noting that Moore, generally, dated younger women is not evidence of this specific crime. You might not want to vote him into office based on this perceived character flaw. As a voter you get to decide your own standards. It just isn’t very useful for determining a specific allegation.
A number of people noting that he generally dated teenagers takes on more meaning when he has publically claimed that he didn’t.
That opens the possibility not only of a perceived character flaw, but that he is also lying about it. And if he’s lying about that…
It would take on more meaning still if he didn’t have a giant pile of reasons to want to lie about having dated teenagers that have nothing to do with the allegations. That claim alone could sink his career. Being a liar and someone who dates much younger women does not make him guilty of the other much more severe crime. There’s a reason why courts generally don’t allow prior crimes to be taken into a jury trial. It has no basis in the facts of the case, and will color the jury’s opinion. The question isn’t “is he a… Read more »
I do think his character has been compromised by targeting teenage girls and lying about it. That is the main thing we know with some degree of confidence at this point.
I also think that the fact that he lied means that the only witness for his version of events has been compromised.
If the girls were found to have lied about anything related to the incidents, then their accounts would automatically be rejected, right?
If someone is accusing me of a falsehood, I find sticking to the truth to be a much better strategy than layering on additional falsehoods on top of it.
Outside of strategy, that would be the Christian position too.
If you really believe that Moore is publicly lying about that, and hasn’t publicly repented, but instead is calling people liars (and allowing his wife and supporters to call them liars) when he fully knows they are telling the truth…that alone would disqualify him for me.
“For myself, the main questions I have in terms of how the issue relates to Mr Moore are whether his actions were immoral, whether they demonstrate poor character and discernment, and whether he is telling the truth now.” Would you hold the same general standard for Moore’s opponent, Doug Jones? I presume he claims to be a Christian as he is “active at Canterbury United Methodist Church”. His campaign has stated: “I support a woman’s right and freedom to choose what to do with her body. This is a decision between a woman, her doctor and her Lord. Who am… Read more »
But Moore’s response now does reflect his honesty.
Both can be flawed and you vote for neither
bethyada,
“Both can be flawed and you vote for neither”
I’m not certain that voting for neither is truly the best Christian choice. I need to study the issue and determine my future behavior.
I wouldn’t vote for Doug Jones. On purely practical terms though, I don’t think support for Doug Jones’s general candidacy is nearly as damaging to the Christian witness as much of what Moore’s supporters have said is.
Jonathan,
I think it is less damaging because so many non-Christians consider sexual molestation to be a terrible crime, but consider murder (in abortion) to be acceptable. Do we pander to the non-Christian perspective at the cost of being fully true to all of God’s design?
I think it is less damaging because Jones is not seen to represent the Christian community, because Jones does not commit abortions himself AFAIK, and because many people have honest reasons they land on a spectrum of feelings about abortion.
Moore’s issues are more damaging because his campaign has revolved around suggestions of representing the Christian community and more than a hint of moral superiority, yet he himself is being accused of sins which most people have no doubt are sin, and yet many Christians are saying they’ll support him even if he did it.
“Moore’s issues are more damaging because his campaign has revolved around suggestions of representing the Christian community…” Jonathan, I see your point. Still, kind of a tough call. Perhaps the reason Doug Jones isn’t known as representative of Christianity is because he hasn’t wanted to be. Perhaps his the the kind of tepid Christianity that is too easily embarrassed, and too willing to reach a comfortable accommodation with the surrounding culture, no matter what. Is Jones’ kind of Christianity normative? Do we want the world to see it that way? What damage is that doing to the world’s understanding of… Read more »
JohnM said: “Is Jones’ kind of Christianity normative? Do we want the world to see it that way?” Jonathan, in light of your concerns about Christian witness, I think your answers to JohnM’s questions would be very interesting, because it seems that you are okay with a Christian (Jones), in effect, hiding his faith. I had to search quite a while to find any statement about his faith. In my conservative area, it seems almost every candidate, of both parties, at all levels, displays their faith connection prominently. I would have expected the same in Alabama. My difficulty in finding… Read more »
No, you misread me, I’m not okay with that at all. I just think that as long as they are in effect hiding their faith, they have limited potential to do damage to the world’s view of those who don’t hide their faith. It might help to imagine this from the view of another faith. Imagine you hear about two guys running for President of Iran. One of them is the conservative, pro-Sharia candidate and one is the secular candidate. Now, on the same day you hear news that the conservative candidate is a hypocrite who is involved in a… Read more »
Part of my point, and my concern, is the damage that has been done/can be done *within* the church when when a sort of careful to not offend the establishment, concede to the popular view, non-expression of the faith comes to be understood as the *acceptable* norm.
I don’t know enough about Doug Jones to speak about his faith, but tepid, nominal Christianity that accommodates to the surrounding culture has almost always been the norm at least since Constantine. It is the rare and incredible nation that has bucked that trend. Doug Jones certainly isn’t going to be able to do any additional damage there.
Of course, it’s a completely moot point because the Christian community in general isn’t in any danger of being seen as rallying around Jones’s faith.
And there is now a fifth woman coming forward, who is the second under the age of consent and the second to accuse Moore of more serious sexual conduct.
I find her story less credible so far than the first accused’s story, with some suggestions of possible exaggeration and without all the supporting witnesses yet. But that only highlights the credibility of the first accuser.
Today’s report in The New Yorker may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. “This past weekend, I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teenage girls. Some say that they heard this at the time, others in the years since. These people include five members of the local legal community, two cops who worked in the town, several people who hung out at the mall in the early… Read more »
Who needs sworn testimony, real evidence or documentation when you have Facebook Messenger, personal blogs and friends who think they remember someone being banned from a mall almost 40 years ago.
It’s amazing none of this came out when Moore was making national headlines years ago over the 10 Commandments.
In other news, my friend’s cousin’ unnamed acquaintance told him over Instagram that Jonathan spends 12+ hours a day reading gossip and hearsay online.
CHer, maybe you are even more of a Luddite than me, but Facebook Messenger is simply a way of talking to people. It’s not less valid than a letter, a telegram, or an email. A personal blog, when verified to have been written by a real, named person who affirms that it is their account, is no less valid than a letter or op-ed written by that same person. But nothing in the actual investigation in that story was based on a personal blog anyway. The story is built on interviews with over a dozen people, including “five members of… Read more »
Jonathan, “Now compare that to Pastor Wilson repeating allegations based solely on a single anonymous claim from a now-deleted Twitter account.” That is misleading, at the very least. You say Wilson is “repeating allegations”, implying he believes they are true. Wilson was simply presenting the fact that such an allegation did exist, in order that he could definitively state that he did not know if the allegation was true. He is continuing to maintain that all of the evidence needs to be examined before deciding the truth of the matter. Wilson said: “I do not know if Moore molested a… Read more »
Pastor Wilson did exactly what I said he did – he repeated a ridiculous story that had no business being repeated. Taking a well-researched, heavily-supported claim and putting it side-by-side with a fake, unsourced claim on a now-deleted tweet while saying, “Look, there are accusations on both sides!” is classic misdirection. Leading in with what amounts to, “I don’t know if this is true, but I have heard…” is just an excuse. If some random twitter account posted, “John Piper has sex with men”, and Pastor Wilson simply posted “There are allegations that John Piper has been having sex with… Read more »
Not to knock your friend’s cousin’s unnamed acquaintance (who is no doubt telling the truth), but who needs them when the sheer volume of Jonathan’s comments, which are nothing more than opinions and quotes of hearsay, are here for all to see?
Teresa Jones, a deputy D.A. at the time, is on record by name saying that Roy Moore was known to troll the mall and target high school girls. Greg Legat, a mall employee at the time, is on record by name saying that he saw Roy Moore at the mall several times but was told by a police officer that Moore was banned from the mall and shouldn’t be there. He named that officer as J. D. Thomas. J.D. Thomas refused to comment for the story. He also mentioned his manager by name, Eddie Hill, but they haven’t been able… Read more »
“They have heard”? “A friend of mine told me..”?
If I’m ever on trial I hope that is the kind of “testimony” presented against me.
There might yet be a case to made against Moore, but that isn’t it.
And now we that Al.com (online Alabama paper) jumping in with similar reports: “These stories have been going around this town for 30 years,” said Blake Usry, who grew up in the area and lives in Gadsden. “Nobody could believe they hadn’t come out yet.” Usry, a traveling nurse, said he knew several of the girls that Moore tried to flirt with. “It’s not a big secret in this town about Roy Moore,” he said. “That’s why it’s sort of frustrating to watch” the public disbelieve the women who have come forward, he said. Colleagues and others who knew Moore… Read more »
Everybody who was seriously concerned about Hillary Clinton’s due process, and her right to a fair trial, and who ran about telling people we should perceive her as innocent until proven guilty, please raise your hands.
Me neither. That’s because common sense and voter discernment calls for making reasonable judgments based on the evidence you have. To change the rules because it is your guy in the hot seat now and you believe women always lie anyway, is to demonstrate a double standard and some real hypocrisy.
“Everybody who was seriously concerned about Hillary Clinton’s due process, and her right to a fair trial, and who ran about telling people we should perceive her as innocent until proven guilty, please raise your hands.”
She was proven guilty. Comey let her off the hook by rewriting the law. He pretended that the required intent was for the emails to get into the wrong hands, rather than the intent to put the emails in an unsecured place. That she didn’t get a fair trial was the problem.
The FBI proves people guilty now?
uhh No? Where did you get the idea that was what I was suggesting?
All the elements of the crime were not only established, but admitted to. There’s no case to argue. Loretta Lynch deferred to the FBI’s suggestion on whether or not to prosecute, knowing full well any prosecution would result in a guilty verdict because there was absolutely zero room for doubt. Comey, having all the evidence in hand, ignored it to dishonestly play a semantics game to avoid a major presidential candidate being convicted of a crime.
Memi, in Hillary’s many cases, there is physical evidence, AKA, witness., supporting the testimony of her law breaking. The server in her basement, the emails on the basement server, the top secret emails on her server, Hillary’s emails that Wikileaks has and has issued are material evidence that proves HRC’s wrongdoing. With Bill Clinton, the stained blue dress was the physical evidence witness, that proved the testimony against Bill Clinton. ( evidence, testimony and phone records, 3 witness’s) On this Moore “case”, and the UVA fake assault story, there is no physical evidence, ( as of yet) proving the testimony.… Read more »
Total rubbish, filled with partiality and bias. The defense of Moore and quick condemnation of the Clinton’s is not all wrapped in the virtue of sudden concern for due process, physical evidence, and fair trials. I did not just fall off the turnip truck.
I’m perfectly willing to admit I judge candidates based on the evidence before me and what common sense says. It would be totally silly to say something like, “the guy may be totally skeevy but alas, my morally virtuous commitment to the principles of due process, force me to completely ignore the charges against him.”
What part was “rubbish”?
I don’t know that I am defending Moore. I do know that there are cases, like the UVA case, where the single “witness” was compelling but not honest.
In that case, the liberal Rolling Stone was filled with “partiality and bias”, not me.
Right?
The liberal Rolling Stone story was filled with partiality and bias, and that was exposed by….the very Washington Post you are casting aspersions on here, along with a lot of assists from the rest of the “liberal” media. The Washington Post exposed the lies in the Rolling Stone story BY cross-checking witnesses and supporting accounts and back-checking details that could confirm or debunk the accuser’s story. That’s exactly what the Rolling Stone author failed to do, why she was so quickly and immediately attacked by the journalist community, why Rolling Stone had to apologize and retract the story. And…it’s exactly… Read more »
If the David French principle had existed in Egypt: Joseph stands before Pharoh. “There’s going to be seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine. You should appoint someone who can oversee the process of putting back enough during the years of plenty to make it through the years of famine.” Pharoh: “Who else could be more qualified than you Joseph–” Egyptian servant rushes in and bows before Pharoh: “Oh Ruler of this great people, I have come to prevent you from making a grave error.” Pharoh motions for him to rise. “What is it?” Standing to his… Read more »
Again, Wilson is just throwing out that the accusations are unfounded. Did he read the Washington post story? The accusations are situated within a pattern of behavior deliberately constructed to hide Moore’s actions with the girls. It’s a story founded on his admitted and factual repeated romantic chasing of teen girls while in his 30s. If this is considered unfounded, what hope is there for Wilson to ever side on the side of justice for any crime he does not see on video tape. This is the minimum level of scrutiny to powerful entrenched interests: believing so much as what… Read more »
“Glad to see Wilson believing conspiracy theories about the Post writers also lol”
His article explicitly did not believe the claim. I suggest you read Wilson’s post again, slowly, and reevaluate this comment. Others will not give you the chance to easily rescind such a clearly erroneous and dishonest critique.
“But if he is not guilty of the charges, then the Washington Post and the suborned women who accused him are the guilty ones.”
Suborned means bribed, paid off, induced to perjury. There is nothing erroneous about Matt’s comment. It is well worded and truthful.
Wilfully omitting the crucial words “but if…” from the top of the sentence.
The sentence I copied begins, “But if..” One cannot “wilfully omit” critical words when said words are plainly presented.
The very title of this post suggests that if one takes these allegation seriously, one is totally responsible for making elections dirtier. To which I say, good. Let’s cheerfully drain the whole swamp.
MeMe,
“Let’s cheerfully drain the whole swamp.”
I, too, would like to see huge changes in our Federal government and administration. However, in this case, I strongly question that Moore’s main opponent, Doug Jones, is a better choice.
You didn’t omit the two words from the quote, but you certainly did ignore them.
“Suborned means bribed, paid off, induced to perjury. There is nothing erroneous about Matt’s comment. It is well worded and truthful.” Unless you happen to be familiar with the basic function of the English language, in which case those statements are made in a hypothetical possible scenario. I can say “If MeMe is a rapist, she should be sent to prison”. That’s true, and not at all a judgement of you. If anyone is a rapist, they should be sent to prison or worse. What would not be an honest rebuttal is: “Justin believes MeMe is a rapist! lol” Because… Read more »
“If MeMe is a rapist, she should be sent to prison”.
Why? Am I not entitled to go completely free like 99% of other rapists and than eventually handed Senatorial position?
If they are rapists, they should be sent to prison too. If only God gave us some means of measuring how to determine the truth of these things……
Though your completely ignoring the point to chase a tangent is well noted.
OKRickety
I’ve been getting the same error from others’ comments. Will do from now on.
MeMe,
How many of those 99% (I’m quite certain this is a number you picked out of thin air) of rapists go free because the woman never reports it, or some equivalent? If all you have are excuses, don’t bother with an answer.
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system
MeMe, That source does claim 99% of rapists “walk free”. It seems a very small number are incarcerated for other offenses instead, but 99% is close enough. However, per that source, 69% of rapes are not reported to the police. This is the number that I consider unacceptable. If they are not reported, then there is absolutely no way that justice will be served. Of the reported rapes, 98% “walk free”. This is also a number that I consider unacceptable. Not a very impressive effort by the police and judicial system. Note: The rate is not much better for other… Read more »
There’s an old saying, “for everyone charged, a hundred others walk.” That’s pretty accurate for all crime. The reason why we worry about the climate,the attitude towards sexual abuse is because so many victims do not talk about it and for good reason. If your house is robbed, you don’t automatically face accusations of lying, being delusional, crazy, to blame for the robbery, how you ought to be prosecuted yourself.
This report is ridiculous on its face. The inforgraphics source themselves as their citation. Digging down, they use the National Crime Victimization Survey for their data. That survey lists rape and sexual assault together, so that figure isn’t just for rapists as rainn presents it. Then, it being a survey, zero steps have been taken to verify that the claims are true. If my boss brushes into me in a crowded elevator, I suspect it was intentional, and have no rational proof whatsoever, it gets counted by rainn as a definitive “rape” that was unreported where the rapist walked free.
Looking more closely, I find it hard to tell what the statements actually mean. For example, near the top it says “Out of every 1000 rapes, 994 perpetrators will walk free. 310 are reported to police.” Then at the bottom, it says “Out of every 1,000 sexual assaults, 310 are reported to the police.” Both “rapes” and “sexual assaults” are reported at exactly the same rate? I think that is extremely unlikely. In other words, it appears that Justin is correct in his understanding that the survey “lists rape and sexual assault together”. As a result, this page does not… Read more »
“Glad to see Wilson believing conspiracy theories about the Post writers also lol….” Wilson said: “I do not know if Moore molested a girl decades ago, and I do not know if the WaPo paid women to lie about Moore.” I don’t think it would be possible for Wilson to be more clear that he does not believe the allegation that The WaPo paid the women to lie. “Again, Wilson is just throwing out that the accusations are unfounded. Did he read the Washington post story?” The truth? You are throwing out accusations that are unfounded. Did you read what Wilson… Read more »
“In all my frustration, I really wish Wilson were more Calvinist”
I guess a good Calvinist believes that the timing of the story–done to maximize damage to both Moore and the GOP–is just a coincidence. And he believes the WaPo is a pure, unbiased source of near Biblical truth, despite their support of Doug Jones and practically every other pro-choice candidate.
It’s fun to apply total depravity so selectively.
The best Calvinist, of course, would believe that the particular timing of the story for pre-ordained.
Yes, but for what purpose?
I think you win the thread.
The chief failing in this post is that Mr. Moore’s statements, taken together, do not amount to a flat denial of the allegations. “It’s all false” was Moore’s initial reaction, but then he went on Hannity and basically admitted that he’d dated teenagers when he was an assistant DA in his thirties.
That isn’t a confession to the most serious charges (Ms. Corfman’s), but it makes things far murkier than accusations met with perfectly square denials.
Yes, it does.
The most damaging part of the Hannity interview was where he denied dating teenagers before them basically admitting it.
In fact, he never once actually admits dating a teenager, but also refused to deny allegations of specific teenagers who said they dated him.
Except of course his categorical denial of having ever met the 14-year-old primary accuser. Which not only the accuser but her mother and several friends have already contradicted.
Ahh, the hysteria continues to build on this latest shiny object attracting people’s attention. Makes one desire to become an off-the-grid Luddite far from the fray that has become public interaction (as I waste time typing on my computer commenting on someone’s Blog.) After marinating long enough to allow doubt to get a stronghold, the Republican leadership has taken the next step in their nefarious plan: Mitch McConnell is now insisting Moore step away from the race. Anyone surprised? Apparently McConnell wants us to believe the “accusers” just coincidentally decided 38 years later – at this election – was the… Read more »
Don’t you think Seinfeld’s relationship with her was not “icky”, but innocent and non-sexual? :)
Obviously People and its readers, and Hollywood didn’t. The argument given is “she was 18”, as if that made it okay. Maybe she was an exceptionally mature 18 and he was a less mature 39, so emotionally not that far apart. (kidding) In the [very] olden days this practice of marrying a girl many years junior was not odd, but today it’s not normal, even perceived as weird (I would agree with the weird.) Maybe in 1979 Alabama it wasn’t, apparently the parents didn’t have a problem. For me it’s simple, I can’t imagine having anything in common with that… Read more »
Paul, I suggest you read the original story and the substantial evidence within. The accusers did not just spontaneously decide to come forward – it explicitly says they did not come forward on their own. While reporting on Moore in his hometown, the Washington Post heard rumors that Moore had regularly been involved with high school girls, investigated the stories, began tracking down girls from that period, and found those four (none of whom knew each other) who were convinced to share in interviews, along with a dozen or so others who could testify to aspects of that pattern of… Read more »
Jonathan, “The accusers did not just spontaneously decide to come forward – it explicitly says they did not come forward on their own.” The WaPo article says: “Neither Corfman nor any of the other women sought out The Post. […] All were initially reluctant to speak publicly but chose to do so after multiple interviews,….” You’re right, it says the accusers were initially reluctant, but chose to do so after multiple interviews. That sounds suspiciously like there was a degree of coercion used to get them speak publicly. No, I can’t prove it, but neither can Corfman prove that Moore… Read more »
My sentiments exactly. Back when newspapers used to be the normal news feed, my dad told me: “Take half of what you read in the paper then believe half of that.”
Yet another example of the “heads I win tales you lose” argument. If the accusers decided on their own to go public, that is evidence that they are only trying to damage Moore. But if the accusers had to be encouraged to go public, that is evidence they were coerced. It is very difficult for many women to talk about their past relationships, by name, to the entire world. Especially when they live in a community where hurting Moore’s election chances could make a lot of their current relationships rough. The job of any journalist is to convince as many… Read more »
Jonathan, Possible “pattern of behavior” from 38 years ago, not anytime in the last 30+ years that anyone has alleged. Maybe the guy was weird back then, maybe this is as he states, a lie designed to discredit. I can’t assume that because it was said by teary-eyed woman that it’s automatically true, especially after so much time. His Hannity interview was uncomfortable at best, but still doesn’t make the allegations true. BTW, Trump/Russian collusion assertion had similar media legs, until it was discovered the Clinton crew were actually doing the deals with Russia. Trump/Russia was totally false…but the media… Read more »
I have an extraordinarily difficult time seeing how you could have any access to news and call the Trump/Russia accusations “totally false”.
You haven’t seen what has already been pled guilty to by a Trump aide? Already admitted by Trump’s son and other aids? The charges of deep and illegal financial ties between Kremlin-associated figures and Trump’s campaign team that are going to court? The clear evidence that Russia was interfering to push for Trump on multiple levels?
I was always wildly disturbed by Seinfeld, and I think few people would hold him up as a piller of morality (especially not Christian morality) . I doubt her age was the only issue either. But it does bear mentioning for our own purposes, she wasn’t 14 and he didn’t lie about the relationship, so the possibilities regarding Moore are greater. And accusing a trashy magazine of hypocrisy on their selective condemnation of bad sexual choices is definitely a mote vs. log issue right now, and will remain so until we repent of Trump (and a lot of other stuff… Read more »
Good points. You hit the nail on the head with the “possibilities regarding Moore” part…these are only possibilities that sat dormant for 38 years. Today we see another tear-filled recollection being aired. So, who are these woman? Why did they wait if this actually happened and was so devastating? Do we not investigate their 38 year dormancy claim or assume out of hand their tears are proof enough? How many of those tearful scenes has the public witnessed that have turned out to be total fabrication (Duke Lacrosse to name only one.) If, however, Moore is guilty of something egregious… Read more »
The things you say about “dormancy” are well-documented and explained in the original story, and there are multiple witnesses to the girl having told others of what happened decades ago.
American Thinker has an excellent article up regarding Moore: “In Defense of Judge Roy Moore”. It’s worth considering.
If it weren’t for the moderation abyss, I’d link to the article. For now, enter “American Thinker In Defense of Judge Roy Moore” into DuckDuckGo and click on the first link.
Any haters (I’m looking at you, Jonathan, Randman, Clay Crouch, and possibly MeMe) pointing and shrieking that this article is bunk simply because it’s on a conservative website automatically loses the argument.
Upvoted for saying DuckDuckGo and not Google.
No reason to cast aspersions on the source as it’s simply an opinion piece. One major difficulty with the article is the fact of Roy Moore denying he engaged in behavior that a larger and larger body of witnesses have affirmed was common for him. His motives for apparently lying and the aspersions that casts on his trustworthiness on the most serious charges are meaningful. A second is that the behavior was regarded as inappropriate by those of his own cohort. The suggestion that it was perfectly normal behavior for his community has been confirmed by no one, including Moore.… Read more »
And yet, at the end of the day, it’s all hearsay.
That doesn’t make sense. By my count at least 6 of the named persons (not counting the one on TV with the lawyer) are presenting their own witnessed or experienced interactions of Moore with girls, and three more testify that they were told of the worst incident decades before it went public. That’s a good bit of the evidence which is not hearsay.
“counting the one on TV with the lawyer” – Ah, the one with Glora Allred, self-proclaimed feminist lawyer. No political agendas there. Is this the one with the highly-suspect Christmas yearbook note from Moore? Or the “Trump supporter” who may not have even voted in 2016? Or are they the same person?
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3604456/posts?q=1&;page=77#77
It’s hard to keep this conflicting stories straight…too bad we have so few real journalists these days.
I’ve been subjected to a lot of distorted quotes in the last few days, but changing “not counting the one on TV with the lawyer” to “counting the one on TV with the lawyer” is just ridiculous.
I have cast my own aspersions on that story repeatedly, and it’s just silly to blame journalists for it since that is the one account that was NOT vetted by journalists.
In fact, I now see that I specifically disputed the trustworthiness of that story in a reply TO Cher before CHer wrote this comment, making its distortion of my statement even more egregious.
And another thing CHer, it turns out your link may be completely false. Alabama voters were placed on “inactive” status due to unreturned postcards sent to their residences earlier this year, 2017. It has absolutely nothing do with whether or not they voted in last year’s election, as a status check occurred well after that. Of course, it’s possible that Mrs. Nelson didn’t vote last year, but that certainly wasn’t the way to prove it. So I’m guessing this will lead you to stop trusting comments in the Free Republic for your claims, since they have proven themselves not to… Read more »
I said “who may not have even voted in 2016.” Did you not catch the “may”? It could’ve saved your 4 paragraphs….unless you just like to type. And if you don’t think signing a yearbook at Christmas is odd, then there’s little hope for you. Of course, you called Moore a sexual molester as soon as the news hit, so you have to hold that position, no? I’m done here. I’ve got to earn some money to pay public school teacher salaries among other things. Speaking of which, I didn’t realize how much free time you teachers have to play… Read more »
So you insert a “may” in order to invoke a meaningless assertion that you have no evidence for? What’s the point then? Why would it be okay to cast aspersions on someone’s character based on literally nothing, and include a link clearly mean to support those aspersions when it’s provable that the claim in the link doesn’t actually mean anything? Yes, signing a yearbook in December (22nd, not Christmas in our church at least) is not common, but it happens. Again, if this was a fake then why would she have faked a less common date…especially if signing at that… Read more »
MeMe touched my no-no 25 years ago.
By her own statement, I should be believed, rather than all women being assumed to be liars. (I’m actually a man, but I self-identify as a woman.)
Can she be banned from the comment threads now?
“By her own statement, I should be believed,…”
Only works one way. As for the self-identify statement, this is when the naysayers trot out the “doesn’t matter ’cause you were born male” triple-standard.
“MeMe touched my no-no 25 years ago.”
Cool, so while I enjoy my due process rights, the expired statue of limitations, and the possibility of becoming a US Senator, you’ll get to be tried in the court of public opinion, accused of being delusional, lying, of having led me on, all while relieving the experience so often that every time you see my face on TV, you’ll start throwing up.
Pastor Wilson, your statement that Mr. Moore has denied all allegations is not true. He has NOT denied courting teenage girls when he was in his thirties.
Is that not creepy and weird? Is it wrong to assume that Judge Moore was, as my mother might say, “only interested in one thing”?
Do you know any good and decent men in their 30s who are looking to date high school aged girls?
I’m not from Alabama either, but surely that’s a fair topic for discussion. Surely that’s something that should influence our votes.
nae313, ‘Is it wrong to assume that Judge Moore was, as my mother might say, “only interested in one thing”?’ It’s not wrong to assume that, but it would be wrong to insist that it is the only explanation. Let’s look at the evidence that Moore was not “only interested in one thing”. Only one woman alleges that he sexually molested her. The other three say the most he ever did sexually was to kiss them. If sex was his primary motivation, wouldn’t you expect some of them to allege more overt sexual actions? Knowing that these allegations have been… Read more »
Two women have alleged behavior that, IF TRUE, would qualify Judge Moore as a sex offender. A third woman came forward saying the judge tried to ply her with alcohol while on a date. Two other women allege he tried to date them. All of the women claim these advances occurred when they were 18 or younger. The judge has not denied dating all of the women in question. The judge has only denied knowing the women involved in the two more serious allegations of rape. If we’re being as charitable to the judge as possible, then he did in… Read more »
nae313,
I see that one more woman is alleging sexual molestation. That instance is also “she said, he said”.
I see that you did not respond to my questions, but redirected to your personal belief that it is inappropriate for a 32-year-old man to be interested in dating teenage girls.
I think I did answer most of your questions. Two separate accusations of rape are more than enough to warrant caution, and I don’t believe there are scores of women who know Roy Moore who are just jumping at the chance to lie about him for money/attention. But even if there were I’d still expect more of a denial from Moore than, “who among us can remember if the women they dated were in high school or not?” You did point out that it’s weird that the accusations aren’t more recent. I think it’s an interesting point. I don’t really… Read more »
His reply when asked if he dated teenagers was “Not generally, no. It would be out of my customary behavior.”
He then refused to confirm having dated any teenage girl in question.
With something like 27 witnesses to the contrary now (a dozen of whom were willing to be published by name), it’s really difficult to see that statement as truthful.
“If A, then B.
Therefore A and B.”
Is there even a name for this fallacy?
jigawatt said:
On second thought I think it would be simply,
“If A, then B.
Therefore B.”
As in here
Perhaps “Ignoring the Antecedent”?
I have enjoyed many of your articles. I even have a greater affection for you now since you quoted Paul Butterfield. Very few played the harmonica like him. A true master, as are you.
When will notorious rapist Julian Assange be brought to justice? http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/09/ars-longa-vita-brevis/
Oops. Wrong link. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/11/10/british-prosecutors-admit-deleting-crucial-emails-in-julian-assange-case.html
he raped no one
Sweden has pretty liberal definitions of rape
aka a woman accuses the man is guilty…
That is not true. However, the definitions are stricter than in many countries. The women were willing to have protected sex with him using condoms. If I remember correctly, at least one of them then woke up in the morning with him having unprotected sex with her. There was also something about him secretly cutting up a condom so it didnt work, and so tricking a woman into unprotected sex. If a person has agreed to only protected sex, tricking that person into unprotected sex counts as rape, since the person didnt consent to that kind of sex. Sex in… Read more »
please, this is the country that bans men from anything they are good at,
the country that is trying to ban men from peeing standing up.
The laws are ludicrous
Do u sign a contract with your wife every time you have sex with her?
Hilarious
its “he said , she said” and she said is always presumed right
and he said presumed guilty.
You lie. Or are possible honestly misstaken, but I doubt it. I am a swedish citizen living in Sweden, so I guess I should know a little bit more than you. I had to google Sweden banning men to pee to discover what that was about. I t is some politician on county level in one county who wants to ban it. They belong to the Left Party (former communist), which got less than 6% of the national vote last swedish election, and which never has been in government. I do of course not need a written contract every time… Read more »
you only get away because your wife does not accuse you of rape. The minute she does- your toast, even if you never raped her. of course Sweden thinks the courts are too linient your government hates men, they want all men to be branded rapists The fact that you still live in Sweden – I doubt you are even Christian yourself- probably believing int heir feminist nonsense that country hates men, forces men to be house husbands through tax forces the elimination of male and female. 6% of your country think men who pee standing up are misogynists- that… Read more »
Pastor Wilson, as the claimed “counteraccusation” you linked is based solely on a Gateway Pundit article that now carries the disclaimer “we have been unable to confirm this claim”, because it was based solely on a tweet that has now been deleted, from an account that has now been deleted, by a guy who made the exact same claim a year ago (even the same dollar amount) but with “Trump” in the place of “Moore” and “LA Times and NY Times” in the place of “Washington Post”….I would suggest that your inclusion of the claim be deleted as well.
The fact that the new lawyer allegation smells fishy to me (as opposed to the new newspaper allegations, which are quite damning) has me imagining all sorts of conspiratorial narratives. The accuser claims to have all sorts of corroborating evidence. But we haven’t seen that evidence tested – have those three people she says she told years ago verified her account? Do handwriting experts think the signature is legit or a fraud? Did that restaurant even exist in 1977? If all that comes back verified, then it’s a pretty damning account, because Moore has denied knowing her and you’d have… Read more »
So the yearbook story is falling apart (Who signs yearbooks at Christmas? Why do the same letters/numbers look so different in different places? — along with many other problems). Now anti-conspiracy theory Jonathan is cooking up conspiracy theories as to why. You can’t make this stuff up. When you claim someone was guilty from the very beginning, you have to ensure the facts fit your narrative, not the other way around.
Good thing that I am on the record doubting the accusation from the very beginning, before the yearbook stuff even came to light. Good thing I am also on the record saying that the most likely explanation is that she is an attention seeker or wants to hurt Moore. I believe many things which could be called, “conspiracy theories”, because many people conspire secretly. What I am anti- is promoting conspiracy theories as truth when they lack evidence, promoting evidence-less conspiracy theories as being on the same level as theories with demonstrated evidence that is out in the open, and… Read more »
Although having previous taken the yearbook story at face value, I now have to wait for more evidence, as the attack against it appears to have originated with a random twitter account that spreads fake news and has yet to be verified by an actual handwriting expert. i would DEFINITELY like to see a real expert look at that, and have actual journalists or investigators interview the woman as well as the other people she claims to have told the story to. It turns out the restaurant has now been proven to have existed at that address in 1977, debunking… Read more »
Except the restaurant was spelled “Old Hickory House” and not “Olde Hickory House.” I’d think a lawyer and West Point grad known for his attention to detail wouldn’t make that mistake. And who signs yearbooks at Christmas? And about a dozen other things left-wing detractors like yourself aren’t bringing up.
That is a lie, CHer. The name in the directory is clearly Olde Hickory House. You are inadvertently adding MORE credibility to her story. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453723/olde-hickory-houses And people sign yearbooks when they come out. Good student departments get them out at the end of the year, many fail to finish before the next year, I got my senior yearbook a full two years late. She explained that the previous year’s yearbooks had been distributed in December in her original story. It would be a meaningful detail to fact-check if you think it’s a lie, but it’s senseless to claim it as… Read more »
Second piece of evidence showing that your claim is a lie. An add for the restaurant, proper location, proper year, proper spelling:
https://twitter.com/billineastala/status/930519160123248640
Everyone, this is what a crack up looks like.
Who wants more popcorn?
A question to those who believe the MSM is being completely fair and objective, i.e., those who believe we should only trust the Father, Son and Washington Post:
Why is Moore getting so much more attention than Sen. Bob Menendez’s corruption trial?
Menendez is a sitting Democratic senator. His trial is based actual federal prosecution. Moore’s is based a WaPo story about allegations from the 1970s. Newsbusters analyzed ABC, CBS and NBC coverage. They found the big 3 networks spent 40X more time covering Moore…even though the Menendez story has been around more than 2 months longer.
Not everyone is jumping on the “Roy Moore spent his entire pre-marital days cruising around looking for teenage chicks” bandwagon.
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/roy_moores_former_kickboxing_i.html
But who wants to listen to “toxic males” like kickboxers, former bodyguards, fellow West Point cadets, men who served under him during his “Captain America” days in the Army, etc.?
It’s nice that you are showing trust in Al.com, one of the sources that has interviewed the people making allegations about Roy Moore’s behavior. http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html But none of the defenders in question appear to have even been in the same city as where the alleged incidents took place. One person quoted in the story gave him kickboxing lessons for 9 months in the 1980s, and the other worked with him for a year in 2008/09. I mean, I don’t think Barack Obama ever saw Bill Ayers blowing up buildings or that Donald Trump ever watched Gerry Adams consorting with serial… Read more »
I begin my own ruminations with the obvious qualifier: justice aint free.
There is a limit to how much blood can be drawn from stones. In our “civilized” society, justice and due process are ridiculously expensive. I have questions.
What are civilized Christians to do when crime becomes rampant (the desire for due process) and exceeds the lowly tax-payer’s budget?
or, to put it a different and more concrete way:
What are Christians to do when warfare comes knocking?
Charles Anthony wrote:
Fight fiercely but honorably, knowing that the victory is Christ’s and not up to us.
Six more witnesses now, bringing the total who have gone on record with their names up to 20. Two of those six personally received unwanted inappropriate contact from Moore.
Where are the witnesses from the Gadsden Mall or the Gadsden Courthouse or any other part of Moore’s regular everyday life from the time period in question who are lining up to testify that Moore wasn’t doing such things at that age?
I find myself in such agreement that I must say something – but it has been put so clearly, thoroughly, and eloquently that I can find nothing else to say about it. Excepting, of course, that a 40-year-old accusation (even if it is true) is so far gone that it ought to be forgotten anyway. I fail to see how a youthful indiscretion (if ever there was one) guarantees him to be a worse senator than his opponent, and especially after he’s had 40 years of mended ways.