An Open Letter to Alabama...
Conservatives and, Really, All of Us
Dear Alabama, et al,
I am writing to you today to say that it's time for some basic agreements that we all need to come together and find common ground around. We all are aware of the bitter divisions that separate this country, but just as surely, when push comes to shove, we are also aware of the love that we have as family, as neighbors, as community and fellow citizens that unite us. We are aware, and need to be reminded to stay aware of this reality:
That those things which unite us are greater than those things that divide us.
I was raised as an extremely conservative, traditional Southern Baptist boy and I am who I am today because of (and not, in spite of) my wonderful, conservative Christian parents, Sunday School teachers (love you, Miss Marie, wherever you are! You, too, Dalton! And etc, etc...), youth group leaders, pastors and friends and family who surrounded me and helped raise me. I love my God just as strongly now as I did then, thanks to you. I strive to love my neighbor now as you taught me to back then. And although my understanding and approach to it are different now, I still love and read the Bible now, just as you taught me.
In the church I attend now, we welcome, work with and alongside all sorts of people, including the homeless and mentally ill we have in our urban neighborhood. Occasionally - rarely - that means that a service might be a little disrupted. One Wednesday evening, while having our community supper, we had a gentleman who was getting too loud and abusive and we politely but firmly asked him to leave. One of our strong women leaders walked him to the door as he put on his coat and stepped out into the cold, yelling and protesting all the way. After closing the door, the man continued to yell from outside. He just stood there, looking in through the window in the door and yelling at the woman who escorted him out. She stood her ground and just kept insisting, "No, I'm sorry, you have to go. Just go on and come back sometime when you've calmed down. Go on, now..." like that. Eventually, she stopped and leaned in to listen to what the man was yelling...
"My coat. Is stuck. In the door!"
Sometimes friends, we have to pause and listen.
And so, with that as preface, this former raging-conservative-now-flaming-progressive writes to you, Alabama, along with the rest of us, to make a plea to listen to this call for a few basic decencies where I am confident we all can find common ground...
If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a "lesser evil."
I totally get that, as conservatives and Republicans, that you probably can't vote for most Democrats with a clean conscience. There are policies that Democrats hold that you just can't agree with and find yourself needing to oppose. I get that. I have that with many conservative Republican policies (although I bet if we dig down, we can find some common ground starting places on many of those policies... but setting that aside for now). I understand not being able to vote for the other party in good conscience. No problem.
At the same time, we have to have lines that we draw. There have to be some basic standards that we hold to. And, IF my candidate... my party's candidate has crossed some of these basic lines, then we must need agree to say, "No. I will not vote for him/her." Period. That isn't to say, "therefore, I'll vote for the other party..." not if that candidate holds positions you can't in good faith vote for. It's just saying that I can not and will not vote for a candidate that crosses certain basic lines.
In my life, in trying to be a good citizen, there have been times where I have "thrown my vote away" and voted for a third party or written in a candidate that I knew couldn't win, just because I could not in good conscience vote for either mainstream candidate. Sometimes, we just have to do this in order to live with ourselves.
And this is my main point...
I'm writing to you today to say that we messed up on that basic drawing of a line last year with Trump. Alabama is considering messing up with Roy Moore. I'm asking for us to not do that. I'm asking for us to draw a line and say, "I will not cross that line."
There were/are many, many problems with candidate Trump and candidate Moore. But perhaps the greatest problem, the most serious line that we should not cross, is the ease with which they make false claims, spread false messages and - whether or not it's their motive/intent - told lies. They make up stuff and do it regularly and with careless abandon. We see this especially with Trump but Moore does it, too. When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim.
He is saying that they many women who now have made these claims are liars. Period.
Let that soak in.
Here we have many women who have independently and, so far as anyone knows, without any influence from the Democrats or "the media," made these allegations. He is saying that they are lying.
But based on what? Why would they make up these stories? What do they have to gain by exposing themselves in this manner?
Look, I fully know that, in some extremely rare circumstances (and if you're not familiar, look at the research - it's a tiny minority), women have made false allegations about harassment/abuse. But these are the extreme minority. And okay, IF you have one allegation made against you by a woman, maybe she's one of this tiny minority that have made false claims. But when you have five... eight (what is Trump up to, now, 20??) women make these charges, and in some instances, where they had told others about it in the past and it's all something that can be verified by several sources... then to say that they are ALL lying begins to strain credulity.
And then, when you add to that charge that these women are liars (a very serious charge!), the claim that the Democrats and/or the media are behind it all, it just becomes clear that these are false claims. Maybe he SUSPECTS that these women were sympathetic enough to the Democrat cause to make false allegations, but you can't just make those sorts of claims without support. Data.
But that reasoning appears to be not apparent to Alabama voters. According to a new poll in Alabama...
...a new CBS News poll found that 71 percent of Alabama Republicans say the sexual misconduct allegations against Republican Roy Moore are false. Many blame Democrats and the media for the allegations.
? Based on what? We can't just make up claims or beliefs without some evidence. That is not intellectually honest and I believe that the good people of Alabama, if they just stop and think about it, can agree to this.
So, again, my point: People who make false claims, especially when they do it regularly and with no support, they are crossing a line that should not be crossed.
Trump did this regularly leading up to the election and that should be a show stopper. Period.
Look, Trump isn't really a conservative or a Republican, he's an opportunist who has supported Democrats in the past. He could just as easily have run as a Democrat. And if he had and if he was making regular, casual false claims as he has been doing, then that would have been a deal breaker for me. It was a line that I could not cross. I would not vote for a casual liar and Trump and Moore are casual liars. They make ridiculous false claims. We can't abide this, friends. This is a line that we should not be crossing.
People of Alabama, I'm asking you to not cross that line now. If you're opposed to Democrat policies, I'm not asking you to vote for a Democrat that you can't support. I'm just asking you to do as I would do, as my parents, no doubt, would have done: Not vote for someone who crosses a line that shouldn't be crossed. Write in a vote. But don't cross that line.
But, if it were just the one line - the making ridiculously false claims repeatedly - that would be bad enough, and it should be! But with Trump and Moore, we have men who, by all the data we have available, are men who've abused, mistreated, oppressed or sexually assaulted or harassed women. In both cases, they did so even with teen aged girls/young women.
This is a basic decency line that cannot be crossed. It is/should be an instant deal breaker.
I don't need to know anything else about the candidate or his opponent if I know he has abused/mistreated women/girls. Period.
I'm not saying that there is enough evidence to convict either man of any crimes, I'm not a legal scholar, but I'm guessing there isn't enough evidence for that. But, just because the data is not sufficient to rise to a level of legal conviction, the evidence is sufficient that they are bad men who have mistreated women. Regularly.
This is a line that should not be crossed. Please, for the sake of our common humanity, do not cross that line.
When the stories about Bill Clinton came out, there were two... then three women. And their stories were not proof positive. There was, I think, reasonable doubt in at least their more serious allegations (murder, rape). Nonetheless, I thought the evidence that Bill Clinton had a problem was sufficient for me to not vote for him. It was a line that I could not cross. In both of his elections, I held my nose and voted for a third party candidate and against Bill Clinton. Conservatives at the time agreed with me... he was a problematic candidate and they loudly said so.
I would not cross that line to vote for Clinton. People of Alabama, the evidence against Trump and, now Moore, is greater than that against Clinton. I'm just asking you to do what you said we should do with Clinton back then and refuse to cross that line. Do not vote for this man. Vote third party or write in a candidate, but do not vote for him.
There are lines that we should not cross.
Be the strong moral and rational sort of conservatives that I remember from my youth. Let there be some candidates on your side that have crossed a line that you will not cross.
121 comments:
OH. My. GOSH!
I can't wait to come back to this slop, read it all again and rip you on what appears to be ongoing misrepresentations of a man based not on any legitimately proven allegations of wrongdoing, but on your own hatred of a man who does not see the world in your own peculiar and corrupted manner. Time prevents me from getting into it at present, but you clearly have no shame, no conscience and none of that Christian "grace" that you pretend to put forth as so important.
Marshall, I don't hate either Moore or Trump.
I do hate the mistreatment women, girls, boys, men, or people with disabilities.
I hate casual lies.
And especially both of these things that come from the highest offices of the land.
I'd hope you could join me in this, whoever is doing the mistreatment or lying.
~Dan
Do you join me in finding anyone who’s telling lies related to the Moore situation to be less than credible?
All lies from anyone can make them less credible. To directly and clearly answer your question. As to what "lies related to... Moore," I'm not sure what you're speaking about.
But for instance, when Moore lies about these women all being funded by Soros or that the whole thing is a conspiracy cooked up by the media and the Democrats - making up stories whole cloth pulled, apparently, entirely from his ass, it undermines his credibility. And when, what - eight? women come forward saying he did these things and he denies them all, even denies having ever met them, it undermines his credibility.
And I see where it appears one of the women who've made the allegations is now changing her story slightly on Moore's yearbook signature, it could potentially do damage to her story and credibility, but from what I've read, it remains to be seen what is and isn't true.
So the fact that one of the accusers appears to have altered/forged the primary piece of “evidence” to support her story, just “changed her story slightly”, doesn’t faze you that much.
It seems to me that consistency would suggest that you treat all who lie somewhat equally.
FYI, I’m not in any way commenting on Moore’s credibility or lack thereof. He clearly has major issues of credibility.
I just said, quite clearly, that all lies from anyone make that person less credible. Do you understand that?
I went on to clarify that lying "he raped me" when he didn't is one degree of a lie, while "he signed this and wrote all these words," when he didn't write the date or location, but did write everything else... is also a lie of sorts, but not to the same degree or of the same sort as the first lie.
Do you disagree?
Equivocating as expected. Thanks. Seems like a lie is a lie. If the statement is false, it’s false. The consequences of one lie might be more severe than another, but I’m unaware of any degree of falsehood less than false.
If you think that all lies are equal, then yes, we seriously disagree. I think most moral and rational people recognize that there is a HUGE CHASM of difference between some lies.
In "The Sound of Music," when the nuns lied about knowing where the Von Trapp family was, THAT was not a serious, bad lie, as it is when, for instance, Roy Moore lies about these women all collaborating with the Dems and the media. One is serious and sick as hell, literally, the other not wrong at all.
I'll repeat it again: For the nuns in that story to tell a lie about the hidden family is NOT a moral wrong. At all. Indeed, if they told the truth, THAT would have been wrong. Sometimes, telling a lie can be a good thing.
Maybe you disagree... I find it hard to believe that any moral rational adult would disagree, but maybe you do. I sort of doubt that you actually do, but you can speak for yourself.
The point is, yes, there are degrees of morality to making a false claim.
Which is what I said. Lies are part of a binary constract. A statement is either the truth or a lie, there is no other option. Now, the consequences are different for different lies, you could even argue that certain lies are appropriate for a greater moral good. But that doesn’t change the nature of the lie.
The problem you have is either imprecise expression of your opinion, or an unwillingness to admit that you agree with me.
Here's a lie for you:
"Roy Moore lies about these women all collaborating with the Dems and the media."
I doubt Moore put that forth as a statement of fact, rather than suggesting a possibility for why these allegations are coming out so soon before an election the polls indicate he is winning solidly. How is it not a sign of hate that you so boldly, easily and willingly speak in this manner about those you oppose? Do you honestly believe people will be confused about your position if you speak with accuracy?
Here's one of many such quotes, Marshall...
When the Post story broke Thursday, Moore responded in a statement that read, “These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign.”
These allegations "ARE a desperate attack by the NDP and the WP." That isn't "a possibility" it is a fact claim and one that he has nothing to support it with. No hate, Marshall. I'm reporting the facts, as they exist. Moore has made claims that he has NO SUPPORT for and can't prove because, by all the evidence, he just pulled the claims out of his ass. Like Trump does on a regular basis.
THAT is why he is perverse and an unsuitable candidate for office. It's a pity like you give such support to such deviant liars and idiots.
Remember when there was a cultural ideal that said it’s better that 10 guilty people go free rather than one innocent person be convicted. I wonder when we lost that commitment to the presumption of innocence.
We all believe in innocent until proven guilty. I am NOT speaking of convicting anyone without conclusive evidence. I would stand OPPOSED to convicting Roy Moore if we lacked the evidence.
Do you understand?
On the other hand, saying "there's enough evidence that raises a serious concern that this man should not be a candidate for office" is not the same as convicting him.
There are different levels of evidence required for saying "this person is qualified to be in office" and "this person should go to jail."
Do you understand?
And besides, you, yourself think he should step down. Does that mean you don't believe in innocent until proven guilty?
Besides all the likelihood that this guy is a sexual predator, Moore is unfit on so many levels.
Alabama, do the right thing.
Dan
Craig, to your other comments, you said...
Equivocating as expected. Thanks. Seems like a lie is a lie. If the statement is false, it’s false.
And when I explained where you appeared to be mistaken (i.e., I was NOT equivocating. That is a baseless and stupid false claim. And I never suggested that if a statement is false, then it might also not be false. A silly suggestion, on your part), you responded with...
The problem you have is either imprecise expression of your opinion, or an unwillingness to admit that you agree with me.
That is, you did NOT apologize for the false charge of equivocation (you DO know the definition, right?), instead you suggested something (some vague some Thing I said) was imprecise or that I had an unwillingness to agree with you. Then, you come back with this false implication that I don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.
Do you see why you are sounding a bit trollish?
So, on topic, will you work with us to call for Alabama to not vote or even consider voting for this wicked, stupid man, Moore? Will you join with us in calling for Trump to step down because of his sexual predatory nature and his stupid lies?
Can we find common ground in opposing stupid lies and those who make them?
You had the chance for common ground earlier in the thread, you chose not to take it.
I’m sorry you can’t differentiate between me saying he should step aside in order to deal with the accusations, and your insistence that he should be driven out because he’s done what he’s accused of.
? What are you talking about, Craig? You make no sense, don't answer questions and are coming across as if you're just looking to be divisive and argumentative.
What do you mean I had a chance for common ground? You mean back at your first question when I very literally agreed with you, and then offered some clarification around that agreement, which you then attacked irrationally and mistakenly as equivocation?
If you want to engage in in topic conversation, by all means, answer the questions put to you, as I answered yours.
If you want to join the moral side of history, by all means, join with us and call for Trump and Moore to step down and for Alabama to do the right thing.
But if you're just looking to be petty and argumentive, please move on.
Dan
Yes, I’m sure you’re just ignoring your restating of what I said, then twisting it into disagreement somehow.
Yes, you said “all lies from anyone “, then promptly contradicted yourself.
Yes, I disagree. Both are lies. In this case both lies would have the possible result of defaming the character of an innocent man. Surely you can’t condone defamation of the innocent, can you? Others on your side of this seem willing to sacrifice a few innocent folks to false claims. Hopefully you choose otherwise.
I understand that you might be unwilling to convict Moore in court, but you clearly have no problem presuming his guilt and pejoratively labeling him in the court of public opinion.
As I’ve pointed out repeatedly, I understand that you believe Moore in unqualified, as do I. I’m not, however, willing to try to turn my opinion interesting an objective claim. I’m also willing to allow Alabamans to express their constitutionally protected right to vote for the person of their choosing.
I believe that he should step aside to prove his innocence, not because I believe he’s guilty. I also hold to that old fashioned “appearance of impropriety” standard.
No, I did not apologize for expressing my opinion.
No, I will do many things, but I see no reason to associate myself with your vitriolic and hateful attempts to override the results of legal elections. I don’t have the need to simply bleat our anti whoever stuff to the public. I’ll leave that to you and do my own thing in my own way.
Yes, I’d absolutely welcome you to join me in treating all politicians who lie in the same way.
You I believe that finishes off any “unanswered” questions.
I won’t hold my breath for you to return the favor in the various threads at my blog where you’ve failed to answer questions. Reciprocity or holding yourself to the standard you demand of others is clearly an unreasonable hope.
FYI, I’m glad that Moore has filed suit against his accusers. If for no other reason that it will actually subject the evidence to something other than the uncritical acceptance that we’ve seen so far.
You write in an incredibly confusing and vague manner. Let me help.
I did not equivocate ("use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself"). I did NOT use ambiguous language to conceal truth. That didn't happen. Indeed, I did the opposite. I gave a clear and direct answer and then, on top of that, added some clarification so as to be crystal clear. Nor did I do anything to avoid committing myself.
That was a false/mistaken claim.
Do you understand this?
Just answer this one thing, admit the mistake and then we can move on.
~Dan
you clearly have no problem presuming his guilt and pejoratively labeling him in the court of public opinion.
The man (actually, both Trump and Moore, but let's stick with Moore for now) has a proven and long record of making false claims.
The man has a proven and long record of making stupidly false claims.
The man has a proud (for him) record of flaming racist and sexist and homophobic fires, demonizing people and arrogantly presuming himself to be a spokesperson for God. To hell with that!
The man has a long record of ignoring US laws and traditions and, instead, presume that he knows best because he is standing with God and thus, is above the law. To hell with that!
Now, on top of that, many women have come out saying that he stalked, "courted" and harassed/molested teenaged girls/young women. Not just one, but many.
He has a record of this behavior being noticed by many people - friends, the mall, etc.
Now, I am NOT convicting him of anything, but yes, if a person has a known record of stalking teenaged girls, verified by multiple sources, I will judge him as unfit for many things, including holding public office.
Now, maybe you're fine with trusting young girls with this man knowing what we know, but if so, to hell with you. Don't be naive. Don't be ignorant. Don't enable predators.
Not only will I judge him as unfit for office, I will judge those who defend him, given what's known.
Now, I WILL defend him against being convicted without a trial and without established proof... I will defend him against physical attacks and I'd even work with the man to help him change from his perverse ways. But make no mistake, given what we know, he DOES have perverse, disturbed ways and is not to be trusted by people of good will until he demonstrates a changed heart.
I'm sorry you're not willing to hold the perverse accountable and are too willing to defend their "right" to make a mess of our nation.
~Dan
Part of your problem, it seems Craig, is that you are not aware of how perverse, how unfit for office this man is, in his own words.
It's not like this is a model citizen, with a long and proud record of exemplary public service (like John Conyers). No, he has long expressed the most vile and disgusting suggestions and pretended as if he was speaking for God on these vile views.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41417203
Given that you don't recognize the depth of his anti-liberty, anti-reason, anti-morality positions, you appear more willing to give him some benefit of doubt than others are. The man is perverse and needs help.
Alabama, do the right thing.
Craig, repent, and do the right thing.
~Dan
"Do you understand this?"
I've answered this once. You chose to begin by "agreeing", then to explain the exceptions to your "agreement".
Unless, you are going to demand that I adjust my opinion to your whim, I guess we'll have to disagree.
"Now, I am NOT convicting him of anything, but yes, if a person has a known record of stalking teenaged girls, verified by multiple sources, I will judge him as unfit for many things, including holding public office."
1. This is exactly what I said earlier in this thread.
2. What happened to the old "judge not..."?
"Now, maybe you're fine with trusting young girls with this man knowing what we know, but if so, to hell with you. Don't be naive. Don't be ignorant. Don't enable predators."
1. What does "trusting him with young girls" have to do with anything? You are aware, that all of the incidents regarding "young girls" took place decades ago and that there is zero evidence to suggest that it is a current problem.
2. I'm neither naive, nor ignorant. I'm simply willing to wait for the charges to be proven before I attach pejorative labels to him. Nor am I in any way enabling him. Nor has he been proven (in any sense of the word) to be a predator.
"Part of your problem, it seems Craig, is that you are not aware of how perverse, how unfit for office this man is, in his own words."
Then clearly you haven't been reading my own words. I do not, have not, and will not support him in his quest for office. My "problem" is that I'm not as quick as you are to jump to judgement based on unproven allegations. Your problem is that you can't demonstrate any instance of me supporting Moore, so you create this fantasy where insufficient vitriol and patience equals wholehearted support.
"I'm sorry you're not willing to hold the perverse accountable and are too willing to defend their "right" to make a mess of our nation."
I'm sorry you're not able to actually understand what I've clearly said and instead feel the need to make up your perverted version of my position to stoke your self righteousness.
"Given that you don't recognize the depth of his anti-liberty, anti-reason, anti-morality positions, you appear more willing to give him some benefit of doubt than others are. The man is perverse and needs help."
Given that I've never supported anything he's said, nor supported his candidacy, you seem willing to ascribe much more to my that my words would support. The only thing I've said, is that I support his right to prove himself innocent and that I'm not willing to make definitive judgements based on decades old allegations. I do agree that Moore, (like all of humanity) is a sinner in need of Grace, and that he does need help. I just don't thin that calling him a pervert, and a predator is helpful to him or to the public discourse. I'm only going to mention in passing your strange assertion that he's violated some objective moral standard.
FYI, there is a report that claims that several of Moore’s accusers were in contact with hs opponent before they went public and that they might have been paid.
Clearly too early to draw any conclusions, but I’ll be curious to see the response if this starts to look credible.
So, the question put to you was, Do you understand the reality that I did not equivocate? Amazingly, you answered by being very equivocal. That suggests to me that the answer is either, "NO, I do not understand that..." or that you are being deliberately obtuse and argumentative.
So be it. That is an answer, either way.
Alabama, ignore people like Craig. Do the right thing.
And once again Dan substitutes semantics for substance.
Your answer clearly was intended to allow you to claim to have said something, while leaving you a plethora of exceptions to negate your absolute.
So, if you want to join me in condemning all who tell stupid lies and to treat stupid liars on your side with the same vitriol and derision as those you disagree with, your welcome. But, I’m willing to predict that you can’t do so without equivocation.
Alabamans, please ignore me and vote your conscience. Don’t think that I am presumptuous enough to try to tell you what you should do with your vote. You as individuals are responsible to yourselves and God, no one else. So wisely exercise your right to vote and ignore those who try to bully and shame you.
I have a question for Dan. It is a most serious question for which I truly expect an honest answer. How it is answered will result in follow up questions of one kind or another, but I am sincere in asking it. Here it is:
How long did you stalk your wife before she agreed to date you and ultimately marry you?
Of course, I did not stalk my wife (although, I did do a bit of detective work to learn her last name! Not so easy back in the days before Facebook!). I met her at a BSU retreat a college when we both were 18.
We dated (off and on) for a few years and married in 1985, four years after we met.
Dan
Then how do you differentiate between your methods of hooking up with a girl in whom you were interested versus Moore's methods? What makes him a stalker and not you? Simply due to the age difference between he and the objects of his affections?
And before you allude to the 14 year old, I'll ask again what I've failed to have answered by feo: How do you know the age of a girl without asking or being told and is the age of someone the first thing you want to know? On what basis would you assume a girl who appears to be older than the age of consent is not, without first being made aware or asking for ID (a really good ice breaker, I'm sure).
Are you serious? Do you realize you sound a bit pervy with what you say? That could molesters often use the defense of, "oh. I didn't know. How could I?!!"
1. I was an 18 year old young man at a college event for Christian college students. (As opposed to a 30 year old man roaming through a mall).
2. She was an 18 year old college student at a college event for Christians. I knew this because I talked to her.
3. She was wearing her high school Class of '81 that listed her name (it was how our conversation started.)
4. She looked like an 18 year old and not a 14 year old.
5. Despite the fevered imaginations of many pedophiles, you generally can distinguish the difference.
A. Are you suggesting you can't tell that a 14 year old girl isn't an 18 year old woman?
B. Are you suggesting this particular woman looked like an adult when she was 14?
C. Are you suggesting this woman lied about her age when she was 14?
I never dated women I didn't know in some context. When I was 18, I wouldn't date a 16 year old, as a matter of principle taught to me by my conservative Baptist elders.
You're making your side sound worse and worse, Marshall. I'd quit if I were you.
Dan
Re: " simply the age difference...?"
??!!
Yes! Simply the age difference!
The moral, rational, normal conservative or liberal men I hung around with when I was 30 did not troll the malls looking to pick up girls (my friend group were pretty much all married by then).
We didn't "pick up" girls we didn't know!
If there was a young woman who we suspected might be even CLOSE to underaged, we would find out. We didn't try to date women we didn't know. We met women at church, thru friends, not blind hits on likely teen-aged girls at the mall!
Dan
"Are you serious? Do you realize you sound a bit pervy with what you say?"
I realize you're intent on making anyone on this side of the issue sound as "pervy" as you can possibly make them. To wit:
"That could molesters often use the defense of, "oh. I didn't know. How could I?!!""
To pretend that you can identify by age anyone who stands before you with 100% accuracy is just another lie.
I was carded for alcohol into my early forties. I knew a girl in high school who had no problem walking into any liquor store and being sold beer. Having worked with kids of all ages, I've often been mistaken about placing a given kid in one age group or another due to their varying degree of biological maturing. I recall one girl I thought was surely from 7th or 8th grade was actually in 5th or 6th. The only reason I suspected she couldn't be a freshman in high school was due to the fact that as a bus driver at the time, I did not deal with high school students at all. But she definitely looked as if she could have been. I recall two girls on a volley ball team against which my own middle school daughter was competing. I had to verify with my wife that all contestant teams were made up of middle school kids. The two girls in question looked like they could buy beer. To pretend that this is in any way uncommon is to be a liar.
What's more, NO ONE asks about ages as a first "come on" line. Who the hell do you think you're kidding? And if a girl who looks older insists on pretending she is, how does one hold the dude liable...and in YOUR case, as if he's some kind of stalker of underage girls? Where's this alleged Christian embracing of grace in such an attitude?
"When I was 18, I wouldn't date a 16 year old, as a matter of principle taught to me by my conservative Baptist elders."
Don't try to pretend this is in any way related to Christian teaching unless you can provide a verse to back it up. That one holds as a personal code to date only those of a certain age in no way means that others who do not are perverts or miscreants.
I've got more, but no time at present. Until then, here's yet another fact-based perspective that neither you nor feodor have the integrity to consider in your hateful witch hunt for predators among the right-wing.
To pretend that you can identify by age anyone who stands before you with 100% accuracy is just another lie.
I didn't say that. I said that, IF I had a doubt (in the, say, 1% of the time a 14 year old GIRL might look a bit older... enough to pass as an adult), I would find out.
I said that I dated people I knew or found out about, not total strangers.
I said that the fevered fantasy that there are bodacious adult looking 14 year old girls out there trying to pass as 18 years old is mostly a fantasy of perverts, not reality.
Look at these photos and tell me you're confused...
#Me At 14
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/11/13/women-respond-to-roy-moore-allegations-by-reminding-the-world-what-it-looks-like-to-be-14/?utm_term=.24fa36fda3e6
Or, better yet, don't. Marshall, man I mean it. You sound like what a pervert would sound like.
The world is not a big old confusing place where decent men are just regularly confused by seductive, adult-looking girls. It's just not that hard and most of us get by completely able to tell the difference or, as I have said, KNOW the difference because we know the women and girls in our lives.
Look, I'm done defending the obvious. Defend actual perversion and abuse all you want, just stay away from any women, girls or humans I know, creep. I'll have you in jail in a minute.
And I read a few articles of your Perverts Monthly magazine link and got too nauseous. Keep your perversions to yourself, please.
I don't know what monthly magazine you're referencing. I haven't linked to any pervert mags. Is this another example of embracing grace by lying about sources that interfere with your hateful attacks by presenting truth and context?
Thank you, good people of Alabama. Thanks especially to our black sisters and brothers for saving the day. You guys Rlrock.
Dan
Yeah. Like the black people of America saved the day by voting in the idiot Obama for two terms. Sure.
Anyway, back to your lying...
It isn't hard to google any number of articles focused on the FACT that girls are entering puberty earlier in life than ever before and thus, to pretend that one can tell that a, say, 14 yr old girl is actually fourteen just by looking is just you trying to pretend I'm perverted. I've been merely speaking from both personal experience (with regard to age often being unrelated to appearance) and actual scientific FACT. You remember science, don't you? It's what you and your tribe like to pretend is ignored, misunderstood and rejected by conservatives.
Furthermore, ANY man who wishes to date a young woman who is of legal age, even in states where that age is only 16, is not perverse simply because he is so attracted. He is normal. Setting age of consent is based on a general belief that teens are not capable of rational thought in the same way as adults. From the University of Rochester Medical Center Health Encyclopedia, "Understanding the Teen Brain" (another Perverts Monthly magazine site):
"The rational part of a teen’s brain isn’t fully developed and won’t be until age 25 or so.
In fact, recent research has found that adult and teen brains work differently. Adults think with the prefrontal cortex, the brain’s rational part. This is the part of the brain that responds to situations with good judgment and an awareness of long-term consequences. Teens process information with the amygdala. This is the emotional part.
In teen’s brains, the connections between the emotional part of the brain and the decision-making center are still developing—and not necessarily at the same rate. That’s why when teens experience overwhelming emotional input, they can’t explain later what they were thinking. They weren’t thinking as much as they were feeling."
I offer this bit of info to make a point about the reasons for age of consent laws, as well as the general notion that men seeking young women for casual relationships is too often a case of taking advantage. But this is not what Moore was looking for based on the various articles about his background that you refuse to study and accept as easily as you do the least accusation against him. Only a buffoon would assume that these laws, and the above excerpt, means there is no variation...that it is impossible that there could be any number of young women who do indeed think rationally as opposed to strictly emotionally, and can indeed be mature...even more mature than many adults...and thus could be suitable wives for an honorable man of 30 looking to start a family. An honorable man who does more than merely pay lip service to his own concept of "embracing grace" might even suppose that instead of "trolling", Moore was actually seeking out just such a girl.
What's more, despite age of consent laws generally ranging from 16 to 18 in this country, it is more than crystal clear that there are many well over (even beyond the 25 years old referenced by the excerpt) who never demonstrate rational thought.
And speaking of failing to think rationally, you could find more pictures of 14 year old girls who look really young, and I could match them with pics of those who look much older. So what? Do you really think you've won any points with such cherry-picked examples?
more coming now...
"I didn't say that. I said that, IF I had a doubt (in the, say, 1% of the time a 14 year old GIRL might look a bit older... enough to pass as an adult), I would find out."
That "if" is the key, isn't it? You assume you would have doubt any time a young girl is before you, even if she doesn't look young. Again, my friend was buying us beer while in high school. She was my age. I was getting carded long after I turned twenty-one.
"I said that I dated people I knew or found out about, not total strangers."
Moore was not in the same position. Many aren't. Some meet a person, go on a date, and THAT'S how they find out about the person. If the person isn't honest, it could take some time to find out the truth. But YOU accuse the victim of the dishonesty as being a pervert because YOU have a problem...particular if the victim is a conservative who speaks the truth about homosexuals and islam. I have still seen nothing that definitively indicates that Moore was aware the 14 year old was 14 yrs old, and as it is very possible she looked older, it is also possible that Moore was under the impression that the chick was legal.
The point here is that honest people not privy to the details of forty years ago, or of any of the people involved, be they Moore or any of the ONLY three accusers, consider all the possibilities without hateful prejudice...with which you are blatantly overflowing...and consider how the allegations of the three accusers so greatly conflict with the honorable behavior all others have claim Moore exhibited.
But not you, feo, the rest of the lunatic left and the GOP establishment. No. You all immediately, in a solid display of embracing grace, accept at first blush and without question the allegations of three women alone. You ignore the timing of the allegations. You don't question at all what brought the WaPo to dig up these women who allegedly had no intention of coming forth on their own. You don't care, because you hate those who hold righteous positions on YOUR favored perversion...homosexuality. And you pretend, as if you're fooling anyone, that your support for the slaughter of innocents and the enabling of your favored perversion is not what drives your wish that Alabamans "do the right thing". You're a fraud.
Give it up, Marshall. You're making yourself sound worse and worse. Moore lost. Alabama and the US won. Decency won.
Trump, beware.
Perverts and oppressors and liars, beware.
But YOU accuse the victim of the dishonesty as being a pervert because YOU have a problem
Multiple women and others have come forward testifying to the behavior of the Trumps, Moores, Weinsteins and others. YOU are accusing them of being dishonest when you don't know. Shame on you.
Perverts, oppressors and liars, beware. Your time has come and gone. We're ending the reign of oppressors and perverts and their defenders.
Marshall, no more perverted comments from you. No more defending of perverts. No more confessing how you are not able to tell a 14 year old is a child.
There is no ignorance as pathetic as ignorance deliberately embraced.
Don't bother making any further comments along the lines you've made. I don't want your child porn posts here.
I can’t believe that Art is trying to post child porn. I’m pretty sure that’s a crime. Accusing someone of a crime is pretty bold.
"YOU are accusing them of being dishonest when you don't know. Shame on you."
I find that calls for careful circumspection in making accusations lose all persuasive power when they're bookended by smears of one's own.
"Be careful who you call dishonest," says the guy who has made a mantra of calling his opponents liars and perverts and oppressors.
It is extremely well established as an absolute point of fact that Trump and Moore are liars, have made serial, stupidly false claims.
It is extremely likely that these two established liars have been abusive towards women/girls, based upon many credible testimonies. Thus, they are likely perverts in that sense. Add to it their well-established perversions against basic ideals of decency and the charge is reasonable.
What isn't reasonable is why moral, rational people would defend perverts and liars.
Dan
I see you’ve chosen not to elaborate on your claim that Art committed a crime. Perhaps an edit or retraction is in order.
Just saw a news clip showing some idiot admitting that they bussed people in to vote against Moore. If this is real, it seems strange to be so brazen in celebrating this crime and strange that the way to not elect a liar is to lie.
Hyperbole, Craig. It's in the dictionary. Sorry if you failed to understand.
I'd be willing to bet that child porn literature is littered with words like Marshall's.
"I didn't know she was a teen aged girl, judge, honest! She just looked so grown up and sexy!"
I always feel like I need a shower after reading his words.
Dan
So, you think it’s acceptable to accuse someone of a crime, in a public forum and that claiming hyperbole after the fact makes it acceptable.
I guess that means your fine if vote fraud helped defeat Moore also.
You're right. Jesus was a jerk for using inflammatory hyperbole in referring to the oppressive leadership of his day. Clearly, according to your measure, Jesus was wrong.
I disagree. Using strong language and hyperbole is perfectly in fitting with Jesus' example. Disagree if you want.
I want to remind everyone, we're talking about overt liars who have been accused by many credible witnesses of awful abuses. You are defending bad, bad people who are in the highest positions of power.
Shame.
Dan
"It is extremely well established as an absolute point of fact that Trump and Moore are liars, have made serial, stupidly false claims."
Showing where this "absolute point of fact" has been "extremely well established" would be more productive than merely asserting that it's been established by some unnamed individual at some indeterminate time. The use of the passive voice allows a claim to be made without explicitly naming the responsible party: "So-and-so established this fact" would be much easier to evaluate than the vague claim that the fact "is established."
I think we should focus on one supposed lie that was mentioned in the initial post:
'When he says things like, “It is more likely that Doug Jones and Democrat operatives are pulling a political stunt on Twitter and alerting their friends in the media.” ...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim.' [italics in original]
To what does all this reference? The exact quote is found in an October 16th story from the Washington Post, the same paper that broke the stories of the sexual accusations against Moore.
The presented facts are as follows:
- On Sunday, October 15th, "multiple Twitter users noticed that Moore’s account had nearly doubled its follower count, from slightly more than 26,000 to more than 47,000, in less than a week. At least 1,100 of the new followers had Russian names and Twitter bios, often consisting of pure gibberish such as 'Master of Plastic Shackles' and 'to be a little girl.'"
- The story embedded a tweet from that Sunday morning, from the The New Civil Rights Movement, which describes itself as a powerful voice "for progressives, the LGBT community, and other under-represented minorities." The tweet claimed that Moore's list of Twitter followers "looks like it's straight out of the Moscow phone book."
- By early Monday afternoon, October 16th, "6,000 of the [21,000] new followers had been purged, with the campaign telling the [Montgomery] Advertiser that it had asked Twitter for help. Shortly thereafter, the campaign issued a statement asking if Democrats had been behind the bot surge."
The quoted comment didn't come from Moore directly but from his campaign, in an email statement, but close enough.
The accustion is that the opposing party Astroturfed Moore's Twitter followers to make him look bad.
"...he is making a serious and, by all evidence, clearly false claim."
I'm not sure how serious such a claim actually is: this sort of digital false-flag operation would be misleading, but it's not something truly serious like voter fraud. I'm not sure that it even violates any laws, much less that a conviction would result in actual jailtime.
But the claim is not only false, it's -- we are told -- "clearly false" and is so "by all evidence."
I haven't seen ANY evidence, much less a complete, comprehensive, and exhaustive accounting of ALL evidence.
If there is evidence, I believe a person so concerned with demonstrable claims and hard data would have already guided his readers to that evidence.
If there is no evidence...
"YOU are accusing them of being dishonest when you don't know. Shame on you."
...someone should take greater pains to live by the standards he seeks to impose on others.
And, on the subject of consistency, anyone who would defend what he himself describes as "strong language and hyperbole" should be willing to put up with the same treatment as others.
Instead, I've seen serious criticism denigrated as abuse, no matter how sober-minded the critic has been and how carefully he chose his words.
So now, in addition to accusing art of the crime of possessing and sending you child pornography, you accuse him of being an overt liar, And of his being accused of awful things by many credible people. This is quite a new low for you.
The fact that you continue to ignore the credible reports of voter fraud in the Alabama election, gives credence to my belief that you are justifying criminal action to accomplish your political goals.
Oh, and you’re still not Jesus. The difference between you and Jesus on these matters, is that he had authority, and you don’t. Not only did he have Authority, he also didn’t advocate and elastic definition of morality.
"Give it up, Marshall. You're making yourself sound worse and worse."
No I'm not. I'm making you face your own lack of character in the matter of Roy Moore. I present ALL the possibilities on a story the details of which neither of us can possibly know with certainty. YOU choose to pretend you know Moore's heart and past when you couldn't possibly. YOU choose to go down a path the Jesus Christ you pretend to revere would never consider.
"Marshall, no more perverted comments from you. No more defending of perverts."
I'm not defending anyone. I'm addressing your behavior that conflicts with your claim that you're a Christian who embraces grace. You want to make it about my character because I won't jump on board the crucify Moore train with you simply because I don't have all the facts.
"No more confessing how you are not able to tell a 14 year old is a child."
Now you're straight up lying as anyone following along can easily see. I never said I can't tell a 14 year old is a child. I said it is not always possible to know by looking that a 14 year old girl is actually under the age of consent...because that's an absolute and incontrovertible fact.
I also said there is a difference between a minor and a child. My oldest daughter is still my child, but she's a 37 year old woman. Only those looking to demonize an ideological opponent would pretend there is no difference between a minor and a child. A 14 year old is a minor, but not a child, particularly for the purpose of determining pedophilia.
I'm sure you're going to delete this, since you need me to be horrible in order to deflect attention from your own misbehavior. It's how you roll. It's how you embrace grace.
FYI, it appears that the Federal age of consent is significantly lower than many might think. Which makes all the below age of consent talk take on a different perspective.
Yup, looks like the feds say 12 under certain circumstances.
Bubba...
Showing where this "absolute point of fact" has been "extremely well established" would be more productive than merely asserting that it's been established
Okay, before you three make any further comments here, I'm asking that you answer this question:
It is abundantly clear that Trump has lied/made false claims/stated non-facts, etc to an alarming and dangerous degree, repeatedly, over and over. It's clear to any one observing, you know, reality.
Do you all recognize this reality?
Yes, yes, of course I can cite sources to back this up, but this is so over the top obvious, it is really speaking to some fundamental flaw amongst some pretty significant segment of conservative society if they actually need someone to point this out... that they some how doubt this reality.
So, just to confirm that you all are in reality, do you recognize that Trump has lied to such an obvious degree and in such large numbers of false claims that it is unprecedented in US history... and that you don't need anyone to tell you the obvious?
I mean, if someone tells me that, for instance, that many birds actually can fly, I don't need a source for it, I can look out my window and see it and I don't even need to do that because I've seen birds flying nearly every day of my life.
Please answer this before making any further comments. I insist. Any comments that begin without an answer to this question will be deleted to help keep you on track and honest.
Bubba, about the quote that I cited that you questioned, it appears that somehow I grabbed the wrong quote on the wrong topic. That doesn't change the reality that Moore and his people have continually lied/made false claims about a great many things. For instance...
Moore told The Post: “These allegations are completely false and are a desperate political attack by the National Democrat Party and the Washington Post on this campaign.”
http://www.outsmartmagazine.com/2017/11/roy-moore-blames-democrats-media-for-child-sex-abuse-allegations/
In a speech at the Magnolia Springs Baptist Church in Theodore, Alabama, Moore — who has been accused of sexual misconduct by several women — told the audience he is still leading in the polls but said "they" are trying to "change that."
“When I say 'they,' who are they?” he said. "They're liberals; they don't hold conservative values. They’re the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered who want to change our culture. They're socialists who want to change our way of life."
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/roy-moore-blames-malicious-allegations-gays-liberals-socialists-n825316
Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore says he's being hounded by the news media over sexual allegations against him, while briefly addressing the controversy Tuesday night.
"Why do you think they're giving me this trouble? Why do you think I'm being harassed by media and by people pushing allegations in the last 28 days of the election? ... After 40-something years of fighting this battle, I'm now facing allegations and that's all the press wants to talk about," ...
Moore characterized those allegations as politically motivated...
"The Washington Post published another attack on my character and reputation because they are desperate to stop my political campaign..."
https://www.ksat.com/news/politics/roy-moore-who-allegedly-pursued-teens-blames-media
Roy Moore:
"The allegations are completely false. They are malicious. Specifically, I do not know any of these women."
Two days later in Theodore, Moore said
"Let me state once again: I do not know any of these women, did not date any of these women and have not engaged in any sexual misconduct with anyone."
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/woman_who_claims_she_dated_roy.html
These are false claims with no support that these women are lying and it's all part of a plot by Democrats and the media. No evidence for these charges and, by all apparent evidence, they are completely false.
There are also these repeated allegations where he claims that he didn't know or date "these women" when he did know and try to date them/did date them.
I could go on, but that clarifies the mistaken quote I cited. Again, sorry for the wrong quote, but the point was exactly right.
Part of Moore's false claim problem is the same as Trump and Palin and Johnson, here in Kentucky... they keep alleging "fake news" and suggesting conspiracies when they are the ones passing on false claims, not the media. This actively and aggressively is an attack on the free press, which is a very serious and perverted threat to ideals of liberty.
Another major perversion on their parts.
Craig...
you’re still not Jesus.
Never claimed to be Jesus. But I AM a follower of Jesus, who told us that we would do even greater things than he did. Whose disciples told us to follow in his steps, follow his example, do as he did. For instance, James, like Jesus, excoriated the rich and powerful, so apparently you think Jesus and James are jerks who are stupid and immoral for calling out dangerous oppressors.
Me, I disagree with that suggestion. I AM a follower of Jesus and so, it should not be surprising that I strive to follow in his steps.
Call me crazy.
I would say that, between the binary choices of his being an honest man and a liar, I believe that Donald Trump is a liar -- he is not a man of verbal integrity, whose word is his bond; he's not careful in ensuring that his every utterance is accurate and precise; and he's not above breaking promises, not least his wedding vows -- but he is NOT dishonest to a degree that is "alarming" and "dangerous" and "unprecedented" in US political history.
Instead, like an Andrew Jackson or a Teddy Roosevelt, Trump is unusually more brusque in his rhetoric, rather than significantly more dishonest, and people who think that American political fights have always been genteel should brush up on Jefferson vs. Adams.
Trump is no more dishonest than the president who perjured himself under oath and lost his law license over it, nor is he more dishonest than the radical who was mentored by violent and race-essentialist Marxists who then ran as a post-racial moderate: the latter's dishonesty didn't seem to bother you at the time, as you were ecstatic over his election, and I don't think you ever said much about the explicitly dishonest manner in which his signature legislative achievement was sold to the American people and pushed through Congress and the courts.
If Donald Trump fails to deliver on his key promise of immigration enforcement, he'll still be no worse than the politicians who broke that promise before him, including Republicans like Marco Rubio.
And past presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, campaigned on moving Israel's U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, but Trump is the first to have kept his word.
---
Now, having answered your question, I must object to your obvious -- "over the top" obvious -- rationale for asking it. Not for the first time, you're making opponents jump through hoops EVEN before you address PRIOR questions.
Here, an answer of full agreement would give you an excuse to avoid proving your position: as you have ALREADY said, you think your position is as obvious as the fact that birds fly, and about the latter, you write, "I don't need a source for it, I can look out my window and see it and I don't even need to do that because I've seen birds flying nearly every day of my life."
And any answer other than full-throated agreement would give you a different excuse to avoid proving your position: as you have already said, you think your position is just reality, and so any difference of position, even in degree, would let you denigrate the person as disconnected from reality.
It's one or the other:
You don't need to prove your position to us, since we already agree to it.
OR
You don't need to prove your position to us, since we're unhinged.
You're raising the question, NOT to "keep [us] on track and honest," but to allow you to get us off-track and to prevent us from keeping YOU honest.
I'll remind you of what you just regarding Moore's counter-claims against his accusers: "you can't just make those sorts of claims without support. Data."
But that's exactly what you're trying to do here, and it's really quite obvious.
I would say that, between the binary choices of his being an honest man and a liar, I believe that Donald Trump is a liar -- he is not a man of verbal integrity... but he is NOT dishonest to a degree that is "alarming" and "dangerous"
Thank you for answering. So, you DO recognize he is NOT a man of verbal integrity. Agreed. But you also think he is not dishonest to an alarming or historical manner. This is a matter of opinion, of course, but I don't think history supports that opinion.
Just on numbers alone, Trump's false claims are shocking, historically speaking. Over 1600 false claims in less than a year. Averaging 5.5 false claims a day! You do not find that alarming?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/11/14/president-trump-has-made-1628-false-or-misleading-claims-over-298-days/?utm_term=.f608cf4f1118
I suppose the dangerous angle is also a matter of opinion. I think rational people can recognize that his constant attacks on the media, making false claims that THEY are making false claims... that it undermines the notion of a free press and the very notion of "facts" and Truth. That is seriously dangerous.
That you don't recognize this is alarming, but so be it.
But then, you backtrack and make these rather astounding claims...
Trump is no more dishonest than the president who perjured himself under oath and lost his law license over it, nor is he more dishonest than the radical who was mentored by violent and race-essentialist Marxists
1. Trump has lied VASTLY more than Clinton or Obama.
2. Your framing of Obama's past is dishonest, in itself, shame on you.
3. That you find Trump's incredible false claim pace and severity and try to make it comparable to other presidents (specifically, Democrat presidents, ignoring the war crime lies of the Reagan/Bush years), undermines your credibility, Bubba.
Bubba...
having answered your question, I must object to your obvious -- "over the top" obvious -- rationale for asking it.
Well, given your partisan blindness to the severity of Trump's problem, I don't find you to be rationally credible, Bubba. Sorry, but I just don't. So, I don't really care what a man I find to be irrational and supportive of a dangerous liar and oppressor (and by downplaying his obvious unfitness, you ARE supporting him) thinks.
as you have ALREADY said, you think your position is as obvious as the fact
I'm talking simple, demonstrable facts. Trump HAS lied on a historically unprecedented level. He is the largest documented liar in presidential history. As a simple matter of fact. On numbers alone.
Now, the HUGE number of many of Trump's stupid lies (the media said THIS, when they didn't... it was sunny THAT day, when it wasn't) may pale in comparison to the lies of the Reagan administration in committing and abetting war crimes may be considered smaller in scale, Trump's constant false claim attacks on the press are a threat to our nation that may be considered quite serious and dangerous. That you don't like Obama's mentors or how he characterized his relationship with them, or that you don't like Clinton's lies about a blow job don't make them comparable to just the sheer scale of Trump's lies. You just don't have credibility.
My position IS factual and rational. Yours is dangerous and a defense of those who'd attack our higher values.
So, yes, you are coming across as a bit unhinged. You're at least adept at recognizing the problem.
I was clear months ago that Trump’s lack of character and willingness to say anything regardless of whether or not it was true would prevent me from supporting him. Given that I’ve consistently held that position and never denied his lack of honesty, it seems silly to be asked the question. But there’s your answer.
You could at least pretend to be decent enough not to lie about what I just wrote, Dan.
I do not "recognize" that I come across as unhinged: what I wrote was that you would use my answer as a pretext to dismiss me with the smear of being unhinged and subsequently avoid my demand that you live up to the standards of evidence that you seek to impose on others.
You proved me right.
About Moore, you write:
"These are false claims with no support that these women are lying and it's all part of a plot by Democrats and the media. No evidence for these charges and, by all apparent evidence, they are completely false. "
There are two very different claims here:
1. The accusers are lying.
2. The Dems and the media are involved to take down Moore.
--
Really, there have been two different types of accusation, which people have been conflating, either accidentally or maliciously: the charge of dating young women 16 to 19 while in his early 30's, and the charge of outright assault. Only two women have made the latter accusation, and so it's wrong to suggest that "five or eight" women have done so, and I believe that Moore may have counter-claimed that the accusers are lying ONLY in the case of the charge of assault.
(After all, in that Hannity interview, Moore said he "generally" didn't date girls that young, HARDLY a categorical denial.)
I say all this, not to defend either practice, but to point out the vast difference in what Moore is really saying, in the counter-accusation of dishonesty.
"That woman is lying: I never flirted with her in the mall forty years ago."
"That woman is lying: I never tried to rape her or anyone else."
The first quote would seem a bit over-the-top, the second is an entirely reasonable response.
We should be careful, clear, and precise about what we're discussing.
It should go without saying that we shouldn't muddy this serious controversy with unrelated quotes about Twitter bots.
--
Either way, that first claim is a matter of he-said, she-said.
The women's claims are a matter of personal interactions, for which they've presented no evidence beyond a mere acquaintance, and in some cases even that hasn't withstood close scrutiny: no evidence of attempted rape, no evidence of groping, no evidence of dating, no evidence of mere flirting -- nothing like a semen-stained dress or (as in Franken's case) a photograph.
In matters such as these, with rare exception, it would be hard for any accuser to prove her claims, certainly, and it's hard for the accused to prove the counter-claim that the accuser is lying.
But you seem intent on applying different sets of standards to different groups, on taking the accusers' word as gospel but demanding some specified amount of counter-evidence from the accused.
"These are false claims with no support that these women are lying [omitting #2 for a moment]. No evidence for these charges and, by all apparent evidence, they are completely false. "
For the third time in this thread, you've used a phrase like "by all apparent evidence."
But what evidence? What, exactly, are you referencing?
A phrase like that suggests that you could walk us through a comprehensive list of available evidence and show us why every bit points in the same direction, but your refusal to do so suggests that you're using the phrase because it sounds impressive.
It's like saying a claim is "demonstrable," NOT after actually demonstrating the claim, but as a way to avoid having to demonstrate the claim.
It's actually the sort of fast-and-loose use of language that I would expect from Trump or any other politician, but my problem is, you permit these sort of antics only when it suits you.
It's terrible for other people to level serious charges without proof...
"YOU are accusing them of being dishonest when you don't know. Shame on you."
...but it seems that you can claim the existence of proof without ever having to produce it.
Or maybe that's just more hyperbole on your part.
The second claim is that this was a political hit job.
I think there's enormous circumstantial evidence to support that conclusion.
- Moore has been a prominent figure in Alabama politics for literally decades, getting national attention for his actions regarding both the Ten Commandments statue (2001) and same-sex marriage (2016) and for his outspoken views as a social conservative and a fundamentalist Christian. Despite this previous national attention AND the precedents set in the 1990's by the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings and Bill Clinton's civil suit and subsequent impeachment, the charges only surfaced this year, when Moore was running for the Senate.
- The charges didn't surface during the GOP primary, when it would have benefited Moore's REPUBLICAN opponents, or even during the primary runoff, but only during the general election, when the scandal could only benefit the Democrat.
- And the charges didn't originate from any of the local papers -- Birmingham, Montgomery, Huntsville, Mobile, Anniston, etc., many of which are plenty liberal -- but from the nakedly partisan organ of the liberal DC establishment, the Washington Post.
I think it's QUITE sensible to conclude that it was a politically timed hit job.
And I think one can reach this conclusion AND still believe both that A) the accusations are true and that B) the particular politician deserved to be taken out.
To believe that it MUST be otherwise is naive in the extreme.
And to pretend to believe it in order to paint Moore as a liar is transparently dishonest.
The point of this post is that Moore is a liar. He makes false, unsupported charges. This is established. He makes things up. He can't be trusted.
Given that and the MANY credible charges of women who have made these claims of inappropriate behavior, claims that are, in turn, backed up by other people, it is reason to give serious credence to their claims of Moore being a pervert who preyed for teen aged girls/young women, at least when he was younger.
Given that, and add to that his atrocious racism, his desire to criminalize homosexuality, his desire to demonize and attack Muslims, deny them basic US rights, and Moore's attacks on the free press, that clearly, this man is perverse in many areas and thus, not fit for office.
Given that, I was calling for the people of Alabama to do the right thing. They have, thanks largely to the African American community, thus sparing our nation from yet another Trump-like pervert.
Thank you, people of Alabama.
For those who still don't see the many perversions and dangers of the Moore-Trump-Palin-Johnson wing of the conservative movement, God bless you, but may your tribe decrease and Lord, have mercy on you. I don't know what anyone can do to help you see.
If you are so blindly obliged to this rather sick wing of the conservative movement when even the McConnells, Romneys and McCains can see it, I don't know what anyone else can do to help you.
~Dan
It is funny how some publications are such holy institutions that their word is proof enough of the claim that Trump lies 18.7 bajillion times a week, but other publications can be denigrated (as "Perverts Monthly") with their claims and arguments not even considered, much less refuted.
For a politician to denounce a media outlet is a threat to democracy, at least when it's The New York Times: Faux News, not so much, and Bill Clinton was right to insinuate that Rush Limbaugh was responsible in inciting the Oklahoma City Bombing.
And it's terrible to accuse the media of lying or publishing hit pieces in order to affect the outcome of an election: never mind Dan Rather's obviously forged National Guard memo and the obvious intent of derailing Bush.
---
I think Iowahawk nailed the radicals' efforts at subversion of a couple years back.
1. Identify a respected institution.
2. kill it.
3. gut it.
4. wear its carcass as a skin suit, while demanding respect.
It's pushing leftist propaganda while pretending to be an objective news organization.
Or pushing the leftist religion while pretending to be an orthodox Christian.
Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.
"The point of this post is that Moore is a liar. He makes false, unsupported charges. This is established. He makes things up. He can't be trusted."
...and we're back to the charge that Moore's dishonesty "is established," without any effort to establish the charge -- with the simultaneous and entirely hypocritical complaint of his accusations being unsupported.
I asked for evidence, I was given hoops to jump over.
I humored the obvious stalling tactic and jumped over the hoops, and the evidence still isn't given.
I pointed out that I was right to suspect a filibuster, and the same bull is repeated as if no one would notice.
It IS a shame that Trump is trying to gut the free press and that people like Bubba are his apologists.
But thank the good Lord, the people of Alabama saw through that perverse lie. Hopefully, the Trumps, Moores and their defenders - the klan, the nazis, the Bubbas and the Craigs - are losing this battle for a final time.
~Dan
I've pointed to his lies.
Open your eyes and see them.
Or Lord have mercy on your soul.
~Dan
Just for the record:
* it is a FALSE CLAIM that the media and the Dems were collaborating with McConnell and the GOP to make Moore look like a pervert. (He did that all on his own).
* It is a FALSE CLAIM that these women were co-opted by "the media" and the Dems and told lies to undermine Moore (he did that all on his own).
* It is a FALSE CLAIM that the media is the enemy.
* It is a FALSE CLAIM that Muslims can't be trusted to hold political office.
* It is a PERVERSE claim and an attack on basic human rights and decency to suggest that being gay should be criminalized. God damn that thinking to hell where it belongs.
* It is a STUPID SUGGESTION and thus, FALSE CLAIM to say that the only reason women would come forward with claims about sexual harassment decades later would be for evil, lying reasons. It is sexist and just ignorant of reality.
* It is a HYPOCRISY to accept "late allegations" when they are about Hollywood moguls, but deny them when it's about creepy old white conservative men.
* Despite Marshall's creepy suggestions, people CAN generally tell a 14 year old girl from an adult woman. Despite Marshall's and Moore defenders' suggestions, it is wrong in our culture for a man in his thirties to deliberately and consistently seek out teen-aged girls for dates, it is indicative of an unhealthy mind, generally speaking. For too many in fundamentalist circles (Muslim, Christian, Mormon, etc), seeking out young girls is a sick way of finding pliable girls they can manipulate, as opposed to a healthy life partner.
* it is sick as hell that such a man would consistently demonize decent gay men and lesbian women who simply want to marry into a healthy respectful adult relationship given his seeking of girls to marry. It is a FALSE CLAIM to suggest that there is something "sick" about respectful gay marriage while at the same time you're Roy Moore, seeking out girl brides amongst the teenagers at the mall.
That's just off the top of my head. The man lies. The man manipulates. The man is perverse.
And you seek to defend him.
Stop it. You lost. The perverts lost, at least this time. And it's just a matter of time until the perverts who defend the pervert, Trump, will lose, too.
Stop it. Repent. Get on the right and moral side of history.
Lord, have mercy.
~Dan
Dan,
Pointing to what you say Moore's lies are, isn't pointing to the evidence that they're lies.
Listing what you say are his false claims, isn't giving evidence that the claims are false.
--
And about this:
"* It is a HYPOCRISY to accept 'late allegations' when they are about Hollywood moguls, but deny them when it's about creepy old white conservative men."
For myself, the timing points to coordination from the Dems and MSM, not necessarily falsehood on the part of the accusers: it's not just that the accusations came 40 years later, it's that they came after the primary AND the primary runoff but before the general election -- and they even came too late for the party to replace the candidate. The concept of an October surprise for a November election is a very old one; and this was a November surprise for a special election in December.
But on the subject of hypocrisy, I find it funny how you mention the courting habits of "too many in fundamentalist circles" without even a cursory glance toward the arts: neither Kevin Spacey nor James Levine are known for their religious devotion, and I suspect you would denounce as homophobia entirely true observations about the gay male idolization of youth and even the tendency among lesbians to have been previously mentored (or groomed) by older women.
(Indeed, homosexuality must be praised as normal, healthy, good, and God-blessed: against anything less, you invoke God's damnation, never mind the teachings of Jesus, of the Jewish Scripture that He affirmed to the smallest penstroke, and the Christian Apostles He commissioned to teach in His name.)
--
But since we're stating things for the record, it should be noted that I have defended Trump, NOT from being a liar, but from the hysterical charge of his being an unprecedented danger to the republic.
And it's not defending Moore to point out your inconsistency in demanding evidence from everyone but yourself.
I do find it interesting, the denial of serious moral dilemmas and the near-simultaneous justification of deliberate dishonesty.
"If faced between what I consider two evils/two wrong/two immoral choices, I cannot and will not choose a 'lesser evil.'"
Well, what about lying for reasons that are at least arguably justifiable?
"In 'The Sound of Music,' when the nuns lied about knowing where the Von Trapp family was, THAT was not a serious, bad lie, as it is when, for instance, Roy Moore lies about these women all collaborating with the Dems and the media. One is serious and sick as hell, literally, the other not wrong at all."
It's not that the lie is the lesser of two evil choices, it's "not wrong AT ALL." [emphasis mine]
This, from a man who claims to follow Jesus, who taught that we should let our yes be yes, and our no be no.
(Jesus also taught that God made us male and female so that a man [male] would become one flesh with his wife [female], but any sort of serious commitment to this teaching is denigrated as perversion, and any effort for encouraging society to follow this teaching is denounced as oppression.)
What is it that's morally permissible and even commendable? Is it merely lying in order to protect life, or is it lying to Nazis more generally? Are Nazis such a grave threat to humanity that confounding them through any act of dishonesty is morally permitted, per se?
If other leftists feel morally justified in punching so-called Nazis -- never mind the fascist's common tactic of using mob violence to squelch political dissent -- is it really far-fetched to wonder that a more pacifist-mindeed leftist would feel justified in the similarly incivil and immoral act of deliberate deception?
And who are the Nazis? We are, or so the accusation implies.
Those protesters in Charlottesville, supposedly wannabe Nazis and Klansmen, are said to self-identify as "the oppressor, killer, rapist, destroyer."
Likewise, in this very thread, we are told that we support oppressors, liars, and perverts.
If that weren't enough, we now see the association made quite explicit.
"Hopefully, the Trumps, Moores and their defenders - the klan, the nazis, the Bubbas and the Craigs - are losing this battle for a final time."
From this, I conclude that Dan's own stated philosophical principles provide no confidence of his honesty toward us.
--
I see nothing that Dan could credibly argue that would assure us that he's always honest with us, I see no promise he could make that wouldn't rest on a foundation of sand, and I see no point in any kind of cross-examination.
Islam has its doctrine of taqqiya.
Leftists too will lie for their true faith.
Schumpeter is right:
"The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie."
Okay, I'll try this one more time and then wash my hands of you.
Bubba...
Listing what you say are his false claims, isn't giving evidence that the claims are false.
Moore has repeatedly made the claim that these women are lying and that their lies are a part of a conspiracy between the media and the Dems.
It is an empty claim. He doesn't even pretend there is a basis for the claim. He's just making it because it's convenient for him. He's clearly grasping at straws.
He didn't say, "I got a report from Mike Smith who was talking with a reporter in the bar who confessed that he made it all up!" He didn't say, "We received word from one of the women that the Dems are holding her mother hostage and forcing her to say these lies!" Nothing.
He had no basis for the claim other than it was the best defense he could muster. Because, like the pervert, Trump, he knows that there is a portion of conservatives who love to hate the media and the Dems, so he cynically USED that hatred for the media and Dems to try to get the heat off of himself, by making up out of thin air a claim that he never even tried to defend.
Do you understand?
So, when someone like you or Moore or Trump say, "Well, it POINTS to the media coordinating it because... it's a convenient explanation that takes the heat off of my guy... NOT that I have any evidence to support it..." IT IS A FALSE CLAIM ON THE FACE OF IT.
You have NO EVIDENCE to make the claim, only a fevered imagination and a desire to excuse a pervert because he's YOUR pervert.
On the other hand, when the media REPORTS a story that they heard about, researched, uncovered and then reported on, they are not making something up. Some women REALLY DID make these claims. The media REALLY DID look into it and heard some corroborating stories and decided it was solid enough to report about.
And it's NOT that they just randomly heard, and then reported it without investigating because "it hurt a conservative" - as the conservative attempt to dupe the WAPO demonstrated. When someone tried to "lure them" with an actual fake story, it only served to demonstrate the basic soundness of journalistic integrity at the paper and the unprofessional ineptitude of the conservatives trying to dupe them.
The story was not made up. These women actually made these allegations.
And the women have come across as credible. And there have been several - at least eight - telling similar stories, indicating a trend of Moore continually seeking out teenaged girls to court and, in some cases, allegedly harassed and abused. There have been no significant stories undermining these women's credibility.
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-roy-moore-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-11/#becky-gray-6
more...
So, we have a man who already holds deplorable, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-muslim, anti-American ideals, who already has made multiple false claims. And we have these eight women and their many witnesses who attest to their stories' credibility and NO reason to suspect Moore's made up allegation about the press, media and these women lying.
WHY would we trust Moore in this scenario?
Look, it might be different if he had a long history of being a respectable community leader, not a buffoonish racist sexist, etc idiot. It might be different if he had responded with, "Look, I certainly am aware that we have a problem in our nation with girls and women being harassed and I am opposed to it... and I have no explanation as to why these women remember the situation in the way they do, but I can honestly tell you, I never tried to date teen aged girls when I was in my thirties. I certainly never would have made these sorts of advances on women as some of them described... Maybe there's some mistake?" or something like that. As opposed to making an obviously made up claim that has no basis in reality, no data to support it beyond a hunch that comes more from convenience.
But he DOES have all the baggage of his offensive, anti-American ideals expressed in his own words and his false claims and his buffoonish manners.
I have provided evidence. The evidence is that HE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE, didn't even CLAIM there WAS any evidence. As with Trump, it's just an obviously stupid claim.
I don't think you're getting that.
Do you understand what I'm pointing out?
That someone who says, "She's lying! It's all something cooked up by the media and the Dems (and maybe Mitch McConnell, to boot!"), but then does nothing to prove it, doesn't even say he has any reason to believe it beyond its convenience to him... that it is, on the face of it, an unproven and by all evidence (the evidence being that he DIDN'T TRY to provide any evidence!), it's a completely made up allegation?
Do you get that? Because I don't think you do. You've given no response to the evidence of no attempt to provide evidence.
I find it funny how you mention the courting habits of "too many in fundamentalist circles" without even a cursory glance toward the arts
Of course, those in the arts, or Dems, or the GOP, who oppress or harass or assault anyone are wrong. Assault and sexual harassment are always wrong. I've never said anything that would suggest otherwise.
As oft noted: I did not vote for Bill Clinton either time just because of the hint of his having oppressed women (although I did not find the stories to be consistent and as credible as the MANY against Trump and against Moore, still, it suggested a problem to me) and I supported him stepping down from office for his lies about a blow job with an adult intern, because he lied and, while consensual, because the intern was so much younger and the imbalance of power made the affair sleazy on Clinton's part.
And, of course, I stepped up and campaigned against Trump because of his so over-the-top perverse behavior and attitudes, and the lies, all the historical lies! The point is, I have consistently opposed any who'd oppress women or anyone. That goes for the Weinsteins and Spaceys. I don't generally (or ever) talk about those in the arts (conservative or liberal) who oppress because there's limited time in the day and because I'm more worried about our leaders than our actors and directors, but of course, they're wrong, too.
The difference, then, is not that I'm being hypocritical - I'm being consistent. On the other hand, it's way too many on the Right who are being hypocritical, those who castigated Clinton all those years ago who are now giving Trump/Moore free passes. It becomes clear that it wasn't the sexual assaults/misdeeds that bothered them. That was just a convenient bludgeon for beating up a political foe, rather than being any consistent moral stance.
The question, then, is why are you and yours defending the perversions of Trump/Moore?
Indeed, homosexuality must be praised as normal, healthy, good
Well, as a point of fact, homosexuality IS normal, it certainly can be healthy and good. We have no data to suggest otherwise, only tired religious traditions like those of the fundamentalist Muslims or christians. As to whether or not God blesses people committing to marry, love and cherish one another - regardless of orientation - that is not something we can prove, but it certainly seems rational and biblical to me.
It's not that the lie is the lesser of two evil choices, it's "not wrong AT ALL." [emphasis mine]
This, from a man who claims to follow Jesus, who taught that we should let our yes be yes, and our no be no.
Yes, I believe that Jesus, who taught us to be honest and forthright. AND who taught us that the Sabbath was for humanity, not humanity for the Sabbath... that guidelines and rules ARE for humanity, not humanity for the rules. AND who taught us to stand with the oppressed and marginalized... I believe that Jesus would say OF COURSE it is moral to tell a lie to save a life!
Duh.
Wait. Are you seriously suggesting that to tell a lie to save a life... that this is a moral WRONG?
Wow.
Bubba, Bubba, Bubba. Your world just seems so upside down and backwards from basic decency, morality, reason and goodness.
You have a hole in your heart and mind, dear Bubba. Repent.
Seek Jesus, man.
All those words, not one bit of actual evidence. All those comments, not one bit of data.
Still ignoring/supporting the potential of voter fraud to beat Moore.
One can only assume that Dan has scrutinized Moore’s opponent with as much effort as Moore and pronounced him acceptable.
Speculative claims about a person's actions are not proven by further speculation about his thoughts and motives; an absence of proof is not proof of an absence; and you certainly would not accept such thin gruel from your opponents, so -- again -- you aren't even trying to live up to the standards you demand from others. It's ridiculous for you to accuse others of hypocrisy.
More than that, it's demented for you to take the position that following Jesus entails endorsing homosexuality generally and deception at least in specific circumstances -- and that those who disagree are morally and mentally defective.
But perhaps we can FINALLY reach some common ground in recognizing that our beliefs are so radically different that it simply isn't possible that we're both Christians. At the least, you should never again balk at the idea of one person concluding that another is outside the faith, since (hypocrite that you are) you're doing just that: no one who is already a Christian needs to be told to seek Jesus.
--
In case I wasn't clear enough, I believe that, IF lying is ever morally permissible, it's only as the least bad option available. It can only be the lesser of two evils -- and we may arguably be permitted that lesser option in the absence of better alternatives -- and it is never an intrinsic moral good.
That's not enough for you, and since your position heads in that direction anyway, I wonder if you would agree with the priests in Scorcese's recent movie Silence.
Their persecutors threatened to kill their parishioners if they didn't renounce their faith. They give in.
One priest says, “If Christ were here, he would have apostatized to save them.”
It is very much like what you just said, "I believe that Jesus would say OF COURSE it is moral to tell a lie to save a life!"
So, do you agree that even renouncing Christ is a moral good and practically a command of Christ if it results in lives being saved?
If not, why not? What's the difference?
Cmon Bubba, how can you rationally expect Dan to live by the same standards he expects of others. Why offer evidence or hard data when you can just announce something as fact without doing so. Dan seriously believes that if Jesus were here He’d falsely accuse Art of crimes, call His political enemies liars and perverts, swear like a sailor, support a senate candidate who is for unrestricted abortion, say that lying is moral.
That’s what you get when you think morality is fluid.
1. I am a Christian.
2. I assume you are a Christian.
3. Just because someone says "Seek Jesus" is not the same as them saying, "I don't think you're a Christian."
4. Only one of us here deems it necessary to question the others' faith, and it ain't me.
5. Questioning another's understanding of Christian faith and practice is not the same as denying they are a Christian.
6. Why? Well, for people like me, we believe in salvation by GRACE, and not by perfect understanding. I assume it's a given that you're going to be wrong sometimes. I assume it's a given that I'm going to be wrong sometimes. Thank God for Grace.
++++++
Now, having cleared up that misunderstanding on your part, do I agree that renouncing Christ is a moral good? I would leave that to the person it's happening to, i.e., it depends.
IF I were being told "Renounce or die." I would hope I wouldn't do that.
IF I were being told, "Renounce Jesus here and now or we will bomb that orphanage," I would hope that I would "renounce Christ." In that circumstance, it seems obvious to, I think, anyone that the called for "renunciation" is meaningless, just an utterance of words under extreme pressure. It wouldn't mean that I wouldn't keep following Jesus.
To your point, YOU believe that, given a choice of two evils, you'd choose to do an evil thing. I say I wouldn't.
By your reasoning, if you were asked to either rape, torture and kill ten children or someone else would kill 100 children, no, I would not rape, torture and kill ten children. That's evil and I would not embrace an evil, not even a lesser evil.
I'm saying, on the other hand, that a lie to save a life - a lie such as, "Nope, they're not in my house" to save the refugees I'm hiding from murder IS NOT A SIN. WHY would it be a sin? A moral wrong?
It's the problem of embracing a Rulebook approach to morality versus a Guidelines approach to grace and morality. Seems to me.
But now, we're just piddling off topic.
The point remains (and I get that you all do not seem to understand the point, I don't know how to help you there): The Moores/Trumps of the world are liars, demonstrated by reality and their own words (and by liars, I'm meaning that they are repeat false claim makers... it's possible that they are so delusional that they don't understand the difference between fact/truth claim and made up nonsense and thus, not deliberately lying, just repeatedly making false claims) and we need to stand up against that. The Trump/Moores of the world appear to have clearly been abusive/oppressive towards others, towards women, towards minorities, towards people of other faiths. We must stand up against this sort of perversity.
Thank God, Alabama has, at least the majority.
Well said. Still no hard data or evidence, nor a acknowledgement and/or repudiation of the potential voter fraud (an intentional and blatant act of lying), not any apology for falsely accusing Art of a crime, but well said nonetheless.
First of all, it is an intentional act of deceit to continually tie together two very different people as if they were identical in character. Moore is not Trump. Trump is not Moore. Palin isn't either one of them. But Dan Trabue is dishonest in a way he does not accept of anyone, and it shows here in the purposeful tying together of these people.
Next, nothing you said about Moore stands as a lie, particularly if he's going to use your excuse...that he truly believes what he's saying. And this leads to another lie you tell...one you tell often...that something can't be true if not said in a manner of your approval. Here, because Moore states he believes there's a conspiracy to derail his campaign, you choose to regard that as a bald-faced lie. The fact is, there is far greater likelihood of that being true...more, at least circumstantial, evidence...than there is for your lies about God blessing, approving or tolerating homosexual behavior simply because it takes place within and allegedly faithful, loving, monogamous union to which the term "marriage" is applied. Between those two claims, you're clearly, demonstrably and self-evidently the bigger/worse liar.
You continue to say there are many who accuse Moore. There are at most, three. One has been found to be a liar herself, but on this we're supposed to accept her as credible, when her story is full of holes based on the testimonies of those who would know about details of her story. There is also the problem that there is no commonality between the stories of the women accusing Moore, except for their young ages at the time Moore's actions allegedly took place. And speaking of lies...
"Well, as a point of fact, homosexuality IS normal..."
It is neither normal, the norm or normative. It is the polar opposite of normal. It is an incredibly subjective opinion of those who are afflicted with that desire and their enablers, and a baseless default claim of those who refuse to resist that desire. 2-3% of the population does not equate to "normal" in any sense of the word, except to those with no sense.
"...it certainly can be healthy..."
It's never healthy, so this is a lie as well. It isn't difficult to find medical journals that document health issues prevalent among homosexuals/lesbians that are almost non-existent in heterosexuals. I've presented some of them myself over the years from my many child porn sites...articles I'm sure Dan never took the time to read and research further on his own, given his perverse love of sexual immorality. These health issues have nothing to do with sexually transmitted diseases, either, though they are all more common among the LGBT population than among the normal population.
"...and good."
Here, Dan does not define good, and clearly it would not be by Christian standards of what constitutes good (that which pleases God---which homosexual behavior never does...EVER). And given the many negatives attached to the practice, from physical health concerns to mental health in all it's dire manifestations, there's nothing good about it.
Dan,
What you don’t seem to get is that Bubba and I agree that both Trump and Moore have serious moral flaws which preclude us from supporting them. Art has acknowledged the serious moral flaws, but has decided to support them because he believes them to be preferable to their challengers. Do you understand that none of us is even remotely suggesting that these men are moral paragons?
But, it’s possible and reasonable to support actions engaged in by people of deficient moral character that are positive actions. It’s alsi possible to support a fair process to deal with unproven allegations against people, no matter what their character.
For example I can and do support an open and impartial investigation into the charges against Moore, yet I also think he is a horrible candidate for the Senate. I don’t think you get the distinction between support of a person and wanting to see them being treated fairly and impartially.
For another example, I could never support or condone voter fraud as a means to defeat a candidate I opposed.
For another example, if the bias that we appear to see in the FBI investigations of Trump and Clinton is what it appears to be, then I will support whatever is necessary to remove the bias from the investigation.
But none of that means that I support or am making excuses for Trump or Moore.
That’s what your partisan hatred blinds you to, the fact that it’s possible to acknowledge basic fairness and to evaluate actions apart from character.
It’s intere that your entire argument against Bubba and I is built on your falsely representing our actual positions. In essence your attack on two liars, requires you to lie about us.
Art, interesting point. Essentially Moore is stating his opinion regarding the charges and the timing of those charges. Yet Dan has been painfully clear that opinions can’t be evaluated as anything but opinions and can’t be proven. Apparently, this is the exception to that.
Just for the record:
"* it is a FALSE CLAIM that the media and the Dems were collaborating with McConnell and the GOP to make Moore look like a pervert."
No. It's an unsubstantiated claim. We can't know if it's false or not without proof that you won't provide for examination.
"* It is a FALSE CLAIM that the media is the enemy."
No. It's not false at all. In recent reports regarding the voting totals, local reports in the early going were saying it was too close to call when Moore was still leading by 3 or 4 percentage points. But when 98% of the votes were in, and Jones was ahead by less than 1%, they gave the race to him. Even with the remaining totals coming from more liberal areas, less than a point could go the other way, but the media chose to frame it as stated above. That's not the most egregious example...indeed it's rather Trump-like in it's lack of danger to the public...but it is indicative of how the media generally rolls in reporting about right-wing versus left-wing figures.
"* It is a FALSE CLAIM that Muslims can't be trusted to hold political office."
No. It's an OPINION, and a sound one based on an honest understanding of islam and how incompatible it is with our form of government, our culture and our way of life. The same is true of atheists, socialists, communists and some others. The founders of our nation would agree wholeheartedly because they felt a working knowledge of the Christian faith was essential for not just leaders, but for all. Indeed on that score, Moore is far more qualified than Dan Trabue.
"* It is a PERVERSE claim and an attack on basic human rights and decency to suggest that being gay should be criminalized. God damn that thinking to hell where it belongs."
Well, it's a lie to say that Moore said being "gay" should be criminalized. He was speaking of the behavior, just as God did when he said their deaths would be on their own heads. In other words, based on the teachings of Scripture, God damns homosexuals to hell, particularly those who claims to be serious students of Scripture.
What's more, there are still forms of sexual expression that are illegal... polygamy, for one...so to pretend outlawing homosexual behavior is an attack on basic human rights is absurd, especially considering the harm engaging in such behavior inflicts upon the participants. Outlawing it would save lives. Promoting, enabling and celebrating homosexual behavior is an attack on decency because decent people don't engage in that behavior.
"* It is a HYPOCRISY to accept "late allegations" when they are about Hollywood moguls, but deny them when it's about creepy old white conservative men."
It's EMBRACING GRACE to refer to Moore as a "creepy old white conservative" simply because he holds the Christian position on homosexual behavior, the common sense opinion on muslims in public office and sought a wife among the only female population in his area where one might found (based upon the background story from that child porn site I produced that you didn't read because you hate).
But it's not the time frame of when the alleged abuses took place, but the timing of the revelations...right before the election.
"* Despite Marshall's creepy suggestions, people CAN generally tell a 14 year old girl from an adult woman."
I made no creepy suggestions. But now you alter your position from there being no doubt to "people can generally tell" a fourteen year old girl from adult woman. But even more deceitful is that I never made the comparison between girl and woman. I made the comparison between below and above the legal age of consent, which is all that Moore had to determine. None of the girls he approached looked like more mature women. So you lie again.
"it is wrong in our culture for a man in his thirties to deliberately and consistently seek out teen-aged girls for dates"
Sez who? It might not be ideal. It might not be recommended for a host of reasons. But "wrong"? Who are YOU to dictate to two people of legal age that their relationship is wrong while celebrating actual perversity as something God would possibly bless? How dare you, you vile hypocrite! You dare judge a man for being a pervert without any firsthand knowledge of either him or the girl with whom he is smitten. My youngest daughter is more mature than you've shown yourself to be and has been since she was a teen herself. You don't even have a moral compass based on your views of human sexuality and sexual immorality.
"* it is sick as hell that such a man would consistently demonize decent gay men and lesbian women who simply want to marry into a healthy respectful adult relationship given his seeking of girls to marry"
But they aren't decent if they are engaging in homosexual behavior. Not as far as God is concerned since he called such behavior an abomination, with absolutely no exceptions regarding in what context it might take place. Conversely, courting any female over the age of consent is not sick, perverse or indecent at all, except to partisan and false Christians like yourself who need to demonize someone who opposes your point of view. Very hateful indeed. Thus, Moore is not "sick as hell" but very much in alignment with Christian teaching on human sexuality. You demonize a man who understands God's will on the subject. He speaks truthfully on the sinfulness and physical harm of a dangerous sexual behavior.
Lot to say, no time to say it -- will comment at length later, hopefully over the weekend -- but a quick question for Dan, about "defending" Trump and others.
Suppose some guy, John Doe, has been arrested and credibly accused of monstrous behavior, of kidnapping and torturing dozens of people and even eating them, bit by bit, while they're still alive.
Would you support a lynch mob breaking him out of jail and torturing him until his body gives out, subjecting him to potentially decades of excruciating pain?
Or would you support extending him the legal protections of due process and safety from cruel and unusual punishment?
By your logic, it can't be the latter: you would be defending a cannibalistic serial killer.
Or if it's okay for you to stand up against the lynch mob EVEN when they're targeting a John Doe, it surely must be okay to scrutinize and even criticize the manner in which you attack Trump or anyone else.
"He's a bad person" doesn't mean, "Dan is morally free to attack him however he likes."
Probably not helpful that we are finding out that Lisa Bloom was working to get money (which she’d get 33% ot) for women who accused Trump. I don’t see how this revelation increases the credibility of the as yet unproven accusations against a Trump.
Look, guys, believe whatever nonsense you want. But you're on the losing side of morality and history and reason, here. I've explained it to you, several times now, things you're not understanding. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
Would you support a lynch mob breaking him out of jail and torturing him until his body gives out, subjecting him to potentially decades of excruciating pain?
No. I don't believe in torture, nor in vigilantism. So, why would I?
You, on the other hand, are stuck with being okay with embracing evil, as long as it's a lesser evil. Does that mean you'd rape and torture ten babies to save 100? It's a lesser evil, after all.
I answered your question, putting to an end your silly speculation. Will you answer mine?
How does your reasoning NOT end up with you raping and torturing babies?
And I'm not attacking anyone "however I like." I, along with many decent conservatives, am recognizing that Trump and Moore have likely harassed/abused/oppressed women. I'm saying this is wrong, it's perverted.
As are Moore's suggestions about Muslims, about gay folk, about "the media..." He is a perverse, petty, ugly little man, engaging in perverse words and behavior. And now, he is in the shit hole of history. Hopefully, Trump will be joining him there, soon, too. Along with the KKK, the nazis and all the people who defend Trump/Moore types in one way or another.
And saying that Trump is a liar in the same sense that Obama/Clinton were IS defending him, because it's attempting to lessen the stench of his perversions and false claims.
We need to defend our women, our children, the oppressed, the stranger, the poor. Join the right side of history, fellas. Or if not, take your pervert-defense elsewhere. I can't explain it any better.
t's EMBRACING GRACE to refer to Moore as a "creepy old white conservative" simply because he holds the Christian position on homosexual behavior,
I don't consider him a creepy old white conservative because he holds a "christian position." I am calling it perverse for 30 year old men to seek out teen aged girls because there is an abuse of power, there. I'm calling it perverse to long for the good ol' days of slavery. I'm calling it perverse to demonize Muslims and the media, to suggest that Muslims shouldn't hold office.
It's sick, ill, contrary to our better ideals. You all have lost this argument in the greater culture of the day, if not in your own echo chambers.
If it makes you feel better, go back to those echo chambers so you can reassure yourselves that Moore wasn't a pervert, that Trump is just another so so politician and not a danger to the world.
But you've lost the argument here. Move on.
Unfortunately your lack of anything resembling “hard data”, your unwillingness to even attempt to present any, your accusations of criminal behavior, your silence on anything that undermines your prejudice, and your focus on two of the increasing number of people undermine any shred of credibility you might have.
Craig, I know you don't understand this, but I have already presented it. You read it. Didn't understand it. Now, you think I haven't presented the case.
But your not understanding it is not the same as my having not presented it.
So, if you want to defend Moore, Trump and other conservative perverts (while simultaneously, being glad to demonize more liberal people who misbehave at a lower level), go ahead. But do it elsewhere.
You've lost. Move on.
No, Dan. You HAVEN'T presented your case. You've simply repeated your allegations and charges. Presenting a case means to support the allegations with evidence. You've not done that. What little that might be so categorized has been addressed in a manner that requires more from you, which you don't provide, preferring instead to claim you've done your job and restating the charges is sufficient. It's pretty much how you deal with all objections, critiques and questions regarding your many goofy positions.
"I am calling it perverse for 30 year old men to seek out teen aged girls because there is an abuse of power, there."
I've no doubt you want there to be, because it supports your hatred of Moore to have it be so. But it isn't automatic that such an age disparity indicates such abuse at all. It is as crass a generalization as it to say that all black people are lazy, or that all Japanese people are lousy drivers, or that all "progressive" Christians simply corrupt Scripture....wait, that third example is true. If you want to say that some older men who seek out younger women do so because they regard them as easier to manipulate, I can't argue against that. But if you insist on saying it's true in absolutely every case, you're just a liar who merely trying to indict Moore with as much evil as you can scrape together.
"I'm calling it perverse to long for the good ol' days of slavery."
It is, so you shouldn't do that. Moore hasn't. That's just another willful distortion of what he did say, because you don't have the integrity to find out what he said, or the honesty to present it accurately because by doing so, he's just that much less evil...and you can't have THAT!
"I'm calling it perverse to demonize Muslims and the media, to suggest that Muslims shouldn't hold office."
Again, you're purposely distorting his position. Many people regard muslims as incompatible with our governmental style, and thus would never vote for one. The reasoning behind it is more than merely sound because it is based on what is well known (and easily found out) about islam and what they intend for the world. With that in mind, it is far more perverse to risk electing muslims to office in any level of our government (as a general rule in the very least). YOUR problem (in this regard specifically given you have so many problems) is that you believe one cannot have this opinion without being hateful toward muslims. YOU believe that it PROVES hatred toward muslims, particularly when it is a right-wing person voicing the opinion, because of your hatred toward the right-wing over their defense of righteousness and common sense. But it simply doesn't follow. Not everyone is ideal for every position in life. Recognizing that is simple honesty, not hatred. For example, you're clearly no ideal for teaching about Christianity. That's just the reality.
As to the media, they are clearly worthy of criticism. Their leftist partisanship is beyond question. Honest people expect absolute objectivity from the media and we don't get it.
You are representative of what is "sick, ill, contrary to our better ideals" because you demand that others adhere to YOUR notions of what those ideals are, few of which match American ideals at all as put forth by our founders. And you're certainly in conflict with Christian ideals in both your beliefs and your behavior...particularly when you visit my blog. I've defended this notion with citations and links many times. You now, in your dishonesty, refer to them as only "echo chambers" rather than bring forth actual evidence to refute them. Typical.
And once again, we do far less defending of Trump and Moore than we do attacking YOUR lame attacks on them. YOU falsely, but consciously choose to portray what we do as defending them. And then you have the audacity to pretend you care about "embracing grace". When will YOU do that?
Many people regard muslims as incompatible with our governmental style,
Many people want to lynch black and brown people. Many people want to imprison folk for "gay activity."
Many people accept all sorts of perversions. So what?
Again, if you want to hype and defend perversions of this sort, take it to your place, Marshall.
You're on the side of the racists, the perverts and the child molesters. Thus, you've lost.
Move on.
~Dan
To be specific, any Muslim who is unwilling to renounce Sharia law as being superior to or taking precedence over US law is by definition someone who should not be serving in an elected federal government role.
Clearly someone wouldn’t be able to swear to protect and defend the constitution, while simultaneously trying to replace it with Sharia.
I suspect the difference will be lost on you, and you’ll likely label me anti Muslim or racist or whatever gives you that warm feeling of superiority. But, in the same way that a pure pacifist can’t reconcile pacifism with the presidential oath of office, some Muslims woukd be faced with a conflict.
That you, a non-Muslim, do not understand Sharia law is not justification to institute religious tests. Will you ask the same of Christians (ie, "Will you renounce Christian rules as being superior or taking precedence over US law?"), or are you going to penalize only Muslims in this way?
Please answer this question.
And yes, that IS anti-Muslim, based on prejudice, not facts or first hand knowledge.
And your answer will, no doubt, illustrate that.
~Dan
"Many people want to lynch black and brown people. Many people want to imprison folk for "gay activity.""
How does either of these equate to acknowledging the clear incompatibility of islam to our form of government, culture and way of life? You have a penchant for tying disparate notions together to demonize your opponents. That's called "lying" when you attempt to present them as analogous.
"Many people accept all sorts of perversions."
Well, YOU certainly do, and then falsely apply the term to that which isn't, as you've been doing in this conversation.
"Again, if you want to hype and defend perversions of this sort, take it to your place, Marshall."
I don't engage in such behavior, but YOU certainly do and then accuse those who don't.
"You're on the side of the racists, the perverts and the child molesters."
Not at all and never have been. That would be you again. You vote Democrat/socialist. That's where the racists, perverts and child molesters have flourished for years and years. That is where they've found cover by misrepresenting Constitutional principles, such as freedom of speech. This has been documented extensively.
"That you, a non-Muslim, do not understand Sharia law is not justification to institute religious tests."
But we do understand Sharia law. It's not like it isn't widely discussed and easily researched. It is incompatible with our form of government and our culture. The perversion you champion would result in your own execution under Sharia, as it has in islam dominant countries for fourteen hundred years.
What's more, islam is as much a political system as a religious one, and thus, it is a not so much a religious test as an ideological one. I would also reject socialist candidates for the very same reason. It is incompatible with our way of life and all America was meant to stand for before socialists like you gained influence back in the early part of the 20th century. Even the founders agreed. I dare you to actually read a link for a change...this one...or even just skim it and you'll find that my position aligns with their intentions and understanding of the incompatible nature of islam with America.
"Will you ask the same of Christians (ie, "Will you renounce Christian rules as being superior or taking precedence over US law?")"
It's a ridiculous question, as your study of the link above will prove. US law, that is, the Constitution, flowed from the Christian sensibilities and worldview of those who composed and ratified it.
It is you who devoid of understanding on this issue, not us.
Fellas, are you familiar with Christian Dominionism?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology
There are some Christians who would like to see a gov't run by Christians based on "christian law."
There are some Muslims who have an oppressive view of Sharia law, implementing a gov't run by Muslims based on Muslim law.
And yet, you are wanting to institute a literal religious test specifically for ONE religious group. That is literally unconstitutional. You can't isolate one group like that for special tests.
Do you, Marshall, at least recognize the basic unconstitutionality of your perverse proposal and that it would never pass the Supreme Court? (Well, depending on how many ignorant and perverted justices Trump might place in courts...)
Again, you are using the language and arguments of anti-liberty, racist, sexist, homophobic, perverted people and groups. When you embrace the mindset, language and arguments of these perverts, you lose.
You lose.
Thank you so much for telling us what we want, as if you have the first clue.
Islam, as a whole is intended to be both a religious system as well as a civil government system. This is a commonly known fact that even a cursory internet search will confirm. It’s not some hidden esoteric thing that only Arabic speakers can comprehend.
Art, gets ready. We’re in the jumping through hoops stage, soon to be followed by the misrepresentation and expletive stage, then by the deletion and misrepresentation stage, and finally the closing of comments stage.
The fact that it’s that predictable and regular must mean something.
To be clear, this is not a religious test in any way. It’s an expectation that anyone elected to federal office can and will take their oath of office seriously and not lie when they take it. It’s an expectation that all elected officials choose to adhere to the standard of not trying their overthrow the system they’ve sworn to protect and defend.
So, Craig, you're saying, " Yes. I would require Christians to renounce Christian rules and affirm US law taking precedence over my Christian rules..."?! Because I would NOT submit to that litmus test as it is unconstitutional.
Please answer directly.
Dan
Why would you ask a question I’ve already answered? Do you not understand the concept of the oath of office? Do you think it’s ok to lie when someone takes the oath of office.
I’m saying that someone of whatever stripe, who is committed to a philosophy which is committed to replacing our constitutional system, cannot In good conscience take an oath to protect and defend a system they intend to overthrow.
Yes, I’m saying that elected officials should follow the law and governing structures as they exist. Shocking concept I know. One that you probably agree with.
As an example you’d agree with. Virtually all pro life politicians are virtually forced to affirm that they will abide by and enforce the current laws on abortion as those laws exist currently.
I'm asking you about YOUR words. You wanted to tell Muslims that they should "renounce Sharia law" and affirm the Constitution over Muslim law. Would you also use the same wording for Christians, requiring they"renounce" Christian law?
Please answer the question I'm asking
Dan
There is no Christian analog to Sharia.
I’m not even saying that it’s necessary to renounce Sharia in ones personal life, just that not subordinating Sharia to US law is an inherent conflict with the oath of office.
So, No, you would NOT ask a similar question to Christian candidates and you are literally singling out Muslims as Muslims for this additional test?
And I gave you an example of a Christian analog, Dominionism. Some Christians and some Muslims would want to submit citizens to their own religious rules. Shall we begin asking all religious people to affirm what you asked Muslims to affirm? Or are you backing away from your words you used?
Please answer the questions asked.
Dan
Are you suggesting that dominionism is a formalized codified legal system?
I’ve answered your question multiple times in multiple ways. Let’s try this.
I would say that anyone who is unwilling or unable to subordinate their religious legal system to the US secular legal system, would be unqualified for elective office and if elected would be lying when they take the oath of office.
I love how your “analog” is a tiny obscure sect. I can name multiple countries which are governed by sharia while I suspect you couldn’t name any governmental entity governed by your “analog”.
I'm trying to get you to address YOUR words. YOU used inflammatory, discriminatory words about Muslims. YOUR words, as YOU used them, are unconstitutional. Are you backing away from the phrasing you used? If not, would you use the phrasing YOU used towards all religious candidates, or is it a test only for Muslims?
Final time, please answer the actual question I'm asking. Or don't bother commenting.
Dan
Roy Moore would not submit his religious rules to US law. This is not a problem isolated to those who identify as Dominionists.
Dan
Once again, I’ve been painfully clear. If ANY elected official is unable to unhesitatingly take the oath of office without reservations and to be honest in their affirmation, they should not be eligible to serve. It’s that simple. I used Muslims as an example because it’s what was brought up. I did not in any way suggest that I was sinlgling out Muslims for special scrutiny.
We’ve long past the point where you can credibly claim I haven’t answered in multiple different attempts to jump through your ever tightening hoop. Perhaps the problem is your poor understanding of Islam and the role of Sharia therein.
You've yet to answer a single question, directly as asked. Reality is reality.
Here, some reading material to educate you on Sharia...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5788f567e4b03fc3ee507c01/amp
Dan
Roy Moore isn’t relevant any more.
"There are some Christians who would like to see a gov't run by Christians based on "christian law.""
As Craig has suggested, there is no significant movement that seeks to implement a Christian theocratic system in this country. Indeed, what there is doesn't even rise to the level of "not significant". And again, as any cursory study of our founding will reveal, our system of government flows from the Christian sensibilities of our founders. Even where some law is in direct conflict with Christian teaching, such as the two great unConstitutional impositions of abortion and SSM, that is a reflection of the liberty to choose right from wrong inherent in Christian teaching. What's more, both those abominations can be reversed should the moral compass of our nation turn to point back toward morality. islam does not allow for such.
In another example, honesty is paramount to our governmental system as it is in Christianity. There is no teaching of lying to promote either, whereas it is an acceptable practice in Sharia. As such, a lying Christian is acting contrary to both our form of government as well as is own alleged faith. A muslim can lie and be well within the precepts and teachings of his faith. Because of this, there is no way to trust a muslim candidate, as there is no way to judge his sincerity.
"And yet, you are wanting to institute a literal religious test specifically for ONE religious group. That is literally unconstitutional"
You clearly didn't read a word of the link I encouraged you to read. You also totally ignore the FACT that islam is not a mere religion, but a political system and on that basis one is wise to reject it and those who are likely to impose it, directly or by small cuts. As I said, it would be no different than rejecting an athiest, a socialist or a communist for all the same reasons of harm that doing so is likely to cause to our way of life. Thus, the "religious litmus test" concept does not apply with muslims as the political nature of their alleged religion is the key factor here. What's more, you fail to understand the concept as it was intended by the founders, as explained in the link I so generously provided for your edification. Clearly you're more interested in demonizing Moore and those like myself than truth and reality.
More importantly, Moore isn't looking to "institute a literal religious test" at all merely by rejecting the notion of voting for muslims. Encouraging Americans to reject muslim candidates is not instituting a government policy anymore than encouraging Americans to live a moral life is. Good on Moore for having the courage to preach the truth. Bad on you for lying about him doing so as if it is no more than an act of bigotry.
"Again, you are using the language and arguments of anti-liberty, racist, sexist, homophobic, perverted people and groups."
And you are lying about the language and arguments I use. I am speaking truth, and your petulant attacks on my doing so rather than actually providing an argument to counter it proves it. Particularly galling is your liberal use of the word "perverse" and your misapplication of it to describe my arguments and positions. It's cheap, easy and a lie of the worst kind. But then, I admit I don't understand embracing grace in the same way you apparently do. I didn't think it meant being a dickhead. My bad. So you go ahead and continue "embracing grace", and I'll tell the truth and deal in reality like a good Christian ought.
So, I read your HuffPo piece...because that's what people do when one offers a link---you should do so as well for a change...and found it to be exactly what I expected. It attempts to water down/whitewash what sharia is. So in turn, I offer the following:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html
Unlike your article, this one focuses on the source of the alleged "misunderstanding" about sharia...that is, whence the worst parts of the law originate, Mohammed himself. It is thick with citations to support everything therein. It is much like something from Robert Spencer, an authority on islam who also takes great pains to use islamic apologists and sources in enlightening the western world on the many problems inherent in the ideology you wish to defend. As to how many want to implement sharia in America, here's a result of a rather recent poll on that very question:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/51-of-u-s-muslims-want-sharia-60-of-young-muslims-more-loyal-to-islam-than-to-u-s
With regard to the question of a religious litmus test for candidates for public office, my link in the previously posted comment is rather lengthy, but it should dispel your understanding of what is or isn't Constitutional or in harmony with American ideals from the perspective of those who started this whole thing. To them, there was a vast difference between religious tolerance and religious equality. They clearly did not see that the former suggests the latter and that we should not be concerned with the religious (or political) beliefs of those who seek public office. And they openly and publicly encouraged the governmental support of the Christian faith without reservation. From the conclusion of that article:
"Let it be repeated once again that, having a Christian mindset, the vast majority of the Founders were for religious tolerance, meaning that they were willing for those who embraced non-Christian religions to come to the country and not be persecuted. However, under no circumstances should such tolerance be misconstrued to mean that the Founders intended to convey credibility to such religions, implying that those beliefs would be beneficial to America’s way of life if incorporated into its public institutions."
--emphasis mine
"To echo the words of Jedidiah Morse, the “tyrannical governments” and “deplorable wretchedness” that continues to characterize Islamic countries around the world will necessarily characterize America if and when Islam is allowed to permeate the nation’s institutions."
Roy Moore's position mirrors this and it reveals he has a far better understanding than you (and most others who criticize him) of the founder's intent with regard to freedom of religion and religious tests for public officials.
Post a Comment