A Christian Response to the Allegations Against Judge Roy Moore

Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Alabama, Roy Moore, greets supporters at an election-night rally on Sept. 26, 2017 in Montgomery, Alabama.

By Michael Brown Published on November 11, 2017

How should we respond to the charges against Alabama senatorial candidate Judge Roy Moore? In light of the recent flood of sexual scandals, it’s easy to understand why many Republicans want to distance themselves from Moore. God forbid they seem to be indifferent to serious sexual indiscretions, especially when a 14-year-old is the alleged victim. Yet, Moore has many political enemies. And these allegations are just now surfacing after 40 years. Could it be a political hit job?

This is an especially tough question for Christian conservatives.

On the one hand, we have taken enough heat for helping to elect President Trump, as if his own sexual misconduct was not that big of an issue to us. Will we look the other way with Roy Moore too? If so, can we fault those who question our moral integrity?

Questioning Our Integrity

A headline on Vice.com reads, “Why Evangelical Christians Stand Behind Accused Sexual Predators. Principles have given way to raw, ugly partisanship.” Over on the conservative, National Review site, Katherine Timpf declares, “If You Refuse to Condemn Predators because of Politics, You’re Disgusting.”

If Moore is guilty of the charges, we should not support him and he should drop out of the race.

Timpf is certainly right. If Moore is guilty of the charges, we should not support him and he should drop out of the race. This is not only because of what he allegedly did, but because he is lying about it today, forcefully denying the ugliest of the charges. As Timpf writes, “The allegations against Roy Moore are disgusting — and if you find yourself reluctant to say so because of your politics, then you’re pretty gross, too.”

But herein lies the problem. These charges remain only allegations. There are valid reasons to question their truth.

Yet, Why Now?

Why are they only surfacing now? Is it because women are now feeling empowered to come forward and call out their accusers? Or is it a political ruse? And how did Moore survive being vetted for the Supreme Court of Alabama, ultimately becoming Chief Justice, without any of this alleged immoral and illegal behavior being discovered? How did he even survive the tens of millions of dollars spent to defeat him in the recent primaries without this surfacing?

Or perhaps this is nothing more than a politically motivated attack, coming just when he was poised to win the election.

Think back to the Ted Cruz campaign for president, when 5 women accused him of having sexual relations with them. These were charges he flatly denied. Do we have any good reason today to believe they were true? (Note also that the National Enquirer was their main source.) Perhaps it is the same with Roy Moore. Perhaps this is nothing more than a politically motivated attack, coming just when he was poised to win the election.

What About “Innocent Until Proven Guilty”?

Former Governor Mitt Romney, now considering a run for Senate, tweeted, “Innocent until proven guilty is for criminal convictions, not elections. I believe Leigh Corfman. Her account is too serious to ignore. Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.”

But is this a godly response? I understand that Romney is convicting Moore already based on Corfman’s testimony, in light of which he says, “Moore is unfit for office and should step aside.” Yet is this the response Romney would want (or any of us) would want if he (or we) were falsely accused?

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

I was never a supporter of President Obama (or candidate Obama). But when I read all kinds of allegations against him or his wife, Michelle, my response was always, “He’s innocent until proven guilty.”

And when it came to President Trump, we knew in advance his long history of immoral behavior. The audio tape of his vile and gross comments from more than a decade earlier only confirmed what we already knew. Our hopes were that he had made some changes in recent years. And despite our concerns, we preferred him to Hillary Clinton.

A Straightforward Christian Response 

When it comes to Roy Moore, he is being supported as an overtly Christian, staunchly conservative candidate with high moral principles. Should he by lying now about his ugly past, he would not be worthy of our support.

So, we hold our standards high but we do not condemn without evidence. This seems quite straightforward to me.

We simply don’t know at the moment whether the charges are true. So I agree with President Trump’s sentiments, expressed through press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. He believes that if the “allegations are true” Moore will “do the right thing and step aside.”

I have appreciated many of the stands Judge Moore has taken over the years. So I truly hope the charges are not true and he will be vindicated before the elections. On the other hand, if they are true, he isn’t just guilty of serious misconduct 40 years ago. He is lying about it today, in which case he is obviously not fit for office.

In light of this, I believe an ethically consistent, conservative Christian position looks like this. 1) We agree that if the charges are true, he should step aside, regardless of the political ramifications. But: 2) We view him as innocent until proven guilty. We hope and pray the truth will come to light in before it’s time to vote.

So, we hold our standards high but we do not condemn without evidence. This seems quite straightforward to me.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Linda

    Same reason the Hollywood victims are coming forward now to tell of incidents that happened many years ago – because the atmosphere has only changed in the past few weeks. If you believe and even relish the Hollywood stories, there’s no reason to discount the Alabama woman.

    • Except that the Hollywood women and the people they accused are all of the same stripe and nature. Moore isn’t. I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to try harder than that.

      • “all of the same stripe and nature”

        What are you referring to?

        • Dean Bruckner

          All the Hollywood accused are Progressives who welcomed the sexual revolution. Publicly and with great vigor. They are thus all the same stripe and the same nature from that point of view.

          If Moore actually did this, it would be just as evil, but it would be the opposite of what he preaches, not the fulfillment of it.

  • Franklin Dzioba

    Agreed, this is a tactic of the Left. In fact this is how Obama moved up the political ranks so fast. “Sudden” “mysterious” sexual allegations against his opponents. There is no motive to lie for the Hollywood accusers, there is plenty here though.

    • Moore obviously has a motive to lie. If he doesn’t his career is over. What motive do his accusers have to lie?

      • Franklin Dzioba

        We don’t know their motivation but if you agree Moore has career motivation then you must logically agree that there is oppositional motivation as well. Politics is money and money talks. You say their is risk for these women? Maybe, but it is small as most media will simply accept what they say and not investigate as to not hurt the “victims” further. Victim status is coveted in the USA and politics pays well. You think it a mere coincidence that this past behavior some how eluded the Republican opposition in the primaries but just “came to light” by some crack investigator (of dubious integrity herself) just in time to conveniently help the Democrats? There is your motivation for fraudulent accusations.

        • Thanks for your response Franklin. I appreciate it. I’ll respond to your points below:

          “if you agree Moore has career motivation then you must logically agree that there is oppositional motivation as well.”

          I disagree. I don’t think there is any necessary symmetry of motivation. Specifically, I don’t believe these four accusers have any career motivation. Nor do I believe they have personal motivation.

          “You say their is risk for these women? Maybe, but it is small as most media will simply accept what they say and not investigate as to not hurt the “victims” further.”

          I disagree. Over the last two days these women have been subject to extraordinary degrees of vitriol online. People have called them liars and linked them with various conspiracies. I can’t imagine how awkward their lives have gotten in the communities in which they live.

          “You think it a mere coincidence that this past behavior some how eluded the Republican opposition in the primaries but just “came to light” by some crack investigator (of dubious integrity herself) just in time to conveniently help the Democrats?”

          What is your claim, exactly? That these women invented their stories for a monetary payoff? If so, what is your evidence? Simply the fact that the WaPo article was published 5 weeks out from an election? Do you think that fact is sufficient to cast aspersions on the character of these women and suggest there must be a vast conspiracy involving at least 30 witnesses and several reporters?

          • Franklin Dzioba

            Randal, you just did exactly what I was eluding to. You provided cover for these women against the accusation of monetary benefits. Yet, you do the opposite when it comes to Moore. Exactly my point. You can make heavy accusations without evidence and people assume they are correct and defend you. Politics is lucrative that is also part of what I said. You never addressed that. I appreciate you tone as you argue, by the way.

          • twmon9816

            I think he needs to get a life.

          • You’re trolling under the cover of anonymity and you think I need to get a life? LOL.

          • Your dishonesty is a bit tiresome.

          • Oh really? Well I find unsubstantiated accusations from anonymous internet trolls tiresome. So I guess we’re even.

            If you want to accuse me of dishonesty you need to provide evidence that I knowingly attested to the truth of a false claim with the intention that others would come to accept that false claim as true.

            So what evidence do you have?

          • I guess, if being even is your concern. It’s not mine. I’ve replied to you above. You assume things you have no evidence that are true.

          • Andrew R

            Randal, it’s always good to read your posts. I often don’t agree with you, but you always make sense, are unfailingly polite, and make smart, good-hearted and incisive points.

          • “You provided cover for these women against the accusation of monetary benefits.”

            Do you have evidence these women are receiving “monetary benefits”? If so, what is it?

            I gave my reasoning in support of Mr. Moore’s guilt in an extended comment within this tread.

            I appreciate your tone as well.

          • Franklin Dzioba

            Well I suppose if I could just get a reporter to write a story saying I saw money change hands proving this all a grand conspiracy, then you would believe me and then defend my integrity too, right? I mean, I dont know Roy Moore, what motivation would I have to lie? After all, it’s the seriousness of the allegation that is most important. Actually, I did see someone on Twitter who said there are people who were offered money from a reporter named Beth. Honestly, I dont know who to believe, Im not sure how you do.

          • You can believe that they don’t have any career motivation, but you are being dishonest. The fact is that you simply don’t know if they do. The other part of this is that people routinely trade on their victim status and their ability to bring down a person of integrity.

            You claim to be a Christian and yet you’re unaware of the basics in politics.

          • “You can believe that they don’t have any career motivation, but you are being dishonest. The fact is that you simply don’t know if they do.”

            You do realize that you just undermined your assertion of dishonesty, don’t you? You began by asserting I’m dishonest, but then switched in your second sentence simply to accuse me of being mistaken (i.e. by believing I have knowledge I do not have).

            If you want to charge these women with lying, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

          • KrakenFartz

            It is dishonest to pretend to be knowledgeable on matters where you have no grounds to know.

          • Why don’t you apply that standard back on yourself? What is your ground for knowing that I am pretending to be knowledgeable?

          • KrakenFartz

            The fact that you are a driveling, incoherent half wit provides a clue.

          • The assumption is false. You simply don’t know, yet you assume. You also apparently are completely unknowledgeable of the many women who have traded on claims of harassment to fame and profit.

            Again, your arguments are simply not believable as they demonstrate too little familiarity with the political scene in which you are discussing.

        • Linda

          Investigative journalism is costly and time consuming, so outlets would not be willing to invest resources until the politician rises through the ranks to a certain level. Moore is taking himself up the ladder, therefore, he now warrants the attention.

          • Franklin Dzioba

            He has been costly to the Left for some time now. This was one journalist who somehow found these women after 30 years and it just happens to benefit the Dems?? Interesting coincidence.

          • Linda

            Media outlets wouldn’t have been very interested in someone whose career appeared to be over after being twice removed from the state supreme court and failing twice to secure nomination for governor. When he set his sights on federal government, journalists could justify the investigative efforts.

          • KrakenFartz

            Moore reached the level of ‘warranting’ such ‘attention’ long ago when he was admitted to the supreme court of Alabama, and even more so when he became Chief Justice.

          • Chip Crawford

            Actually, state politics, especially in a state such as Alabama, don’t compare to the stakes of a pivotal national Senatorial election.

        • Gladys Brierley

          I think rhwe atmosphere changed and women started to feel more empowered to come forward. I believe most are motivated by a need to be validated and personal dignity.

        • Chip Crawford

          There’s more pressure to get onto past weak links with a national office at stake. Media do look into things; it’s not as blase as you indicate. NBC checked out one of the Moore accusers interviewed. Megyn Kelly knew the woman had some bad checks in her past and brought it up. Maybe so, but the woman was credible. Even if WaPo did pay an accuser to come forth, that woman was believable as well. People want to see this stuff stop. Most women have some experience of it in pressure from word or deed. It is a very weak link in our society. Everyone should want the climate to change across the board that has allowed this kind of thing, protected it.

      • KrakenFartz

        That is completely moot. Moore, if he is innocent has an equal motivation to tell the truth and be exonerated as he has to lie if he is guilty. You have not moved the argument further in any way, but you have attempted to preempt the attribution of guilt by use of a fallacious framing technique. I find your arguments manipulative and disingenuous.

      • Dean Bruckner

        Why do accusers ever lie? Answer that and you’ll answer your question.

      • Gladys Brierley

        Good point.

  • Charles Burge

    In this case, it wasn’t the women who came forward. Rather, an investigative journalist approached them and started asking questions. I think Ms. Timpf’s article is also instructive in dispelling the notion that accusers are simply seeking attention. As she points out, they often get the worst kind of attention, and being an accuser confers no benefits at all.

    • Amen. Moore has every reason to lie, because if he doesn’t his life is in shambles. By contrast, his accusers have no reason to lie. On the contrary, by coming out publicly against this man, they are subjecting themselves to untold scrutiny, criticism, and public ridicule from Moore’s supporters.

      • Of course, you still don’t know anything about the character of this guy, but please go on.

        • I make my decisions based on publicly available evidence. You’re in precisely the same position. So if you want to have a reasonable exchange, respond to the evidence I’ve summarized.

          • LOL. Go read his book then.

          • Go read whose book? Roy Moore’s? What does that have to do with the charges that he is a pedophile? Talk about non sequitur.

      • Dean Bruckner

        Your thinking is quite slanted. What Krakenfartz (don’t you love German sounding names?!) stated is correct: if innocent he has just as strong, and even stronger, motivation to tell the truth.

        Your undeclared smuggling of this condition (if he is guilty) is the mark of illogical, biased thinking.

        You’ll have to do better.

    • Wrong. Being an accuser, especially if you are paid or supported, gets you all kinds of benefits, especially in progressive circles. If you’re the one who brings down the man, then you get invited places, book deals, cash, etc. Just how many women have traded on claiming sexual harassment, real or not? Plenty.

      In progressive circles, your injuries are your meal ticket.

  • Thanks for your article Michael. No surprise, I disagree with your analysis.

    When assessing a he said/she said (or he said/she, she, she, and she said) case, we need to look at the credibility of witnesses, motive, and corroborating witnesses and evidence. And please keep in mind what should be obvious: individuals can make reasoned judgments based on the available evidence irrespective of any conclusion being reached in a jury trial.

    So here’s the evidence. In the last couple days Moore has conducted a handful of interviews. In that time he stated that when he dated young women while in his 30s he always asked their parents for permission. That statement implies that he was dating girls of the age where parental consent would be required, and that is already a damning fact.

    Second, when he was interviewed by Hannity, Moore initially hedged on whether he had dated teenagers. I can say without qualification that I never dated teenagers when I was in my 30s. I presume you can too. But Moore didn’t say that. Instead, he said initially that he didn’t remember dating them. It is only after Hannity returned from a commercial break and attempted to reframe the question that Moore began to give a fuller response.

    Third, regarding motivations, Moore has a clear motivation to lie. By contrast, these four women have no clear motivation to lie. At least one of them voted for Trump. And all of them knew full well that they and their lives would be subjected to scrutiny, to ridicule, to skepticism, and worse.

    Fourth, the WaPo article carefully investigated their claims and sought corroborating witnesses to various details of their reports. Thirty witnesses all told were interviewed. All of this attests further to the credibility of the witnesses.

    Fifth, the WaPo journalists were not contacted by these women. Rather, they gradually came across their stories when they were doing research in Alabama and began to encounter rumors of Moore’s past.

    So to sum up, Moore has thus far not been a credible witness and he has a motivation to lie. By contrast, I find the witness of the women sober, clear and detailed and supported at various points by multiple corroborating witnesses. Even Tucker Carlson has admitted he finds the witness of these women to be credible. And they have absolutely no reason to lie.

    At the very least, you have very credible evidence that Moore may very well be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar. You need not believe the charges as yet to have adequate reason to withdraw all support for him in this election.

    Consider, if you had any inkling that a man might be a sexual predator, pedophile, and liar, would you allow him to take care of your grandchildren? Surely not! So why would you continue to support his political career?

    • So here’s the evidence.

      1) Moore is disliked by the GOP establishment wing (which includes Trump, as Trump is not conservative, but a populist). Look at McConnell’s involvement in the Strange campaign for the tip of that iceberg.

      2) Moore is 70 years old. In his 30’s, the era was the 1970s. Needless to say, the 70’s did not have the same perspective on dating as we do today. Neither is right nor wrong, but I encourage you to watch TV from the 70’s to see how they handled men of legal age dating teenagers (the term is inspecific, but say the age of consent is 16). So no proof of anything weird there.

      3) Regarding the women, the women have a very good reason to lie, and that’s fame, money, and support. You can easily make a good living for yourself if you take down someone powerful, especially if you have both parties (i.e. the liberal hegemony) willing to fund you. Again, Trump does not share Moore’s politics. Trump supported Strange before Strange won. You do not understand the political situation.

      4) The WaPO reporters came across something that state of AL in vetting Moore for chief judgeship couldn’t find. Believable? Questionable at best.

      5) Women are attacking a man of power, so they should automatically be believed? Not necessarily.

      I also find it interesting that you disregard all evidence of Moore’s character in order to reach your conclusion.

      So to sum up, the only way the women are regarded as credible witnesses is if you have never heard of, seen, read, or knew anything about Moore, you had no clue about politics, and you had a reason to believe a man who had demonstrated his integrity many times over was in fact a quick-change artist.

      No, Moore is not McConnell, and that’s why these charges are here.

      • So your “evidence” is that everyone including Trump hates Moore and so is conspiring. And the four accusers have agreed to be part of this conspiracy for the “fame” and “money” and “support”?

        Yeah and don’t forget that 9/11 was an inside job and climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese.

        • No, my evidence is that you claiming a woman who voted for Trump must be telling the truth about Moore is unlikely to be true, because Trump and Moore are not political allies. Trump does not want Moore there, as evidenced by both McConnel’s and Trump’s support of Strange in the primary. Trump is a populist. Moore is a conservative. The two are not the same.

          I don’t have any evidence on the four accusers, but I do know the nature of the WaPo. Apparently you don’t. I also find it risible that they found things that apparently nobody else in AL politics could find when it would have been a great advantage to them. Sorry, that’s not very believable.

          • So if the accusers vote for democratic candidates you’ll disbelieve them. And if they vote for republican candidates, you’ll disbelieve them.

            Got it.

            And who needs to evaluate evidence when you know the “nature” of the Washington Post! Great research standard.

    • Dean Bruckner

      Your just another Progressive wannabe not content with believing and obeying scripture. Here’s a passasge you wrote from your book-promoting website:

      “While I believe young earth creationism is bad science and bad hermeneutics, neither bothers me more than the temerity of creationists like Mackay to question the moral and Christian character of those with whom they disagree.”

      Was there a real Adam and a real Eve, created by the direct action of God from dirt? Did they rebel against God and experience spiritual, and later physical, death? Was there a real worldwide flood with a real Noah and a real Ark?

      If any of these answers is “no,” we know enough about you to make our own conclusions about what you write here.

      You also support, apparently, the Progressive narrative on global warming. That is enough in itself to reduce the weight given to your opinions on Judge Moore to the level of background noise.

  • The Lost Fart

    I don’t doubt that Roy Moore is a flawed man — I have both Romans 3:23 and the fact that he’s a politician to support that assumption. And yes, we should try to elect people of high moral character as our representatives, but it seems that now (more than ever before in American history) Americans are looking for saviors among politicians.

    I was appalled (though not surprised) by the outright worship that so many gave to Obama in 2008, but what truly surprised me was the outpouring of adoration given to Trump in 2016. I’d always thought that real Americans (i.e., we Republicans) were better than that — that we understand that, when we vote, we’re picking the least loathsome from among a slate of our fellow scoundrels, not selecting a new member of our governmental pantheon.

    This attack is particularly appealing to Christians since it’s much easier for us to cast down this particular clay idol than to repent of our idolatry. If anyone were calling us to repent of our idolatry, then I’d be amen-ing right along with them. But then that appeal would tend to recommend against electing members of the party that exalts government as God, and thus end up as an nose-pinching endorsement of the Republican candidate.

    • I appreciate your sober realism regarding the fallen human condition and our penchant for idol-making. But I’m not clear where you stand on the charges. Do you believe Moore? Or his accusers? And if you believe neither at this point, is that warrant to withdraw support for the man until a more settled opinion can be reached regarding his potential guilt?

      • The Lost Fart

        It’s simple, since we aren’t electing gods to rule us, when we vote we just pick the scoundrel who’s the least objectionable. (And because I don’t live in Alabama, I don’t have to act as a judge about which of the two scoundrels is preferable. But then, please don’t take that as a reproof of your appointing yourself as the All Wise Sovereign.)

        • Are you saying that because all people (or all politicians) are sinners it is a matter of indifference whether Moore is in fact, a pedophile and a liar?

          • You are assuming what you are trying to prove. Nice slipup. It shows your heart.

          • You think I’ve engaged in circular reasoning by asking “The Lost Fart” a question? How’s that work?

          • The Lost Fart

            No

  • tz1

    Anita Hill. Should Clarence Thomas step down? High-Tech Lynching goes nuclear.
    Remember the WaPo would edit the story (do we have any raw interviews?) to put them in the best light and remove contradictions. This is a filing by the Prosecution.
    Moore did one thing 40 years ago and was a perfect angel since? Unlikely. Every claim in Hollywood is not one incident years ago, but that the abuse was systematic.
    The Defense is just getting started. It appears lots of anti-Moore, anti-Trump campaigning.
    We also don’t know if these women were paid or promised something.
    Maybe a defamation suit (pedophilia is defemation per se in most places), where the women will have to swear UNDER OATH and penalty of perjury that their memories are perfect since truth is an absolute defense. Accusations to a WaPo reporter are different than being examined by a lawyer, possibly in court. Also note a lot of hearsay – You really remember what your teen friend said to you 40 years ago? And that is why there are statutes of limitations. Evidence and memory fade. You can’t prove innocence or guilt.

    We also have far more credible allegations that Senator Menendez (D-NJ) far more recently hired child prostitutes and is on trial right now. Where are the calls for him to step down? The #NeverTrump group for some reason think’s hiring child prostitutes is not a reason to step down if you are a Democrat.

    • “Remember the WaPo would edit the story (do we have any raw interviews?) to put them in the best light and remove contradictions.”

      Do you have any evidence that facts reported in this particular story have been altered?

      “We also don’t know if these women were paid or promised something.”

      Do you have any evidence they were “paid” or “promised something”?

      • twmon9816

        Do you? Do you not believe innocent until proven guilty?

        • Do you believe his accusers are innocent until proven guilty of lying? Or are you content to cast aspersions on their witness and character without evidence?

          • KrakenFartz

            What a weird inversion! The burden of proof lies with the accuser. That is why the accused is legally regarded as innocent until proven guilty, and accusations of wrongdoing treated as being false until they are proven true.

          • richservant

            The accuser doesnt have to prove anything and innocent until proven guilty is only in a court of law. If the accusers are more believable than the accused, thats who gets the benefit of the doubt.

          • KrakenFartz

            Regarding someone as innocent until guilt is established is not just a legal standard, but a good and moral heuristic to live by. Of course an accuser has to provide a reasonable standard of evidence! Otherwise, anyone could have their life destroyed by a mistaken, or malicious accusation.

          • Oh right, so if your child told you she was molested by the neighbor you’d disbelieve her until your neighbor had been proven guilty in a court of law?

          • Apparently you missed the fact that people in this discussion thread are playing the accuser against the four women who have shared their testimony. Thus, people in this discussion thread have a burden of proof to show that the women are lying.

            As for the women themselves, surely you are aware that their testimony would be considered evidence in a court of law? So everything comes down to assessing the quality of witnesses. I have already pointed out in my initial extended comment that the women’s testimony, corroborated by more than two dozen witnesses, is credible and they have no reason to lie. Moore, by contrast, has already admitted to dating teenage girls in his 30s and he has said he doesn’t *remember* dating the three oldest accusers. Moreover, he has an excellent reason to lie.

            At the very least, what you have here is sufficient evidence to raise the serious possibility that he is a pedophile and liar.

          • KrakenFartz

            Thus, people in this discussion thread have a burden of proof to show that the women are lying.

            What? No they don’t! Again, what a surreal inversion of the burden of proof! The accused has a right to be regarded as being innocent until proven guilty, and an accusation as being false until it meets a strict standard of evidence.

            As for the women themselves, surely you are aware that their testimony would be considered evidence in a court of law?

            At this stage, no. These accusations could not be regarded as legal testimony. Right now they have no more legal status than gossip. These accusations would have to pass careful vetting by law enforcement and legal counsel before they could be repeated in the witness box.

            …corroborated by more than two dozen witnesses…

            What exactly has been ‘corroborated’? You don’t say. It is worth noting that it is very unlikely that a sexual assault on a minor would take place in front of any witnesses other than the victim, let alone dozens, or that if it had, it would not have led to immediate prosecution.

            …and they have no reason to lie…

            How do you know that? Or is this just more supposition without evidence. False accusations can, and have been made for any number of reasons, including but not confined to revenge, attention seeking, monetary gain, or political motivation. False accusations are not rare. That is why there is a presumption of innocence.

            …Moore, by contrast, has already admitted to dating teenage girls in his 30s..

            So what? They were obviously not minors at the time if he did so in public.

            … and he has said he doesn’t *remember* dating the three oldest accusers…

            So, maybe he didn’t date them? Do you have proof that he did?

            Moreover, he has an excellent reason to lie.

            If he is innocent, he has a much more ‘excellent’ reason to tell the truth and exonerate himself.

            At the very least, what you have here is sufficient evidence to raise the serious possibility that he is a pedophile and liar.

            At the very most I can conclude that what we have here is nothing but a smear job, especially in the light of the dearth of actual evidence and your disingenuous modus operandi in argument. I would imagine that Moore’s political opponents hope that they can tarnish him enough that his bid for the senate will fail, whether or not there is any basis in the accusations.

          • “What? No they don’t! Again, what a surreal inversion of the burden of proof!”

            Every person who stakes a claim in this conversation has a burden of proof. If you believe the accusers, as I do, you have a burden of proof (and I’ve given extended lines of evidence supporting my conviction). If you believe Moore, you likewise have a burden of proof. The only “evidence” I’ve seen in support of Moore is in the line of conspiracy theories and appeals to his allegedly unimpeachable character.

            “Right now they have no more legal status than gossip.”

            That’s false. These are carefully documented on the record statements from thirty witnesses.

            “What exactly has been ‘corroborated’? You don’t say.”

            Read the WaPo article.

            If you have reason to believe these women would lie to subject themselves to the kind of slanderous garbage filling this discussion thread then provide the evidence that they lied.

            “So what? They were obviously not minors at the time if he did so in public.”

            Great, so now you’re defending men in their thirties dating teenagers. Disgusting.

          • You have demonstrated that you don’t care about the integrity of a man who has repeatedly demonstrated his integrity under fire in the public spotlight. You also don’t care about the ultra-weird timing of this. You further don’t care that the burden of proof rests with the accuser, as it ALWAYS does.

            Are you going to repent of your dishonesty?

          • When you were in your 30s did you date teenagers? Moore did, and he admitted it. He also says he doesn’t remember dating the three oldest accusers. Perhaps Moore himself is part of this conspiracy that you’ve imagined?

          • You are applying the rules of 2017 to the 1970s. Nice try, but no. You’re also leaving out the fact that he asked their parents first, and what their ages were, exactly. Plus, do you remember the details of your dates from 35 years ago? LOL.

      • tz1

        You mean other than a tweet about another woman who claims the WaPo offered her $1000 for dirt? Other than that, no. But accusations are apparently damning evidence – or not.

        • Where’s your evidence that the people interviewed by these three journalists were given money?

          • tz1

            A tweet where a woman says she was contacted by the WaPo and offered money. Why isn’t she credible since she could have gotten $1k for making something up.

          • Where’s your evidence that the people interviewed by these three journalists were given money?

            Please provide a link to your sources.

  • tz1

    To bring up Anita Hill again, you can make up a credible sounding story, though apparently Hill plagarized the Exorcist, and/or some obscure sexual harassment filing from the midwest. She testified UNDER OATH to the senate and without challenge sounded as if even more credible.

    The craze over all the daycare molestation (McMartin preschool) were the same way – the interviewers would lead the children into what to say.

    We don’t have audio or notes – I can’t find the distilled prosecution edited case credible. Maybe it took 3 hours of talking, and discussing, and any hesitations or contradictions were filtered out, maybe it started in the courthouse bathroom, then a local house, then the remote one in the woods. It could have started with touching through clothes, but ended with removing them. We don’t have even the one-sided “deposition”, and it wasn’t under oath. We have no cross-examination looking for changes or contradictions in the story. Maybe someone is searching Lexis/Nexis for the identical underwear touch story and will find it.

    So I call on the Washington Post to turn over all interview records, the raw ones, especially any audio of all four accusers so we can see ALL the evidence, not just the distilled bit you want us to see. That would be the first step in establishing credibility. Anyone can make up a credible story. It is much harder to maintain lies because you can’t remember everything you made up even a few hours ago, much less 40 years ago.

  • NewWest 123

    The problem with all this is he cannot prove he didn’t or did. Neither can the women. And for those commenting on Clarence Thomas, he couldn’t either. This entire thing is a gong show, our government is a mess and we are focused now on who did what to who. The country is on fire and it seems everyone is simply going through the motions.
    Today is Veterans Day and Most wouldn’t know it. Parades are just about nil. Flags hardly fly anymore. And everyone is racing for the free dinners and breakfasts that are offered. Other than that, I see nothing. I salute my husband and all the men and women who sacrificed for our freedoms…God Bless America…

  • Franklin Dzioba

    Funny, I just read a HuffPo article saying “how much more evidence will it take” hoping that this lady explain this evidence in her article. Nope. Apparently what she was saying is that all the evidence you need is the accusation itself and the fact that Senators have decided to not back Moore. Funny because within the article she gives reasons why the GOP might have reasons other than the evidence to not back Moore, namely Steve Bannon. One can see how if you are willing to get people on record you can create something out of thin air, and how just the accusation alone is enough to damage reputations and end careers.

    • richservant

      I bet you never took the time to read the whole WashPost article. Read it and try to be objective

      • Franklin Dzioba

        Amazing what a word smith can do with only certain facts. I like how it starts off at a park bench where he needs to watch the womans daughter. First off, it makes it sounds like the daughter is a small child not a teenager. And don’t you find it strange that the moms all seem to be ok with it and that although the article never neglects to tell you how old the girls were it doesn’t say they ever told him. And it sounds creepy BUT its all way after the fact, distant memories but all them say they never had sex with him, he wanted to date them and pretty much a gentleman, except the underwear part, which I guess we are supposed to believe. As someone who has daughters Im more worried about these mothers

  • Oh my. A rational, reasonable response. The internet might explode.

  • O’Pinyon

    Agreed.
    If the allegations are true, the real issue right now is the cover-up.
    If they are not true, the real issue is that people are lying to take Moore down.
    Either way, this comes down to lies v truth.
    In the meantime, we should not condemn Moore without the knowing the facts,
    nor should we assume that the woman is lying.
    May God give wisdom to the people of Alabama, and have mercy on us all.

  • twmon9816

    I’d bet any amount this was orchestrated by that low life Mitch the turtle head McConnell. He and the rinos at the RNC pumped tons of money into Luther Strange’s campaign and the judge whipped them anyway. Remember what those weasels pulled in Mississippi and that old geezer good ole boy Chochran? Those fake conservative don’t want real conservatives in there.

    • Slanderers will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:10). So unless you have some evidence you should withdraw your slanderous accusations and repent.

      And I assume by your ad hominem attack on Mr. McConnell’s appearance that you are not a Christian. I can’t imagine a real disciple of Christ behaving as you have.

      • 1noodle

        He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone. Would that be you?

  • Franklin Dzioba

    Three words… Duke Lacrosse Case. I can imagine all the people coming out of the woodwork back then to shout “what possible motivation could she have to lie!!!” Yet there is more possible motivation in the case than in that one. Sorry, this whole thing is absurd. A journalist just happened to be in Alabama, just happened to over hear talk, just happened to find four women from thirty year old incidents. Get this woman out of the “news” room and into the cold case unit.

  • Shears-of-Atropos

    From Othello, Act 3:

    “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls:
    Who steals my purse steals trash; ’tis something, nothing;
    ‘Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.”

    Bless his heart, WIll Shakespeare never met a U.S. Democrat.

  • Dr B – yours is *one* Christian response. Not *the* Christian response.

    Other Christian responses – one is that are groping 14 yr old girls is countenanced in the Bible, that he did nothing wrong in a Biblical sense.

    “Alabama State Auditor Jim Zeigler, a Republican, dismissed the charges brought forth in a Washington Post article about Moore Thursday, telling The Washington Examiner that the relationship would be akin to that of Joseph and Mary.
    “Take the Bible: Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance,” Zeigler said. “Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist. Also take Joseph and Mary. Mary was a teenager and Joseph was an adult carpenter. They became parents of Jesus. There’s just nothing immoral or illegal here. Maybe just a little bit unusual.”

    Another Christian response is the same one you gave when you voted for Trump – that you should vote for him in order to accomplish your worldly political aims, regardless of his personal immorality. Better a pedophile than a Democrat.

    “Falwell said in a statement provided exclusively to Breitbart News by Moore’s campaign ahead of its public release. “Judge Moore will defend religious liberty, stand up for the Constitution, and be a voice for people of faith in the halls of Washington.”

    Falwell, one of the key leaders in America’s evangelical Christian community who is also a top ally of President Donald Trump, is uniting behind Breitbart News Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon’s efforts to oust what he calls “Fake Republicans” nationally. Falwell, in a recent exclusive interview with Breitbart News in his office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia, called for evangelical Christians nationally to rise up against the failed political class in Washington.”

    I’m glad that you have limits in applying this philosophy. As you can see though, many Evangelical fellow travellers do not though, and it’s a bit late to reverse course like this.

    • *shrugs* As someone who did not vote for Trump, I see nothing wrong with demanding the truth from all comers. We have evidence on Trump. Where is the evidence here? What we have so far is very weirdly timed and fits a pattern of defamation that we have heard many many times before.

      How did the WaPo find stuff that the people who opposed hiring Moore for the chief justice couldn’t find? Dang. The WaPo must have some amazing skills. Or perhaps, maybe not.

      • One of the Judge’s more infamous pedophillic rulings;

        That in the case of Eric Lamont Higdon, a 17 yr old who raped a 4 yr old.

        Going against the other 8 members of the Alabama Supreme Court, Moore said that there had to be an overt and explicit threat of not just minor but serious bodily injury in order to convict of “sodomy with forcible compulsion” despite the obvious differences in size.

        Moore has form here. You just didn’t notice.

        • The prosecutor who brought the appeal against Higdon’s initial not guilty verdict, the one overturned 8-1 despite Moore’s pedophillic views? Luther Strange.

    • ScarletPimpernel

      “one is that are groping 14 yr old girls is countenanced in the Bible”

      It is not “countenanced ” in the Bible. Those making such a claim need to back it up with Scripture. But as I said, it isn’t there.

      “Another Christian response is the same one you gave when you voted for Trump – that you should vote for him in order to accomplish your worldly political aims, regardless of his personal immorality. Better a pedophile than a Democrat.”

      Donald Trump isn’t a pedophile.

      “Falwell, one of the key leaders in America’s evangelical Christian community who is also a top ally of President Donald Trump”

      So what? The issue here is that if/if Roy Moore is guilty of these allegations, he should step down. But, we need to know if he is. And we should not be calling for him to withdraw from the race on the basis of allegations.

    • Irene Neuner

      1. I think it’s only a portion of Roman Catholics that believe Mary was a teenager and there is no Biblical reference for it.
      2. Concerning Zachariah and Elizabeth here is excerpt from Luke 1:5-25“…observing all the Lord’s commands and decrees blamelessly. 7 But they were childless because Elizabeth was not able to conceive, and they were both very old.” What you are quoting the Bible to say isn’t there.

      Read your Bible.

      • Andrew R

        “They became parents of Jesus”
        I think you’re missing a key part of the story. Joseph wasn’t the father and Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus.

  • O’Pinyon

    To have the hen house guarded by a fox is especially egregious.
    However, is he really a fox, or a guard dog, falsely accused?
    That is the first question.
    The second is – which candidate will be best (fox, dog, or whatever they may be) at guarding the hen house?
    May the truth come out before the election,
    may the best candidate win the election,
    and may God’s name be hallowed.

  • Yossi

    Does anyone see the hypocrisy in Romney saying that unproven allegations from 35 years ago warrant Moore withdrawing from the Senate race? Does he remember when Senator Harry Reid claimed that he had it from a credible source that Romney hadn’t paid his taxes in 12 years? Why didn’t those scurrilous allegations, (much later proven to be false) not similarly lead Romney to “do what’s best for the Republican party” and withdraw from the 2012 Presidential race?

  • Gary

    If the allegations had any validity, they would have been made years go. The timing means that the reason for the accusations is political. Roy Moore’s enemies are desperate to keep him out of the US Senate, and they are immoral enough to tell lies in order to try to achieve their goals. I don’t know whether there is anything in Moore’s past that is bad, or not. But I know that these allegations are motivated by money and/or politics, not by a desire to right a wrong.

    • Thanks to the Good Ol’ Boy Network, countless women (and men!) did not and HAVE not spoken up about sexual harassment and abuse, because their careers and livelihoods depended on it. You think there should be a statute of limitations on such things?

      • Gary

        In this case, I don’t think the career of any of the women in question was in danger. That they are just now making the allegations, right before Roy Moore is about to be elected to the Senate, is a sure sign that this is about trying to keep Moore out of the Senate, and that’s all it is about.

        • Former Louisiana political figure Edwin Edwards (a Democrat, for what it’s worth) once said, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or a live boy.”

          Song of the South!

  • dlnebarnes

    If it is true, then Judge Roy Moore will be the Mother Teresa of the Senate.

  • dlnebarnes

    If it is true, then Judge Roy Moore must stay in the race because his presence will lift the morality of the Senate to new heights.

  • dlnebarnes

    If it is true, as all other bits of slimy mud thrown by the creatures of the swamp are true, then Judge Roy Moore will be the Mother Teresa of the Senate, lifting the morality of the Senate to new heights.

  • dlnebarnes

    If Moore was a democrat he would get millions of more campaign support, and be nominated for an award.

    • Benny Ehud

      Uh…you are aware that HOLLYWOOD, filled with DEMOCRATS, has fired just about every one associate with sexual harassment?

      • Wayne Cook

        Actually, that’s not quite true…but then you’d have to find a new premise.

        • Benny Ehud

          Not quite true? Out of the number of guys who have now been called out, 95% of them are gone.

    • Andrew R

      Right, like Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK and Kevin Spacey.

  • GPS Daddy

    We have an innocent until proven guilty law system. At least thats the way things were is the old days.
    But with all of the sexual abuse accusations going on right now.. from teachers to doctors to stars to politicians.. one thing is for sure. We know that the sexualization of our culture is wrong. Everyone knows this at some level.

    Yet, we do not have the power at this time to stop it.

    • Wayne Cook

      Not so fast…if you are a student of history, you’ll remember one Huey Long who used the same tactic against the judge who dared run against him, accusing him of taking hundreds of thousands in state money…funny thing was…the amount Long accused the Judge of embezzling, was in fact, the judge’s salary. Long won…and corruption continued.

      • GPS Daddy

        Hmmm, yep, the innocent until proven guilty can be used to let some who are guilty off the hook. But the opposite is also true. Accusations come out at the “right” moment to undermine a candidate. How many false charges were leveled over the past year against good people?

      • GPS Daddy

        But David French over at the National Review agrees with you.

        • Wayne Cook

          It angers me that people so readily dump on a man based on accusation, not proof, but that’s what many on this page have done. Thank you, GPS. i appreciate you following up.

          • Chip Crawford

            I am disposed to favor Judge Moore and appreciate his history and to champion the man. However, in this case, there is strong corroboration. You cannot “prove” these matters at this point. There is “witness” testimony to circumstances of time and place. to me, it does not relate to current conduct. But it is such that the taint cannot be erased, most unfortunately. Also, he hedges in his answers, sadly.

  • The Ghost of Obama Past

    So, Mr. Gray Walrus Mustache, all we have to do do get rid of any candidate we don’t like is make a sexual accusation against them?

    Or does that only work with non-Uniparty candidates?

    • yigejidutu

      Real mature there. Maybe try reading the article when you are not half-cocked. When you do, you’ll see that Dr. Brown is taking a cautious, reasoned position, since the allegations have yet to be proven true.

      • The Ghost of Obama Past

        As Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is the message, and I hear Mr. Gray Walrus Mustache’s smarmy message loud and clear.

        It appears this commie ‘RAT tactic of parading female “accusers” out just prior to an election has worn itself out. The ‘RATS use it too frequently. Americans don’t believe it anymore. This cheap shot is even worse because the ‘RAT reporter always start of by saying that these women didn’t come forward on their own but that they were sought out by a far left, commie ‘RAT reporter. These allegations are bogus. Moore needs to sue all of these “accusers”.

        • Wayne Cook

          And the mother of this particular accuser said the girl in question did NOT have a phone at the time to even take such a call!

      • Wayne Cook

        Odd you say that…he unabashedly castigated Trump and has done so several times. “On the one hand, we have taken enough heat for helping to elect President Trump, as if his own sexual misconduct was not that big of an issue to us. Will we look the other way with Roy Moore too? If so, can we fault those who question our moral integrity?”

        Dr Brown, I’m STILL trying to figure out what Trump’s “mis conduct” was!!

  • pgroup

    “On the one hand, we have taken enough heat for helping to elect
    President Trump, as if his own sexual misconduct was not that big of an
    issue to us.” — from the article

    Is the author a covert agent for the deep state? Or is he just one of those shallow individuals who skims the MSM for nuggets to comment about?

    The quoted statement above is a total lie. DJT never admitted sexual misconduct nor did anybody credibly accuse him of it. Interestingly, the author does not describe the sexual misconduct he is talking about thus inviting the reader to fill in the facts. When people are discussing conduct that amounts to a crime, it is vital that such crime be specified and detailed as much as possible. I, for one, do not want to be subjected to deliberately generalized conclusions presented as accepted fact. I sure don’t want to be tossed into a group of people who accept someone else’s conclusions as my own.

    Whatever is going on with Judge Moore, it’s clear that the alleged events of four decades ago could not have been seen as very important by the supposed victim; else it would have been reported long before now. It is also clear that in America it is a constitutionally protected right to not be compelled to prove innocence (a logical impossibility).

    With supporters like this author, Judge Moore doesn’t need any enemies.

    • Sexual harassment and abuse has been swept under the rug for a long, long time, thanks to entrenched good ol’ boyism: “Boys will be boys, thank the Good Lord that we have real MAN in the White House, and all these gals need to just shut up!” And a lot of women DID shut up like their careers depended on it … which was often true. Well, those days are over. Note the #MeToo phenomena.

      On one hand Moore is saying these accusations are “misleading,” while on the other hand he’s whining that whatever happened happened so long ago that it shouldn’t matter anymore. And people are willing to give him a pass simply because he fancies himself a good, God-fearing conservative Christian.

      • Chip Crawford

        That’s not true. I heard a discussion tonight of a group who are conservative, want a Republican in the seat at issue, and support a lot of the history of the man. They reviewed Judge Moore’s responses in the Sean Hannity interview and found them wanting. Their conclusion is that an innocent person does not equivocate as he has done in some of his responses. He does not ring true in his denials. You and Linda always allege Christians are either being naive or willing to sell out in these circumstances, and you are always wrong in your blanket statements.

    • Wayne Cook

      Yep. I’m getting further away from Michael weekly. I can’t believe he’s judging Trump for comments made before his salvation…but then, many evangelicals simply refuse to acknowledge he got saved in spite of the testimony of Paula White and Robert Jeffress. We Christians are great at cannibalism. God is way better at forgiveness than Christians are.

      BTW, WAPO was busted by the mother and an independent witness for bribing the woman in question.

      • Andrew R

        “BTW, WAPO was busted by the mother and an independent witness for bribing the woman in question”

        Nope, there was a claim from a single twitter account, Umpire43, that money was offered. The same account claimed to be a Navy veteran. It’s since been shown that he’d stolen a dead vet’s details, after which he deleted his account. So… not a good source. That aside, when did Trump claim to have been saved?

        • Wayne Cook

          Nope…it was not Umpire43 where I read it.

          • Andrew R

            But was it someone quoting Umpire43? Who was the source of the claim?

          • Andrew R

            Why did you bother editing your post just to make it more snarling and unpleasant? It doesn’t matter if you read it from that particularly twitter account – if you read it on one of the many sites that repeated its claim then its the same fruit from the poison tree.

        • Gladys Brierley

          Several well respected ministers have visited him as a group and he acknowledged Jesus as His Savior and he dies seek guidance from the bible and a variety of Christian pastors. His style of communication hopefully will be tempered as he grows spiritually.

  • At Alabama news website al(dot)com, columnist Elizabeth BeShears writes the following:

    One of the comments I’ve seen the most often is this question:

    Why didn’t these women come forward sooner?

    Well, I’ll tell you why.

    Historically when women have come forward to raise the alarm on the inappropriate behaviors of men in positions of power they are ignored, ridiculed, defamed, or investigated more closely than the man they accused.

    In this particular case, Leigh Corfman, the woman whose story shook Alabama politics, said she debated for years before coming out with her story.

    “Her kids are out of the house now, grown, and I think she felt like it was the right time to do it,” said Eddie Sexton, her lawyer. “I’m sure she was scared to death.” Sexton also attributed her hesitance to the fact that Gadsden, where she and Moore are from, is a small town.

    Ms. Corfman and the other women named in the Washington Post story aren’t the only ones who have long kept a secret of this magnitude.

    A few weeks ago the hashtag #MeToo swept across social media, inviting women to share their experiences of harassment, assault, rape, and abuse.

    Some told their whole stories, and some left it with a simple haunting #MeToo.

    A friend of mine was drugged and violently date-raped almost two years ago. The next morning she went straight to the hospital to be treated and have evidence collected, then went to the police to make a statement and charge the rapist.

    She was told she shouldn’t have been drinking, she was probably just experiencing regret, and that even if she decided to move forward with the charges she likely would never get a conviction in a battle of he said, she said.

    The simple fact is that every one of us knows women who have been subjected to inappropriate behavior of one degree or another from men and kept silent.

    They keep silent because they are scared for their jobs. They keep silent because they are ashamed. They keep silent because sometimes it is easier than being disbelieved.

    They keep silent because sometimes the men who have hurt them are in positions of incredible power.

    I don’t know if the allegations about Roy Moore are true, but my gut tells me to listen to these women. The presumption of innocence in the court of law is of extreme importance, but in the court of public opinion Moore is losing fast.To some the timing may seem a little too convenient, but if you saw a person who had hurt you or your daughter preparing to rise to a position of immense power would you just sit there and stay silent?

  • Hmmm…

    One has to settle these issues in their own hearts and minds, and face that others may not do that or having done that, come to different conclusions.

    My observation of Mr. Trump’s handling of the open mike statements is that they were talk and did not represent actions. Of course, one can be wrong, but my observation is that he has a real marriage, and that Melania would know and not gloss over any actions along the lines of what he bragged about and the women who “came forth” alleged. His shame was genuine over having spoken that way. The allegers were not proven out, some giving events which it was proven he did not attend. If he could stand up and admit it was swagger and not deed (talking like that at 60 years old no less), he could end a lot of it. Somehow, there is strength around Mr. Trump, his family, his associates generally before and after his election. While flawed, he appears to me to walk in all the light he has, and has made changes in thought and deed over the years, and some of that in the near past.

    I was predisposed to assume Mr. Moore was obviously being played right at this time, but taking the reports of those whom I trust who have examined the “evidence” of one or more of the women, it appears there is substance to the charges. But when I heard his statements, it turned it more that way as he seemed to hedge over some of them. It also follows with me that the coming out with the story now can be explained by the domino effect going on with these matters.

    So, no rubber stamp. I thought, though, that he’s not current with this, that it would not ruin his service in the Senate, but the way he responded did not indicate strength. What a time in our country, with this going on as widely as it is. Is it a good thing? There is a good shaking, that ends compromise and purifies. Hopefully, that is true with all of this. It is difficult to live through.

  • Andrew R

    “But when I read all kinds of allegations against him or his wife, Michelle, my response was always, “He’s innocent until proven guilty”
    There were no accusations against Obama that he’d been sexually abusing children.

    “Why are they only surfacing now?”
    Because Roy Moore could potentially gain a lot more power next month.

    “We view him as innocent until proven guilty”
    Then be consistent and apply the same logic to Harvey Weinstein and other liberals. For that matter, what sexual offences has Bill Clinton ever been proved guilty of?

    • BroFrank

      For a born again Christian your charges appear spurious. None of the men you mentioned above were of the caliber of a moral champion, as Judge Moore has been in defending the posting of the 10 Commandments. Secularists do not understand this, Christians who have had their lives changed (2 Cor. 5:17) do. I would not take the “word” of any of the men you cited in your comments, I do consider Judge Moore’s to be credible. Of course, this is something one must experience for his/her self.

      • Andrew R

        “None of the men you mentioned above were of the caliber of a moral champion”
        You either believe in ‘innocent until proven guilty’ or you don’t. And you can defend the posting of the ten commandments all you want, (an act that was in defiance of federal court orders) – it doesn’t make you immune from committing crimes, it just makes you a hypocrite.
        ” I do consider Judge Moore’s to be credible”
        Moore was a leading voice in the anti-Obama birther movement, which promoted the debunked conspiracy theory that former President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Given that he lied about that, it’s risible that you consider his word to be worth anything.

      • Andrew R

        It’s not looking good for your ‘moral champion’:
        “This past weekend, I spoke or messaged with more than a dozen people—including a major political figure in the state—who told me that they had heard, over the years, that Moore had been banned from the mall because he repeatedly badgered teen-age girls. Some say that they heard this at the time, others in the years since. These people include five members of the local legal community, two cops who worked in the town, several people who hung out at the mall in the early eighties, and a number of former mall employees.”

        That’s from the New Yorker. I’d put good money on more stories like this coming out.

    • Chip Crawford

      Who are you kidding here? Monika Lewinski admitted to the contact, blue dress evidence. Sheesh. The Arkansas women came on camera in interviews over the years with the same consistent stories. They did not press claims against Bill Clinton. Lucky him. However, the House of Representatives impeached bill Clinton for lying to it about the Lewinski matter, a charge proven. The Weinstein charges will be proven, the vast number of charging parties, maybe record setting – so difficult to publicize – speak much. there’s a lawsuit for rape being put together in NY. Get real, will you?

      • Andrew R

        Yeah, Monika Lewinksi was consensual – I’m talking about accusations of rape.
        ” The Weinstein charges will be proven”
        Hey, you either believe in innocent until proven guilty or you don’t.
        “Get real, will you.”
        Sure – here’s me getting real: More woman are coming forward and Roy Moore’s position is untenable. He’s toast.

        • Chip Crawford

          Paula Jones. et al – exhibitionism, not consensual; Juanita Broderick-rape. Weinstein had paid teams assigned to collecting dirt and charges to use against his accusers or would-be accusers along the way. Yet you defend his right to being deemed innocent until proven otherwise. Again, they’re working on a case against him in at last one venue. Moore is innocent until proven guilty also, yet you are calling him toast ? Maybe because the charges came so there’s not time to prove himself – coincidental I’m sure. Okay, you’ve got favorites, we see.

          • Andrew R

            “Yet you defend his right to being deemed innocent until proven otherwise”
            Nope, I’m saying people should be consistent. You either believe in ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ as a principle or you don’t. See BroFrank replying to me – for him the difference is that he doesn’t trust those other people but he does trust Moore. That has nothing to do with the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’.
            “Okay, you’ve got favorites, we see.”
            I’m saying don’t pretend that ‘innocent until guilty’ is a principle you stick to while you also play favourites.
            “yet you are calling him toast?”
            Yes, because the GOP is mostly disavowing him as fast as they can and he’s losing support in the polls. And more women are coming forward, as always happens in these situations.

            All that aside, please do something for me. Watch that video of Beverly Young Nelson sobbing as she told her story last night. Tell me if you think she’s acting.

          • Chip Crawford

            It’s your supercilious tone. You really should get rid of it if you seriously wish to engage other humans in conversation. If you are actually superior, please detail upon which you base that claim.

            In the meantime, I decided several days ago that I believed the accusers over the defender. It’s a sense, mainly from Judge Moore’s equivocated responses in the Hannity radio interview. He is responsible for it and for speaking the truth. Not fun to see anyone in this, even “the other side.” I hope you think along that line as well.

            Please do not come back with another layer of condescension. You persuaded me of nothing. I challenged what I perceive of your bias and that loathsome tone. We don’t go by actual proof on many things, do we, but instinct. “Please do something for me … ” – that’s an example of some of your handling language, which is counter to good communication. It causes one to one to punch back, because it is an inner punch, of the sickly feeling type. Perhaps you don’t in your heart wish to convey such? I hope not. Peace.

          • Andrew R

            “It’s your supercilious tone.”
            I think you’re reading into my posts something that’s not actually there, Chip. I was moved by that lady’s testimony on the television about being attacked by Moore, and when I used the word ‘please’ in my last post, it was quite genuine, because I want everyone to listen to what she said and judge for themselves her honesty. I don’t get how you can read condescension or a ‘loathsome tone’ into that. Look at the rhetoric and accusations of dishonesty in your own replies to me – “Who are you kidding” and “get real” strike me as more counter to good communication than anything I wrote. Peace to you too.

          • Chip Crawford

            The line you point out is not an example of the objectionable tone. I gave you an example of it. I told you just now I pushed back on you because of it. I’m changing that now. Of course, you think I am worse than you. The school yard tit for tat works that way. Using “please” in no way clears an authoritative leaning statement or request. Just some thoughts on my objections and explanations of my reactions. I won’t do this all day, so let’s clear this and agree that our country needs to come to unity and higher ground in many respects. Perhaps we can both agree to adjust our own conversation that way. I am often tempted to “respond in kind,” but resisting temptation is required to stay clear. I told a rather, to me, odious poster above to put a sock in it. Likely, I will let that stand. Bless you.

          • Andrew R

            “Of course, you think I am worse than you”
            I don’t, Chip. I was just having a discussion and sharing views, a two-way process. If you don’t believe me when I say I was making a genuine heartfelt (and to my eyes perfectly polite) plea, then further discussion is pointless. Good bye, and have a good day.

          • Chip Crawford

            I’ve made adjustments and admissions based on my conscience and your comments … It’s not easy to do, no … Perhaps you are able to do so only within yourself. Thank you.

          • Andrew R

            You’re welcome, bye.

          • Chip Crawford

            lol

          • Norm Ash

            Who’s your favorite actor, Andrew? I’m betting it’s Keanu Reeves!

          • Andrew R

            “I’m betting it’s Keanu Reeves!”
            Nope. I’m betting yours are Kevin Spacey and Louis CK.
            .
            “You probably would too, if you got paid $50,000.”
            Cite to back up that conspiracy theory please.
            .
            “The Washington Post reporter offering them $1000’s of dollars for some juicy gossip?”
            Yeah, the single source for that claim was a twitter account that deleted itself when it was pointed out he stole a dead military vet’s service record. And you’re calling ME a moron? Bye Norm.

          • Norm Ash

            hell, yeah, she’s acting. You probably would too, if you got paid $50,000. When Gloria Allred, the renowned ambulance chaser takes the case you can bet that someone is paying her tab–and it’s not this poor victimized (by the media) old woman.

    • Norm Ash

      He was on the Supreme Court of Alabama, you idiot. Becoming a U.S. Senator is a step down in power from that. You’re a frickin’ moron!

    • William Crowe

      “Because Roy Moore could potentially gain a lot more power next month.”

      Which is no different than ‘a’ reason for his supporters to stand by him for political expediency as well.

      • Andrew R

        You see NO difference between:
        a) ‘We better warn people this guy is a sexual predator before he becomes more powerful’, with
        b) ‘We’ll support a sexual predator for the sake of political expediency’.?

  • TickPicker

    I agree with you Michael, it’s pretty easy to oppose a child abuser. However; which candidate is the child abuser?

    Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, WILL support in 2018 bathroom access for transgenders and transgenderism in children, both of which are child abuse and are the same or worse than what Mr. Moore is alleged to have done 38 yrs. ago to one 14 yr. old girl.

    Doug Jones supports abortion and WILL oppose efforts to de-fund Planned Parenthood and will oppose placing pro-life judges on the bench. Killing babies is THE WORST form of child abuse.

    This means that if you don’t vote for Moore and could, you have, by acquiescence, empowered a professional child abuser.

    • So permitting a 6 yr old Trans girl to use the girls bathroom is worse than a 36 yr old DA sexually molesting a 14 yr old girl?

      Really?

      Listen to yourself.

      • TickPicker

        If you condone/support transgenderism in children, you are a child abuser. Yes you. This is worse then what a 32 year-old DA may have done with a 14 year old girl 38 years ago.

        Listen to your own self.

        Got himself destroyed two cities in the near East because of beliefs held by people like you.

        • Gladys Brierley

          God destroyed sodom and gommorah for negligence of the poor and needy and forcing perversions on the innocent not because of transgendered bathrooms. I disagree with forcing anyone to share a bathroom let’s have private bathrooms

          • William Crowe

            “Negligence of the poor and needy”…you must have been reading the authorized LGBT Bible version.

            “Forcing perversions on the innocent”

            Oh, you mean the guys that surrounded the house in order to sodomize the visitor? Ok, you got that one right.

            Any objective reading of the Bible would conclude that the perversions were prevalent and the norm, not the exception and thus their fate was sealed.

      • Norm Ash

        Where’s your proof, there Zoe? I know your brain dead, obviously so I won’t list your complete name. Hearsay and he said-she said hardly constitutes proof. Let’s see a polygraph from each of them. Now that’s something I might believe.

    • Andrew R

      “Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, WILL support in 2018 bathroom access for transgenders and transgenderism in children”

      If you’ve a problem with that then you should have a problem with Trump admitting he used to wander into Miss World contest changing rooms to see teenagers in a state of undress.

  • Keithttsg

    Dr. Brown and the broader Christian community miss the key issue.

    1 Timothy 3 clearly states the requirements for those that desire to lead God’s children. Roy Moore fails every single test. Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty under American Law, and as far as I am concerned, eligible to run for the Senate, but he is no longer eligible to represent the Christian evangelical movement.

    If there were even the remotest sense of love towards God in Roy Moore, he would publicly apologize to Christian community and cease invoking God’s name and shamelessly attaching his campaign to the evangelical community. If he had even the slightest hint of humility, he would not have to be asked to stop likening himself to a beacon for Christianity. He would just stop for the love of God, and so as not to be a stumbling block in the path of another’s salvation.

    Do not get me wrong, I neither condemn Mr. Moore nor I judge him past salvation if the charges are true.

    He is just not qualified to represent us until these charges have been addressed. Quite frankly, if you read through the list of qualifications in 1 Timothy 3, the allegations of pedophilia against Roy Moore are just the latest and most hideous of the numerous failures on his part to adhere to the standards of conduct set forth by St. Paul.

    This is the truth that Christians should speak to Roy Moore and about Roy Moore.

    Anything short of that response and we make ourselves into stumbling blocks as well. No elaborate interpretation is necessary, and no feelings should be hurt. This is not about Roy Moore, this is about God and unsaved souls, period.

    The Bible specifically, the First Book of Timothy, is very clear on these matters.

    I am a uneducated fool as compared to the likes of a Dr. Brown, Jonathon Falwell, Franklin Graham, etc. and yet I can see this clearly. Why are they and the Broader Christian community blind to this obvious instruction?

    • Gladys Brierley

      Yes so agree

    • Norm Ash

      Oh, Gawd. Another evangelical expert in our midst!

  • Now we have multiple independent accounts of the Judge having being banned from malls due to his unhealthy interest in girls in junior high when he was the DA.

    Many years ago, true. It is entirely possible that he hasn’t bothered any 12 yr Olds like that for many years. And while it’s very, very improbable in the extreme that his entirely innocent actions might have been misinterpreted, these days we’d call his proven behavior “grooming”.

    In those days, a more relaxed view was held of sex with minors. In Alabama, anyway. A plurality of Evangelicals in Alabama apparently approve even more strongly of the Judge now than they did before, seeing this as a return to that Old Time Religion. A pedophile led new Awakening.

    This is what you voted for, in order to gain worldly benefits. The Trump brand massage parlours and escort agencies the Trump organisation is opening in China too, having been granted permission to open them during the President’s recent negotiations with the Chinese Government.

    You own this.

    I don’t think I have to give you any benefit of the doubt regarding your intent. You didn’t intend this at all. But you didn’t listen to those who predicted this as inevitable.

    I don’t envy you your position – but at least you’re starting to realise the extent of your error. Many Evangelicals don’t see this as erroneous, and are doubling down.

    • Chip Crawford

      Put a sock in it.

    • Gladys Brierley

      Can you message me links about massage parlors and the pedophile who led the awakening?

  • Nunyadambizness

    I don’t know if the accusations are true or not. If they are, Mr. Moore should have the decency to dismiss himself from the race and retire. However, if they are not and this is a political “witch hunt” and effort to derail a good man, then Mr. Moore should seek out an attorney and sue the slanderers for defamation–the likes of which may cost him a Senate seat.

    My biggest problem with the accusations is the timing of them–he’s been in the public eye for 40 years and these just come out now?? All of the sudden the man was a potential rapist/pedophile?? Hmmm…. Did the ladies say something to anyone about this when it happened? Nobody keeps everything secret, and typically if something bad happens to someone they discuss it with a close friend or relative, right? Where are the witnesses?

    Lastly, Gloria Allred is now involved?? The woman has no honor nor integrity and is known for chasing headlines, so frankly anyone that has her “support” immediately loses any and all credibility with me–I immediately presume the story is made up and the woman is lying.

    • Philmonomer

      Did the ladies say something to anyone about this when it happened? Nobody keeps everything secret, and typically if something bad happens to someone they discuss it with a close friend or relative, right? Where are the witnesses?

      There are lots of witnesses. The Stream doesn’t allow links to websites in comments. Just Google “Slate Mountain of Evidence Roy Moore”

      • Gladys Brierley

        One lady told her sister 4 years later then her husband and recently her Mom. She was afraid as a prosecutor he could harm her or her family.

        • William Crowe

          She stated that she told her mom in 2013.

    • Gladys Brierley

      I so disagree. Although I disagree with some of Gloria s positions I deeply respect her reasoning and motivation to fight for women’s rights for dignity and self respect. She has repeatedly represented women who were victims and had she not maybe they and their causes would have been totally disregarded.

      • Nunyadambizness

        I respect your opinion, but she’s an ambulance chasing hack, in mine.

        When has she ever represented someone who wasn’t trying to defame someone else, especially if that person was a Republican? If she was genuinely sincere in her actions, why didn’t she (or doesn’t she) go after Bill Clinton with all of the women that have accused him of rape or molestation?

  • warriorlawyer

    A worthy question: When did the Judge become a Christian? If he was not a Christian or serious Christian 40 years ago then how / why should we hold this against him now? Was the Apostle Paul a shining example of Christianity before his conversion? NO. He was murdering Christians. After his conversion he became a pillar in the Church and many of us would not be Christians today but for his conversion and sacrifice thereafter. If this happened before he became a Christian, I’m convinced his actions in the last 20 years, firmly promoting Christian values and Constitutional Government are clear evidence of his character – more than something 40 years ago.

    • Hmmm…

      You make some good points. However, what God forgives, man does not (secular man) and there are consequences. A point could be made for a post-conversion visit with apology and whatever restitution necessary to clear himself of these sins actually against these young girls/women. Did he make things right within his power? The Apostle Paul acknowledged his sin and turned from it forever. Also, there is some talk that he strolls malls looking for young women. If there is a thread of current behavior like that, the man still has a problem in this area and should not be on the national stage, even if his state is willing to overlook it all. It’s now about more than the state of Alabama. My problem is the lack of firmness in his answers. He may have done many things for God in the intervening years, but he let this stay in the dark and now the devil is using it against him. It is a season for things of this nature coming to the light. I find that very interesting. I am hoping it is a precursor to another Great Awakening.

      • Gladys Brierley

        Judgment begins in the house of the Lord.

        • Norm Ash

          And Gladys Brierley is a faithful, sinless servant of the Lord!

    • Gladys Brierley

      Around 23 years ago Moore was speaking to homeschool families at conventions I shudder to think what else will come out.

      • Norm Ash

        Nothing has…there’s no there there. Gladys, do you work for McConnell or did you support Luther Strange in the primary?

  • Philmonomer

    Anyone who claims that Moore is innocent is up against a mountain of evidence.

    On the other hand, if they are true, he isn’t just guilty of serious
    misconduct 40 years ago. He is lying about it today, in which case he is
    obviously not fit for office.

    He is obviously not fit for office.

    • Sven

      Right, because accusations are always true.

      • Philmonomer

        Just Google “Slate Mountain of Evidence Roy Moore”

        • Sven

          You’re citing SLATE on a Christian blog?

          That’s like citing Mein Kampf on a Jewish blog.

          SLATE – LOL! Yellow journalism from the bottom of the pig sty.

          • Philmonomer

            The source of an article doesn’t automatically mean the information in it is wrong. If you think the information in it is wrong, you should explain why.

          • Sven

            If you have any evidence Moore is guilty, then by all means present it.

            Sorry, but “I read it on Slate” isn’t evidence.

            You atheists trolls must lead very lonely lives, all you do is spew your hate on Christian blogs 24/7. Sad little things.

          • Philmonomer

            Sad little things.

            Ouch. That hurt. Got any more?

          • Norm Ash

            Yeah, hypocrite!

          • Philmonomer

            Hypocrite? How do you figure?

          • Philmonomer

            I guess Sven didn’t have any more.

          • William Crowe

            Sorry, but “I read it on Slate” isn’t evidence.

            Lol ain’t that the truth.

          • Norm Ash

            See my comment above, Phil…

          • Philmonomer

            You explained why the Slate article is wrong? Huh. I missed it.

          • Norm Ash

            Or citing snopes dotcom, politifact dotcom or factcheck dotorg for anything anti-right. They’re in bed with the leftist MSM.

      • Gladys Brierley

        No but just one woman was so credible so shaken and you could see the trauma on her.

        • Norm Ash

          Talk about a bad actor. I guess you missed the psychologist who is an expert on body language. She looked at the woman’s interview on TV and proclaimed she was lying. The woman’s own step son said she was lying. She was reading the account from a script. If you had been that traumatized by the incident as she claimed you wouldn’t have needed notes to recount it. It was a rehearsed acting job, nothing more.

  • Sven

    The liberal media have hated Moore for years due to all the controversy over the Ten Commandments monuments. If these women had a true story to tell, they would have told it years ago. This is just a big giant wad of reeking deceit.

    • Chip Crawford

      This is tough this time. I was pleased when he won, an outsider, an unabashed Christian who has paid a price to take stands on the Ten Commandments posting issue anyway. However, one has to be objective to hear both sides. What you state about the women would have come forth years ago is not the case. Look around. Women are coming out all over the nation on the wings of others who have broken the ice. It is a very unsafe and frightening environment for a woman to bring something like this against a powerful man. Judge Moore does not ring true when he answers questions on this, remarkably. Conversely, the accusers carry authority. I think we have a problem with Judge Moore that it’s very good to know about now. This is something that is happening across our nation, as you know. Light is shining on long dark places and unfortunately, in some we really wish it weren’t true. I hope no Christian wants a pass for this because of Judge Moore’s other actions. He could have made this right years ago as well. He appears to be the caliber of person who would have done that, but it really doesn’t look look like he’s got that level … So sorry myself as well.

      • Sven

        “He could have made this right years ago.”
        How, pray tell? If you were running for office, would you come out and say, “Oh, btw, when I was in my 30s, I made advances to underage girls. I hope you voters will not hold that against me.” How far do you think a candidate would get after doing that? No, if a guy has something in his past, he has two choices: Don’t ever run for office, or hope that your sins will be forgotten and never brought up again?

        Btw, if you think these women suddenly “remembering” episodes of sexual harassment are all telling the truth, you don’t know women very well. Men will lie about sex. So will women.

        • Chip Crawford

          No Sven — making it right with the individual girls and/or their parents. It would have been tough and a risk, but would have brought the healing needed and owed to them. That would have repaired his foundation and made his footing sure. Instead, those old cracks and fissures are coming apart, and look what’s happening at a key, pivotal time in his life. The way of the transgressor is hard … even if he does good works in other areas.

          As I said, the women are emboldened by the wave going on and some when the first one does it, to stand up to this and proclaim their story. If this happened to you or yours, perhaps it would be a different perspective. No, they’re not suddenly remembering. They’ve lived with this all along. Hey, they matter too. No one is disposable. And women would generally die a thousand deaths, which they are no doubt experiencing now, than stand up in public and talk about something like this, maybe especially Southern women, likely some Christian women. Don’t harden your heart against them.

          • Sven

            Are you saying he should have paid them money? You know how that would be interpreted, don’t you?

          • Chip Crawford

            Are you deliberately appearing to misunderstand? No, stand up like a man and repent before the Lord and then to them and ask their forgiveness. If he’d done that and done it right, and stopped doing that kind of thing, of course they would not come forth now. And if they did, he’d have the authority of having done the right thing and been cleansed of it. That might be part of the problem, that it is still an issue to some extent.

          • Sven

            I think you are very naive about women.

            Have a nice evening.

          • Chip Crawford

            No, had they been hired to make all this up and are taking money now to say stuff, they are some good actors. But he’s still a bad actor himself with his statements, because, again, he does not carry the authority of an honest man in this. I’ve been watching some of Jeff Sessions’ testimony before Congress, where they are trying to trap him and confront him with some wrong answers he made before. He states the reasons for those simply, and stands up with genuine authority against their insinuations. Again, Judge Moore does not carry authority and is not credible in this, in my observation, I am most sorry to say.

          • Gladys Brierley

            I agree

          • Sven

            Fine, whatever.

          • Norm Ash

            Chip, let me ask you something…how old are you? Roy Moore is in his 60’s or early 70’s. When you get to be his age do you think you will remember who you dated and the circumstances of each date that happened 35-40 years ago? I can tell you for a fact, that I don’t have that good of a memory and I am 65.

          • Chip Crawford

            There is no age/memory issue asserted. My point and others all along is that Judge Moore does not make a good case for himself in just standing up to this. He could man up and face a camera like Donald Trump and others have done. When the poll numbers on women voters dropped, he sent his wife out there. It’s a problem. No one is persecuting him, but there are issues with how he is handling himself and this matter. He has a history of some very strong stands and is loved and appreciated for it. He’s got to take care of this — unfortunately, it’s part of the territory that a public official is subject to scrutiny, greater with national office. If he can’t run with the footmen now, he will really get run over by the horsemen when/if he gets to the Senate.

          • Norm Ash

            Get off your self-righteous soapbox, Chip. I am not religious in the least but I seem to remember something Jesus said in defense of an accused adulterer, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Chip, you sound like a hypocrite! You, too, Gladys. You should both be ashamed of yourselves.

          • Chip Crawford

            Satan is the accuser of the brethren. For someone demanding evidence, you certainly throw out a lot of loose accusations yourself. My response above was directed to someone else. There’s nothing self-righteous about it. There are no stones thrown. Again, you are abusing civility with your abusive commentary. It is established that those who do not have reasoned answers must resort to verbal abuse to make their “points.”

          • William Crowe

            But what if your Satan accuser isn’t sticking Moore’s nose in the truth but simply deceiving outright.

          • Chip Crawford

            I was referring to your accusations.

          • Gladys Brierley

            Yes

          • William Crowe

            Emboldened…like how some people see looting occur during a disaster and join in?

            I think it’s really odd how some people, depending on the accuser and accused, are held up as automatically to be believed and others are not

            Think about all of the racial incidents since the 90s that we’re found to be frauds and actually committed by those claiming racism against them. Big huge stories in the media, Presidents even getting into auto-belief mode, laws made or offered. Accused losing their reputations and then later, when it’s too late…a small retraction on page 22. The media, activists and other liberal politicians and entertainers move on and look for the next faux-outrage to destroy those that don’t agree with their ideology.

          • Chip Crawford

            They are emboldened with courage to face the public glare and embarrassment and all that goes with being used in a shameful act against them. Nothing has happened until they do, and the wave going across our country is going to result in some much needed corrections so this kind of thing doesn’t keep going on.

            What a statement about some being believed and some not … Of course. People go by body language, whether a person can look you in the eye, tons of things like that. That’s part of daily life, reading people’s reactions, inherent. It’s how it hits your gut most of the time. There’s no automatic with it, an evaluation. Judge Moore owes that opportunity to his voters, unless he has something to hide or cannot face up to embarrassing past episodes like Trump did.

          • William Crowe

            All the emotional motives of courage and such is nice in a Pollyanna world but I think it’s naive. Most of these allegations coming out have been opportunistic at face value. Weinstein…Al Franken…while there may be some truth to the allegations…we as a society better be wary of ANOTHER wave of emotionally invoked knee jerk reactions and misguided guilt. “Safe spaces”…that magically only apply to non Liberal views. War on terror…BLM…we have a huge number of past and contemporary examples of how stupid the America public at large tends to over react and allow the government to take the lead.

          • Chip Crawford

            With all due respect to you and the fact that false narratives are tendered at times, when someone generalizes as widely as you and with a diss to ones who believe such and such, they themselves are not credible. Perhaps you are influenced by the majority of the offenders being in your camp. Your “opportunistic at face value” is not shared by even liberal media. Real problem, real awakening to it, real adjustments being made. Each case is evaluated on its own merit. That last part is unclear, but let’s just leave it that somehow you don’t like that a major abuse pattern is being seriously addressed across the board, wherever it is found.

        • Andrew R

          ” if you think these women suddenly “remembering” episodes of sexual harassment are all telling the truth”

          The women concerned seem to be saying they were traumatised by what happened for decades. None are saying they just “remembered” it having forgotten since the 1970s.

          • Norm Ash

            Then who or what jogged their memory? The Washington Post reporter offering them $1000’s of dollars for some juicy gossip?

          • William Crowe

            But why not 1 year ago…5 years ago…10 years ago…none of them alleged they were actually raped. The allegation of the woman who was 14 at the time didn’t seem to be traumatized at all. More like, I’m mad at myself for being stupid and mad at him for taking advantage of my stupidity. There was no violence in that allegation.

            The dude is the most gentlemanly predator ever alleged.

            Now, the one accuser from the olde/old hickory alleges otherwise but she appears to be the weakest in story and credibility. That yearbook could easily boost her credibility but they dont want to give it up to a 3rd party so it can be authenticated. So again, her lawyer is a big negative to credibility and so is the yearbook clutching.

          • Andrew R

            “none of them alleged they were actually raped”
            That’s a pretty low bar.

      • Gladys Brierley

        So true so sad so disappointing

      • Norm Ash

        You’re a naive idiot. The timing alone makes me doubt all of them, especially those who said that they dated Moore, often with their mother’s endorsement. These ladies probably got paid the $1000 that the Washington Post reporter offered them for their juicy tidbits. If Moore steps down or wins the election, they will disappear into the shadows. And if he loses, they will do likewise and then all of you sheep will have been fooled yet again by another Democrat hatchet job.

        • Chip Crawford

          You are out of bounds of course. Such language is not appropriate or tolerated here. I suggest you regain and maintain civility. Your prideful assertion of your aspect as being the only sustainable one is of course patently untrue. This is part of a climate change across the country in all walks of life. These are determined case by case. We are aware of the patterns typical in these matters as you describe. Your blunt instrument approach is what is suspect to prejudice instead of reasoned analysis. Of course, it is close to the election, but other attempts at other times likely failed. When one or two step up, others wishing to be free of their own secrets, do so as well. The Governor believes the accusers herself, but says she will vote for him to have the Republican agenda supported. The national Republican party has withdrawn all support, financial and man power. The local Young Republicans just withdrew theirs because the Judge won’t step up and defend, just deny through others mainly.

          • William Crowe

            What other attempts at other times?

            “Because the Judge won’t step up and defend, just deny..”

            He made direct denials on Hannity. He then gave a defense regarding the only physical evidence given. It’s near impossible to defend against allegations and hearsay from 40 years ago. Not much he can actually do.

          • Chip Crawford

            He said three different things to Hannity, who evaluated it, and gave him an opportunity to come back and clarify his statements. He could have actually done that, but didn’t. He could actually make a recording or get in front of a camera somewhere and make a statement, maybe not take questions, but look people in the eye. Candidate Trump did that, not fun, but it gives people a direct response and opportunity to evaluate your words. It harms his cause because that direct contact is missing.

          • William Crowe

            No, you alluded that these accusers or other accusers in the past…as in two months before the election or earlier came forward but failed.

            The Strange campaign supposedly went full on Rambo to find dirt on the guy and came back empty handed.

      • William Crowe

        “Conversely, the accusers carry authority.”

        Because…their women? While sexual assault allegations are considered credible around the time they happen, like any other crime, it exponentially gets less credible as time goes by. While nobody can fault a teenager for taking on a popular figure…that doesn’t excuse those around a victim to remain silent. Also, these girls didn’t remain children and as women in their 30s and 40s…they had the opportunity to derail Moore’s judicial and executive aspirations many times.

        Also…what about the comments from Stranges’ camp. They actively looked to take him down on this scope and couldn’t find any credible evidence to bring it out during the campaign. Maybe they didn’t because they had ethics that prevented them from simply using a smear process to take out a political opponent. Democrats have shown they have no such inhibitions.

        • Chip Crawford

          The accusers are almost all Trump supporters, not Democrats. They speak well, tell the story without excess, reflect the trend of women across the company who are strengthened by others doing the same. This kind of thing definitely needs to stop and if it takes a public display like this, so be it. It’s all too common and all too embedded in many places of power in our country. I would assume you care about such.

          • William Crowe

            I voted for Obama twice. See how easy it is for me to say that and how difficult it would be for you to prove otherwise? Even if they voted for Trump, that’s actually against them as he is barely a Conservative in word or action for 99% of his life.

            Their stories are well told, just enough detail and “seriousness” to damage Moore but not enough substance for him to refute it with anything but a denial. Well played. Not much any accused man or woman can do about it in that manner.

            If they are telling the truth, then I have different ideas on the matter. As of right now, there is very, very sparse information to come to an objective judgment on the matter in the accusers favor.

          • Chip Crawford

            Wow, you are really trying hard here. You must choose how you believe from your criteria. Everyone else must do the same. I’ve clarified my thinking enough. I’ve thought it through and will adjust with further input. Sorry, I don’t find yours helpful.

          • William Crowe

            Barely trying at all. There simply is very little evidence against Moore at this time and all the “You can’t impugn the accusers” because well…they are women, because that’s all I have heard, isn’t a logical defense. It’s a good offense for probably 55% of the population since emotions rule over facts and logic.

    • Gladys Brierley

      They were terrified of his power and position.

      • Sven

        They WERE? How come they’re not afraid NOW?

        Make up your mind – or they terrified or not?

        • Chip Crawford

          Jump back, Jack. We’re not atheists or leftists, btw. Why are women coming out all over the country when various ones are being told on. Someone broke the ice and it’s their chance to tell their stories, and be free of it, to see it stop for others and someone’s hidden destructive pattern be stopped !! instead of the man be rewarded to national office. There’s a reason even the national Republican party has withdrawn their funding and the majority of the leadership is calling for him to withdraw. It is especially odious because the man touts the bible and elements of Christianity. Moore contradicted himself three times in the Hannity interview. He does not play in Peoria. It’s the objective evaluation of the two sides. I’m sorry; I don’t like the circumstances at all myself….

          • Sven

            I’ll stick with “innocent until proven guilty,” you just go right on believing he’s guilty as charged upon no evidence. Guess which view is more Christian?

          • Chip Crawford

            You can’t prove these with DNA at this point, but there are other ways. These women have witnesses and corroborating evidence. Aren’t you closed minded on this. What would you take for proof. Again, the entire leadership say over and over what anyone listening to him can pick up — he waffles in what he says, blusters a lot, but said no, didn’t know her, did ask mothers about dating their young daughters, then that he never dated young girls, etc., etc. Denial is comfortable, but facing up is needed when the reading does not support what you want it to be. So sorry as well about it. It actually is proven with witnesses, etc., with multiple women.

          • Sven

            I’d hate to be the defendant in a courtroom with people like you on the jury, someone who equates accusations with proof.

          • Chip Crawford

            Not accusations — witnesses as to placing people at the same place, those to whom the women confided at the time. It’s evaluating the demeanor of the parties. That is a factor on both sides. What have you got for proof — denials ??

          • Chip Crawford

            Sven, the Gadsden Mall banned Moore from their premises due to his picking up young girls there …. That’s public record.

          • Norm Ash

            The former manager of the Gadsden Mall (he’s long since retired) went on record saying that they did not ban Moore and in fact, had never even considered banning him.

          • Chip Crawford

            Correct on that point. That has since been disclaimed. However, everyone in the area knows the habit of Judge Moore hanging around at the Mall and other places where teens congregated.

          • William Crowe

            Even if “everyone in the area” confirmed this…so what? He was a single guy and had no kids. Maybe the mall is were he shopped or socialized like A lot of people in that small town in the 70s. Maybe there wasn’t much to do there. That’s just evidence of a person’s location, not motives.

          • Chip Crawford

            Oh come on. Just leave it alone if you don’t like the circs; don’t turn into a pretzel to normalize it all. There’s a great deal of loyalty to him regardless down there, so he’s got a base. One of his biggest problems is that he hasn’t refuted it personally, just denying mainly through others and trying to disprove and find traps for his accusers. However, his campaign has spoken up well recently- finally – putting some strength out there which he hasn’t been willing or able to do. It may work out in a win, but after that, maybe the news cycle moves on and we’re not having to deal with it all the time if he’s in the Senate.

            Almost everyone who has this much at stake gets in front of a camera and weighs in. He shuffled out about three answers to Sean Hannity, with whom he gave a radio interview. And there’s no denying a 30 something man is on the watch list at the Mall for trolling for teenage girls. You can get lots of quotes on that. So, if you really evaluate, there are problems with which to contend. Just blasting everything you don’t like just because you don’t like it, is a non starter. No one likes it; a solid Republican is needed in that seat in the Senate …. Peace

          • William Crowe

            You already agreed that the mall ban list was refuted by the actual mall manager at the time versus heresay rumor.

          • Chip Crawford

            The watch list is not a ban, and that is still stated. Employees of the mall were to let the security guy know if they saw about three people around, and Judge Moore was one of them. He would go over and talk to him …

          • William Crowe

            I believe the cop in question didn’t confirm it. He had the opportunity to do so but didn’t. The actual mall manager at the time said he wasn’t banned and that there were written reports, which would be the “list” in question and at least from the interview given, didn’t state he was on the list but alluded that he wasn’t. Maybe the interview was longer but who knows what has been edited out.

            That versus 40 year old hearsay.

          • Chip Crawford

            Moore does not weigh in as a nice guy. He’s all about politics, suing people, not very Christian, very political. You have very poor taste in “leaders.” He will face actual scrutiny soon, so you better hope things can’t be proven.

          • kaneasha8

            You better hope, you’re the one spreading lies about the man.
            You are the definition of ‘poor’.

          • Chip Crawford

            I pray the cause of Christ be upheld, which may entail the man repenting in his heart of his strident, worldly oriented handling of this whole matter. He makes it very much about him. Your prayers would be a better use of your time, especially since you are not heeding obvious signs of how much they are needed.

          • kaneasha8

            I pray you start seeing the forest.
            I guess it just does’ nt take much to convince some people.

          • Chip Crawford

            Apparently not, as sadly, that is your circumstance. God bless you.

          • kaneasha8

            Sadly it is yours. Your just to pig headed to admit.
            Quit trying so hard.
            I don’t give a flip about what Repubs in Washington think about Roy Moore.
            Roy Moore will win this election despite being smeared by lies.
            Good day.

          • Chip Crawford

            Rudeness does not improve your lack of argument. I’ll try one more time — winning the election is the beginning of Roy Moore’s troubles, not the end. There’s no dispute about winning the election, just about thereby losing everything he should hold dear, but about which he has selfishly blind-sighted himself. He is not an island unto himself. The tide of accountability concerning sexual misconduct in Congress will not allow him to avoid confrontation any more than it did for long-time seasoned members like Conyers and Franken and others. Get real. God bless you.

          • kaneasha8

            Ok. Enough with you.
            Go argue with yourself or better yet go feed the pigeons.

          • Chip Crawford

            God bless you.

          • kaneasha8

            Proove it. You can’t because everything you are posting about the mall/watch/ban is a lie.

          • kaneasha8

            He is not and never was on a “watch list”.

          • Chip Crawford

            Prove otherwise. Face it; your “hero” is a zero.

          • kaneasha8

            You’re a zero – a dishonest zero at that.
            Roy Moore will win! Face that.

          • Chip Crawford

            Winning the election is not the issue. He may have the votes, but the “win” may be the bitterest thing that ever happened to him. He and his family may wish a thousand times over that they had withdrawn from the election. He faces an ethics examination and earned disapproval from both sides of the aisle when he goes to Washington. He’ll lose it all if he does not work with the Lord on this instead of fighting to uphold his fleshly pride. God help the matter, and may it come out to reflect well on the kingdom. The leaders of the Republican party have a tough job on their hands sidled with his mess. The country doesn’t need that. The man doesn’t care about that, just his career. Your position is short sighted and naive. God bless you.

          • kaneasha8

            You know the same false accusations of any nature could be brought against you and your family.
            These women are evil and will be investigated, particularly financially.
            You are very gullible to believe such blatant lies. They pulled the same act on Trump one month prior to the election.

          • Chip Crawford

            You are doing the exact thing you accuse — prejudging the credibility, in your case, the accused. More experienced heads than yours have evaluated the merits opposite from the way you have. Every case is different. Moore’s accusers are credible, except the one represented by that attorney Allred. He faces almost total contempt in Washington. That’s what you are wishing on him, totally missing. He, himself, says everyone will forget all about it when he gets there. The Democrats have made it clear they have plans for making him a poster boy for bad behavior supported by his party. They use him to get to the president in his situation. That’s your boy, who is holding onto his own interests above the good of everyone. The Republican leaders have talked of shaking him down and throwing him out, so the Governor can nominate a good Republican to fill the spot until the next election. But they may not be able to do that since he is elected. It’s a mess you are championing. Trump’s accusers are not credible, many of their statements being patently false, like the places they mention not being open at the times they cite, Mr. Trump being photographed at a public event. It varies with circumstance to those with their eyes open. I hope you won’t be too torn up when it blows up in everyone’s face. God bless you.

          • kaneasha8

            You have a right to your opinion. Just remember thats all it is. An opinion.

          • Chip Crawford

            God bless you.

          • Dee J-Christ

            Chip Crawford You have blessed kaneasha8 at least twice and all I see is venom spewn back. Your comments were unbiased and reasonable not based on blind emotion and I used them to look up and verify. Thanks!

          • Dee J-Christ

            Wow. Care to share your interest in Roy Moore winning? Im curious now…

          • kaneasha8

            Whatever it takes to win an election – where are these liars now? Take a gander at their bank account (s). Paid liars.
            Any criminal charges? No. Just the new dirty way to win an election, destroy a persons reputation that you want to get revenge on, destroy a career, destroy a life.
            And YOU and YOUR family members can be falsely accused as well. Hope you’re happy with the new dirty norm.

          • kaneasha8

            He can’t name one name of all these “everybodies”.

          • Chip Crawford

            The security guy was to be notified if three people showed up at the Mall, and Moore was one of them, picking up teenage girls. They didn’t like it, and always talked to him when he started hanging around. Get real.

          • kaneasha8

            Shame on you! Quit spreading lies online. The mall lies about Roy Moore have been debunked.
            No one has said anything about RM hanging at Malls etc.
            Thats a lie that YOU are posting and spreading.

          • kaneasha8

            Thats been totally debunked.Had that ‘Mall tale’ been true there would be well documented records by LE to support it. Its just another lie being spread online. Like you just did.

          • Chip Crawford

            Read below. There was a watch list. Online information is not automatically false. Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it’s not true.

          • kaneasha8

            It sure does’ nt mean its true.

          • Chip Crawford

            The locals interviewed tell these stories, not against him, but facts are facts, and they have no reason to deny them. You apparently do. The man does not reflect the fruit of the spirit of a Christian walking close to the Lord during this. Such a negative witness harms the cause of Christ. All the showy things he has done in the past come to naught if he cannot stand cool in the heat. He’s melting just like Joe Sinner down the street. Whether he was “true” in spirit and deed in the past, either far past or near, it’s where he is today that weights in the heaviest. He needs our prayers, but the Lord needs our loyalty to His ways and not compromise before the world by supporting someone who is not really walking the walk.

          • kaneasha8

            The locals say the exact opposite. And you know it. You are making up alot of bunk. How treacherous.
            You must be brave and accept Roy Moore will be voted into office by people that don’t believe slanderous lies perpetrated on Roy Moore in a desperate attempt to throw an election.

          • Chip Crawford

            God bless you.

          • Dee J-Christ

            Im so glad you were wrong about this.

          • kaneasha8

            The new dirty way to steal an elwction and to ruin a fellow human being.
            However, what comes around goes around.
            Just knowing this ‘new dirty norm’ makes you cream yourself – shows what you are.
            Tootaloo.

          • Norm Ash

            Witnesses? What witnesses? I haven’t seen any sworn testimony from any witnesses. Hearsay evidence is not acceptable. Evidence? Are you talking about the fake yearbook entry? That’s ludicrous. It’s about as authentic as Obama’s long-form birth certificate!

          • Chip Crawford

            Their witnesses are people who corroborate that they were at a place and time where the alleged incidents took place. This is not a forensic or material evidentiary matter. It is handled on different premises, and corroborating witnesses who were told of the event and knew the person’s movements on the day and time are factors.

          • Norm Ash

            It’s also a way to make a quick buck. Throw some baseless charges on the wall and hope it sticks. Get the politician or star to settle out of court for a large sum of money and then quietly disappear back into the shadows. It happened with the myriad of women who accused Herman Cain until he dropped out. Then, so did they. Same thing happened to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. Where are their accusers now?

          • Chip Crawford

            So far, there’s no record of monetary claim. The one who might be in it for that is the one with the contrived yearbook and the attorney known for that. Donald Trump’s accusers were not as credible as all but one of Judge Moore’s. I understand there is a lawsuit going on regarding at least one of them. Those women had stories that contradicted themselves and facts. Also, DT faced a camera and gave a statement. It was credible. As most of the Republican leadership say, and to everyone’s regret, including mine, in Roy Moore’s case, the accusers are credible and the defense is not. He contradicted himself multiple times in Sean Hannity’s radio interview with him. He did not return to clear up the discrepancies as offered. These things are a problem you can’t just blow off.

          • Dee J-Christ

            me doth think the Norm Ash protesteth too much

        • Gladys Brierley

          They were young vulnerable terrified. He had power and the ability to destroy their lives. Now they feel they have support and compassion one woman’s eyes were full of terror and my heart goes out to her….

          • Sven

            What an odd coincidence – they got UN-terrified just before an election.

            I think you’ve got some issues with men.

          • Gladys Brierley

            No issues wuth men. When people start coming forward it gives more people courage to share their experience. PERVERTS are often reoffending

          • Norm Ash

            That’s where your argument falls flat, Gladys. If Moore was a true sexual predator, he would have continued the practice after he got married. But he didn’t. There are no allegations after 1981. Bill Clinton was a predator from his days as Arkansas attorney general, through his two terms as governor, his two terms as President and in his private life being a jet-setter with pedophiles like Jeffrey Epstein.

          • Chip Crawford

            One of the women speaks of an in-office occurrence of being grabbed, which occurred after the Judge was married.

          • Chip Crawford

            Hi Gladys, did you hear that there are three new women coming forth. If someone were orchestrating this and paying them, it would be overkill, no reason to add any more at this point. These women want to see this thing stopped. Besides, Weinstein has had 50-60, what? coming forth now. These men who do this over time have many, many examples as well. So said.

          • Norm Ash

            Sexual depredation is serial in nature. It is a pattern that repeats throughout their life. Once a molester, always a molester.

            All of these allegations (and they are unproven allegations) happened over a five year period between 1976 and 1981 when Moore was a single 30-something assistant district attorney. Many of the allegations are that Moore dated them or asked them out on dates. That hardly constitutes criminal activity. The age difference may have seemed inappropriate at the time but it has become more commonplace since. The girls that he dated before they were 18 had their mother’s blessing. The one who claimed she was molested at 14 never brought up the issue when Moore presided over her divorce in 1999. The signature on the obviously fraudulent yearbook entry was copied from the divorce decree with the initials D.A. after his signature just like it was on the decree. The initials belonged to the law clerk that stamped the document with Moore’s signature.

          • Chip Crawford

            It is near impossible to prove these sort of allegations without DNA evidence, and it s not always relevant. After this length of time, that is of course moot. Women don’t come forth because of the social pressure, fear, significant risk, etc. That is established. What is phenomenal about the current change in the client is that those long suppressed issues still go on almost everywhere. That needs to stop. Judge Moore did not preside over the divorce. It turns out he only signed the final document, apparently the presiding judge not being available at the time. That is done. No contact there. The yearbook alleger is suspect because of that apparently manipulated page. Her attorney is also known for putting forth anyone who will claim and not very particular about substance. She is the exception. The others speak well for themselves. The Post found some of them, encouraging them to come forward, and in the current climate, they have. This does need to be exposed and consequences finally coming about. Judge Moore, unlike most, does not face the camera with this issue personally. He works through surrogates to deny. There was an allegation that occurred after Moore was married, in his office.

    • Robert Johnson

      Those liberals just did the hard thing and stood on the rock of what’s right and those liberals did the hard thing and conservatives now showed they are standing with the pharasees and sadusees..while libersls picked up their cross

  • Gladys Brierley

    What about the women who have been carrying these secrets in fear for years? He offered no compassionate response and gas been caught in lies instead he threatens to sue his victims. I believe the women and he is full of arrogance abd hypocrisy.

    • Wayne Cook

      What about the possibility that they lied? Ehhh?

      • Gladys Brierley

        Honestly Wayne I believe they are telling the truth.

      • kaneasha8

        I believe ALL of these women are LIARS.

    • Mark0H

      Why do you believe the women? Do you know them? You think women don’t ever lie?

      • Gladys Brierley

        No I don’t know them but I have years of experience in investigations.

  • Gladys Brierley

    I think the point is that we are all sinners. However someone who repeatedly hurts those who are weaker either children or weaker women or men or someone who takes the power position to dominate and control others and harm them does not get my vote. No need to attack people whose views suffer and for those of the posters that do so well it just shows the rest of us we cannot have a thoughtful conversation with childish behavioral posters.

    • Chip Crawford

      I wish this author would moderate as others do. Legitimate flagging should be supported.

  • tomoba

    What is straightforward is your indirect gate to walk through and endorse a pedophile pervert. You are bereft of any morality. That is straightforward.

  • Dugald Galley

    Michael Brown should be commended for an attempt to think rigorously whether it could be right for a Christian to vote for Roy Moore. Unfortunately, at the heart of his argument is a category error: deciding whether to vote for a candidate is not analogous to judging their guilt in a court of law: different criteria apply: the matter of being “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant to whether I should or should not vote for Judge Moore.
    Someone accused of a criminal offence has a right to be judged by a jury of their peers and a right to be treated as innocent until their guilt is proven. And while an individual has a right to stand for public office they don’t have a right to my vote. I’m not obliged to vote for Roy Moore unless he is proven to be guilty of an offence. Candidates do not have any right to be elected or to be treated fairly by individual electors when casting their votes. Electors may vote for whichever candidate they choose for good reasons or poor reasons (or for no reason).
    Choosing who to vote for is in large measure a probabilistic exercise. We don’t know for certain what this candidate or that candidate will do if elected. If we generally approve of their stated policies and think it is fairly likely that they will pursue those policiies in office and think that the risk they will use public office for their own personal enrichment is small, they will get our vote. On the other hand, if we think there is a significant risk that the candidate is a charlatan, we may vote for someone else. A relevant question then is what is the likelihood that Roy Moore is a paedophile.
    If I understand Michael Brown correctly, on the basis that a man is innocent until proven guilty, a decision whether to vote for Roy Moore should be taken without any thought for the allegations aganst him. They must be factored out. A judgment on Roy Moore’s candidature should be based solely on his platfom (as against his opponent’s).
    But merely to articulate that position is to expose it as fallacious. Not only are we entitled to factor in the risk that Roy Moore is a paedophile when deciding whether to vote (or abstain), any Christian and ethical approach must factor that risk in. Indeed, consistency demands we either factor in all conduct issues or none. [And, as I explained above, we are factoring in risks and possibilities rather than certainties.] If a candidate has, for instance, been accused of incompetence in some other public office, we surely consider the likelihood that they were incompetent when deciding whether to vote for them. The logic of Micahel Brown’s position is that we should close our minds to that possibilitiy until their incompetence has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. But that’s nonsense.
    So, when deciding how to vote in the special election, a relevant issue for Christians is what is the likelhood that Roy Moore is a paedophile? Is the risk that he will be exposed as a child molester after taking his seat in the US Senate worth running? Further, Christians might reasonably consider a number of other questions. Is voting for Roy Moore a good witness for the gospel? Even if it turns out that he is probably innocent, would his election on the back of Evangelical votes be a good witness for the gospel?

  • Dugald Galley

    Michael Brown should be commended for an attempt to think rigorously whether it could be right for a Christian to vote for Roy Moore. Unfortunately, at the heart of his argument is a category error: deciding whether to vote for a candidate is not analogous to judging their guilt in a court of law: different criteria apply: the matter of being “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant to whether I should or should not vote for Judge Moore.
    Someone accused of a criminal offence has a right to be judged by a jury of their peers and a right to be treated as innocent until their guilt is proven. And while an individual has a right to stand for public office they don’t have a right to my vote. Voters are not obliged to vote for Roy Moore unless he is proven to be guilty of an offence. Candidates do not have any right to be elected or to be treated fairly by individual electors when casting their votes. Electors may vote for whichever candidate they choose for good reasons or poor reasons (or for no reason). For a Christian, good reasons are whether the election of that candidate will further the kingdom, whether voting for that candidate will be a good witness to the gospel and whether the election of that candidate will further the common good and will express the Jesus ethic of loving one’s enemies.
    Further, all of us also need to recognise that choosing who to vote for is in large measure a probabilistic exercise. We don’t know for certain what this candidate or that candidate will do if elected. If we generally approve of their stated policies and think it is fairly likely that they will pursue those policies in office and think that the risk they will use public office for their own personal enrichment is small, they will get our vote. On the other hand, if we think there is a significant risk that the candidate is a charlatan, we may vote for someone else. A relevant question then is what is the likelihood that Roy Moore is a paedophile.
    If I understand Michael Brown correctly, on the basis that a man is innocent until proven guilty, a decision whether to vote for Roy Moore should be taken without any thought for the allegations against him. They must be factored out. Even if the evidence suggested that he was almost certainly a child molester (or, at the least, almost certainly a rather creepy individual who sought to seduce very young women) that ought to be disregarded until we are 100% sure of the offence. Brown argues that a judgment on Roy Moore’s candidature should be based solely on his platform (as against his opponent’s).
    But merely to articulate that position is to expose it as fallacious. Not only are voters entitled to factor in the risk that Roy Moore is a paedophile when deciding whether to vote (or abstain), any Christian and ethical approach must factor that risk in. Indeed, consistency demands we either factor in all conduct issues or none. And, as I explained above, we are factoring in risks and possibilities rather than certainties. If a candidate has, for instance, been accused of incompetence in some other public office, we surely consider the likelihood that they were incompetent when deciding whether to vote for them. The logic of Michael Brown’s position is that we should close our minds to that possibility until their incompetence has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. But that’s nonsense.
    So, when deciding how to vote in the special election, Christians cannot factor out the paedophile issue. Is the risk that Moore will be indubitably exposed as a child molester after taking his seat in the US Senate worth running? And even if it turns out, in the fullness of time, that he is probably innocent, would his election on the back of Evangelical votes be a good witness for the gospel?
    I’m afraid Michael Brown has not succeeded in sparing Christians the dilemma: can I vote for a morally corrupt individual in order to thwart a broader political agenda of which I disapprove? The 2016 general election raised a similar issue: did Donald Trump’s misogyny and sexual depravity mean that Christians should not support him. The Alabama special election seems to raise an even starker dilemma that cannot be side-stepped.

  • Dugald Galley

    Michael Brown should be commended for an attempt to think rigorously whether it could be right for a Christian to vote for Roy Moore. Unfortunately, at the heart of his argument is a category error: deciding whether to vote for a candidate is not analogous to judging their guilt in a court of law: different criteria apply: the matter of being “innocent until proven guilty” is not relevant to whether a citizen should or should not vote for Judge Moore.
    Someone accused of a criminal offence has a right to be judged by a jury of their peers and a right to be treated as innocent until their guilt is proven. And while an individual has a right to stand for public office they don’t have a right to my vote. Voters are not obliged to vote for Roy Moore unless he is proven to be guilty of an offence. Candidates do not have any right to be elected or to be treated fairly by individual electors when casting their votes. Electors may vote for whichever candidate they choose for good reasons or poor reasons (or for no reason). For a Christian, good reasons are whether the election of that candidate will further the kingdom, whether voting for that candidate will be a good witness to the gospel and whether the election of that candidate will further the common good and will express the Jesus ethic of loving one’s enemies.
    Further, all of us also need to recognise that choosing who to vote for is in large measure a probabilistic exercise. We don’t know for certain what this candidate or that candidate will do if elected. If we generally approve of their stated policies and think it is fairly likely that they will pursue those policies in office and think that the risk they will use public office for their own personal enrichment is small, they will get our vote. On the other hand, if we think there is a significant risk that the candidate is a charlatan, we may vote for someone else. A relevant question then is what is the likelihood that Roy Moore is a paedophile.
    If I understand Michael Brown correctly, on the basis that a man is innocent until proven guilty, a decision whether to vote for Roy Moore should be taken without any thought for the allegations against him. They must be factored out. Even if the evidence suggested that he was almost certainly a child molester (or, at the least, almost certainly a rather creepy individual who sought to seduce very young women) that ought to be disregarded until we are 100% sure of the offence. Brown argues that a judgment on Roy Moore’s candidature should be based solely on his platform (as against his opponent’s).
    But merely to articulate that position is to expose it as fallacious. Not only are voters entitled to factor in the risk that Roy Moore is a paedophile when deciding whether to vote (or abstain), any Christian and ethical approach must factor that risk in. Indeed, consistency demands we either factor in all conduct issues or none. And, as I explained above, we are factoring in risks and possibilities rather than certainties. If a candidate has, for instance, been accused of incompetence in some other public office, we surely consider the likelihood that they were incompetent when deciding whether to vote for them. The logic of Michael Brown’s position is that we should close our minds to that possibility until their incompetence has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt. But that’s nonsense.
    So, when deciding how to vote in the special election, Christians cannot factor out the paedophile issue. Is the risk that Moore will be indubitably exposed as a child molester after taking his seat in the US Senate worth running? And even if it turns out, in the fullness of time, that he is probably innocent, would his election on the back of Evangelical votes be a good witness for the gospel?
    I’m afraid Michael Brown has not succeeded in sparing Christians the dilemma: can I vote for a morally corrupt individual (or someone who may well be morally corrupt) in order to thwart a broader political agenda of which I disapprove? The 2016 general election raised a similar issue: did Donald Trump’s misogyny and sexual depravity mean that Christians should not support him? But the Alabama special election seems to raise an even starker dilemma that cannot be side-stepped.

  • Time4Truth

    2 Timothy 3:1-5
    This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
    For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

    1 Corinthians 15:33
    Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.

    Romans 3:7-8
    For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

    Romans 16:17-20
    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil. And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen

    Hebrews 4:12
    For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

    1 Peter 5:8-9
    Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.

    2 Corinthians 11:13-15
    For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

    Romans 16:17-19
    Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.

    Lord, I wasn’t sure about Roy Moore. But the other candidate was probably worse. So I decided to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    I don’t think I want to be in that position. And those who voted for Trump, I don’t think trying to say I voted for the lesser of two evils, especially knowing Trump’s history, I would rather be able to say

    Lord I didn’t vote for either because I knew both were not Christians and both did horrible,corrupt and evil things.

    And for those who believe the “religious right” are true Christians, spend a little time researching the New Apostolic Reformation, Dominionism and Christian Reconstruction and look at those who are associated with or part of these groups.

  • Dee J-Christ

    typically men deny deny deny when they hear things like this. and typically women hold onto these incidents of abuse and harrassment for years keeping it secret and never telling anyone because of shame they carry that really belongs to the perpetrator. when a woman comes forward the correct response it to believe her. When a child comes forward or a man comes forward with sexual abuse allegations it is better to begin healing a person that is lying than damage a person that is telling the truth by disbelieving them. Its the opposite of ‘until proven guilty”. that is because is is better for a guilty man to go free than an innocent one put in jail. you can see the opposite is true for victims of abuse, better to believe first, than to disbelieve first in order not to traumatize, add insult to injury or add additional false shame and guilt to a genuine victim. The liar will be outed and have their day eventually but the victims should not be abused further by being called liars. THIS is the godliest response. Of course you can just pray and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal the true situation and He will show you case by case how to deal with it. This article is judging using wordly wisdom, foolishness to God.

Inspiration
Fluke or Fruit? What Our Actions Say About Our Hearts
Liberty McArtor
More from The Stream
Connect with Us