“[Dave Armstrong] …Hays can't prove that I have ever advocated such a scenario; can't prove it, because it doesn't exist, so (failing that) he draws the illogical and unfounded conclusion from the data he presents and hopes no one will notice his shameless twisting and lying...All I said was that a pedophile and perpetrator of incest could be forgiven…I didn't say a word about some horrific scenario of allowing a pedophile to be with young girls again merely because he had repented. Hays assumed that what I said entailed that, but it doesn't at all.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Is that all Armstrong said? No. This is what he said:
“Steve Hays is saying today that the very accusation ruins someone's life. Not in Christianity. We are forgivers because that is God's nature. I could just as well argue that King David's reputation was forever ruined because he committed adultery and murder. That's not how God saw it. He decided to include that episode in the Bible precisely to demonstrate His extraordinary mercy. David was forgiven, because he profoundly repented. The covenant with him was not revoked.”
So Armstrong has given us an argument from analogy. Now, to begin with, his claim is false. King David’s reputation was irreparably damaged by his misconduct.
But let’s waive Armstrong’s blunder on that issue and move onto his analogy. Not only was King David forgiven, but he kept his job. He continued to exercise his royal duties.
So, by analogy with sexually abusive Catholic clergy–and, remember, this is Armstrong’s own analogy–a Catholic priest who seduces minors should be allowed to keep him job as long as he’s penitent about his crimes.
It’s not my fault if Armstrong’s circuitry is too crisscrossed to think straight. But that’s the clear implication of his argument from analogy.
“Hays (who, note also, wants to keep this ugly controversy going, publicly, not I…”
It’s too late to bottle the genie at this point. Once you pop the cork, the genie is gone for good.
“My point was quite relevant because if some sin can utterly ruin a man's reputation…”
If, according to Armstrong, confession and absolution is sufficient to rehabilitate the reputation of a child molester, then why not return him to active duty? It’s not as if he has a reputation for pedophilia. For, according to Armstrong, confession and absolution rehabilitate his tarnished image in the eyes of God. So, then, why wouldn’t you allow a pedophile to minister to kids if his reputation is intact?
“But Hays will have none of the victim's report.”
Begs the question of whether or not the reporter is a victim.
“Having argued at the greatest length, with thorough vigor (if not sense) that one victim of relentless incest for years can't be believed because that is all ‘hearsay’…”
It’s hearsay to a third-party like Armstrong.
“…than turning your head, disbelieving victims' firsthand reports…”
Begs the question. Notice a pattern to Armstrong’s reasoning?
“…attacking victims as delusional and unstable…”
There’s no presumption one way or the other. That’s why such allegations need to be properly investigated by disinterested parties.
Believing false accusations can be every bit as damaging as disbelieving true accusations. The one is no more or less harmful than the other.
“I didn't make the charge.”
Imagine if Armstrong tried that charge in a court of law:
Judge:
Mr. Armstrong, do you have anything to say before sentencing?
Armstrong:
I didn’t make the charge, your Honor.
Judge:
But you repeated the charge.
Armstrong:
Yes.
Judge:
And you spread the charge.
Armstrong
Yes.
Judge:
You posted the charge on your blog.
Armstrong:
Yes.
Judge:
And you personally vouched for the charge.
Armstrong:
Yes.
No comments:
Post a Comment