From a recent Facebook exchange:
TJ is with Joe Carter and Alan Noble.
Evangelical leaders are upset with the GOP, because the GOP isn't damning the proverbial torpedoes and rushing through the confirmation of a judge who's been credibly accused of sexual assault. This is where we find ourselves in 2018.
The next time some Christian conservative risibly tries to claim the moral high ground with you, keep this in mind.
Hays
Where we find ourselves in 2018 is people who think an unsubstantiated allegation of sexual assault should put the onus on the accused. What if TJ was on the receiving end of that standard? What does he have to fear? Seize his bank records, medical records, email, text messages, &c.
Stacey
Where we find ourselves in 2018 is beholden to a bunch of old, white Conservative men who refuse to have the president authorize an FBI investigation into a sexual assault allegation against a potential member of the Supreme Court - a lifetime appointment, mind you - even though that precedent was set by President George H.W. Bush (R) in 1991 during the SCOTUS hearings for Clarence Thomas.
These same old, white Conservative men want to rush the hearing and think the American public can't see that these same old, white Conservative men had no problem sitting on the Merrick Garland nomination for almost a YEAR.
Where we find ourselves in 2018 is that many evangelical Christians seem to support this hypocrisy and the outright appalling assault on our democracy.
Hays
i) If it happened it wasn't a federal crime. Thomas and Hill were federal employees. The alleged harassment took place in the workplace. Hardly analogous. The FBI has no authority in that case.
ii) Why are you making sexist, racist, ageist comments about "old white men"? Is bigotry okay so long as you're a woman?
iii) The Senate had no Constitutional obligation to consider Garland.
Stacey
Actually precedent shows the president is allowed to - and should - ask the FBI to investigate the claims.
Hays
I explained why the comparison with Thomas/Hill is bogus. You didn't refute what I said.
Stacey
What's the problem? If Kavanaugh's done nothing wrong he should welcome an investigation. I would.
Hays
No one should welcome a rogue FBI investigation. The onus is not on the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated allegation.
Stacey
Also GTFO with your Garland justifications. The entire country knows that was yet another GOP sham/scam. It's ok though.
Hays
Yes, it's okay for the Senate to ignore a nominee. It has that Constitutional prerogative. Remember when Democrats stiffed Estrada (and Janice Rogers Brown)?
Stacey
I'm fine with whatever you want to call me...ageist, racist, whatever. You don't know me so your labels mean nothing to me.
Hays
Dianne Feinstein and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both 85-year-old white women. Do you have a problem with their age and race? Your complaint reduces to misandry.
Stacey
I refute your idea that there should be no investigation because this was not a workplace/federal worker incident. In no way does that change the need for an investigation.
Hays
Actually it does since it falls outside the jurisdiction of the FBI.
Stacey
And in what world does an FBI investigation go "rogue"? Do you believe in the deep state or some other bizarre notions of the FBI?"
Hays
When people urge the FBI to violate its mandate. So it's your position that the FBI has the statutory authority to investigate alleged sex crimes by minors in private homes?
Stacey
Why don't you want an investigation?
Hays
i) You're playing a bait-n-switch. There's a difference between an investigation and an FBI investigation. In fact, when Susan Collins proposes that both the accused and the accuser testify, and be subject to cross-examination by their respective lawyers, that's an investigation.
ii) No, I don't think it's a good idea for Federal agencies with police powers to engage in extralegal investigations. That's a banana state.
Stacey
Maybe you're a closet misogynist who thinks all women fake sexual assault claims.
Hays
Maybe your'e a closet misandrist who thinks women never make false rape allegations. Do you think every black man who was lynched in the Jim Crow South was presumptively guilty just because a white woman accused him of rape?
Stacey
There's every possibility you're just toeing the party line.
Hays
Unlike when you toe the Democrat party line?
I can't recall such an emotionally laden debate that you have posted here like this. She sounds captive to call the crap I hear about multiculturalism in college that I just grin and bear.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you're such a knowledgeable and clear thinker/debater that your material should be more well known to both Christians and non-Christians. Sometimes I wish you had your own podcast. Especially when I listen to Catholics like Michael Knowles. So much of what he says is true, but he spins it with a pro-Catholic and anti-Protestant agenda. As much as I like Andrew Klavan, he's not self-consciously or consistently Protestant.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seem right that someone like (Catholic) bishop Robert Barron should have such a following on social media, when you're so much more knowledgeable, experienced and capable as an apologist than he is.
He has the patience of Job. I don't know how else he does it.
DeleteThe only thing that matters in this case is who is lying, not what a person did 37 years ago, which is not what determines character - unless overall his life showed such lack of character, or if he morally should have reported it or lies about it.
ReplyDeleteTherefore in this case if the candidate did do what he was accused of then that does not mean it disqualifies him, but if he denies it then it does. We cannot lower the standard for such a position.
However, if the accused is lying then she needs to lose the equivalent of whatever loss candidate would suffer if the lie had been believed, including the damages already suffered. Those who attempted to lynch him based on invalid or dubious evidence also need to be penalized.
Dt. 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. 16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; 17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; 18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; 19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. 21 And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."