This was a dialogue with Mark Shea and Deacon Steven Greydanus from a public Facebook thread on the latter’s page. They granted express permission (after I asked) to cite their words (Mark’s will be in blue and Deacon Steven’s in green).
My concern in connection with Moore (as I’ve said over and over and over, sometimes IN ALL CAPS TO BE EXTRA CLEAR) has NEVER been about Moore himself. My concern has ALWAYS been (as I’ve said from the beginning) with the metastasizing cancer in the soul of conservatives and the conservative movement rallying to defend Moore at all costs and in the face of any evidence, even if it means epistemic closure and even at the cost of grinding the women he wronged underfoot.
In the 1990s, when Democrats were rallying around Bill Clinton, I thought it was an outrage. I believed that character mattered. In those days I would have identified as a conservative, and I thought other conservatives were with me. Maybe they were. If so, they no longer are, and it’s not because I’ve changed in this regard.
Now, though, LIBERALS AREN’T RALLYING AROUND FRANKEN — and that’s why I don’t need to post long-winded arguments proving that his behavior was reprehensible. It’s not necessary because pretty much everyone acknowledges it. Nobody needs convincing. It’s because people are rallying around Moore that I rail against him.
See the difference?
The mainstream media has turned INSTANTLY on Franken. So have Senate Democrats. On the right there has been a LOT of rationalizing and rallying on behalf of Moore, long past any semblance of reasonableness.
Except that they are not doing so: not most. The GOP withdrew financial support. You have the leaders of the House and Senate calling for him to withdraw. Virtually all GOP Senators have, including Ted Cruz.
Hannity did the hard-hitting interview, even praised by liberals, and is virtually against him now, as are literally, almost every guest on his show.
So I don’t see the very “soul” of conservatism defending him. Perhaps you can point out where this is the case. Help me out here . . .
You’re describing where the GOP is now. Track how the GOP and conservative media talking heads responded in real time.
They simply waited to see what the facts were. We [conservatives] don’t immediately assume everyone is guilty just because the New York Times says so. That should be a praiseworthy trait, not something to mock.
I guess it comes down to, “no honest person can possibly disagree with the opinion of a liberal or third-party guy as to the innocence or guilt of a given accused person.” If they disagree, they must be lying scumbags.
Yet again, this is not about due process. It’s an election, not a trial. You are, ipso facto, calling his victims–all eight of them–liars. And their 30 supporting witnesses.
Third time: not a trial, an election. And frankly even before this child molester was shown to be a perv he was radically unfit for office.
As I said above, I think he is “likely guilty.” That’s not calling his accusers “liars” and “sluts.” I just don’t think it is absolutely certain, as you and Steven do. You’re not omniscient gods.
How do you explain Michael Jackson being declared not guilty at trial, after “everyone” was so sure he was guilty? Were the jury members insane?
I wasn’t disingenuous at all. There are simultaneous highly important considerations here. If a man’s entire career and reputation is to be destroyed, he is entitled to legal due process.
In a non-legal sense, I say he is “likely guilty” (as speculation, based on what I know). In the legal sense, he’s innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet you don’t think Hillary Clinton’s mountain of corruption (including trashing all of husband Bill’s victims and tons of violations regarding classified information) and radical pro-abortion stance, disqualified her for President. Interesting. You were quite willing to vote for her if you weren’t in a blue state, and lived in a swing state, and urged others to do so as well.
But no bias there towards liberals at all, Mark. No! Not you!
It’s been steadily declining since the 1990s, and it has because in 1989 the Supreme Court first allowed significant potential restrictions on abortion in law. We know that Republicans vote for those restrictions and Dems do not; therefore, it is because of them and conservatives on the Court that it is declining (at least in terms of legal causation; there are other ones, too, of course).
In the last vote in the House about banning abortion after twenty weeks, exactly ONE Dem congressman voted yes.
Consensual sex outside of marriage is what we get today, due to the sexual revolution. Otherwise, Bill Clinton could have never won in 1992. Society accepted that. I do not accept it, but I’m saying, that’s the choice we get now, in elections. And it’s nothing new about politicians. How naive does someone have to be to not know that? Coercive sex is what all (liberals, conservatives, libertarians) agree shouldn’t happen.
But with the choice of Hillary and Trump, that was extremely easy to make: primarily on the life and Supreme Court issues, as the immediate things to be dealt with.
That being the case, there’s absolutely no reason whatever for Trump to force anything. He didn’t have to. Elvis didn’t have to force women to have sex with him. Nor did JFK, etc. So he had some sex outside of marriage, like most people today of both sexes. This is the sexual revolution.
We all agree that coercive sex should be condemned. I don’t think Trump did that. When he said the “grabbing” thing that we hear a billion times, he also said in the immediate context: “they let you do anything.” In other words, that is (by definition) consensual; groupies. If I thought he did force anything, he would have lost my vote, but it would have been very agonizing in the voting booth, knowing who the alternative was.
If an orthodox Catholic or good moral traditional Protestant runs for President and actually has a chance to win, I would vote for him. I said that directly to Mike Maturen, who ran third party. But he had no chance. I don’t throw away my vote. I have to make the best choice available.
Some people think that candidates must be perfectly moral orthodox Catholics before we can vote for them at all. The closest I’ve seen to that was Rick Santorum, and we see how far he went. He used to be roundly mocked for being against contraception, which is simply orthodox Catholicism.
Photo credit: US Air Force photo [URL / public domain]