UPDATED: Giving candidates we like a moral pass debases our culture
While we wait for new evidence to come forward, let’s talk not so much about what Roy Moore did or did not do, but what those who attack or defend the 70-year-old candidate from Alabama are saying.
In doing that, we need to separate what many commentators and pollsters are not differentiating: Accusations that Moore at age 32 had immoral and illegal sexual activity with a 14-year-old, and reports that he dated 17- and 18-year olds. The first, if true, should disqualify him from becoming a senator. The importance of the second to Moore’s current election prospects depends on whether he has a self-righteous understanding or a Christ-righteous belief.
Let’s mull over the JMC Analytics poll—taken before news of lawyer Gloria Allred bringing forward a new Moore accuser—that shows nearly two-fifths of Alabama evangelicals saying the accusations (undifferentiated) make them more likely to vote for Moore. Almost another two-fifths said the accusations make no difference in their voting plans.
That’s troubling but unsurprising, for three reasons.... Read More
How is believing that someone is innocent until proven guilty giving someone a pass? I thought it was the basis of our judicial system.
ReplyDeleteMarvin Olasky, the author of this post explains in his own words the concern which motivated his writing of the article:
ReplyDelete"My concern is with evangelicals who automatically back Moore because his opponent is a liberal Democrat. Is a short-term political victory worth long-run cultural damage and, particularly, damage to the cause of Christ? I believe the chief goal of a Christian should be to glorify God and enjoy Him forever, not to glorify a politician and enjoy a temporary win."
His issue is not with the concept of the assumed innocence of someone until proven guilty but the willingness of evangelicals to overlook credible evidence of unethical or immoral conduct that is inappropriate for any politician but even more so for a Christian politician. In other words, they are lowering their standards for political reasons.
Two standards of evidence are used in court cases. One is beyond reasonable doubt and is used criminal cases. The other is preponderance of evidence and is used in civil cases and in juvenile court cases, in cases of neglect, physical abuse, and sexual abuse.
A judgment of a politician's past and present conduct and therefore his ethical and moral character does not require the more severe test of evidence used in criminal cases. It simply requires convincing evidence and the probable truth or accuracy of that evidence. This is on what preponderance of evidence is based and not the amount of evidence. It may require only one clearly knowledgeable witness.
Politicians who wish to enjoy the public's trust must not just avoid unethical or immoral behavior. They must also avoid the appearance of impropriety. This is very close to biblical standard for pastors, which is that they must be "beyond reproach." They must be above suspicion of anything that may bring discredit or disgrace to the Christian faith, the local church, and themselves.
In lowering their standards for political reasons evangelicals risk harming their own witness as Christians. By supporting politicians of questionable ethical or moral character for such reasons, they are destroying their own credibility. It can also be argued that they are putting more trust in politicians and politics than they are God, a shift in trust against which the Bible itself warns.
At the same time as a retired social worker who worked with sexually abused children and testified in sexual abuse cases, I know how difficult it is for the other members of the family and relatives and even other members of the community to admit the sexual abuse of a child when the perpetrator is a well-known and respected member of the community. They think that they know the person but then discover that they do not. One reaction is anger. The other is denial - the refusal to admit that the sexual abuse occurred. The later is likely to happen when they have an emotional investment in the perpetrator. Their emotional investment will color their judgment.