I've not been following this Roy Moore story much, what with all the sex scandals in D.C., it's sort of a bore. For example, I see now that Matt Lauer has now been exposed as a crazed sex fiend and that that scumbag Garrison Keillor has been fired for "improper behavior", I don't know anything about Lauer, never having watched "Today", but I used to listen to Keiller's Prairie Home Companion until in another venue I saw that he had written that "Republicans are Brownshirts in pinstripes", something so egregiously insanely stupid (like calling Trump a Nazi) that I immediately ceased any and all contact with Keillor.
However, Judge Roy Moore is accused of trying to date teens back 40 years ago, and these were legal-aged teens and he asked their fathers, but only recently was he accused by two of these of some sort of sexual assault. Now the author of this piece below points out how common it was in the past for older men to try to marry much younger women, and he also details how shaky those two assault claims are, but for the sake of the argument, admits them, and then writes the following (highlights mine):
The question before us is whether one can still maintain faith and one’s moral integrity while voting for a lesser of two evils. The answer is, yes, in both cases.
All voting is voting for the lesser of two evils, and it’s almost never wrong to vote for the lesser of the two. There are no perfect candidates. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, sometimes bigly. Assuming Moore did what’s been alleged, let’s turn to his rival, Democratic candidate Doug Jones.
Doug Jones Is a Moral Monster Or Moral Ignoramus
Jones has gone on record that not only does he support abortion, but he supports unrestricted abortion, even opposing a ban on abortion after 20 weeks. This is morally equivalent to supporting infanticide. So either Jones knows exactly what he’s doing in supporting killing babies in utero but doesn’t care, in which case he’s a moral monster, or his moral compass is in such need of calibration that one should never trust his judgment in moral matters. Politics, of course, is inextricably bound with such matters.
In my mind, Jones’ position is so extreme that a vote for him is a vote for the greater of two evils by a wide margin. It’s hard to imagine much worse than the mass murder of innocents. That’s also not taking into consideration his many other views with which conservatives disagree.
Furthermore, there is no reason to think that Moore, as an old, married man, is still trying to have sex with teens. All the accusations target his early thirties before he was married. But Jones supports infanticide in utero today. Virtue-signaling Republicans condemning other Republicans for voting for Moore strike me as being more concerned about their own appearance than the seriousness of abortion and the mental state of someone supporting it.
Why are no Republicans or Democrats calling for Jones to step aside if not for the fact that they are really not that serious about the immorality of supporting infanticide in the womb? If Moore should step aside, so should Jones. Of course there is another alternative, one that I support: Elect Moore and support the Senate not giving him a seat. This would bring about another special election.
An Préachán again: He says the Senate should refuse to seat Moore but to that I'd say just two words: Al Franken.
Anyway, the article is worth a close read. The author is an associate professor of philosophy at Ouachita Baptist University. He is a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, father of five, and a foe of political correctness.
An Préachán
No comments:
Post a Comment