Are Evangelical Roy Moore Supporters Hypocrites?

Christian Post ^ | 11/18/2017 | Michael Brown

[SeekAndFind]

Over the last 18 months, evangelical Christians have been asked how they could vote for a serial adulterer like Donald Trump while condemning the alleged serial adulterer Bill Clinton as unfit for office. The general response has been: 1) Trump was certainly not our ideal candidate and we do deplore his past; but 2) he seems to have made some changes and is open to our input; and 3) it was either him or Hillary Clinton, and for the sake of the unborn, for the sake of our religious liberties, and for the sake of our security, he got our vote.

Has this compromised our moral authority in the eyes of many Americans?

On the one hand, it certainly has. Our vote for Trump is thrown back in our face on a regular basis and we are linked to anything he says or does that is untasteful.

On the other hand, it really has not, since we have been mocked and vilified and called hypocrites and haters for years now. Do we really think that if many of us did not vote for Trump, the society in general would be more open to hear our views about homosexuality and abortion? Hardly.

When it comes to Judge Roy Moore, we are being asked how any of us could not immediately recognize his guilt, since the mounting evidence against him seems overwhelming. Plus, we seem to believe the bad reports about Hollywood moguls and celebrities and leftwing politicians. Why the double standard here?

First, all of us have biases, conscious or otherwise, and it's all too natural to defend people who are close to us and question people who are distant from us. For example, a devoted liberal Democrat would be far less likely to entertain an accusation against Barack Obama than against Ted Cruz. Conversely, a staunch conservative Republican would be much more likely to entertain an accusation against Obama than against Cruz.

This is reminiscent of the intense drama that unfolded when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of crass and abusive behavior. Liberals rallied around Hill and conservatives stood with Thomas.

As much as we try to avoid partisan emotions, it's only human nature to have them, in which case we must always check to see if we're even making the attempt to be unbiased. Are we? Do we do our best to ask critical questions? Do we give the presumption of innocence to all, even if our first reaction is to condemn those we don't like? Do we weigh all accusations fairly?

Second, when it comes to Judge Moore, we're not just dealing with the possibility of double standards. We're also dealing with extreme skepticism towards leftwing media and extreme suspicion of the political system. So, what may appear to be an extraordinary display of hypocrisy, as conservative evangelicals stand by a man accused of abusive sexual contact with minors, may really be a display of distrust of the left.

Think back to the O. J. Simpson trial, which largely divided Americans between white and black. To many white Americans, the evidence against O. J. was absolutely damning, right down to his DNA all over the crime scene. How is it that so many black Americans didn't see it? Were they ignorant? Did they wink at murder? Was it impossible to think that a black hero was guilty?

Not at all. Instead, they deeply suspected the legal system, from the police to the courts to the jails. They had witnessed unequal treatment under the law. They had seen people framed. They had seen the innocent convicted and the guilty set free, hence their deep-seated suspicion.

Today, with President Trump shouting out "Fake News" on a regular basis and with millions of Americans agreeing, when a story starts with the Washington Post, red flags immediately go up. And when one of the most conservative senatorial candidates in decades comes under fierce attack right before the elections, a man with great loyalty among his followers, it's very easy for some to question his accusers rather than sympathize with them.

As it stands, we are nearing the tipping point in the charges against Moore, with more accusers coming forward by the moment and with his supporters becoming more desperate. And it's understandable why the Babylon Bee, a Christian satire site, posted an article titled, "Evangelicals Announce They Will Withdraw Support For Roy Moore Should Three Or Four Dozen More Women Come Forward."

But before you condemn Moore's Alabama supporters, and before you write off other conservatives who have stood with him, bear in mind that double standards are not the whole story (or, perhaps, even part of the story). Rather, there is extreme suspicion of the left and deep recognition of how many enemies someone like Judge Moore really has. And with some claiming there is clear evidence that the yearbook signature is a forgery, everything else becomes questionable.

For those on the left who think I'm trying to excuse the inexcusable – meaning, giving Moore any benefit of the doubt even for a moment – just ask yourself how you would have responded if Fox News and Rush Limbaugh claimed to have evidence of Barack Obama sexually abusing minors. To my readers on the left, what would your first reaction be?

We all agree that if the charges against Moore are true then what he did is terribly ugly and evil, especially since he did so as a professing Christian and as someone in power. But let's not get carried away with double-standard accusations right now, especially against conservative Christians in Alabama. There's a lot more to the story that must be factored in.

[TomServo]

Yes.

[caww]

..”Are Evangelical Roy Moore Supporters Hypocrites?”...

All are when nobody’s been actually charged or tried for. Innocent til proven otherwise still stands....what this is is character assassination because it works enough to take down politicians.....guilt or not isn't the issue "doubt" for the voter is.

[gov_bean_ counter]

For withholding judgement in the absence of verifiable evidence???

[jmaroneps37]

“We all agree that if the charges against Moore are true then what he did is terribly ugly and evil, especially since he did so as a professing Christian and as someone in power.”
The operative word here is “IF.” I don’t believe any of this and never have.

[BamaAndy]

I’m glad I’m not held to something I said or did 37 years ago... you? We are voting for Roy because he did not rape anyone. He did not in fact assault anyone. You have a problem calling people like us hypocrites who are imperfect people but believe in the saving power of Christ. Fine. Roy may have said some dumb things at the time—but what is he now?? Can a human being not change for the better in your world?

[BenLurkin]

People are sick and tired of the leftists using the decency of the American voters to twist politics against American interests.

[metmom]

No.

Moore has not been convicted of anything, only accused by several women, some of whose own family members state they are lying.

Our justice system is built on innocent until proved guilty. To judge and condemn someone based on unsubstantiated accusations 40 years after the fact, is a travesty of justice.

Christians are not hypocrites. They’re smart enough to see though all the crap that’s going around.

I wonder if someone is going to accuse Al Franken supporters of being hypocrites? Or are they going to say they are not because they are not voting opposed to their morals and standards?

When we find the perfect candidate, then get back to us.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Yes

Can you elaborate?

[ForYourChildren]

“You’d Better Put Some Ice On That”

[Louis Foxwell]

No.

[Chickensoup]

People no longer want their goodness used against them.

I get it. I don’t either.

I actually think Moore is getting Borked or Thomased.

The leftists say everything until they find something that gives them traction with their enemies. Truth does not matter to them. I would just as soon support Moore and discover he was fine after he wins, than to discover he was he was fine after he lost.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules from Rules for Radicals

Saul Alinsky describes 24 rules in Rules for Radicals. Of those 24 rules, 13 are rules of “power tactics”:

1. “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy
thinks you have.”

2. “Never go outside the experience of your people.”

3. “Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the
enemy.”

4. “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.”

5. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

6. “A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.”

7. “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.”

8. “Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and
actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”

9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing
itself.”

10. “The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.”

11. “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will
break through into its counterside.”

12. “The price of a successful attack is a constructive
alternative.”

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The remaining 11 rules Alinsky describes are concerned with “the ethics of means and ends”:

1. “One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue … Accompanying this rule is the parallel one that one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s distance from the scene of conflict.”

2. “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.”

3. “In war the end justifies almost any means.”

4. “Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.”

5. “Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.”

6. “The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.”

7. “Generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.”

8. “The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

9. “Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

10. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.”

11. “Goals must be phrased in general terms like ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,’ ‘Of the Common Welfare,’ ‘Pursuit of Happiness,’ or ‘Bread and Peace.’”

[Louis Foxwell]

A stupid article written by a stupid person.

[davandbar]

I agree...and it’s obvious he preferred younger women. And yet, what did he do when he finally “caught” one (14 years his junior)? He had the audacity to marry her, stay faithful to her, give her four children, and provide a very comfortable lifestyle for her—WOW! What a creep!!! /s

[BamaAndy]

Excellent sir. Thank you. I hope he wins the thing here and goes to DC.

[Balding_Eagle]

For example, a devoted liberal Democrat would be far less likely to entertain an accusation against Barack Obama than against Ted Cruz. Conversely, a staunch conservative Republican would be much more likely to entertain an accusation against Obama than against Cruz.

The author makes the (stupid or on purpose?) mistake of assuming the Liberal has the same moral standards as a Conservative.

The Conservative most likely has a Biblical, or near Biblical measure, the Liberal has either a self created measure or none.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Because Moore is guilty by accusation?

Can we use that same standard on you?

Who’s your employer? I have some important information about you I want to give him.

[Bodleian_Girl]

The Birmingham News has been on a rampage against Judge Roy Moore for many years, especially since their alleged lesbian editor took over as the main editor for the 3 largest newspapers in the state of Alabama and Judge Moore came out against sodomite marriage.

I've met her and she is VERY butch.

Kyle Whitmire is an effete "columnist" there (though he's married) and he's written with more vitriol against Judge Moore than anyone, with the possible exception of John "I forgot I declared bankruptcy and I've got a gay brother" Archibald.

They hate Judge Moore and they have made it clear that they do.

Their jobs are also dependent on pleasing their editor. Those 3 papers are owned by Advance and they have laid off over 40% of their employees in the past few years and now only print 3 days a week.

So you have lesbians and leftists calling the shots and maybe a couple of people who are afraid to speak out in fear of losing their jobs.

But this is a hate campaign of the highest order.

http://alamo-girl.com/thedead.htm

[SeekAndFind]

RE: A stupid article written by a stupid person

What in the article do you think is stupid?

[dadfly]

from the author (brown):

“Has this compromised our moral authority in the eyes of many Americans?” [voting for Trump]

“On the one hand, it certainly has.”

the fact of this statement, leads me to doubt anything he says about morality. it demonstrates a serious lack of understanding about the definition of “moral authority.”

moral authority derives entirely from the moral law followed by God Almighty. any individual has “moral authority” to the extent they claim a right relationship with God.

thus “moral authority” can only be compromised in someone by a judgment of God Himself, that judgment comes in various forms as the Bible states. to the extent Christians follow the law of God, they are not compromised in any way. to the extent they depart from the law of God they have sinned.

so the question for this guy is simple, how does voting for Trump (or supporting Roy Moore) given what we knew or know about them at the point when we made the decision to support each violate God’s moral law?

since Trump won the election, the decision to vote for him was right in God’s eyes since scripture says God chooses the leaders of nations.

in the case of Moore, God’s ‘jury’ is still out on that.

we weren’t direct witnesses to the charges against Trump or Moore. we have to choose never the less. thus, we look at who has judged him based on what evidence. we look at who suports him based on their character. we look at the candidate’s “fruit” or service so far. all of those are provided by God and thus we can violate no moral law if we use those criteria and our own reason to make a decision of support or opposition. i believe God will not condemn us for a wrong decision in this case. i think, the author brown is way off base here.