[VOA]

The man whose case I mentioned...His career was destroyed. He was a deacon in
his church; they threw him out. He sold his home to pay his attorney fees.

That's a sad commentary...especially about his church.
Guess the elders at that church must have skipped that "judge not" passage.
Too bad the church couldn't find the generosity of spirit to at least "reserve judgement"
until the case had been processed.
But I suppose taking such a position just would be too radical for some member of the flock.

It's been interesting to watch the flip-side of the coin here in Southern California
where too many of the abusing priests seem to have the presumption of innocence
no matter how outrageous their conduct.

And he was one of the lucky ones because the false charges didn't stick. Prosecutors point
to his case and claim that the system works.

I would tell such prosecutors: if this man is at least paid back his attorney's
fees and lost wages and other reasonable damages...WITHOUT NEEDING TO SUE...
then maybe the system is working...barely.

[Kevin Curry]

Interesting. Bryan broadbrushes various "shrew ex-wives" as liars and offers his opinion that a certain man was unjustly accused and convicted of sodomy of a child. Thus he essentially accuses the prosecutors of bearing false witness.

You chime in full agreement and also accuse church elders of sin in "judging" the man and removing him from his position as deacon.

But, what are your and Bryan's posts if they are not examples of the very kind of "judging" that you condemn? Why do you place yourselves above the rule you invoke to condemn others?