Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Teallaura]

My original response was in reply to Sparko, who noted that the difference between Bush's revelation of alcoholism and Moore's hypothetical assault charge is that Moore claimed to already have a relationship with Jesus when he committed assault.

That isn't the same thing as saying it's okay - not even close.

If the accusations turn out to have substance, there is indeed a pattern of sexual aggression. One conclusion might be that he got over it when he was married; another might be that there are more victims who are choosing not to speak, for whatever their reasons. There are at least 3 accusations of assault, as far as I know.

That appears to be a very big 'if'. I have only heard of two accusations of assault, one that isn't bearing any scrutiny and the other that has no corroboration and isn't doing much better in the scrutiny department.

One is exceptionally unlikely. Two is also exceptionally unlikely and should not be considered - 'there may be' is not evidence.

[Teallaura]

Why the hell are you all defending a 14-year-old girl being mature enough to have sex or get married? what the hell is the matter with you all?

Immaturity is NOT the definition of immorality. 'Not inherently immoral' is not the same thing as 'defending' or 'it's okay'.

You aren't listening to what we're actually SAYING, that's what's wrong.

[guacamole]

One of them says that marital sex is honorable.

When did I give you the impression that I thought the Bible said it wasn't?

The other says (or at least implies) that it is okay to mary a post-pubescent girl.

And? I was talking commandments with you. The only commandment I see there is not to wed/have sex with a child.

Can you not read?

I'd remain civil if I were you, and I wanted the conversation to remain civil.

Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

That's why I asked you how legalistic your view of the Law is. I suspicion is that you aren't being consistent on this. I don't imagine that you abstain from pork or shellfish or literally observe the Sabbath. I could be wrong. I also suspect that you logically allow for expansive interpretation of the Law if accept the canonical New Testament.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Mountain Man]

I'm actually more on his side - at 14 we aren't talking about a woman in any real sense of the term. At 16 they are legally able to give consent but neither physically nor emotionally mature.

That's the sticking point, I think. You're probably right about the vast majority of 14- to 16-year olds, but there will always be those exceptions which prevent you from being able to declare it inherently immoral, especially in light of ancient Jewish culture and history and the fact that God never commanded the nation of Israel to give up their marriage traditions, and Paul even explicitly says that it is not immoral to marry a young woman who is "past the flower of her age", which most commentaries say is a reference to puberty. Culture has changed, so it's not an advisable practice in our current society, and there are good arguments against it, but it is not inherently immoral.

[guacamole]

That isn't the same thing as saying it's okay - not even close.

You are correct. I looked back over the comments and I agree that no one is giving him a free pass for assault.

That appears to be a very big 'if'. I have only heard of two accusations of assault, one that isn't bearing any scrutiny and the other that has no corroboration and isn't doing much better in the scrutiny department.

One is exceptionally unlikely. Two is also exceptionally unlikely and should not be considered - 'there may be' is not evidence.

True--my comments on the assault angle are based strictly in the hypothetical.

At this point, I think he is provably guilty of nothing more than catastrophically poor judgement.

fwiw,
guacamole

[Adrift]

Okay, I don't think it's a strong argument but he's not really doing a 'cultural overlay' in that respect. The basic position is that if it wasn't immoral for Mary and Joseph, it's not immoral now. Morality doesn't change although, ironically enough, morays can. What's acceptable to one culture is not to another - but morality isn't at issue, ethics are.

I think he's correct that it's not inherently immoral. I think it's irrelevant to the question of morality that Mary and Joseph weren't presumably of modern age of consent but I do agree that it supports the position he's taking.

I think the age gap is too large to be acceptable in modern culture. However, I find the parental approval to be mitigating.

But mostly, what can be corroborated (not proven - no one's done that yet) happened 38 years ago with no allegations of recurrence so I don't see any cause to invalidate the man's ability to serve.

Hmm. I still don't know that I buy this line of thinking. It strikes me as off. While God's moral laws don't/can't change, we see throughout scripture where certain laws, rituals, and social arrangements were conditional. Even if I grant that a 13-16 year old female marrying an 18-20 year old male isn't inherently immoral, the morality of it may hinge on social circumstances, especially when, again, we keep in mind that life expectancies were short, where passing the family name on was of vital importance, where children were needed in order to help with strengthening the family/tribal unit, and where they were expected to care for their elders as they got old. One of the things that's constantly banging away at the back of my mind about this subject is that I'm reminded a bit of the Bible's stance on polygamy. Outside of perhaps Deuteronomy 17:17, polygamy is never specifically condemned as inherently immoral in scripture, and plenty of great men of God committed it, but we can say with some confidence that it isn't moral (well, probably Obsidian wouldn't say that, but he's a special case), especially in light of all the damage it caused in the lives of those who did commit it. I'm not sure that's a good example, but like I said, it keeps popping up in my mind.

Again, though, I think this an apples and oranges discussion. Moore was, what, in his late 20s, early 30s when he allegedly committed these sexual assaults? As I pointed out, the marrying age for men in 1st century Israel would have been not much later than 20. There were some heavy condemnations in Jewish writings for men marrying much after that age. A 32 year old having sexual relations with a 14 year old in ancient Israel may have brought forward the same sort of condemnation we expect today.

[Teallaura]

That's the sticking point, I think. You're probably right about the vast majority of 14- to 16-year olds, but there will always be those exceptions which prevent you from being able to declare it inherently immoral, especially in light of ancient Jewish culture and history and the fact that God never commanded the nation of Israel to give up their marriage traditions, and Paul even explicitly says that it is not immoral to marry a young woman who is "past the flower of her age", which most commentaries say is a reference to puberty. Culture has changed, so it's not an advisable practice in our current society, and there are good arguments against it, but it is not inherently immoral.

I agree.

[Teallaura]

You are correct. I looked back over the comments and I agree that no one is giving him a free pass for assault.



True--my comments on the assault angle are based strictly in the hypothetical.

At this point, I think he is provably guilty of nothing more than catastrophically poor judgement.

fwiw,
guacamole

Fair enough.

[Obsidian]

That's why I asked you how legalistic your view of the Law is. I suspicion is that you aren't being consistent on this. I don't imagine that you abstain from pork or shellfish or literally observe the Sabbath. I could be wrong. I also suspect that you logically allow for expansive interpretation of the Law if accept the canonical New Testament.

Shellfish and the sabbath are red herrings, as those are ceremonial laws. I'm as consistent as I logically and emotionally can bring myself to be. I don't claim that every part of the Bible is crystal clear. But whether clear or opaque, it still remains the standard.

Culture has changed, so it's not an advisable practice in our current society, and there are good arguments against it, but it is not inherently immoral.

I personally do not expect our "current society" to last that much longer. God doesn't allow our type of idiocy to reign forever.

[Teallaura]

Hmm. I still don't know that I buy this line of thinking. It strikes me as off. While God's moral laws don't/can't change, we see throughout scripture where certain laws, rituals, and social arrangements were conditional. Even if I grant that a 13-16 year old female marrying an 18-20 year old male isn't inherently immoral, the morality of it may hinge on social circumstances, especially when, again, we keep in mind that life expectancies were short, where passing the family name on was of vital importance, where children were needed in order to help with strengthening the family/tribal unit, and where they were expected to care for their elders as they got old. One of the things that's constantly banging away at the back of my mind about this subject is that I'm reminded a bit of the Bible's stance on polygamy. Outside of perhaps Deuteronomy 17:17, polygamy is never specifically condemned as inherently immoral in scripture, and plenty of great men of God committed it, but we can say with some confidence that it isn't moral (well, probably Obsidian wouldn't say that, but he's a special case), especially in light of all the damage it caused in the lives of those who did commit it. I'm not sure that's a good example, but like I said, it keeps popping up in my mind.

Like I said, I don't think it's a strong argument. It's not the argument I would make.

Again, though, I think this an apples and oranges discussion. Moore was, what, in his late 20s, early 30s when he allegedly committed these sexual assaults? As I pointed out, the marrying age for men in 1st century Israel would have been not much later than 20. There were some heavy condemnations in Jewish writings for men marrying much after that age. A 32 year old having sexual relations with a 14 year old in ancient Israel may have brought forward the same sort of condemnation we expect today.

Um, sticking point - if he's guilty of assault (which I doubt) then there is no question about it being immoral. And I don't think age disparity was at issue for men marrying late so I'm not sure that would have mattered. But I still don't think it's relevant past the question of inherent morality.

[One Bad Pig]

This might be relevant to the conversation,

Source: Dictionary of New Testament Background: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship by Craig A. Evans, Stanley E. Porter, Jr.

Jewish writers and teachers advocated marrying early, partly to propagate one’s family name (e.g., Pseud.-Phoc. 175–76; b. Pesaḥ. 113b) and partly to protect young men from sexual passion (Sir 7:23; b. Qidd. 29b; b. Yebam. 63ab). Eighteen to twenty was considered an appropriate age for a man’s marriage (m. Abot 5:21; cf. 1QSa 1:10; see Rule of the Congregation). Though men sometimes married later than twenty (e.g., CIJ 1:409 §553), many later rabbis complained that men who were twenty or older and still not married were sinning against God (b. Qidd. 29b–30a, from the second-century school of Rabbi Ishmael). Women usually married in their teens, such as at thirteen or sixteen, but some were older than twenty (Ilan, 67–69).

© Copyright Original Source

So basically we're not seeing a massive age gap in 1st century Israel. Mary was likely a teenager between the age of 13 and 16 (though possibly older), and Joseph was likely between the ages of 18 and 20. But that's just for when they got married. We know that Mary and Joseph didn't consummate their marriage till after Jesus was born, so we have to take that into consideration as well. I don't think using the 1st century marrying customs is a great defense for Moore. Not only is the age gap not that wide, but we're talking apples and oranges between the two cultures.

You're forgetting that it was not uncommon for women to die in childbirth and for the widower to subsequently remarry. This is relevant because Joseph is traditionally believed to have been a widower (and his complete absence from the biblical record after Jesus' 12th year would seem to corroborate that).

I agree that this would not apply to Moore's case, but you're depending on later rabbis and not all men married that young (witness Jesus, who was still unmarried at 33).

[Juvenal]

Hmm. I still don't know ...

I won't endorse this with an amen, but I love reading your work, A. Nicely sourced, thoughtfully argued, and well written. Kudos.

[JonathanL]

It may help you to understand what God is from my perspective, and also what Christianity is. You hold a vision of God in your mind just like you can visualise any other object, real or imagined. God means something to you. To the extent that you experience God in the world you always superimpose you ideas about God on some real world event or place. Some commonplace strong emotion you will associate with the presence of God. This is very common and you see it in all religions.

Religions of ‘the book’ use the book and creeds to standardise ideas about the God. Different denominations of a given religion exist because the book is not technically adequate for this purpose; it lacks precision.

The God has no other feature apart from those coordinated ideas about God that believers hold to. They chant, mumble and sing their beliefs in order to stay together as a group, and, exclude other groups.

Christianity and some other religions are hazardous because the followers think that their coordinated beliefs are true in the sense that they are founded in reality and they go on to make poor decisions about real things because of that. They do not learn anything new because the book does not change. They worship an historical artefact long since past its ‘sell by’ date.

tl;dr

[Darth Executor]

Christianity and some other religions are hazardous because the followers think that their coordinated beliefs are true in the sense that they are founded in reality and they go on to make poor decisions about real things because of that. They do not learn anything new because the book does not change. They worship an historical artefact long since past its ‘sell by’ date.

So you don't believe in evolution?

[rogue06]

If they don't want to be hypocrites they have to make Franken step down. They are clamoring that Moore should be disqualified from running and if elected should be forced right back out. They can't do that and let Franken remain.

The end result might be a wash if a Democrat wins the Alabama seat and Franken resigns and a Republican takes his.

If Franken is forced out then the Democrat governor of Minnesota will select another Democrat to take his place. That person will have the advantage of being the incumbent and since Minnesota is becoming increasingly more liberal will almost assuredly remain the Senator in the next election.

The reason why the Democrats would be reluctant to boot Franken is that he is viewed as a rising star in the party and a great pick to take on the Trump Administration (look at the MSM's rave reviews of his questioning of Jeff Sessions for an example).