As I’ve written before, comments from my conservative friends on FB make great essay prompts. Today, it is two comments posted in response to the loss of Roy Moore in Alabama last night (note: It is incorrect to call him “Judge”, as he was removed from the Judiciary).
Comment № 1: “Way to get played, Alabamians.”
This comment is based on the notion that some sort of smear campaign was played in Alabama. But that’s hardly the case — it certainly isn’t the case that they were “played”. Let’s (for a second) set aside all the sexual claims against Moore. There’s was still plenty of reason why this former jurist shouldn’t be elected: he explicitly ignored higher court ruling; he refused to follow the constitutional separations of church and state; he stated publicly that amendments after the 10th were a mistake (thus implying that didn’t believe in the reforms that came out of the civil war). In essence, he put his personal religious beliefs above the constitution. Doing that is reason enough for someone to not be elected to the Senate: Senators must set aside their personal religious beliefs to represent their entire state, in accordance ONLY with the requirements of the constitution. How can one claim to represent the non-Christians in your state if you only enforce Christian theology?
Further, it appears the reason that Republicans wanted Moore — other than to preserve their numbers — was that they put someone who was against abortion above the Constitution. That’s wrong, plain and simple. Prohibiting abortion based on a religious belief (and a mistaken one at that, for they don’t protect life after birth) is establishing a state religion, for there are other religions where abortion or not is the choice of the mother. Government officials cannot give priority to one religious view over another. I do my best to respect Christian’s rights to their theology, but it is something that must be decided at the personal level — it is up to the individual to make the choice. Government should permit abortion; individuals do not have to do it even if it is available. My understanding of morality and proper behavior is that it is only worthy of reward if you make the conscious choice to do the good thing — if you fight the temptation. Having the government take that choice from you does not make you any better ethically.
Comment № 2: “I saw a tweet yesterday that purported to be from Moore, saying he was going to sue his accusers for defamation. I hope he sues them and the Washington Post and takes everything they have.”
So, you’re saying that Moore was not elected because false claims made against him, even with credible evidence presented for those claims. Yet you’re the same person who was cheering Franken’s resignation in the face of even less evidence and claims of less concerning behavior. That’s a bit hypocritical, don’t you think?
Then again, you could be saying that the electorate should have ignored any claim against the candidate that hadn’t been held up in a court of law. Cough, Hillary, cough. The claims against Hillary Clinton regarding the email server have never been substantiated sufficiently for an indictment and trial, even after investigation by the FBI. One standard for all parties, please. Oh, and if Moore could sue his accusers for false claims, Clinton should be able to do the same.
If you believe sexual misbehavior claims must be investigated to determine if they are real, or at least credible, then that must be one in all cases. That includes investigating the President for the claim being made against him, and taking action if they prove to be credible. That means doing the same thing even for non-credible claims.
In short, as I recall someone saying last November: You ran a flawed candidate, and they lost. Get over it.
