Like Button

Thursday, December 14, 2017

Rights and Right (or Who's Watching our Rights?)

Roy Moore lost his election bid. "Good!" most of America seems to shout. Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. And I'm not a Roy Moore fan. What I think is sad, however, is the decision of the Left, the media, and, therefore, the loudest Americans on down to deprive Roy Moore of his constitutional rights.

I heard on a fairly conservative radio show with two hosts discussing Moore before the election. "Apparently President Trump thinks it's better to vote in a pedophile than a Democrat." These guys were using their First Amendment rights to deprive him of His Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. How is that good? Like the flood of other people in this country, Moore was accused of sexual abuse. Worse, of sexual abuse of a minor. That would make him a pedophile, to be sure. And I don't know a single person who would say that a pedophile is a good thing. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" would say that Roy Moore is not a pedophile until he is proven to be one.

But America is having none of that. We know better. The presence of the accusation makes the accusation true these days. Oh, sure, not entirely. There are certain factors. Do we like him (or her)? Do we like or feel for the person who brings the accusation? And, more than anything, what does the media say? Facts? Not an issue. The legal system? We all know you can't rely on that. The Fifth Amendment says,
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger. (U.S. Bill of Rights, Fifth Amendment)
The 14th Amendment agrees. "So?", people ask, and gladly hold Moore to answer for his "infamous crime" without indictment. He lost. Good. Will his case ever see the courtroom? One has to wonder. Will he ever be able to defend himself in court? Doubtful.

In fact, there were voices that tried to shut up Moore. They didn't like his religious views. They didn't like his political views. He should just shut up and go away ... despite the guarantee we have to free speech.

It's not like this is a surprise or a novelty. For years they have been working to deprive us of our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (U.S. Bill of Rights, Second Amendment)
So they've chipped away at it and chipped away at it and still the loud voices cry out for "better gun control" if not a total ban on guns.

And right now in front of the Supreme Court they are arguing about another First Amendment right ... or rather, the government's right to take it away.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. (U.S. Bill of Rights, First Amendment)
Does an artist have the freedom of expression based on the freedom of the free exercise of religion, or can we just erase that one, too?

There is an irony here. I am not a person so keen on rights as others. And yet, here I am, complaining about rights. No, that's not the point. I'm not defending Moore or demanding my rights. I'm just pointing out that America is no longer a "rights friendly" place. It was argued early on that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." But we've largely pushed "their Creator" out of the window and it only stands to reason that the "unalienable Rights" He endows would be pushed out with Him. My point, then, is not rights. My point is that when we push God out of the center, it has starkly negative results.


Marshal Art said...

The irony in your post is that you're actually arguing for that which got Moore in trouble way back with the 10 Commandments issue. He, too, was arguing that we cannot disconnect from God's bestowing of rights upon us, that our founders recognized this and our Constitution is meant to protect us against the federal government trying to deprive us of them.

"Like the flood of other people in this country, Moore was accused of sexual abuse. Worse, of sexual abuse of a minor. That would make him a pedophile, to be sure."

No. It would not. It would make him an abuser of a minor, but not a pedophile. Be careful. You speak of words having meanings that should not be diluted. This word refers to prepubescent children, not teenagers. So a female physically developed can still be a minor without being a child. This is important given how the purposeful use of this term against Moore was intended to smear him as something he is not.

On that score, perhaps you can help me out. I could not get any of his worst accusers to provide this info (you know one of which I speak), but I have not read or heard of anything with regard to the fourteen year old that indicates Moore was aware of her age at the time of their "episode". As he was dealing with females on the younger end of the "legal consent" spectrum, this is an important point with regard to his intent and quality of character. And no, it is not always obvious by looking and one can indeed be fooled, especially if the female in question has designs of her own.

Stan said...

What will happen, as they force a greater rift between God and State, is the rights they embrace will become dubious until everyone does whatever is right in their own eyes -- anarchy.

Nice catch, Marshal. Yes, the technical definition of pedophile is "a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger."

And according to modern definitions, "sexual abuse" or "harassment" is defined as anything on the "sexual" spectrum -- words, actions, suggestions, intentions -- that causes discomfort or "a hostile environment". Moore, if the accusation from the originally 14-year-old girl is true, would not be guilty of pedophilia, but would still be guilty of "sexual harassment" because his attentions were not wanted ... if it is true. As vague as that definition is. (One news thing I saw had a woman complaining that her boss was sexually harassing her because he didn't like any of her ideas in the meetings. That's how vague that "definition" is.)

Stan said...

So, I'm wondering. Given the number of people calling Moore publicly and loudly "pedophile", can he sue for slander? Just musing out loud.

Craig said...

If I was Moore I’d seriously be considering suilng people for slander.

Marshal Art said...

Actually, his attentions were indeed wanted...up to a point. She then basically said, "stop" after which he backed off. That's how the woman describes the situation.

And yeah, if you think the definition is vague now, I have no doubt it will become more so in the future. How sad for those actually experiencing abuse.

I would also see no reason why a case can't be made for slander/libel with regard to applying the term "pedophile" to Moore. I think in years past such misuse of a term would be a slam dunk. But these days, the way words are abused so easily it could be a risky endeavor to try.

Stan said...

Since there IS a definition of "pedophile" available and no one has charged that he actually met that definition, I would think that it would indeed be a slam dunk. But I wonder if there is a reverse of a "class action suit", where one person sues a large number of people, in this case for slander?

The questions will never be answered, I don't think. They will always hate him, first because of his views and then because of the accusations. I don't think anyone will ever actually take him to court over the accusations, but he already stands convicted. The Left and the other godless sheeple of the nation consider this good and right.

Craig said...

Which goes back to what we’ve talked about before, it’s all about control of definitions and narrative.