Is this justice? Part 2

For a person to sexually assault another person is a seriously wrong thing.  It is a heinous act that causes a lifetime of trauma.  It should never be allowed to happen, and the person guilty of such an act should be punished.

To falsely accuse someone of such an act is just as wrong.  To attempt to ruin someone else’s life, to subject them to the public shame, the constant suspicion, the loss of reputation – for whatever reason – is terribly wrong.

I think we are quick to agree with the first statement.  Not so much the second.  I think we are making some strides with uncovering sexual misconduct and exposing it.  But we are in danger of going way beyond that, into using the accusation as a weapon to get what we want.

The US Senate Judiciary Committee has been investigating the claims against now Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh since they came to light.  It was a serious matter, and it deserved a serious examination.

The committee interviewed some 40 people, reviewed the evidence submitted by his accusers, monitored social media and news outlets, and eventually released a 414-page report detailing their findings.  The FBI even opened a 7th probe into Kavanaugh’s personal history.  When they were finished, there was nothing about the personal or professional life of Brett Kavanaugh that they did not know.

In other words, the investigation was as thorough as you could you get.

The investigation is now complete, and Kavanaugh was found to be innocent.

“Following the separate and extensive investigations by both the Committee and the FBI, there was no evidence to substantiate any of the claims of sexual assault made against Justice Kavanaugh,” the report said.

In one case, the committee concluded that the accuser and her lawyer “criminally conspired to make materially false statements to the Committee and obstruct the Committee’s investigation.” Both have been recommended to the Justice Department to be investigated.  The attorney, meanwhile, was himself recently arrested for domestic violence.

In another case, a woman who accused Kavanaugh later admitted under questioning by the committee that she did not know him, “and merely used it as a ‘ploy’ to ‘get attention’” according to the report.

None of the claims against him were found to be credibleBut does that change the way anyone feels?  It should.

If we are going to be upset at people for mistreating others, and for breaking the law, should we not also be upset when an innocent person is falsely accused of mistreating others, or of breaking the law?

I think the answer is a resounding yes.  Because if it is not, we are doing a serious disservice to those who genuinely were wronged.  Their credibility is being taken away, by those who continue to cry wolf.

What I’ve also observed through this, is that one side of the political aisle is becoming more ruthless in the way they try to win.  The Kavanaugh story has shed light on the tactics they are now willing to use to get what they want.  It should be disgusting to anyone who truly cares about what is right and wrong.

It should also serve as a wake-up call.  Because if the left will try to take out a good and decent man by such an intended grave injustice, what will they not do, to get what they want?


Where’s the love?

If you are a casual observer of US politics, and if you paid even a little attention to the 2016 election, you likely heard a particular narrative from the media and the culture.  It was one that painted republicans, and especially Donald Trump, as promoting fear and hate.  My social media feed was aflame with posts from people accusing the now president of being a racist, inciting violence, and stoking the fears of his crazed party base.  The democrats and Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, were the ones promoting love and acceptance.

“Love trumps hate” said the bumper stickers.  Even this week, former president Barack Obama said in a campaign speech “…you can choose…an America where love and hope conquer hate.”

“I’m so sad,” a personal friend wrote the day after the election.  “Hate and fear won.”

While I can understand the disappointment, the irony was not lost on me.  Since the election, we have seen much anger on the part of the left.  And it has gotten to a point I don’t believe we’ve ever seen.

Senator Ted Cruz and his wife were run out of a restaurant in Washington recently by leftist protestors.  And Senator Mitch McConnel was likewise forced to leave a restaurant over the summer by protestors with a bullhorn.  As was White House press secretary Sarah Sanders.

Democrat congresswoman Maxine Waters seemed to encourage this very thing not long ago.

“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

Republican Senator Susan Collins received numerous threats during the Kavanaugh hearings, including a letter that claimed to contain poison.

Speaking of the Kavanaugh hearings, leftist protestors were seen confronting and screaming at Senator Jeff Flake on one occasion.  While dozens were arrested for disorderly conduct for attempting to disrupt the confirmation vote.

A left-leaning teacher in Minnesota resigned after calling for Kavanaugh’s assassination on Twitter, while a Steven Colbert Late Show writer said that even though he was confirmed, “I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

A democratic operative in Nevada was recently arrested for physically assaulting a female campaign manager for the republican candidate for Governor.

Senator Rand Paul was attacked and beaten in his front yard last year by a man who disagreed with him politically.  The attack left him hospitalized with serious injuries.

And then there was what Hillary Clinton said recently, when asked about the left being more civil with those they disagree with.

You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” she said on CNN.  “That’s why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and/or the Senate, that’s when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength.”

And this is concerning.  Because Mrs. Clinton is one of the chief spokesmen for the left.  After all, she was their presidential nominee two years ago.  She is – I believe – letting her guard down a little bit in telling us what she and her party believe about those they disagree with.

This is to say nothing of the protests and riots in the days after the presidential election, or the mass shooting at a republican charity baseball practice by a far-left activist.  I could go on with numerous other examples.

Whatever you call this, it certainly is not “love” or “acceptance” or “tolerance.”

I’ve heard the left’s claim on these virtues for years; but I’ve observed that what they really mean is loving and accepting if you agree with them.  Friend, may we never be found guilty of the same.

As long as we are unwilling to calmly listen to and engage in respectful debate with others, we will not make any progress as a society.  If we shut our ears to opposing views and demand our way, how will that help anyone?

Be alert and be discerning of the actions taken over the lofty words.  Be wary of falling for a narrative painted by those who speak against hate, while engaging in it and encouraging it themselves.

Is this justice?

When President Trump announced Brett Kavanaugh as his nomination to the Supreme Court, I immediately felt sorry for him.  I knew the fierce opposition he would face.  And it wasn’t because of debate on his qualifications or merits to become a Justice.  No, he had impeccable credentials.  It was because there would be those who so desperately wanted the “balance of power” to stay either neutral or left-leaning, that they would stop at nothing to keep him from being confirmed.  Even if that meant destroying his character, reputation, family, life.

I looked at his background, and it was obvious that he is qualified for the position.  He is as solid a pick as you can find.  Yet, I knew it would be horrible the challenges he would face, the accusations made, the harassment he and his family would have to endure.  It made me wonder why he would sign up for it, if he had been properly prepared, and what kind of resolve he truly had.  Because people would try to destroy him.  And they certainly have.

And a potential Supreme Court Justice should be properly vetted.  I believe he was.  But when it became apparent that there could be no legitimate challenge to him professionally, we have seen him attacked personally.  To the point that his life and reputation are, in his words, “totally and permanently destroyed.”

It is really a sad day.  Because the man is of solid character.  He has every appearance of a man of integrity, a family man, without a checkered past.  One who is a gentleman and who is generous.  In fact, a large group of women who know him professionally and personally, jointly signed a statement saying the same thing.

And that is what makes the accusations against him at the 11th hour all the harder to believe.  Serious allegations should be taken seriously.  They should be examined properly.  Properly being the key word.  If you look at the details of this week’s accusations objectively, I think you will find them hard to believe.  A man who is a sexual predator as a teenager doesn’t usually go on to become a boy scout as an adult.  The timing alone should make us suspicious.  The fact that the democrats on the Judiciary Committee knew about this for weeks, and only unveiled them just ahead of the confirmation vote should be the biggest red flag.

I could unpack all of why I believe these allegations are false, but time and space prevent it.  But basing your reason for considering a man unfit for office on a single allegation from one person, uncorroborated by another witness, from more than 35 years ago, with key details missing, and everyone she names as being present denying under oath that they were, is not wise.

It makes me wonder, along with Marc Thiessen, “How Much Evidence Do We Need to Destroy Someone?”

If we care about justice, about what is right, then we will want the truth to win out.  Even if the truth conflicts with our own agenda.  Right?  Or have we reached a point in our society where our own desires are more important than doing what is right?  I certainly hope not, but the events of this week do nothing to assuage my doubts.

Want To Persuade? Do it Right.

If you would persuade someone, or convince them that the idea they are putting forward is not true, you must be honest about what they say they believe.  If you are, then you can logically lay out your case.  If you are not, the possibility of changing their way of thinking is over.  If you are purposely dishonest about or distort what someone else believes, you will not win them over.  And those others that you may win over will be because of deception, not truth.

I see this played out in the political world every day.  One side will grossly exaggerate or even lie about what the other believes in an effort to…well, I’m not quite sure what the effort is really for, honestly.

For example, it’s often said that conservatives oppose immigration.  We do not.  We oppose illegal immigration.  Those who would seek to come here in the manner that our law specifies are welcome.  It’s the blatant breaking of the law that bothers us.  To say there’s no difference is as illogical as to say there’s no difference between driving the proper speed and in speeding while driving intoxicated.  One is right, the other is blatantly against the law.

Another more recent example is the debate over the tax bill that recently passed.  I read a little bit about it, and I liked what I saw.  Lower income and middle class people get some much needed tax relief.  Not only is the tax rate going down for most people, the standard deduction and child tax credits are nearly doubling.  It can mean a family who earns $30,000 a year can see several hundred dollars of tax savings this year.  Pretty cool.  But depending on who you listen to, you wouldn’t know it.

In fact, if you listened to certain folks, you’d think the poor and the middle class are being drastically hurt by this bill.  Take these headlines for example:

CNN Money: “One-Third of Middle Class Families Could End Up Paying More Under the GOP Tax Plan”

New York Times: “Paul Ryan’s Middle-Class Tax Hike”

Washington Post: “Senate tax bill would cut taxes of wealthy and increase taxes on families earning less than $75,000 by 2027”

And this quote from Democrat House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

“Today, we face a GOP tax scam that raises taxes on 86 million middle-class families,”

I guess it shouldn’t be surprising then that a lot more Americans think their taxes will actually be going up, not down.

It’s an example of those who are opposed to something being dishonest about what their opposition believes and the legislation they have put forth.  It shows an unwillingness to debate, and really, it sends a signal that they know they would lose said debate.

“But why would they do that?” you may ask.  Here’s the main reason: the tax bill also benefits the wealthy and corporations, by lowering their taxes as well.  Now, if we want to debate whether that is a good idea, then let us debate that.  But saying that the Republicans will raise taxes on the middle class with this tax bill, that they want to benefit the rich and harm the poor, is not true.

And yet, you see this message repeated practically everywhere in the media.  And depending on who you trust to report the news, you could believe something that’s untrue.  I don’t know about you, but I can’t stand it when I believe something that I later find out to be false.

I would encourage you to understand the position of those you would disagree with.  At the very least, it will help you present your case more compellingly.  It can also lead you to understand why the other person came to their conclusion and what is behind that, which can lead to other conversations.

But as you understand their position, be honest about it.  The alternative will get you nowhere if you want to change minds.

Why I Don’t Drink

I have to admit this a bit of a departure from the normal type of post.  It’s less political in nature, which is fine.  It’s also quite personal.  It will let you know a little more of what I believe, and while I can guarantee it will not be a popular opinion, that’s alright.  Sometimes what you believe isn’t shared by the majority.  Yet, I trust you’ll consider what I write and maybe understand where I’m coming from.  The subject today is simply: “Why I Don’t Drink.”

In today’s culture, I dare say that if you don’t drink alcohol, you’re considered strange.  It seems booze is everywhere, at every event, on every occasion.  It seems like everyone’s doing it, seeing no problem with it, and marveling at those who do.  It seems the number of those of us who refrain is shrinking.  It seems society (and even the church) has become much more accepting of it than it once did.  But let me say at the outset – and please hear me on this – if you drink, I don’t think any less of you.  Nor do I think I’m somehow better because I don’t.  I hope you extend the same courtesy to me.  This is about why I don’t drink, not why you shouldn’t.  These are simply my convictions, and the reasoning behind them.  There are actually several reasons I don’t partake.

1. Family History

I tend to think how people view alcohol stems strongly from how their parents viewed it.  If they grew up in a home where it was accepted and consumed in moderation, they will tend to have a favorable view of it.  If someone had an alcoholic parent, that may change their view of booze.

In my case, I had parents who had deep convictions against the consumption of alcohol.  My mother’s father was a drunk who ruined her childhood, and abused his wife and children.  One of his sons also became an alcoholic who drank himself to death.  One of his sons struggles with it to this day.  It has been a generational curse.  My father meanwhile was raised in a conservative family, and so hated the stuff that as a broadcaster he refused even to advertise it.  He turned down prestigious job opportunities because he would not compromise.  These were incredibly influential in forming my own convictions.  But they are far from the only reasons.

2. Practical Reasons

There are many things you don’t have to worry about if you never consume alcohol.  Doing things in public you will regret, doing things you won’t remember, the misery of hangovers, even putting yourself or others in danger while intoxicated are among them.  There are detrimental effects to the body by consuming alcohol.  Of course there are the dangers of drinking and driving which not only puts you at risk but other innocent people as well.  A close friend of mine in college was put in the hospital, suffered long lasting injuries, as well as the total loss of his new car because someone else decided to drink to excess and get behind the wheel.  It wasn’t fair, but it’s the kind of thing that happens when you consume a mind-altering drug.

Then there is the very real danger of becoming addicted.  At one time the statistics said that one out of every eight people that takes that first drink will have lifelong problems with alcohol.  I do not wish to play with such fire.  If I were to order a glass of water at a restaurant, and the waiter told me that one out of every eight contained poison, I don’t know about you, but I certainly wouldn’t drink the water.

3. Biblical Reasons

I’m an evangelical Christian and as such I regularly read the Bible, and I believe what it says.  Over the years I’ve found that it has much to say on the subject of alcohol.  And almost none of it is good.

“Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.” – Proverbs 20:1

“Do not gaze at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup, when it goes down smoothly! In the end it bites like a snake and poisons like a viper.” – Proverbs 23:30-31

“[I]t is not for kings to drink wine, not for rulers to crave beer, lest they drink and forget what has been decreed, and deprive all the oppressed of their rights.” – Proverbs 31:4-5

“Let beer be for those who are perishing, wine for those who are in anguish! Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.” – Proverbs 31:6-7

It has even stronger warnings for those who make a habit of drinking to excess.

“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” – Ephesians 5:18

“Do not be deceived…drunkards [among others]…will not inherit the kingdom of God.” -1 Corinthians 6:9-10

“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.– Galatians 5:19-21

One might take issue and say, “What about all the other references to wine throughout the Bible?  Jesus even turned water into wine!” If you study the subject closely, you will find that the word wine was used both for juice that was fermented and juice that was not.  The wine of the old and new testaments that was fermented had very low alcohol content compared to what is consumed today.  So strong is the drink of our day that even the most pagan individuals in Biblical times wouldn’t touch it.  But don’t take my word for it.  Look it up for yourself.  The late Pastor Adrian Rogers outlined this quite well.

Again, I feel the need to pause and to repeat myself.  I’m not trying to preach to you, not pointing a condemning finger in your direction.  I’m simply giving you what I know and what I believe.  This is a first person account.  Ok? Ok…

4. Seeing what it has done to society

How many families have been broken up over alcohol?  How many marriages ended, wives abused, childhoods ruined?  How many lives have been lost to drunken driving?  How many lives lost to liver cancer, and other diseases caused or made worse by alcohol consumption? (An estimated 88,000 people die each year in alcohol-related causes according to the NIH.)  How many people have thrown away their lives and destroyed others because they couldn’t control their cravings for alcohol?  So I say to myself: “Why would I want to have anything to do with a substance that would do that to people?”  Why?

5. Temptation

I don’t know about you, but I’m tempted to do enough wrong things.  I don’t need one more.  The aforementioned Dr. Rogers once said that he was asked in a restaurant if he would like an alcoholic drink.  Rogers replied, “No thank you.  I’m in danger of becoming an alcoholic.”  The waitress was taken aback and apologized profusely.  Rogers added that he didn’t drink and never had.  That if he did, he may want more and more, and eventually become an addict.  Not surprisingly, the waitress went away offended.  But that illustrates one major reason why I don’t drink.  I never have to worry about drinking too much, and eventually ruining my life or someone else’s.

It’s not that I’m against having fun.  Far from it.  I’m just against doing foolish things.  And based on what I just laid out, for me to drink would be foolish.  I want to enjoy this life I’ve been given, living it to the fullest and living for the One who gave it to me. I don’t want it to be cut short or ruined so much as I can help it.  You can call me old fashioned or even needlessly fearful, but this is one area in which I don’t see eye-to-eye with the culture.

I have friends I’ve discussed this with, and while they patiently listen, they tell me that they don’t have a problem with drinking and can’t imagine ever having one.  I certainly hope they are right, as I remind them that most likely no one who has developed a problem thought they would either.  But it may not be them; it may be their children, or friends who took their first drink at their own influence.  I don’t think I could ever be comfortable with that scenario.  If those I love go down that road, may it never be because I led them.

Hopefully in this post I’ve given you an accurate picture of what I believe, and also maybe something to think about.  I hope that you can at least look at what I’ve laid out and say, “You know, that at least makes a lot of sense.”  Perhaps you’ll consider it and maybe even wrestle with the question, “Is it worth it?”  If nothing else, I hope you can now understand why I don’t drink.

In Pursuit of a Civil Pursuit of Truth

Is it just me, or does it seem like political discord is at an all-time high? Even after the election last fall, after most of us vowed to forget it and move on with our lives, we can’t seem to stop arguing and bickering. Pointing fingers of blame at our political opponents, and in a passive-aggressive way, at our friends, family and others who support those politicians or their political party.

But I think we may be able to move past this, and probably not in the way you think I’m going to say. Because here’s the thing: it’s OK to disagree. It’s OK to debate. It helps us learn more about those we disagree with, their positions, our own positions and the issues we’re discussing. I don’t believe you should simply not talk about politics or controversial issues. But the key is that we have to get past the disrespecting and maligning of those with whom we disagree. The election of 2016 perhaps helped me understand this in a more real way. Because there are people I know, love and respect who hold to positions I could not agree with less. I think they are good people, who want good things, despite believing what I see as antithetical to what they say they desire.

If you disagree with me, I am so thankful that you are reading this, and that you would consider my point of view. Because I have been reading and listening to yours, and it helps me understand better what you believe and what has led you to the conclusions you have made.

Here’s another key point: I believe we almost all ultimately desire the truth. If we don’t, then there really is no reason to have a rational discussion. But if the truth is what we want, then we should desire to seek it out, and have the courage to engage in honest discussion to help us get there. Because, as fallible human beings, we may not have arrived at the truth, no matter how much we say we want it.

But we have to stop disrespecting and dismissing those who don’t agree with us. To say that those who see it a different way want dirty water and starving children, or communism and the destruction of the country doesn’t help anyone. It’s also not true. Our friends from the opposite political side likely want a lot of the same things we want. It may be, though, that the positions they hold and those they support will not take us there. It may be that they have been deceived by those they are listening to. And there’s where learning needs to take place.

That’s really what this blog is all about: to help contribute to finding the truth. I’m not here to malign anyone or to be combative. I write to use what I know to logically, rationally and respectfully persuade. It does no one any good to yell and scream, and make outlandish accusations. Even if you are right, you will not win anyone to your position.

So know that I respect you if you don’t agree with me. And I will do my best to present my point of view in a way that you can at least understand and consider, even if you decide to reject it. Let’s continue to pursue the truth together, even if, and especially if we don’t agree.

A Tough Choice but One We Have to Make

This election is, without a doubt, the hardest to stomach in my lifetime.  Aside from the bitter debate and rhetoric, the two major party candidates do not appeal to me.  It makes one ask “Could we not have done better than this?”  And yet, in a way these two candidates reflect who we are as a country.  From the say and do anything to get ahead, the corruption and lack of respect for the rule of law of the democrat nominee, to the brash, arrogant, disrespectfulness of the republican nominee, this is who we’ve become.  While we cry out for better candidates, we need to become a better people.

Still, we must make a decision.  It’s one I’ve wrestled with, but have reached a conclusion.  Let me say that I understand if you decide simply not to vote.  I considered it for a while, even voting 3rd party.  But allow me to make the case that one presidency will be better for the country than the other, and significantly so.  And as such, I encourage you to cast a vote.

Whether we want to believe it or not, the Supreme Court has become as important as the Presidency.  Liberals have found a way to put into law that which the elected representatives of the people would reject, and that is through the courts.  That is why it is of utmost importance for justices to be nominated who will interpret law by the Constitution, rather than make law that they feel is right.  With an expected 3-4 Supreme Court nominees, we are looking at swaying the country’s future in two very different directions based on who will make those nominations.

While Donald Trump has promised to nominate justices who adhere to the Constitution, Hillary Clinton has made no secret that she will nominate those who would actively seek to make law, and only those who adhere to the pro-abortion position.

This ties into my second main concern.

A Clinton presidency would ensure that abortion remains settled law for another generation.  I’m not saying a Trump presidency would necessarily mean a reversal of Roe vs. Wade, but that possibility would at least exist.  We know that it wouldn’t with a Clinton presidency.

A liberally packed Supreme Court could very well strike down every state restriction on abortion, if the recent Texas case is an indication. All the small gains the pro-life movement has made over the last 40 years would be gone.  And millions of innocent children would continue to be killed in the womb every year.  Is this something you are comfortable with?  As for me, I cannot sit by and allow that to happen.

Another concern is over the investigations into Hillary Clinton’s email use and the practices of her and her husband’s charity.  Though the FBI has said their investigation is finished, they were outspoken that she was extremely careless in handling classified information, and that she lied to the American people on multiple occasions regarding the investigation.  Here is a short clip illustrating this.

Someone so dishonest, who will lie to your face, and who has been involved in numerous scandals throughout her public life is not someone I want to be President.

Donald Trump is not a man I really wish to see become President.  From his character, his past, his temperament and more, I would really rather not support him.  His opponent, however, is one I feel would be far worse as a President.  So, what do I do?

Daniel Darling wrote an excellent article on why Christians should vote.  He made two outstanding points on this very issue.  The first is that voting does not mean that you’re putting “your full faith and power in a candidate or movement.”

“We vote, not because we believe our man or woman will usher in the Kingdom, but because we are fulfilling a God-given stewardship.”

And at a time when neither candidate truly appeals to many of us, he reminds us that:

“even in the best election with the most inspiring of choices, we are choosing between two fallen sinners. Every election is about the lesser of two evils.”

Folks, it is this simple: if we lose the Supreme Court, we will lose our freedoms as well.  So I encourage you: vote.  And not just for President.  Vote for the court.  Vote for unborn lives.  But vote.