After reading this American Thinker article by author Jeffrey Folks, regarding the illogical attacks on Judge Roy Moore, this writer asks, Whatever happened to the premise of being innocent until proven guilty?As Mr. Folks points out in his above article:
"The charges of sexual misconduct relate to events that supposedly took place 38 years ago. Why were no charges made public until now, just weeks before a critical U.S. Senate race? How is it that a man charged by four accusers with making advances on them, all but one of legal age at the time, has maintained his reputation and his marriage for so many years without scandal? Why is it that only at this moment have several women have come forward claiming sexual impropriety?
Logic would tell us that the charges against Judge Moore are not just "related" to the Senate race – they are the result of his candidacy in a race that may decide control of the Senate in 2018. Unless more convincing evidence can be produced of criminal activity or of a serious moral offense – and the only accusation of this so far comes from one woman relating two incidents – Moore must be presumed innocent until proven guilty."
Note Mr. Folks' use of the above phrase, "convincing evidence" in the second paragraph. In order for Judge Moore to be proven guilty of the charges levied against him, there must be two or three reliable witnesses to come forward with factual evidence of his guilt (Deuteronomy 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Timothy 5:19). Without factual evidence, mere hearsay or innuendo, won't prove the guilt or innocence of anyone.
In similar fashion, our biblical faith must be based on the testimony of witnesses (1 Corinthians 15:1-6; 1 John 1:1-3), weighing the evidence, and reaching a logical conclusion based upon that presented evidence (see here). Beloved, there's great danger in jumping to conclusions before all of the evidence has been systematically and logically evaluated.
---Mike Riley, Gospel Snippets
Comments
Post a Comment