Skip to main content

Features

Fewer is Moore

A GOP loss in Alabama could be a blessing for Republicans as character suddenly becomes king in U.S. politics

Fewer is Moore

Doug Jones celebrates his victory over Roy Moore.(Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call via AP)

Democrats are facing an uphill struggle to take control of the U.S. Senate in next year’s midterm elections, having to defend 26 seats compared with Republicans only having to defend eight seats.

Senate Democrats lost a powerful weapon for that fight when they won a special election for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama on Tuesday.

Over the next year, the 49.9 percent to 48.4 percent victory that Democrat Doug Jones gained over Republican Roy Moore will force Republican senators to work with the slimmest possible majority in the Senate, 51-49. But in the November elections, they won’t have to defend Moore or deflect attention away from him at a time when public anger is focused on powerful men sexually abusing younger women. Democrats won’t be able to make Moore the public face of Senate Republicans in 2018.

It was a close-run race, but the closeness belies a massive swing away from Republicans. Jones won by 1.5 points in a state that Donald Trump won by 28 points in 2016, meaning the state swung 29.5 points in one year. But Jones, a conventional liberal Democrat, didn’t win over Republicans. Moore lost them.

Turnout was remarkably low in Republican areas. For example, Harry Enten of FiveThirtyEight.com pointed out on election night that Moore won heavily Republican Fayette County overwhelmingly, but only 5,000 people voted compared with 7,000 in the 2014 midterm elections. In that one county, 2,000 fewer people voted in one of the highest-profile Senate races in recent memory than voted in a race in which Republican Jeff Sessions ran unopposed. (Turnout, meanwhile, was high in urban areas that favored Jones.)

Some Republicans stayed home and others followed the lead of Richard Shelby, a Republican who holds the other Senate seat from Alabama. He announced he would write in a vote for a Republican: “I’m not going to vote for the Democrat, I didn’t vote for the Democrat or advocate for the Democrat. But I couldn’t vote for Roy Moore.”

The final results showed 22,819 write-ins for a race in which Jones’ winning margin was 20,715 votes.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Roy Moore on election night. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Concerns about Roy Moore’s character were the driving force behind these defections. In November, The Washington Post reported on accusations that Moore had pursued teenage girls when he was a 30-something assistant district attorney in Gadsden, Ala., during the 1970s and ’80s. Moore wavered between denying the accusations and saying he had the permission of the mothers of any teenage girls he dated. Several other similar accusations surfaced, and two of the accusers said Moore sexually assaulted them when they were teens. (Moore strongly denied the assault accusations.)

Moore’s loss is one more indication that the wave of assault accusations reshaping Hollywood and the national media is now changing what’s acceptable behavior among politicians of both parties as well.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., resigned because of allegations of sexual misconduct; Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., resigned for the same reason; and now Republican Roy Moore has lost in one of the reddest states in the union. The days when a Ted Kennedy could get away with Chappaquiddick and “waitress sandwich” and regularly win reelection, or when a Bill Clinton could deflect credible accusations of sexual assault and win, seem to be over—at least for now.

“This was not a loss on policy,” former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum told CNN on election night. “This was a loss on character.”

Timothy Lamer

Timothy Lamer

Tim is editor of WORLD Magazine.

Comments

  • Peter Allen's picture
    Peter Allen
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 02:51 pm

    Agree, short term gains over priciple are seldom good.  If ever good.  Now the heat is turned up on the liberals.  And if turned up on Trump, then Pence will make a better president.  

  • Fred L
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 04:49 pm

    We are taught to "hate the sin but not the sinner."  One does not demonstrate virtue (or convince voters to support conservativism) by judging Roy Moore based on allegations of what he may or may not have done 40 years ago. This makes evangelicals look legalistic, if not naive.  Clearly, character does matter for who we elect for public office but we should judge people on who they are today, not on who they are reported maybe to have been 40 years ago. 

    Based on the positions he takes today, we know that Doug Jones is morally corrupt today. Supporting Jones, or celebrating his victory, looks too much like "loving the sin but hating the sinner." 

  • dcsfoyle's picture
    dcsfoyle
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 05:56 pm

    If we conservatives are celebrating anything it's that the sideshow that is Roy Moore is over and done and he can't be associated with us any longer.

  • Charles Hodges
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 06:13 pm

    This couldn't be more wrong.  You think sexual misconduct is a character issue?  What about bearing false witness?  We heard the accusations of misconduct (not adultery, the actual deed mentioned in the 10 Commandments), and denials of those accusations (with evidence available at the courthouse).  Somehow we decided that sex is about character, but lying against a neighbor is not.  How did we get there?  How did we get so quick to judge?  I can almost guarantee you that the 2018 elections will feature accusations (mostly false) against every Republican running for Senate, and against a lot running for Congress.  This loss in Alabama will not make false accusations go away, rather it will make them more prevelant.  Lyndon Johnson may not have started it, but he promoted it, in a Senate race in which he told his campaign manager to start a rumor that his opponent was having an affair.  His campaign manager said "That's not true" and LBJ said "I know...I just want to hear him deny it."  It worked then, and it works now, and now you will see more of it.  Lots more. 

  • John Kloosterman
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 11:23 pm

    Democrats lying is on them.  There's nothing new about the left saying anything they want; they'll answer for that in a higher court.  When Christians stop caring about the truth, that's on us.  And when we stop caring about whether or not our own representatives have molested underage girls, we'll have lost no matter who gets the votes.

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Cyborg3
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 10:05 pm

    John, that is what I am saying about you. You don't care about the truth for it is easier to throw Moore under the bus than to challenge the accusations. Have you ever read Psalm 11? If Moore didn't do these alleged sexual sins and you are throwing him under the bus, what do you think God thinks of your actions? 

  • Wayne Asbury
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 06:13 pm

    I don't think the author is celebrating the fact that Roy Moore lost.  He is simply stating the facts of what is happening, and quoting what some noteworthy people have to say.  Isn't that kind of what journalists are supposed to do?  I also will never understand how unrepented sins can all be forgiven if they happened long enough ago and are difficult to prove.  If Mr Moore truly is a righteous man unjustly persecuted one thing that would help bolster his tarnished image would be losing graciously.  I've long believed you can tell more about a persons character by how they handle their losses than you can when they are winning.  Contrary to what  President Trump would have us to believe, it takes more guts and good sportmanship to be a good loser than to always be a winner.

  • Fred L
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 07:30 pm

    Wayne's argument seems based on an equivocation fallacy. I disagreed with the analysis of the original article. Wayne says, "He is simply stating the facts of what is happening, and quoting what some noteworthy people have to say.  Isn't that kind of what journalists are supposed to do?"  

    Well, I wasn't commenting on what journalists do.  I was disagreeing with the opinions/conclusions that the journalist arrived at.  Clearly, there is nothing uncivil about disagreeing or about providing new perspectives. This is fundamentally what comments sections are for. To present different perspectives is not to attack. 

    Back to Wayne's equivocation.  It's far from clear that any of the accusations against Roy Moore are true, yet you equivocate by assuming that he is unrepentent. (1) It's not especially likely that Moore did kiss an underage girl and touch her outside her underwear, which is what he is accused of. (2) It's certain that Moore has somehow sinned in his life. (3) From his life, it's evident that he knows how to repent. (4) Nobody is claiming that Roy Moore has always been a winner. (5) An election is a legal process, not a sport.

    Wayne seems to have animous toward President Trump. If it's this or some aspect of Moore's personality that motivates his dislike of Roy Moore, then that's a different issue. Equivocation does not make for clear communication.  

  • John Kloosterman
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 11:37 pm

    Moore's behavior also has not really been in line with a "repentant" man.  Perhaps, as a politician, he was afraid of what would happen nationally if he publically confessed his sin and asked for forgiveness, but it would have been the right thing to do.  The dodging and contradictory statements are not the behavior of a man who has repented his past deeds.

  • MikeD
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 07:56 pm

    The author equates conduct with character, and the subtitle of the article suggests that "character is king in U.S. politics." These are both far from the truth.

    What is "king" in the politics of this issue is the ability to slander a man (and this does seem to only work for one gender - so far) with accusations about undesired sexual misconduct. Sexual immorality that is mutually acceptable to both participants is still fair game in America.

  • John Kloosterman
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 11:33 pm

    I would agree that character is far from king in US politics, though I would argue that Moore's loss at least shows that it still matters to many Alabama Republicans.  That is something to celebrate.  Whether America eventually comes to a stance of accepting beastiality and pedophilia, Christianity's stance ought to remain the same.  And while conduct is not quite the same thing as character, the one does show the other.  

  • weinpaul
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 08:36 pm

    I saw two young adult men in a shortened interview. They said their grandma said Moore more than likely did something to those women. I assume those young men voted how their grandma told them. I’m not saying the right or wrong of it, but God bless young men who obey their gramdmas.

  • Wayne Asbury
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 09:14 am

    Fred, I am sincerely sorry if I sounded like I was making fun of your views. Of course you have every right to disagree with the author of this article, myself, and anyone else for that matter.  I do not claim to know whether Mr Moore is guilty or not. If you read my other posts you will see I have said only God, Mr Moore, and the various women know who is telling the truth. The point I was trying to make is just because something may or may not have happened a long time ago doesn't mean we should just forget about it and act like it never happened.  We also know that lots of people do repent and truly change for the better.  If even one of the women is telling the truth than for Roy Moore to deny everything would make him unrepentant because repentance is owning your wrong and seeking forgiveness. Have people gotten away with making false accusations in the past?  Of course they have.  But there are also plenty of people who have lived duplicitous lives and gotten away with it for a loooong time as well

    As far as my President Trump comment goes, if you read even a little of one of his books of which there are several,  you will see that winning is pretty much all important.  If you pay attention to his numerous tweets you get the same message.  Winners are good. Losers are bad. And no I don't agree with that, because Christian history is full of what unbelievers would call losers that are winners in the eyes of God. Many of the saints listed in Hebrews 11 are an example of this.

    We will probably never agree on all this stuff, but please understand I did not intend my comments as a personal attack against you. That isn't something I'd do, and would indeed be an example of poor sportsmanship on my part if I did. I don't live in Alabama and so don't have the emotional investment  you have had in this race. So take care Fred and thanks for your lengthy reply.

  • Fred L
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 01:39 pm

    Hi Wayne,   It never occured to me that anyone thought you were making fun of me.  This seems like another "equivocation fallacy."   When a teacher marks a student wrong on a test, it would be a bit bizarre for the student to think that he needs to apologize for "making fun of the teacher."   ...Kind of a strange pose to take... 

  • John Kloosterman
    Posted: Wed, 12/13/2017 11:42 pm

    The article seems to be stretching to find a good side to losing a Republican stronghold, but I fundamentally agree with a lot being said here.  It is good to be reminded that  for some party members, truth and conduct still matter.  If God is on our side, it does not matter what the world does--our main concern ought to be to do the right thing, and not the tactical one.

  • DCal3000
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 12:35 am

    If a child molester lost the Alabama Senate race, that is a good thing.  And the concern our country is showing about character is a very good thing.  Those who disregard the importance of character are rejecting Christian principles.  But conservatives still need to go a step further.  If conservatism is to survive, they need to find something for which to stand.  And they need to be more compassionate.  

    I am an evangelical who has been active off and on in conservative politics for 17 years (as a volunteer).  But one of the things that has shattered my faith in conservative evangelicalism over the last two years is that elections have become about the voters, not the candidates.  Both pro-Trump and NeverTrump writers spend their days writing about whether the voters--not merely the candidates--are good or bad.  The Trump supporters use more uncouth language, but the NeverTrumpers are almost as flawed.

    For instance, David French, a columnist in the conservative National Review and member of the PCA, my own denomination, wrote this blanket statement about Moore's voters today: "His supporters and apologists were walking, talking caricatures of the region’s very worst.  If your average southerner saw a network show portraying southerners like Moore and his carnival of followers, they’d be appalled." Let that sink in.  He's not speaking of Moore, or Bannon, or Alabama politicians who said theologically appalling things in support of Moore.  He's speaking of every, single person who cast a ballot for a Republican Senate candidate in Alabama this week. 

    The author of the WORLD piece above posits that Democrats face an uphill battle for the Senate in 2018.  But I think they will do very, very well in next year's elections.  After all, if French is right, over 600,000 Republican voters in Alabama last night were as bad or worse than the Ku Klux Klan.  And if he is wrong, then he just maligned tens of thousands of Alabamans who struggled through difficult voting choices.  Either way, neither he nor most other conservative evangelical leaders leave any way to reunite the conservative movement.  Nor do they give me a reason to support conservative politicians.  I am conservative because I thought and still think many conservative ideas are good for the country.  I thought and still think many conservative ideas are ways to of showing love for neighbors.  But politics has become a minefield.  I see many people calling for principled candidates.  But I see so, so little compassion in politics that it has become difficult to see what the point is.  There is little effort to convince voters of a political position, as would happen in a healthy democracy.  Instead, every effort is extended to condemn them.  The elderly grandmother? The jobless man on the street? If they pull the wrong voting lever, they will face the wrath of the NeverTrumpers, the pro-Trumpers, or the Democrats, depending.

    We rightly want principled candidates, but what, precisely, do we want them to do? Unless conservatives can answer that, then the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has nothing to fear from more conservative sides of the aisle.  And unless we learn to show real political compassion and quit throwing figurative Molotovs at each other, the very foundations of our society will be at risk.

  • Wayne Asbury
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 07:53 am

    DCal3000 makes an excellent point here.  Maybe it is our fallen nature as sinners before God that makes finding that common moral ground so difficult.  It is easier to make accusations and generalizations than it is to make thoughtful conversation that could lead to a friendly relationship.  It's not just politicians and leaders who choose the low road of least resistance.  I've had to ask myself this question so many times. Do I care more about this person than I care about having the last word or winning this argument? Winning arguments seldom if ever wins people but caring and compassionate behavior might make a difference.

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 01:36 pm

    DCal3000, I've read the David French column, and disagree with your interpretation of his statement.  He was not including anyone for whom Moore was the lesser of evils.  But I agree with your broader point.

  • DCal3000
    Posted: Fri, 12/15/2017 10:48 am

    Thanks, Brendan Bossard! I have watched your comments on WORLD now for a while, and I value the ones I have seen.  Also, I do not want to malign Mr. French; I believe he is a principled man and a brother in Christ.  But, I could find no place in his article where he distinguished one Roy Moore voter from another.  He painted a picture of three camps in Alabama--valiant heroes of the New South who opposed Moore, Democrats who faithfully turned out for their own candidate, and allegedly bigoted supporters of Roy Moore.  I have no doubt there were bad apples in each of those camps, and I can think of a variety of comments from specific Moore supporters that were extremely problematics.  But in this particular election, I see no value in lumping voters into starkly contrasting camps to the same extent that Mr. French does.  It was a difficult election for the people of Alabama, and I think Dr. Olasky's analysis of the Alabama election in a previous WORLD article was much more appropriate than Mr. French's.

  • bjuhlmer's picture
    bjuhlmer
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 10:06 am

    Good job Alabamians. You may have put the final nail in the coffin of our conservative values:

    Doug Jones is not a moderate; he is a leftwing Democrat who will undoubtedly vote:  

    For the Common Core social justice agenda and for more federal control of our nation's schools

    For Planned Parenthood and abortions at any time during pregnancy, including late-term abortions

    For free-access of transgendered predators to women's bathrooms

    For the LGBTQ agenda

    For sexual orientation and gender identity laws

    For same-sex marriage

    For gun control

    For whatever George Soros's MoveOn.org wants

    For the impeachment of Donald Trump

    For more government spending

    For the lottery system and chain migration

    For liberal judges

    For raising taxes on the rich - class warfare

    For redistribution of wealth

    For anything Pelosi and Schumer support

    Against Israel

    Against the repeal of ObamaCare

    Against conservative Supreme Court Justices

    Against being tough on crime

    Against strongly supporting law enforcement personnel

    Against the build-up of the military

    Against illegal immigration

    Against the Second Amendment and the right to carry

    Against tax cuts

    Against border wall

  • LaubKnight
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 11:02 pm

    World is cucked. They're siding with lawbreakers and Muslims these days. 

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Sat, 12/16/2017 08:23 am

    bjuhlmer, read DCal3000's post.  It is food for thought for you, if you are willing to digest it.

    My personal take is that Alabamian Christ-followers were put in a very difficult position.  To condemn those who did not vote for Moore is to treat St. Paul's counsel in Romans 14 with disdain.  God calls us to obey Him.  If one of our brethren feels that he would be disobeying God by voting for so-and-so, should we not let that be between him and God?

  • LaubKnight
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 11:00 pm

    Is this a serious article? Character is king? Hardly. Moore was only accused, it was not proven. Pastors of several megachurches were telling their congregations to instead vote for the PRO ABORTION candidate, and this is a good thing? 

    The Democrats now know what a winning strategy is: Accuse whoever they're running against, beat them down in the media, and watch the cucks and other TV brainwashed types suck it all up.

    I think this article was it for me. I've tolerated World trying to show Muslim refugees are just poor souls in need of help, and not mostly young/adult males raping and causing trouble despite the sheer weight of proof showing that this is so. I have grown weary of reading in World magazine tales of illegal immigrants that portray them as victims, never condemning them for actually breaking the law. And now this, where Alabama can look forward to a leader who will work to ensure that even more unborn babies are slaughtered, and World sees it as a potential positive? Because "character?" Ok, when the Democrats start doing the same thing to any Republican candidate they want to, you can't say a word. When abortion in Alabama kicks into high gear, you can't say a word against it. You will be hypocrites if you do. 

    Yeah, I think I'll just let my subscription lapse instead of renewing it. If World wants to side with the rapists decimating places like Germany and Sweden, wants me to feel sorry for illegals coming here and violating the law (so why hold them responsible for any law? Or hold anyone responsible for any law?), and now, try to put a glossy sheen on a baby murderer getting into power, I don't know if I can support you any further. A true shame, as there's a need for a real Christian, not "Churchian," magazine.  

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Cyborg3
    Posted: Tue, 12/19/2017 04:42 am

    Knight, I think you are right on a number of points here. This development is significant since Gloria Allred is mother of Lisa Bloom! Like mother like daughter!

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365068-exclusive-prominent-la...

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/11/like-mother-like-daughter-gloria...

  • JOEL VANDERZEE
    Posted: Thu, 12/14/2017 11:41 pm

    Christians who feel blessed by Moor's loss because they will not have to defend him in November are not concerned with the truth or good character. They care more about public opinion, formed by anti-Christian media, than doing what is right.

    And their political expediency is short-sighted. If an ethics investigation had substantiated the accusations against Moore, he could have been removed before November and replaced by someone better. More likely it would have documented the bad motives, poor credibility, and impossible details in the stories of his accusers.

    Without Moore in the Senate, Democrats can still ask the GOP to defend Trump. Do these Christians really think that is easier? If they are unwilling to defend Moore, even if he is a man of good character falsely accused, then how are they going to defend the best, Christian, good-character candidates in November, since those are the ones most likely to be falsely accused then?

  • D Wallace
    Posted: Fri, 12/15/2017 05:00 pm

    While it's good that this issue (one area of sexual ethics / abuse of power) has become higher profile recently, we can be pretty sure that, politically, it will primarily be used to maneuver and gain political / partisan advantage vs. genuinely held concern.  Any reform will likely be driven mostly by those motives.

    In the past, Democrats have had little or no actual concern with this issue or an appropriately high (biblical) standard of sexual ethics, so it's a bit unusual (and highly suspicious) for them to suddenly be concerned.  In light of those lack of standards, it’s not unexpected to see that a high percentage of those being accused are Dem office-holders or powerful public figures.

    As for Republican office holders, they have generally felt pressure to profess a higher degree of sexual ethics, whether or not that is their authentically held conviction and / or practice.  When they fail in this area, they also open themselves to the charge of hypocrisy.

    Finally, the somewhat hysterical witch-hunt atmosphere of effectively firing people based (apparently) on allegations vs. having the facts fully brought out is very concerning.

    It will be interesting to see how this all works out…

  • John A Renick
    Posted: Fri, 12/15/2017 05:33 pm

    If the allegations of criminal sexual misconduct against Judge Moore are false, he must, for his own reputation and to discourage similar attacks against conservative candidates in the future, file suit for slander against the two women who made those accusations.  To fail to do this would be seen as tacit admission of guilt on his part.  The extensive evidence presented by One American News Network (alone among national news sources) goes a long way toward discrediting the claims, character, and motivations of those two women.  This evidence is concrete, from court records and other public sources. If Moore prevails in court against the two, expect massive denial by the party establishments and the major national media, who will allege bias among Alabama jury members. If he is innocent, their guilt is very great, for swarming like lemmings to indict a man who has demonstrated outstanding courage, integrity, and devotion during a generation of public service--while exculpatory evidence was broadcast but ignored. 

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Cyborg3
    Posted: Tue, 12/19/2017 02:35 am

    John, this is wishful thinking on your part for the left will step in with big money to support the women with the allegations and keep it tied up in the courts costing Roy Moore his savings. Would you fight this lawsuit?   Biblical wisdom should be used to decide his actions, where Judge Roy Moore needs to count the cost (Lk. 14:28-30).  

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Sat, 12/16/2017 12:21 pm

    LaubKnight, if you think that World is "siding with lawbreakers and Muslims these days," then you are bearing false witness against World in your heart.  Zion has no room for this.

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Sat, 12/16/2017 08:39 am

    There are problems with Moore beyond the accusations of sexual assault.  He has serious shortcomings in his understanding and application of the Constitution, and of judicial authority under it.  He also tends to start fires with his tongue.  So I am certain that many Alabamians did not just consider the accusations when choosing what to do in this election.

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Cyborg3
    Posted: Sun, 12/17/2017 03:54 am

    And pray tell how does Moore not understand our Constitution? How does he not understand the application of it too?  What does the Bible say about the application of the Constitution?

  • Brendan Bossard's picture
    Brendan Bossard
    Posted: Sun, 12/17/2017 02:06 pm

    Cyborg3, I have already answered your question in another post to another article.  You must have missed it.

    But I really do not have the patience to answer your question right now.  Your various other posts indicate that you really have no tolerance for anyone who thinks that Moore is anything less than sparkling clean.  if you were to show that you actually have an interest in understanding, I would take the time to answer you.  As it is, I do not see evidence of that, so I will simply refer you to a Google search to obtain the answers for yourself.

  • Elizabeth
    Posted: Thu, 12/21/2017 10:45 pm

    Overstating a bit, "character suddenly becomes king in U.S. politics..."  Those in Alabama who don't already know it will find out soon enough that Jones is of no better character than Moore, and according to some reliable sources, worse.  Yes, this was absolutely a takedown of Moore. Rather a simplistic, shoddy takedown, but it worked.  Was Moore fit for office?  Maybe not.  But not because of shoddily evidenced "assaults."   Moore's unfitness does not equal Jone's fitness.  As we wait for Jone's dealings to rise to the surface, maybe we should ponder if there is really anyone at all fit to be in office...of these egoists who actually seek that power.  I think not.

  • Midwest preacher
    Posted: Sat, 12/23/2017 05:58 am

    Interesting comments.  I think I read them all.  Strong opinions.  Sometimes harsh words. This has always been a forum where ideas could be expressed without personal attacks and name calling.  I hope that continues.  Remember World is not really a political magazine. Christians are required by love to look at all sides of an issue.  World can serve a purpose of holding issues up and turning them so we can see other angles and views. I often disagree with World.  Remember, in "winning" politics, you can never question yourself or your views.  Your way has to be right. Christians must constantly evaluate the way they look at things. We don't have to hate the other side.  Thats unusual. One might say peculiar.

    Wow! That sounds so lofty.  Wish I lived up to that all the time.    

  • Paul B. Taylor's picture
    Paul B. Taylor
    Posted: Thu, 12/28/2017 12:55 pm

    Telling the truth or not, the feminists are destroying faith in powerful men.  We are having a revolution in current gender authority as relates to the number of men of wealth and influence in society such that in the future when a woman is running for office against a male opponent we will remember their previous accusations of sexual misconduct from years before.  These bad females will then be voted in as the feminists create an illusion whereby women will always have the upper ground in good character when compared to men.  It is simply said that we are being jaded whether they are telling the truth or not.  So, the question that remains is, does the end justify the means for the feminist movement?  Are they fibbing in the interest of female power?