Does it seem as though public figures/officials taking the moral high ground are the most immoral?

[DGS49]

Morality is decidedly not subjective. To suppose that everyone establishes their own standards of morality makes the whole concept absurd. And one might also note that if "morality" is subjective then we are all "saints," eh? You can justify anything, given a little time.

We can all decide, obviously, which code of morality we choose to recognize, and many would say there is an actual "Natural Law," but to say that morality is subject makes us all "god," from a moral sense, which is as I said absurd.

But then again, all Leftist philosophy is absurd, and Leftists vehemently deny the existence of "Natural Law."

 

[Windparadox]

Well, the op asks of a moral high ground and also asks who are the most immoral? So given the question, surely an objective benchmark is presupposed for sake of comparison. Is it not?

`
`
For the sake of informal conversation, the term "moral high ground" is ambiguous enough, without requiring a precise definition....IMHO. The indisputable fact here is that neither side has it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Insofar as you are uncertain of what be the elements and assertions made in the moral code to which "Bible thumping" citizens and politicians, along with preachers, ascribe, you are not among the body of people who are prepared to participate substantively in this discussion. That's okay; it is what it is. Too, I appreciate your making it clear, albeit tacitly, that you aren't qualified to participate credibly and with gravitas in the discussion for which this thread entreats. It's good given your lack of preparation you saved yourself the effort of reading the OP.

Ha. Well, then, I'll observe. I like to learn. Show us your wisdom.

I posted the OP. Why do I need to have more to say?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Moral relativism plays no role in the content of the OP.

I disagree. But I'm observing. Though, I'll take the opportunity to resubmit the context of your editorialization. Which was - 'Does it seem as though...the moral high ground are the most immoral?'

Proceed.

I disagree.

How the hell can you disagree? As far as I know, you haven't even read the OP. Are you disagreeing purely for the sake of doing so? It sure seems that way.

I haven't read the op itself yet. And I don't want to until somebody answers my question. Thanks!

 

[Natural Citizen]

I posted the OP. Why do I need to have more to say?

Yes, I know. People tend to want to be led. It's unfortunate. But you know that. Right?

 

[Natural Citizen]

How the hell can you disagree? As far as I know, you haven't even read the OP. Are you disagreeing purely for the sake of doing so? It sure seems that way.

​

No, I read it. It's not so much your post. On the surface, there were agreable parts. It's the underlying tenor that caught my interest. You know what I'm talking about, Mr. I Dindu Nuffin.

Our system of governance is religious in nature. And you know that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I posted the OP. Why do I need to have more to say?

Yes, I know. People tend to want to be led. It's unfortunate. But you know that. Right?

OT:
Knowing that has what to do with whether I want to or endeavor to enlighten anyone as a result of my having posted this thread's OP, which BTW, is not didactic in tone or theme or purpose.

Show us your wisdom.

 

[usmbguest5318]

the op asks of a moral high ground and also asks who are the most immoral?

The OP doesn't at all go down moral relativist road; however....

I'll take the opportunity to resubmit the context of your editorialization. Which was - 'Does it seem as though...the moral high ground are the most immoral?'

...I will grant you that the thread title implies the OP would in some way have to do with or invoke moral relativism. I even submit to one's, because of the dichotomy between the tone of the title and the actual content and tone of the OP, calling the title misleading. One may even gripe about the thematic incongruity between the OP and thread title, or criticize me for that being so. I won't defend against such remarks.

How the hell can you disagree? As far as I know, you haven't even read the OP. Are you disagreeing purely for the sake of doing so? It sure seems that way.

No, I read it. It's not so much your post. On the surface, there were agreable parts. It's the underlying tenor that caught my interest. You know what I'm talking about, Mr. I Dindu Nuffin.

Our system of governance is religious in nature. And you know that.

No, I read it. It's not so much your post.

Well, it's clear you've read the title, but it's not evident you've actually read the OP itself. There are a variety of ways one can tell whether a commenter has read "bits and pieces," the whole thing, or little to none of an essay. Let me tell you, making a vague comment like "there were agreeable parts" and remarking about an "underlying tenor" that exists only in the title isn't among those ways.


Note:

When I read/write them:

• OP --> Opening Post
• OP-er --> Opening Poster (in this thread, I am the OP-er)

 

[usmbguest5318]

Morality is always subjective as it can be nothing else.

Why?

Why? Because there are no objective standards to test it against. No moral construct can hold up to an objective standard, not a one.

Why? Because there are no objective standards to test it against. No moral construct can hold up to an objective standard, not a one.

I don't think that statement is completely so.

While moral systems/philosophies don't enumerate all specific actions they deem immoral -- "honor your parents" is a Commandment, but what constitutes honoring and dishonoring them isn't explicitly defined -- jurisprudential systems, partly, and in some instances completely, in recognition of what's morally "right and wrong," criminalize specific actions.

Can one make a sound case that jurisprudence is wholly not a reflection of morality? I don't think so. Certain of those actions are criminal only when accompanied by "specific intent" and others are criminal without regard to what the actor intended. That difference in what's required to declare guilty an actor for their actions is necessarily a reflection of society's understanding of what actions be universally immoral, what actions be conditionally immoral, and what actions be moral. The variability in the nature, timing and extent of penalties a society levies also reflects the role morality plays.

(The assignment of penalties, in contrast with determining whether an immoral act occurred and who committed it, is one situation wherein moral relativism provides a germane framework for determining how to respond to the action(s) for which an actor is suspected of or found/known to have committed.)

Why? Because there are no objective standards to test it against. No moral construct can hold up to an objective standard, not a one.

Well, the op asks of a moral high ground and also asks who are the most immoral? So given the question, surely an objective benchmark is presupposed. Is it not?

The moral high-ground is always made of sand. Don't stand on it. And the OP is mostly a discussion of American right-wing hypocrisy, which has always been with us. The right-wing has a gift for said thing.

the OP is mostly a discussion of American right-wing hypocrisy

Thank you. It's good to know that the central theme of the post comes through loud and clear.

the OP is mostly a discussion of American right-wing hypocrisy

Just as a point of clarification, the OP/I have no aim to, by dint and because of their being politically right-wing, excoriate or focus explicitly or tacitly on right-wing individuals or groups; however, there's no denying that in perception, regardless of whether in fact, right-wing individuals and groups are the ones most often heard using, lo preaching in some instances, a morality-based argument for favoring or disfavoring "this or that."

 

[initforme]

Moral people do not run for office....the higher the office the more immoral the candidates. Hard to argue this.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Luke 12:2

For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Here’s a good rule of thumb: if you hear a politician talking about family values, lock up your kids and hide your wallets.

We need to lock up DC then.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

News about sexual misdeeds is everywhere. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can attest to ascribing to strict moral principles and forebear granting to "sexual predators" the legal and political authority to enact laws that govern our society. For voters to do that is tantamount to entrusting the fox to guard the henhouse. After all, individuals thus empowered sit at the top of our society, and insofar as they do, they are our leaders and thus set the tone of what is and is not what America is "all about."

As go the allegations of sexual depravity, it's one thing when most private-sector personalities act thus because while they may enjoy wealth, professional power and respect, and social status, they aren't the people running the country. No Hollywood producer, actor, director, etc. is whom the nation, lo the world, looks to for explicit or tacit guidance regarding our nation's moral mores, formal or informal. Nobody looks to a sports figure for moral guidance.

It's wholly another when a public-sector individual exhibits turpitude. It's also a different matter when "Bible wavers" do so. Quite simply, one does not get to stand on a pedestal and attest to standing for "all that's good in the world, to declare what is right and what is wrong and enact policies that would send less powerful, less wealthy, less well connected people to the welfare line or jail, all the while oneself committing those wrongs and using one's political influence (private sector political influence and public sector influence). When what one trades on is one's reputation and asks others to trust in their integrity, as politicians and preachers do, one's reputation and integrity must be irreproachable.


As go stories of sexual misdeeds committed by federal representatives (appointed or elected), we've heard lots. That's fitting for even though, say, only the voters in a given state may elect a Senator or Representative to Congress, all of us pay those representatives' salary and we have all paid for the settlements Congress negotiated with the people whom representatives have maligned. So, yes, for example, in the case of Roy Moore, while only Alabamans get to vote on Moore's election, every citizen has a stake in the outcome Alabamans' votes. So too do Alabamans have a say in the federal-level politics of every other jurisdiction that sends representatives to Congress.

Why anyone from any state would cotton to the notion that voters in other states would knowingly (or probably know) send a sexual predator and influence abuser to Congress is beyond me. Yes, it's respective residents' of the states to decide whom to send to Congress, but due to the national impact their decision may have, those voters have no entitlement to expect the rest of us refrain from opining on their decision. The voters of those states also have no basis for not being labeled as morally turpitudinous themselves for having knowingly, or with good reason to suspect, sent a moral reprobate to Congress, the WH, or local and state government.

While Roy Moore's moral hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see, of state and local officials and candidates, along with religious leaders who lack national noteriety, there hasn't been much news about them. What little I've found, however, suggests to me that it's too often the one's who have waved their Bibles at us and dissembled to create their reputations.

• 30 Sources Expose Sexually Explicit Evidence of Harassment by Ohio GOP Rep. Wes Goodman
  
  Goodman, who always campaigned on “family values,” recently made headlines for all the wrong reasons — he was caught on Tuesday having consensual sex with another man in his office.
  
  (Click the link to see some of Goodman's Snapchat remarks. Apparently one must take a screenshot to preserve a Snapchat comment or photo, and that's exactly what folks did with Goodman's penis pics and suggestive exhortations.)
• Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair [Ralph Shortey] to plead guilt to child sex trafficking
  
  According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of [felony] child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
  
  Stevenson described one encounter with Shortey ahead of a vote on an anti-transgender "bathroom bill" in which the lawmaker allegedly told Stevenson that while he couldn't vote against the measure because it would inflame his Christian base, he would abstain.
  
  "Then, not 12 hours later, he sits in the committee and voted in the bill," Stevenson lamented.
  
  This was not the first time Shortey voted against the state's LGBTQ community because of his Christian beliefs. He routinely voted with his Republican colleagues on bills targeting gay and transgender people, including a measure passed earlier this year that would allow business owners to discriminate against gay people.
  
  
• 3 pastors accused of luring teen girls, paying for sex -- This story is particularly shocking in that the three pastors appear to have been coordinating their activities.
  
  Three [Toledo, OH] pastors worked together to entice teen girls to have sex, often for money, and shared photos and videos of the girls, federal prosecutors said.
  
  Federal court documents describe how one of the pastors had sex with a girl in his church office and how another used his phone to record himself having sex with a teen. There were at least three victims mentioned in the indictment, the youngest being 14.
  
  While the men — Cordell Jenkins, 47, Anthony Haynes, 38, and Kenneth Butler, 37 — all operated their own churches, federal prosecutors said the investigation was connected and remains ongoing.
• Archdiocese of Baltimore List of priests accused of sexual offenses
  From what I can tell, the Catholic Church has dealt with the problem and rooted out many (most? all?) of it's known/credibly alleged sexual predators.
  
  It's not lost on me that the Catholic Church is centrally organized and led, thereby making it easier to identify and deal with the problem, as well as making it easier to "point the finger" at a whole belief community. The disparate nature of Protestant Churches -- sometimes consisting of just one congregation -- makes that somewhat harder to do on a Protestantism-wide basis. To what extent is there sexual depravity among Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. religious leaders? I have no idea.
• Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches
• “25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
  
  
  

Now I don't mind that people get on a moral soapbox and wave the Bible at us for the Bible contains quite a lot of good and valid exhortations and guidance about how to conduct oneself with regard to one's fellow man. I mind that they stand in their "bully pulpit" or church pulpit yet don't practice what they preach. Doing that, just like every other form of paltering, prevarication and misrepresentation, is unequivocally a betrayal of trust.

One might ask what is to be done so that people know truly what kind of person is asking them to trust them in a governmental or spiritual leadership role. Well, "extreme vetting" and maximum disclosure is my answer.

Currently I "vette" the people who want my vote by getting to know them on some sort of personal level -- partly in person and partly by reputation as told to me by people whom I know well and who know the person well. (I don't mean merely having met them; I mean know the person well.) In the case of my elected city representatives, because I'm indifferent about party, I don't vote for anyone I don't personally know. That is the best I can do -- and, for the most part, if there are "open secrets" suggesting the candidate is a cad, they make their way to me -- but even as it is, and up to the Congressional level anyone can implement that approach, I don't think it's enough.

So what might we as a society do? Basically pass laws that require candidates for elected office become "open books." Some ways to do so include:

• Render null and void all NDAs to which the person is party. (Names and identifying information re: other individuals party to the agreement should be redacted.)
• Federal and state tax returns released in full.
• Unseal any court records that would have otherwise remained inaccessible to the public.

Those requirements strike me as a good place to start.

At the end of the day and because we are a republic, candidates for elected office necessarily bid us to trust them. Well, how the hell can one know whether a candidate deserves one's trust if one has no way to know the full "411" about the candidate? Holding elected office gives one a lot of power, power to hurt and harm the lives of thousands or millions. At the very least, we voters are entitled to know whether the folks in whom we vest that kind of power are of fine character, not just that they aren't "perverts," but also that there are no "skeletons in their closet" that suggest they "shady" in other dimensions.

Lol. No mention of franken.

 

[usmbguest5318]

News about sexual misdeeds is everywhere. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can attest to ascribing to strict moral principles and forebear granting to "sexual predators" the legal and political authority to enact laws that govern our society. For voters to do that is tantamount to entrusting the fox to guard the henhouse. After all, individuals thus empowered sit at the top of our society, and insofar as they do, they are our leaders and thus set the tone of what is and is not what America is "all about."

As go the allegations of sexual depravity, it's one thing when most private-sector personalities act thus because while they may enjoy wealth, professional power and respect, and social status, they aren't the people running the country. No Hollywood producer, actor, director, etc. is whom the nation, lo the world, looks to for explicit or tacit guidance regarding our nation's moral mores, formal or informal. Nobody looks to a sports figure for moral guidance.

It's wholly another when a public-sector individual exhibits turpitude. It's also a different matter when "Bible wavers" do so. Quite simply, one does not get to stand on a pedestal and attest to standing for "all that's good in the world, to declare what is right and what is wrong and enact policies that would send less powerful, less wealthy, less well connected people to the welfare line or jail, all the while oneself committing those wrongs and using one's political influence (private sector political influence and public sector influence). When what one trades on is one's reputation and asks others to trust in their integrity, as politicians and preachers do, one's reputation and integrity must be irreproachable.


As go stories of sexual misdeeds committed by federal representatives (appointed or elected), we've heard lots. That's fitting for even though, say, only the voters in a given state may elect a Senator or Representative to Congress, all of us pay those representatives' salary and we have all paid for the settlements Congress negotiated with the people whom representatives have maligned. So, yes, for example, in the case of Roy Moore, while only Alabamans get to vote on Moore's election, every citizen has a stake in the outcome Alabamans' votes. So too do Alabamans have a say in the federal-level politics of every other jurisdiction that sends representatives to Congress.

Why anyone from any state would cotton to the notion that voters in other states would knowingly (or probably know) send a sexual predator and influence abuser to Congress is beyond me. Yes, it's respective residents' of the states to decide whom to send to Congress, but due to the national impact their decision may have, those voters have no entitlement to expect the rest of us refrain from opining on their decision. The voters of those states also have no basis for not being labeled as morally turpitudinous themselves for having knowingly, or with good reason to suspect, sent a moral reprobate to Congress, the WH, or local and state government.

While Roy Moore's moral hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see, of state and local officials and candidates, along with religious leaders who lack national noteriety, there hasn't been much news about them. What little I've found, however, suggests to me that it's too often the one's who have waved their Bibles at us and dissembled to create their reputations.

• 30 Sources Expose Sexually Explicit Evidence of Harassment by Ohio GOP Rep. Wes Goodman
  
  Goodman, who always campaigned on “family values,” recently made headlines for all the wrong reasons — he was caught on Tuesday having consensual sex with another man in his office.
  
  (Click the link to see some of Goodman's Snapchat remarks. Apparently one must take a screenshot to preserve a Snapchat comment or photo, and that's exactly what folks did with Goodman's penis pics and suggestive exhortations.)
• Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair [Ralph Shortey] to plead guilt to child sex trafficking
  
  According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of [felony] child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
  
  Stevenson described one encounter with Shortey ahead of a vote on an anti-transgender "bathroom bill" in which the lawmaker allegedly told Stevenson that while he couldn't vote against the measure because it would inflame his Christian base, he would abstain.
  
  "Then, not 12 hours later, he sits in the committee and voted in the bill," Stevenson lamented.
  
  This was not the first time Shortey voted against the state's LGBTQ community because of his Christian beliefs. He routinely voted with his Republican colleagues on bills targeting gay and transgender people, including a measure passed earlier this year that would allow business owners to discriminate against gay people.
  
  
• 3 pastors accused of luring teen girls, paying for sex -- This story is particularly shocking in that the three pastors appear to have been coordinating their activities.
  
  Three [Toledo, OH] pastors worked together to entice teen girls to have sex, often for money, and shared photos and videos of the girls, federal prosecutors said.
  
  Federal court documents describe how one of the pastors had sex with a girl in his church office and how another used his phone to record himself having sex with a teen. There were at least three victims mentioned in the indictment, the youngest being 14.
  
  While the men — Cordell Jenkins, 47, Anthony Haynes, 38, and Kenneth Butler, 37 — all operated their own churches, federal prosecutors said the investigation was connected and remains ongoing.
• Archdiocese of Baltimore List of priests accused of sexual offenses
  From what I can tell, the Catholic Church has dealt with the problem and rooted out many (most? all?) of it's known/credibly alleged sexual predators.
  
  It's not lost on me that the Catholic Church is centrally organized and led, thereby making it easier to identify and deal with the problem, as well as making it easier to "point the finger" at a whole belief community. The disparate nature of Protestant Churches -- sometimes consisting of just one congregation -- makes that somewhat harder to do on a Protestantism-wide basis. To what extent is there sexual depravity among Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. religious leaders? I have no idea.
• Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches
• “25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
  
  
  

Now I don't mind that people get on a moral soapbox and wave the Bible at us for the Bible contains quite a lot of good and valid exhortations and guidance about how to conduct oneself with regard to one's fellow man. I mind that they stand in their "bully pulpit" or church pulpit yet don't practice what they preach. Doing that, just like every other form of paltering, prevarication and misrepresentation, is unequivocally a betrayal of trust.

One might ask what is to be done so that people know truly what kind of person is asking them to trust them in a governmental or spiritual leadership role. Well, "extreme vetting" and maximum disclosure is my answer.

Currently I "vette" the people who want my vote by getting to know them on some sort of personal level -- partly in person and partly by reputation as told to me by people whom I know well and who know the person well. (I don't mean merely having met them; I mean know the person well.) In the case of my elected city representatives, because I'm indifferent about party, I don't vote for anyone I don't personally know. That is the best I can do -- and, for the most part, if there are "open secrets" suggesting the candidate is a cad, they make their way to me -- but even as it is, and up to the Congressional level anyone can implement that approach, I don't think it's enough.

So what might we as a society do? Basically pass laws that require candidates for elected office become "open books." Some ways to do so include:

• Render null and void all NDAs to which the person is party. (Names and identifying information re: other individuals party to the agreement should be redacted.)
• Federal and state tax returns released in full.
• Unseal any court records that would have otherwise remained inaccessible to the public.

Those requirements strike me as a good place to start.

At the end of the day and because we are a republic, candidates for elected office necessarily bid us to trust them. Well, how the hell can one know whether a candidate deserves one's trust if one has no way to know the full "411" about the candidate? Holding elected office gives one a lot of power, power to hurt and harm the lives of thousands or millions. At the very least, we voters are entitled to know whether the folks in whom we vest that kind of power are of fine character, not just that they aren't "perverts," but also that there are no "skeletons in their closet" that suggest they "shady" in other dimensions.

Lol. No mention of franken.

Quite frankly (no pun intended), there are many people whom I did not mention.

Just as a point of clarification, the OP/I have no aim to, by dint and because of their being politically right-wing, excoriate or focus explicitly or tacitly on right-wing individuals or groups; however, there's no denying that in perception, regardless of whether in fact, right-wing individuals and groups are the ones most often heard using, lo preaching in some instances, a morality-based argument for favoring or disfavoring "this or that."

 

[LordBrownTrout]

News about sexual misdeeds is everywhere. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can attest to ascribing to strict moral principles and forebear granting to "sexual predators" the legal and political authority to enact laws that govern our society. For voters to do that is tantamount to entrusting the fox to guard the henhouse. After all, individuals thus empowered sit at the top of our society, and insofar as they do, they are our leaders and thus set the tone of what is and is not what America is "all about."

As go the allegations of sexual depravity, it's one thing when most private-sector personalities act thus because while they may enjoy wealth, professional power and respect, and social status, they aren't the people running the country. No Hollywood producer, actor, director, etc. is whom the nation, lo the world, looks to for explicit or tacit guidance regarding our nation's moral mores, formal or informal. Nobody looks to a sports figure for moral guidance.

It's wholly another when a public-sector individual exhibits turpitude. It's also a different matter when "Bible wavers" do so. Quite simply, one does not get to stand on a pedestal and attest to standing for "all that's good in the world, to declare what is right and what is wrong and enact policies that would send less powerful, less wealthy, less well connected people to the welfare line or jail, all the while oneself committing those wrongs and using one's political influence (private sector political influence and public sector influence). When what one trades on is one's reputation and asks others to trust in their integrity, as politicians and preachers do, one's reputation and integrity must be irreproachable.


As go stories of sexual misdeeds committed by federal representatives (appointed or elected), we've heard lots. That's fitting for even though, say, only the voters in a given state may elect a Senator or Representative to Congress, all of us pay those representatives' salary and we have all paid for the settlements Congress negotiated with the people whom representatives have maligned. So, yes, for example, in the case of Roy Moore, while only Alabamans get to vote on Moore's election, every citizen has a stake in the outcome Alabamans' votes. So too do Alabamans have a say in the federal-level politics of every other jurisdiction that sends representatives to Congress.

Why anyone from any state would cotton to the notion that voters in other states would knowingly (or probably know) send a sexual predator and influence abuser to Congress is beyond me. Yes, it's respective residents' of the states to decide whom to send to Congress, but due to the national impact their decision may have, those voters have no entitlement to expect the rest of us refrain from opining on their decision. The voters of those states also have no basis for not being labeled as morally turpitudinous themselves for having knowingly, or with good reason to suspect, sent a moral reprobate to Congress, the WH, or local and state government.

While Roy Moore's moral hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see, of state and local officials and candidates, along with religious leaders who lack national noteriety, there hasn't been much news about them. What little I've found, however, suggests to me that it's too often the one's who have waved their Bibles at us and dissembled to create their reputations.

• 30 Sources Expose Sexually Explicit Evidence of Harassment by Ohio GOP Rep. Wes Goodman
  
  Goodman, who always campaigned on “family values,” recently made headlines for all the wrong reasons — he was caught on Tuesday having consensual sex with another man in his office.
  
  (Click the link to see some of Goodman's Snapchat remarks. Apparently one must take a screenshot to preserve a Snapchat comment or photo, and that's exactly what folks did with Goodman's penis pics and suggestive exhortations.)
• Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair [Ralph Shortey] to plead guilt to child sex trafficking
  
  According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of [felony] child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
  
  Stevenson described one encounter with Shortey ahead of a vote on an anti-transgender "bathroom bill" in which the lawmaker allegedly told Stevenson that while he couldn't vote against the measure because it would inflame his Christian base, he would abstain.
  
  "Then, not 12 hours later, he sits in the committee and voted in the bill," Stevenson lamented.
  
  This was not the first time Shortey voted against the state's LGBTQ community because of his Christian beliefs. He routinely voted with his Republican colleagues on bills targeting gay and transgender people, including a measure passed earlier this year that would allow business owners to discriminate against gay people.
  
  
• 3 pastors accused of luring teen girls, paying for sex -- This story is particularly shocking in that the three pastors appear to have been coordinating their activities.
  
  Three [Toledo, OH] pastors worked together to entice teen girls to have sex, often for money, and shared photos and videos of the girls, federal prosecutors said.
  
  Federal court documents describe how one of the pastors had sex with a girl in his church office and how another used his phone to record himself having sex with a teen. There were at least three victims mentioned in the indictment, the youngest being 14.
  
  While the men — Cordell Jenkins, 47, Anthony Haynes, 38, and Kenneth Butler, 37 — all operated their own churches, federal prosecutors said the investigation was connected and remains ongoing.
• Archdiocese of Baltimore List of priests accused of sexual offenses
  From what I can tell, the Catholic Church has dealt with the problem and rooted out many (most? all?) of it's known/credibly alleged sexual predators.
  
  It's not lost on me that the Catholic Church is centrally organized and led, thereby making it easier to identify and deal with the problem, as well as making it easier to "point the finger" at a whole belief community. The disparate nature of Protestant Churches -- sometimes consisting of just one congregation -- makes that somewhat harder to do on a Protestantism-wide basis. To what extent is there sexual depravity among Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. religious leaders? I have no idea.
• Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches
• “25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
  
  
  

Now I don't mind that people get on a moral soapbox and wave the Bible at us for the Bible contains quite a lot of good and valid exhortations and guidance about how to conduct oneself with regard to one's fellow man. I mind that they stand in their "bully pulpit" or church pulpit yet don't practice what they preach. Doing that, just like every other form of paltering, prevarication and misrepresentation, is unequivocally a betrayal of trust.

One might ask what is to be done so that people know truly what kind of person is asking them to trust them in a governmental or spiritual leadership role. Well, "extreme vetting" and maximum disclosure is my answer.

Currently I "vette" the people who want my vote by getting to know them on some sort of personal level -- partly in person and partly by reputation as told to me by people whom I know well and who know the person well. (I don't mean merely having met them; I mean know the person well.) In the case of my elected city representatives, because I'm indifferent about party, I don't vote for anyone I don't personally know. That is the best I can do -- and, for the most part, if there are "open secrets" suggesting the candidate is a cad, they make their way to me -- but even as it is, and up to the Congressional level anyone can implement that approach, I don't think it's enough.

So what might we as a society do? Basically pass laws that require candidates for elected office become "open books." Some ways to do so include:

• Render null and void all NDAs to which the person is party. (Names and identifying information re: other individuals party to the agreement should be redacted.)
• Federal and state tax returns released in full.
• Unseal any court records that would have otherwise remained inaccessible to the public.

Those requirements strike me as a good place to start.

At the end of the day and because we are a republic, candidates for elected office necessarily bid us to trust them. Well, how the hell can one know whether a candidate deserves one's trust if one has no way to know the full "411" about the candidate? Holding elected office gives one a lot of power, power to hurt and harm the lives of thousands or millions. At the very least, we voters are entitled to know whether the folks in whom we vest that kind of power are of fine character, not just that they aren't "perverts," but also that there are no "skeletons in their closet" that suggest they "shady" in other dimensions.

Lol. No mention of franken.

Quite frankly (no pun intended), there are many people whom I did not mention.

Just as a point of clarification, the OP/I have no aim to, by dint and because of their being politically right-wing, excoriate or focus explicitly or tacitly on right-wing individuals or groups; however, there's no denying that in perception, regardless of whether in fact, right-wing individuals and groups are the ones most often heard using, lo preaching in some instances, a morality-based argument for favoring or disfavoring "this or that."

But of course you didn't. Its just that....you conveniently left out dems.

 

[usmbguest5318]

News about sexual misdeeds is everywhere. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can attest to ascribing to strict moral principles and forebear granting to "sexual predators" the legal and political authority to enact laws that govern our society. For voters to do that is tantamount to entrusting the fox to guard the henhouse. After all, individuals thus empowered sit at the top of our society, and insofar as they do, they are our leaders and thus set the tone of what is and is not what America is "all about."

As go the allegations of sexual depravity, it's one thing when most private-sector personalities act thus because while they may enjoy wealth, professional power and respect, and social status, they aren't the people running the country. No Hollywood producer, actor, director, etc. is whom the nation, lo the world, looks to for explicit or tacit guidance regarding our nation's moral mores, formal or informal. Nobody looks to a sports figure for moral guidance.

It's wholly another when a public-sector individual exhibits turpitude. It's also a different matter when "Bible wavers" do so. Quite simply, one does not get to stand on a pedestal and attest to standing for "all that's good in the world, to declare what is right and what is wrong and enact policies that would send less powerful, less wealthy, less well connected people to the welfare line or jail, all the while oneself committing those wrongs and using one's political influence (private sector political influence and public sector influence). When what one trades on is one's reputation and asks others to trust in their integrity, as politicians and preachers do, one's reputation and integrity must be irreproachable.


As go stories of sexual misdeeds committed by federal representatives (appointed or elected), we've heard lots. That's fitting for even though, say, only the voters in a given state may elect a Senator or Representative to Congress, all of us pay those representatives' salary and we have all paid for the settlements Congress negotiated with the people whom representatives have maligned. So, yes, for example, in the case of Roy Moore, while only Alabamans get to vote on Moore's election, every citizen has a stake in the outcome Alabamans' votes. So too do Alabamans have a say in the federal-level politics of every other jurisdiction that sends representatives to Congress.

Why anyone from any state would cotton to the notion that voters in other states would knowingly (or probably know) send a sexual predator and influence abuser to Congress is beyond me. Yes, it's respective residents' of the states to decide whom to send to Congress, but due to the national impact their decision may have, those voters have no entitlement to expect the rest of us refrain from opining on their decision. The voters of those states also have no basis for not being labeled as morally turpitudinous themselves for having knowingly, or with good reason to suspect, sent a moral reprobate to Congress, the WH, or local and state government.

While Roy Moore's moral hypocrisy has been laid bare for all to see, of state and local officials and candidates, along with religious leaders who lack national noteriety, there hasn't been much news about them. What little I've found, however, suggests to me that it's too often the one's who have waved their Bibles at us and dissembled to create their reputations.

• 30 Sources Expose Sexually Explicit Evidence of Harassment by Ohio GOP Rep. Wes Goodman
  
  Goodman, who always campaigned on “family values,” recently made headlines for all the wrong reasons — he was caught on Tuesday having consensual sex with another man in his office.
  
  (Click the link to see some of Goodman's Snapchat remarks. Apparently one must take a screenshot to preserve a Snapchat comment or photo, and that's exactly what folks did with Goodman's penis pics and suggestive exhortations.)
• Trump's Oklahoma campaign chair [Ralph Shortey] to plead guilt to child sex trafficking
  
  According to Shortey's attorney, the former Republican lawmaker will plead guilty to one count of [felony] child sex trafficking on Nov. 30.
  
  Stevenson described one encounter with Shortey ahead of a vote on an anti-transgender "bathroom bill" in which the lawmaker allegedly told Stevenson that while he couldn't vote against the measure because it would inflame his Christian base, he would abstain.
  
  "Then, not 12 hours later, he sits in the committee and voted in the bill," Stevenson lamented.
  
  This was not the first time Shortey voted against the state's LGBTQ community because of his Christian beliefs. He routinely voted with his Republican colleagues on bills targeting gay and transgender people, including a measure passed earlier this year that would allow business owners to discriminate against gay people.
  
  
• 3 pastors accused of luring teen girls, paying for sex -- This story is particularly shocking in that the three pastors appear to have been coordinating their activities.
  
  Three [Toledo, OH] pastors worked together to entice teen girls to have sex, often for money, and shared photos and videos of the girls, federal prosecutors said.
  
  Federal court documents describe how one of the pastors had sex with a girl in his church office and how another used his phone to record himself having sex with a teen. There were at least three victims mentioned in the indictment, the youngest being 14.
  
  While the men — Cordell Jenkins, 47, Anthony Haynes, 38, and Kenneth Butler, 37 — all operated their own churches, federal prosecutors said the investigation was connected and remains ongoing.
• Archdiocese of Baltimore List of priests accused of sexual offenses
  From what I can tell, the Catholic Church has dealt with the problem and rooted out many (most? all?) of it's known/credibly alleged sexual predators.
  
  It's not lost on me that the Catholic Church is centrally organized and led, thereby making it easier to identify and deal with the problem, as well as making it easier to "point the finger" at a whole belief community. The disparate nature of Protestant Churches -- sometimes consisting of just one congregation -- makes that somewhat harder to do on a Protestantism-wide basis. To what extent is there sexual depravity among Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc. religious leaders? I have no idea.
• Sexual Abuse of Minors in Protestant Churches
• “25 MORE SHOCKING ARRESTS”: PASTORS CHARGED WITH SEX CRIMES
  
  
  

Now I don't mind that people get on a moral soapbox and wave the Bible at us for the Bible contains quite a lot of good and valid exhortations and guidance about how to conduct oneself with regard to one's fellow man. I mind that they stand in their "bully pulpit" or church pulpit yet don't practice what they preach. Doing that, just like every other form of paltering, prevarication and misrepresentation, is unequivocally a betrayal of trust.

One might ask what is to be done so that people know truly what kind of person is asking them to trust them in a governmental or spiritual leadership role. Well, "extreme vetting" and maximum disclosure is my answer.

Currently I "vette" the people who want my vote by getting to know them on some sort of personal level -- partly in person and partly by reputation as told to me by people whom I know well and who know the person well. (I don't mean merely having met them; I mean know the person well.) In the case of my elected city representatives, because I'm indifferent about party, I don't vote for anyone I don't personally know. That is the best I can do -- and, for the most part, if there are "open secrets" suggesting the candidate is a cad, they make their way to me -- but even as it is, and up to the Congressional level anyone can implement that approach, I don't think it's enough.

So what might we as a society do? Basically pass laws that require candidates for elected office become "open books." Some ways to do so include:

• Render null and void all NDAs to which the person is party. (Names and identifying information re: other individuals party to the agreement should be redacted.)
• Federal and state tax returns released in full.
• Unseal any court records that would have otherwise remained inaccessible to the public.

Those requirements strike me as a good place to start.

At the end of the day and because we are a republic, candidates for elected office necessarily bid us to trust them. Well, how the hell can one know whether a candidate deserves one's trust if one has no way to know the full "411" about the candidate? Holding elected office gives one a lot of power, power to hurt and harm the lives of thousands or millions. At the very least, we voters are entitled to know whether the folks in whom we vest that kind of power are of fine character, not just that they aren't "perverts," but also that there are no "skeletons in their closet" that suggest they "shady" in other dimensions.

Lol. No mention of franken.

Quite frankly (no pun intended), there are many people whom I did not mention.

Just as a point of clarification, the OP/I have no aim to, by dint and because of their being politically right-wing, excoriate or focus explicitly or tacitly on right-wing individuals or groups; however, there's no denying that in perception, regardless of whether in fact, right-wing individuals and groups are the ones most often heard using, lo preaching in some instances, a morality-based argument for favoring or disfavoring "this or that."

But of course you didn't. Its just that....you conveniently left out dems.

Well, if you think I'm that contrived, that's on you....And if you don't believe or understand the remarks of the "sub-quote" I posted in my last reply to you, that too is on you....

I have only to say that in reading my prose, I know you didn't find one instance of my mentioning anyone's political affiliation.