Skip to main content

A Few Thoughts about the Accusations Made against Judge Kavanaugh

I have been quietly observing this whole Kavanaugh situation, but now I thought I'd offer a few thoughts.  I guess I haven't been accused of sexism recently enough.  In case you are unaware, the confirmation of Trump's most recent nomination for the Supreme Court is not going as smoothly as he would have hoped.  Depending on your perspective, Brett Kavanaugh is either reaping that which he has sown or is enduring character assassination the like of which most citizens will never begin to understand.  Regardless, it is a depressing commentary on the state of politics in the United States of America.  Here's my take:

1) It's always suspicious when a woman "goes public" with an accusation of sexual assault only when a conservative politician is about to attain an important office.  Can we all agree to that?  We've seen this one so many times before that it's difficult to be anything but cynical.  It's hard for the casual bystander not to ask, "Why didn't she come forward sooner?"  And, yet...

2) Dealing with sexual assault is a complex issue and we should never let the many false accusations discount the valid accusations.  There are a million reasons why a woman wouldn't come forward: fear, her own sense of shame, the desire to avoid tearing apart his family, etc.  Perhaps she figured she was better off letting it go and not enduring tedious legal proceedings, but now feels that she is responsible to warn the world of the dark history of a man who may become one of the most powerful leaders in our nation.  Both 1) and 2) are equally possible, so how do we decide?  How can we be confident that justice is ever really served in a situation like this?  Which leads me to my next point...

3) Behold, the power of the the rumor!  Once a rumor is planted in the minds of the American public, it is nearly impossible to eradicate.  Many good people have been destroyed by baseless allegations, which is why it is so important to maintain a man's (or woman's, for that matter) innocence unless some form of evidence can substantiate allegations made against him.  The liberals have made a living by recognizing and exploiting our natural tendency to believe rumors.  Allegations cast doubt against otherwise irreproachable figures to the point that their own supporters and colleagues abandon them to avoid the possible political ramifications.  "But, what if it's true?" we all think.  Better safe than sorry, right?  Which is why...

4) False allegations need to be punished.  The government exists to protect the innocent.  If someone makes a false accusation, he/she should be punished.  Proving that allegations are false is complex and difficult, but if it can be done conclusively, and sometimes that is possible, the party bringing those accusations should be prosecuted.  And, yet...

5) Witnesses must not be intimidated or coerced.  Instead of vilifying victims, we must provide an environment that encourages the truth.  This is what is so tricky about sexual assault--there are typically no witnesses aside from the victim and the perpetrator.  It's the prototypical he-said/she-said ordeal, which means it's an inherently-difficult issue to prosecute properly.  Despite these issues our justice system ought to protect the innocent, regardless of which side of the accusation he/she might occupy.

6) Finally, let me just add that this, and similar situations, should act as a reminder to us all to avoid situations where false allegations could be made.  Placing ourselves in precarious situations invites victimization.  Let me be clear: the rape victim is not at fault, nor is the falsely-accused, but we live in a broken world and it serves us well to protect ourselves by avoiding ungodly situations.  Being harmed isn't a sin, but exercising discretion in how and with whom we spend our time can make our lives much easier.

So, did he do it?  Is she a liberal prop designed to discredit a good man?  We may never know.  What we will know very soon is whether or not this will destroy his career and send Trump look for another candidate.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, let me clarify what I mean when

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repent and be baptized...&quo

Why do you go to church on Sunday?

Why do you go to church on Sunday?  I would assume there are many reasons, but what is the primary reason that you get up on a cold, snowy Sunday morning and get your butt to church?  Further, why has the Church of Jesus Christ consistently gathered together on Sundays (among other days) for the last 2000 years? Throughout my 34 years of church attendance I would have proffered a variety of answers to that question.  As a child I'm sure I went to church because I had to, to see my cousins (who happened to be my best friends), to get bread and wine (weekly communion for the win), etc.  As my faith matured in adulthood these reasons remained, hopefully deepening, but to them were added concepts like rest and theological training. As I moved into Anglicanism I was struck by the deliberate focus on worship .  Why do Christians gather on Sunday morning?  To worship God!  Are teaching and fellowship important?  Absolutely!  Are they aspects of worship?  Certainly!  Is either the primary