Harvey Weinstein hasn’t been convicted of any crime. But the multiple stories documenting his alleged assaults, from victims who didn’t know each other and had nothing to gain by speaking out, sealed the deal in the court of public opinion. Trying to explain the various stories against Weinstein, and the recording, and decades of whispers among those who worked beside him would be far more difficult than just accepting that he was a predator.
That’s why the multiple victims now speaking out against Roy Moore are so powerful. They all share similar stories of a man who, in his 30s, was hanging out in a mall and trying to pick up teenager girls, who “dated” and provided alcohol to some underage women, and who inappropriately touched at least one girl as young as 14.
Michael Brown, a writer at Charisma News, says we shouldn’t jump to conclusions about Moore because these are “only allegations”:
… These charges remain only allegations, and there are valid reasons to question their validity.
Why are they only surfacing now? Is it because women are now feeling empowered to come forward and call out their accusers, or is it a political ruse? And how did Moore survive being vetted for the Supreme Court of Alabama, ultimately becoming chief justice, without any of this alleged immoral and illegal behavior being discovered? How did he even survive the tens of millions of dollars spent to defeat him in the recent primaries without this surfacing?
… I believe an ethically consistent, conservative Christian position is that: 1) We agree that if the charges are true, he should step aside, regardless of the political ramifications. But: 2) We view him as innocent until proven guilty, hoping and praying that the truth will come to light in before it’s time to vote.
I could rebut his idiotic questions, but the point is he’s excusing Moore’s behavior because the testimonies of multiple women aren’t good enough for him. At least it’s a principled stand, right?
Of course not. Because this is what he said days after the Weinstein story first broke:
My purpose here is not to throw more stones on the now-disgraced Harvey Weinstein, who is already suffering the consequences of his alleged actions. My purpose is to confront the larger hypocrisy of Hollywood, an industry that has made billions of dollars selling sex, an industry that encourages all kinds of sexploitation.
The point is that the major players in Hollywood have known about these kinds of things for years, yet most looked the other way. Why? It’s part of the business, and you don’t dare challenge or expose the giants. It will destroy your own career if you do!
Somehow, it’s okay to dismiss most of Hollywood, point out the hypocrisy there, and speak about “sexploitation” when a liberal producer is outed as a creep (or worse)… but we shouldn’t condemn a Christian candidate until all the evidence is in.
What evidence does Brown want? A trial? A confession from Moore himself? How many women will it take to convince Brown that Roy Moore shouldn’t be working in polite society much less getting seated in the Senate?
There’s no reason to think anything more will come out over the next few weeks, but what we’ve heard already should be more than enough to know Moore has no business representing the people of Alabama.
It should be enough, that is, unless your column depends on how strongly you defend a Christian candidate whose past comes back to haunt him every passing day.
(Screenshot via YouTube)