« Danny Akin on James Merritt--"I love the homiletical craftsmanship of James Merritt" by Peter Lumpkins | Main | Rev. Dan Smith: I love this guy... »

Dec 05, 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mary

Very good words by Dr. Mohler here. It's not just men who should pay heed. It's a concept that we try to teach our children - stay from even "the appearance of evil." That's hard to do when Christians are falling for the idea that we have to be of the world to reach the world.

This will be the nastiest political year we've ever seen I'm afraid and I think Christians need to be very careful about how they write about it.

I was very disturbed by Dr. McKissic's article where he tried to defend Cain because his accuser's didn't bring accusations back in the day as if victims of sexual harrassment and sexual assault have no crediability unless they file complaints at the time of the offense.

Women in the US have all been sexually harassed at some point in their lives and far too many have experienced sexual assault which is defined as inappropriate touch to rape. There are not enough hours left in time if all the women who are victims were to try to report sexual offenses against them.

Cain's accusers had many crediability problems - one was a serial complainer, two wouldn't even state what happened, and one was a neighbor of Axelrod - there were plenty of ways to defend Cain at that point, but when we try to state that victims are responsible for reporting offenses immediately defense than all crediability of the writer is lost because you can now be accused of defending on an irrational basis. Anybody who knows anything about sexual harassment or assaults against women should understand how undereporeted these acts are and what these kinds of offenses have on the victims psyche. To call a woman a liar because she didn't report something back in the day is to show a lack of compassion and understanding of what victims of sexual harrassment/assault go through.

But. Dr. McKissic had some other very good points about what the elevation of a black conservative would do to some sacred cows in this country. I think that was a reason many of us wanted to see Cain succeed as it would have been interesting to watch the left jump through hoops to try to tear him down because if there is one thing that could really help change the direction of this country's politics it is the elevation of minority politicians willing to stand up and make the bold statements that Mr. Cain was willing to make. It's a shame.

Max

Good-Bye Herman Cain ... but Hello Who?!

It's becoming increasingly difficult to raise a national son to the highest office in the land who doesn't have shame in his background. Have you noticed that all political candidates get religion as they approach the polls? However, few who talk the talk really walk the walk. Christian deacons (Cain is an ordained Baptist deacon) and pastors (Cain is a licensed minister) carry a higher responsibility and accountability when they enter the very public, political realm. Repeated failings of this sort by those who are called by the name of Christ is symptomatic of how bad things have become in America. Where are righteous leaders when you need them?!

America will not experience spiritual awakening until widespread repentance breaks out in our churches. America is sick because the church is sick (SBC ailments have been addressed on this blog and elsewhere). America's health can only be restored when the church gets back on its feet. We can't vote or legislate our way out of this plague ... it's time for the saints to agonize, rather than organize. Repentance is the greatest need of this hour. "If My People ... Then Will I."

Job

Dwight McKissic's many defenses of the oneness Pentecostal modalist T. D. Jakes is far more troubling than his defense of Herman Cain. With Mr. Cain, McKissic could at least plausibly deny personal knowledge of Cain's activities with women other than his spouse. But it is impossible for McKissic to claim not to know of Jakes' false doctrines. Yet McKissic maintains fellowship with Jakes and further defends Jakes, including by making accusations against the motives and character of those that are telling the truth about Jakes' false beliefs and doctrines.

Mary

Job, I absolutely agree with you. I was very "vocal" here on Peter's blog during the whole Jamar Jones fiasco when someone tried to claim we were racists for thinking doctrine is important.

But, being the off topic queen I was trying to stay somewhat on topic.

Robert I Masters

Peter,
This post makes me VERY, VERY ,VERY ANGRY

point by point refute of Dr Mohler.

1.The Christian man must realize that credible accusations of sexual misconduct or immorality are fatal to credibility and ruinous to Christian witness.

A.Two points...no credible accusations exist? If this is the case why are we supporting Newt now?
Why was is Jerry Sutton now a dean at Midwestern Seminary...people accused him immorality.

2.The Christian man cannot dismiss any charge of sexual immorality as being a private matter of no public concern.

A.I have Never heard Herman Cain make this argument.
L.Lin Wood did but then I have never heard that Lin Wood is a believer so that is understandable in my mind. It irritates me to no end that Al Mohler wrote a whole article to equate Herman Cain with L Lin Woods statement. Attack by proxy is Christian?
Should we trash Southern Seminary as liberal because he named a pavilion in honor of Duke McCall?

3.The Christian man must plan his life in order to assure moral accountability and protections.

A. This a true Christian principle but to demand from that specific applications is moralism ...the Bible simply does not insists on all those applications.
We saw this in the election cycle with Gary Baur and focus on the family.
BTW....Cain repeatly denied the allegations.
Mr Mohler does not work in the secular corporate world. To think that you can demand such treatment is simply IGNORANT. The power simply is not there like it is in Dr Mohlers Southern Baptist world.
Just look at the Olympus story.
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/01/business/olympus-woodford-boardroom-drama/index.html

Lastly it is nigh unto impossible to run a small business and not be put into situation where you will be alone with a women. How do you tell the single mom who wants her wireless network setup for internet that she should have another man be at her house while I do that task.Or how do you tell the women whose toilet broke that she needs to wait till her ceo husband gets home at 700 pm and that the price for doing the same task now goes from 150 hour to 300 hour.
Scripture simply does not demand that standard.
I suspect that if could see all of Mary Mohlers life that there have been 100s if not 1000s of times she has been alone with another man. It strains credulity to say that is not the case.
He simply trusts her and she trusts him.


4.The Christian man must depend upon his church, the congregation that is so essential to his Christian vitality and faithfulness, as a bulwark against sin.

A.I agree with this general sentiment and I think that is one of the reasons that he lost support.
Too many people disagreed with his politics at his home church.....to my knowledge not one man in authority there spoke up for him. Contrast that with Pastor Jeffries support for Rick Perry.

5.A Christian man knows that his wife is his best defense against sexual immorality and sexual vulnerability - and his most important witness to character.

This I agree with too but I think it should be noted that her politics were never inline with him.
She has always voted Democratic. They simply were not of one mind. He needed to get her onboard first.
Herman Cain said God called him to run but it seems to me that Gloria Cain and family overruled the call of God. I hope and pray that I am wrong.

In the end I truly believe that too many Christians attacked a Godly man without proof. That is not Godly in itself and it maybe a subtle, soft racism.

Steve Deace
EdStetzer
Denny Burk
Richard Land
Al Mohler

Dwight McKissic

Robert,

Ditto.

Dwight

Robert I Masters

I would too clarify that I do not believe any credible accusations exist.that was meant to be a statement not a question!

Mary

1. The accusations are credible because this woman has financial records along with phone records. Cain refuses to tell how much he gave this woman because of the advice of his attorney which means it's a dousy.

At the very least the accusations have to be described as disturbing. A man does not give significant amounts of money to a woman that his wife knows nothing about. Period. End of story. Disturbing. Could it be innocent? Sure! But it doesn't look good and it would be stupid behavior for a Baptist Minister, let alone a man running for President.

Newt's indiscretions have all been confessed and repented of as far as we know. In politics it's not the scandal that kills ya but the cover-up. See Anthony Weiner.


2. L. Lin Wood is a spokesmen for Herman Cain. The words of a Cain spokesmen are supposed to be Cain's words. It is absolutely not attack by proxy when someone is speaking on behalf of Cain to take those thoughts as the thoughts of Cains. That's how a spokesperson works. Are we claiming L. Lin Wood made a public statement without Mr. Cain's consent and knowledge? Then Mr. Cain fired L. Lin Wood? He has diassociated himself from L. Lin Wood? The fact that the first instinct of the Cain Campaign on this one was to claim that private sexual conduct is not anybody's business is at the very least "disturbing."

Also, if Mr. Cain is innocent as he says than it shows his inability to have good people working with him who are capable in a crisis situation. The most important qualification of any President will be his ability to surround himself with capable people who know what they're doing. Cain's campaign is bush league to say the least.

3. Dr. Mohler I think made the point to diferentiate between what are legitimate business practice - plumber, internet and the socializing that we are hearing happened with Hermann Cain.

And I'm sorry but as a woman I try to make sure no one ever comes into my home when I'm alone for my safety. I don't need my husband or another man, but simply another person. No woman has had 100's of instance where she's required to be alone with any man not her husband. Does it happen that you have to have plumber come in an emergency? Sure. Would I stay in the kitchen or the bathroom where he's working? Absolutely not.

4. I don't know anything about.

5. It doesn't matter what their politics are - she should be defending him against this serious moral attacks. That's ridiculous if you're saying because she's a democrat that she won't defend him because he's conservative.

Finally, the race card, really? Any criticism of a black man is racist?

And finally, finally, Herman Cain simply showed himself not to be qualified to be President. If he couldn't muddle his way through the crass craven politics today how on earth is the man gonna look down Putin? It's not my job to judge him or to declare that she said is more credible. It is his job as a Presidential candidate to convince me that what he said matters more. If he couldn't handle the vetting of the primary than he certainly wouldn't make it through the general.

Robert I Masters

Mary,
Almost all the statements you make are either a twisting of facts or some sort perversions.
I hope to address them all later this evening.

I dont understand the difference you say Al Mohler made between the Christian Man and a man who is a Christian running for President. I dont see it!

Lmalone

"Mr Mohler does not work in the secular corporate world. To think that you can demand such treatment is simply IGNORANT. The power simply is not there like it is in Dr Mohlers Southern Baptist world.
"

Am I agreeing with Robert Masters? Of the Southern Baptist Geneva? My MY!

But you are sooooo right. People who preach this stuff live in ivory towers or work in churches. I have traveled with the opposite sex in business for years. It is quite simple: You are in love with your spouse. Everything is professional. And after meetings are over, it is your own time. I never hung out with anyone I traveled with. never wanted to.

It is a bit like Islam. Blame the circumstances instead of changing your own heart. If such things tempt you then you need all the barriers, rules, etc.

These things don't just "happen". You allow them to happen.

If you are an upstanding person, full of intergrity and are blameless over many years, no one will believe it anyway.

Mary

Robert, I will await your response as I think thoughts I've presented are mostly from Cain's interview with NH paper.

The distinction I was making that I thought Mohler made was that Christian men and women should not SOCIALIZE ( I'm not shouting I don't know how to do italics) alone with men and women of the opposite sex.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Mary

First, I just reread the Union Leader article which I think backs up what I said up thread except that there are financial records - I was wrong on that, but the other facts are in there so I'm very curious as to how I've twisted or perverted any facts that Cain himself has stated.

Secondly, please reread Mohler's words because I am not gonna be happy if I have to come back here and have to explain how his statement does not say what some here are trying to make it say. Don't make me defend Pope Al. I don't want to ruin my reputation as an antiCalvinist. Maybe Peter will show up and help me out.

peter lumpkins

Robert,

Thanks for your impassioned response, my brother. I must express in the beginning my confusion as to precisely why this short post makes you angry, much less VERY, VERY ,VERY ANGRY. The singular conclusion I made here (I had already decided not to support Cain as my response to Brother Dwight shows) was a confession—“I was dead wrong. Herman Cain did not win the assault.” Have I missed something?  Didn’t Cain verbally concede that the pressure was just too much on his family life, etc, and hence he was bowing out of the race?  If I have not misread Cain, then why would you express your VERY, VERY ,VERY ANGRY feelings concerning this post?

Second, though this is really no place to do a point by point refutation against Dr. Mohler’s opinion post, I’ll respond to your points in the order you logged them.

First, I’ve said elsewhere it was not conclusive on the first round of complaints against Cain. Even so, to suggest the complaints made lacked all credibility stands beyond reason, especially when Mr. Cain had a lapse of memory as to what the result of the case was, and whether the woman received a settlement for the charges made. The latest claim, however, cannot be dismissed as easily, especially when Cain apparently had a secret social fling--including giving cash gifts to the Atlanta woman--without his wife’s knowledge. If this is correct, there is no moral justification for this behavior. If you think there is, I’d love to hear your rationale, Robert.

Remember also that no one demanded Herman Cain to step down because of a moral breach. Not that I know of. In fact, his supporters were devastated at his announcement. Instead he made the decision. Unfortunately, once again Herman Cain folded under pressure. Rather than lay all his cards on the table, he walked away from the game which makes him look suspiciously shady. I think that was, in large part, Mohler’s point.

As for Gingrich and Sutton, I haven’t a clue what your point might be. Both men’s reputations have suffered through accusations—both credible and incredible. I do know that Gingrich has not denied his questionable ethics (specifically concerning his domestic issues) but been very forthright, openly confessing and lamenting many decisions in his life, decisions he said he wish he could take back. Does confession automatically make one a desirable candidate for president of the US? It does not. Other factors must be considered.

Second, perhaps you are right: Cain did not verbalize his private life as being off-limits. His lawyer-spokesman did, however. And, once again Cain displays a fundamental absence of leadership during crisis. Why under the blue sky did Cain let his spokesperson make such a statement? Does he believe that? We probably will never know. He dropped out and now it’s of little consequence. Again I don’t know your point in citing Duke McCall and Southern. You’ll have to show me the analogy you’re trying to make (I’m a little slow, you know!).

Third, so you think planning one’s life to assure moral accountability and protecting one’s reputation reduces to “moralism”? To know exactly what you’re driving at, Robert, I’d need to know what you mean by “moralism”. Some people think any moral structure which doesn’t have an explicit prohibition behind it is “moralism” (i.e. thou shalt not…). If this is what you mean, I must dissent. Even so, what are you saying, Robert--that the Christian man need not plan his life to assure moral accountability or not bother with any type of structure which protects his reputation?

Nor does it matter that Al Mohler is not the secular corporate world. Wherever a believer finds himself or herself, we are enjoined to “take heed lest we fall” (1Cor 10:12). And for you to suggest that to demand “such treatment is simply IGNORANT” is morally absurd. We are called moral excellence wherever we are and in whatever context we find ourselves—“walk worthy of the calling with which we are called” (Eph. 4:1). To imply that Christian scruples are significantly limited in a non-Christian context bleeds the air completely out of Jesus’ charge to be “salt” and “light.” If you mean something else, please clarify because that’s what I hear being implied, Robert. Perhaps you’re unclear because you’re writing through a VERY, VERY ,VERY ANGRY lens.

Well no it is not impossible, Robert, to run a small business and not be put into situation where you will be alone with women—at least so far as a general rule is concerned. And, yes the Scripture does implore us to consider the situations we place ourselves in—“take heed lest you fall.”

Your alternative appears to be, don’t concern yourself with any context in which you find yourself. Since you do not believe Scripture applies in this way, it seems to follow that contextual circumstances are irrelevant to moral excellence. I suppose, then, a senior pastor and the church secretary could go away for a weekend vision conference in the Smokies. They want to plan out the church year. And, since his wife trusts him and he her—as well as the secretary and her husband’s trust are perfectly in tact—what possible wrong could there be?  In your words, Scripture simply does not demand that standard.

You write, “…I think that is one of the reasons that he lost support.
Too many people disagreed with his politics at his home church...” For all you know, perhaps they knew something we don’t. I don’t know. Neither do you. Hence, to suggest no one at church spoke up for him as indicative of disagreement with his politics makes little sense. His wife didn’t even speak up for him for cryin out loud. Was she against him too?  I remind you once again, Robert, no group demanded Cain step down from running for office so far as I can tell—at least any group primarily motivated by the claims against his moral life.

I am unsure about Mrs. Cain’s politics. However, to conclude as do you, Robert that “it seems to me that Gloria Cain and family overruled the call of God” is so fundamentally skewed I hardly know what to say. Rather than deal with what we do know—even as confusing as it might be—you switch the subject to Mrs. Cain and blame her for her husband’s issues, charging her with “overruling” the call of God. Leaving aside this strange statement in the face of your pronounced Calvinism, to blame Cain’s family for his own troubles remains unconscionable.

Finally, do not show back up here and make race—albeit soft racism but racism nonetheless--the reason Cain’s support not only dwindled but also the reason he decided to pull out of the race. I know of no one—not a soul—that’s so much as hinted they would not support Herman Cain because of his race. Such a thought is morally despicable to me. Herman Cain lost my support because I lost confidence in him as a viable contender for the White House. It’s that simple. Nor have I attacked Cain’s character.

Nor did A Mohler attack Cain’s character. What Mohler did do was point out sloppy, loose moral manners that at best soils a good man’s reputation and at worst sets one up for tragic moral failure, practices you explicitly reject as unbiblical “moralism.”

With that, I am…

Peter

P.S. I do not know your intention of putting the list of names at the end of your comment.

peter lumpkins

Mary,

I too await Robert's list of grievances he says shows "Almost all the statements you make are either a twisting of facts or some sort perversions" a stiff claim, I'd say. Let's see if he can cook the stew.

With that, I am...
Peter

Robert I Masters

Mary...The accusations are credible because this woman has financial records along with phone records

Rob...How do this make the accusations credible,it is not a crime to call someone or give money even alot of money. never did Cain deny this fact.

Mary...Cain refuses to tell how much he gave this woman because of the advice of his attorney which means it's a dousy.

Rob...No law requires him to tell you or anyone how much money he gave away....who cares.

Mary...At the very least the accusations have to be described as disturbing. A man does not give significant amounts of money to a woman that his wife knows nothing about. Period. End of story. Disturbing. Could it be innocent? Sure! But it doesn't look good and it would be stupid behavior for a Baptist Minister, let alone a man running for President

Rob...Maybe the reason you find this disturbing is because you do not manage your money that way. My grandparents spent their whole life with separate bank accounts they found it kept the peace in the best manner for them. She spent her money and he saved his money. It kept them through the depression and for over 75 years together.
I know a number of women who are very happy with this arrangement.They are given what they want and everything else is provided for them. I was just talking to an Ethiopian couple she never touches the money in her household.She asked me why do American women always want to control the money..this is the mans job from God right?

Mary...Newt's indiscretions have all been confessed and repented of as far as we know. In politics it's not the scandal that kills ya but the cover-up. See Anthony Weiner.


Rob...Really..why did Richard land say this last week?
http://www.christianpost.com/news/dr-richard-land-an-open-letter-to-newt-gingrich-63393/
How does one coverup a lie that did not happen?
Remember God HATES divorce and Herman Cain has never;Newt well not so good!


Mary...L. Lin Wood is a spokesmen for Herman Cain.

Rob...No he is not a spokesman. He is a defense attorney. The other accusers were saying he harassed them. Lin Wood was defending his client. With Ginger White no defense was needed because no crime was allegedly committed.His title was not press spokesman but defense attorney.
Cain or his campaign never made the those private statements only Lin Wood. Listen too
the press video after the Wood statement. Herman himself never that stated that private matter stuff.


Mary...Also, if Mr. Cain is innocent as he says than it shows his inability to have good people working with him who are capable in a crisis situation. The most important qualification of any President will be his ability to surround himself with capable people who know what they're doing. Cain's campaign is bush league to say the least.


Rob...admittedly Cain probably was not the polished professional politician like Rommey but as time and money came along he would have honed those skills.Most people liked him for that reason. He was and is genuine not plastic like Karl Rove and the Republican establishment.bush league .....what does that mean precisely. Too erudiate for me!!!!!

mary... Dr. Mohler I think made the point to diferentiate between what are legitimate business practice - plumber, internet and the socializing that we are hearing happened with Hermann Cain.

Rob...I did not see those differences expounded upon in his articles. Frankly I understood him to be saying exactly as I understood...instructions to Christian man.The Christian man must plan his life, including his business life and his professional career, in such a way that he does not allow himself to be in a situation in which he can be credibly accused of such misconduct. A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife — period. Though this can sometimes add complication and cost, a Christian man should not travel or conduct business in a way that exposes himself to sexual temptation or opportunity.
How can you not read this statement and not be confused....are you the defense attorney for Al Mohler? Sorry had to add a little humor.

Mary...And I'm sorry but as a woman I try to make sure no one ever comes into my home when I'm alone for my safety. I don't need my husband or another man, but simply another person. No woman has had 100's of instance where she's required to be alone with any man not her husband. Does it happen that you have to have plumber come in an emergency? Sure. Would I stay in the kitchen or the bathroom where he's working? Absolutely not.

Rob... Fine use that as a standard for yourself but unless you can exegete that law from Scripture please dont bind everyman to your convictions.

Mary... I don't know anything about.

Rob...You should know about this Church...historically speaking..helpful for race relations in the body of Christ.
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/churchs-pride-in-cain-1208642.html

Mary... It doesn't matter what their politics are - she should be defending him against this serious moral attacks. That's ridiculous if you're saying because she's a democrat that she won't defend him because he's conservative.

Rob...Speculation on my part...not the voting democrat part...but that the pressure is immense to vote the tribe in both the so called black and white church. Like my friends at Dell said .."when is the last time you saw a black man vote republican.Aint gonna happen.

Mary...Finally, the race card, really? Any criticism of a black man is racist?

Rob...No card just the truth maam
not criticism of all black man just the slanderous conjecture of this Christian brother who happens to be black.

Mary...And finally, finally, Herman Cain simply showed himself not to be qualified to be President. If he couldn't muddle his way through the crass craven politics today how on earth is the man gonna look down Putin? It's not my job to judge him or to declare that she said is more credible. It is his job as a Presidential candidate to convince me that what he said matters more. If he couldn't handle the vetting of the primary than he certainly wouldn't make it through the general.

Rob..You call it vetting... I call it slander and defamation of a brother in Christ. I undertand why the world doesnt like Herman Cain but those in Christ.NO I am saddened by the actions that seemed to bring down the name of Christ.

Although I do not share this brothers eschatology I agree to most of his thoughts and wanted to let you read his article.

http://mychal-massie.com/premium/herman-cain-but-america-wont/

peter lumpkins

Robert,

I've warned you once. Do not bring up race again. If you do, your comment will hit the trash.

With that, I am...
Peter

mary

OK Rob, so basically you don't like the conclusions I've drawn and you think you get to accuse me of twisting and perverting facts. The facts I stated are the facts as Herman Cain has admitted them. The facts are what they are.

What you don't like is the conclusions many including me are drawing from these facts.

So you can disagree that a man giving a woman large amounts of money, a man who admits to having a "friendship" for years with the woman, she has his personal cell number and is comfortable texting with him late into the night, and this man never in the thirteen years that he admits to knowing this woman has never mentioned this woman to his wife. Doesn't tell his wife about the large sums of money (and we know they are large sums since he's admitted to giving her money but won't tell us how much money he gave her and no he doesn't have to tell us anything, he doesn't have to tell us anything about consensual sex outside of marriage either)You think that's hunky dory and anybody who thinks differently is a racist. Let's just let that all sink in for those keeping score in the cheap seats at home and see if it passes the smell test. Just because no crime is committed doesn't equal not credible.

What exactly do you need for proof of guilt the video tape? Maybe you could call Peter Pan Driscoll since he has his own personal porn-o-vision. This sounds right up his alley.

L Lin Wood makes a statement on behalf of Herman Cain, but he's not a spokesman? Really? A person who makes a statement on behalf of another person is not a spokesman. Wait here - while I run over to dictionary.com. BRB!

Here we go:

spokes·man   /ˈspoʊksmən/ Show Spelled[spohks-muhn] Show IPA
noun, plural -men.
1. a person who speaks for another or for a group.
2. a public speaker.

So Rob, you didn't answer the question did L Lin Wood make that statement without Herman Cain's knowledge? It's great that Cain has retained L Lin Wood cuz you know what his specialty is? Slander, one of the top lawyers in the country - so we'll be seeing real soon the lawsuit against this woman, right? I mean that's why Cain hired him so Cain could seek legal remedies.

Cain's campaign would only ever be as good as the person at the top. The person at the top hired poor staff - was it Block who accused everybody and his brother with no proof and looked like a fool over the Politico snafu?

Bush league = unprofessional - it's a baseball term referring to minor leaguers not ready for the majors. Cain's campaign could have never gotten off the ground because he didn't have an ability to hire the right political people for the job. He did hire the best lawyer for pursuing slander litigation. The problem with law suits is that the whole discovery process works both ways.

Cain is a Baptist minister so I don't see what your big gripe is about Al Mohler addressing Christian men. Cain is not just a Christian man, but a minister who is to be held to even higher standards than regular lay people. I think the whole gist of Mohler's article which I think is abosolutely biblical is that just because something is permissable it doesn't mean it is wise.

You can form whatever opinions you want. But the truth SIR is that to play the race card here is just a hateful sore loser thing to do because you cannot get rid of ugly facts. Facts that Cain himself can't deny. But finding the facts disturbing is not a reason to scream racist. It's name calling to try to distract from uncomfortable facts. That race card ain't working so well anymore.

Is he guilty? I don't know, but a man who gives lot's of money to a woman that his wife knows nothing about is disturbing whether you choose to admit it or not. I could've gotten over the serial complainer, the two annonymous attacks with no allegations and even the woman who described an attack, but just happened to live in the same building as David Axelrod. But a fifth woman who Cain admits to giving money too and who has his personal cell number that she texts at all hours? Fool me once shame on you, fool five times????

In modern political times vetting is full of defamation and slander. That's the way the game is played. A professional politician or at least his professional staff can navigate the rocky shoals. Carville did for Clinton and what exactly do you think Newt's doing but bulldozing right on through all his nasty stuff. One of Cain's favorite things to say was he didn't know everything but he would hire the best people to advise him, but with the exception of L Lin Wood (did he fire his attorney for making a statement for which he didn't approve?) his staff selections are pretty bad.

Welcome to the majors, Mr. Master, you're gonna want to buckle in because you are going to see slander and defamation slung like it has never slung in political history. Cain got thrown out trying to steal third. Was the call right? Who knows, but it's the way the game is played.

peter lumpkins

Robert,

From the lengthy reply you wrote to Mary's comment, there is but a single issue you log that fits your raw assertion that almost all the statements Mary made are either a twisting of facts or some sort of perversion. Just one. The rest of your points offer an alternate interpretation to Mary's understanding, but that's a far cry from showing Mary either "twisted the facts" or "perverted" the words from the sources. Either produce your evidence she "twisted" and/or "perverted" "almost all" the sources or admit to Mary you completely over-reached in your assertion about her comment.

As for the one point in your long comment that you questioned was in the sources Mary cited--i.e. that Mohler differentiated between what are legitimate business practices (plumber, internet and socializing)--you write, "

I did not see those differences expounded upon in his articles. Frankly I understood him to be saying exactly as I understood...instructions to Christian man.The Christian man must plan his life, including his business life and his professional career, in such a way that he does not allow himself to be in a situation in which he can be credibly accused of such misconduct. A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife — period. Though this can sometimes add complication and cost, a Christian man should not travel or conduct business in a way that exposes himself to sexual temptation or opportunity.
How can you not read this statement and not be confused…?

Several things may be said in response. First, just because you didn’t see the distinction Mary cited makes for no evidence the distinction is not there or at least implied. I think we can agree. Second, whatever you mean by “I understood him to be saying exactly as I understood” is not apparent. Indeed as it is, it makes very little sense. Third, while you deny you saw the differences Mary cited that she claims Mohler made in his article (or perhaps implied), you nevertheless go on to recite your understanding of Mohler to be that “A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife — period” (italics added), precisely Mary’s point about Mohler implying a clear distinction about intentional socializing. Talk about reading a statement and not being confused! I challenge anyone to make full sense of much you wrote in this paragraph, Robert.

Now, if one but reads carefully the quote I gave from Dr. Mohler’s essay, it seems clear enough Mohler was specifically speaking about one’s social life, not necessarily business practices like plumbing, etc. the very point Mary made. He writes (embolden added):

“One woman charged that Cain had made a sexual advance after taking her out on a night of socializing and entertainment in Washington, DC. Cain’s situation would have been radically different if he had been able to respond that he had always maintained a policy of never socializing alone with any woman other than his wife…A Christian man does not socialize alone with a woman who is not his wife…

Even more, Mohler mentioned socializing once again in a section I did not quote:

Herman Cain would be in a very different position today if he had been able to say that he had never socialized alone with a woman other than his wife, and that he had never engaged in a relationship or friendship with any woman that was unknown to and unaccompanied by his wife.

Hence, whether or not you picked up on the distinction Mary discerned, it seems clear the distinction is there or at minimum implied.

Like I said above: either produce your evidence she twisted and/or perverted almost all the sources or admit to Mary you completely over-reached in your assertion about her comment.

With that, I am…

Peter

peter lumpkins

Mary,

Perhaps Robert will find time today to detail specifically where and how you allegedly twisted and/or perverted almost all the sources you employed to conclude as you do, a complaint he said he'd detail but failed to produce in the long response he logged. If he does not, perhaps he will offer a revised complaint toward your citations which better fits the reality of your use of sources.

With that, I am...
Peter

mary

Peter, I'm not holding my breath.

I think this demonstrates nicely a point I tried to make way up thread and that's that as Christians I think we need to be careful when we engage in these political musings. We cannot just knee jerk defend at all costs. It would have been a thing to see had we had a black conservative capable of navigating through the nasty waters of our current political system. I was rooting for him. We would have worked for him had he been the nominee. But there are realities that anyone venturing into politics has to be ready for. These primaries are nothing compared to what's coming.

Robert I Masters

This is the Peter and Mary show?

Your right I am not going to keep arguing back and forth.

I believe he is innocent of all charges.

I have been involved for years in the political process in Nebraska and Iowa.It is much more establishment,closed circle here in TN but I intend to become more active in the future.

In the end I do not think that Christians should be promoting hearsay and conjecture on a christian brother in any forum.
I realize you disagree that Al Mohler and others did that but thats what I believe.
Frankly Steve Deace and Al Mohler were the most worst offenders.

Will Al Mohler vett Dr Fred Luter in the same
manner. I doubt it!

mary

Rob, there is no hearsay. It's Cain's own admissions that are bringing him down. Nobody's twisted or perverted any facts. What you choose to do with those facts is up to you but attacking those who don't reach the same conclusions you do as racists is not acting Christlike.

Robert I Masters

Peter,
Thanks for allowing me to post a full response.
A courtesy Dave Miller rarely if ever allows me
at SBCVOICES.

BTW...between allowing me to post here and 200 rounds at the range; my anger has been turned to only sorrow for my brother.

Mary,
In keeping with Peters expectations I will honor his request concerning "that" issue.

The comments to this entry are closed.