What Christians are missing in Roy Moore debate (Page 3): Promoting moral relativism degrades and corrupts everything in a society and affects everybody.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Kevyn wrote:

Prohibiting or establishing religion, allowing religion to encumber public body’s is establishing religion.

Promoting moral relativism degrades and corrupts everything in a society and affects everybody.

maureenthannon

The phrase "Separation of church and state" is not in the Condtitution, it was lifted from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church. In the letter he wasn't telling the church to stay out of the government's business, but that the government would stay out of the church's business.

imbobbyc Loc: Montana

Kevyn wrote:

Write, call and email Moore and do the same to media outlets across Alabama. Moore can bring the entire thing to closure in one hour. All he needs to do is demand a polygraph exam done by an independent agency. The only question any journalist should ask Moore is; are you willing to settle this by submitting to a polygraph?

Prove yourself innocent No Problem. However, maybe the accuser should be the first to take a polygraph. Just saying

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Kevyn wrote:

In no way do I want him to have abused those children, if they could have been spared their suffering at the hands of a predator it would be wonderful. Unfortunately the hands of time can not be turned back so the best we can hope for is that they receive some comfort in him being held accountable. I would accept the results of a polygraph exam but it is irrelevant because he is a coward unwilling to submit himself to the test.

I imagine you’re an expert on cowardice. The polygraph test, though sounds good at first glance but would be a horrible tool for determining guilt or innocence. What a cluster f##k this could end up. Give all the players involved a polygraph? Some would be inconclusive. Some would be inaccurate. Some would show that people lied and people told the truth. There’s a reason the lie detector test is not admissible.

https://liedetectors-uk.com/how-accurate-is-the-polygraph/

Kevyn

JFlorio wrote:

I imagine you’re an expert on cowardice. The polygraph test, though sounds good at first glance but would be a horrible tool for determining guilt or innocence. What a cluster f##k this could end up. Give all the players involved a polygraph? Some would be inconclusive. Some would be inaccurate. Some would show that people lied and people told the truth. There’s a reason the lie detector test is not admissible.

https://liedetectors-uk.com/how-accurate-is-the-polygraph/

If it is good enough for Jerry Springer it is certainly good enough for Moore.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Kevyn wrote:

If it is good enough for Jerry Springer it is certainly good enough for Moore.

Figures you’d be a fan of Springer.

peter11937 Loc: NYS

JFlorio wrote:

Polygraph's unfortunately are not 100% reliable.

And, if you have the juice, you can learn to beat the test every time.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

JFlorio wrote:

Figures you’d be a fan of Springer.

I suspect it's his daily dose of intellectualism and a place where he learns rhetoric.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Probably where his mom and dad met.

padremike wrote:

I suspect it's his daily dose of intellectualism and a place where he learns rhetoric.

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

JFlorio wrote:

I imagine you’re an expert on cowardice. The polygraph test, though sounds good at first glance but would be a horrible tool for determining guilt or innocence. What a cluster f##k this could end up. Give all the players involved a polygraph? Some would be inconclusive. Some would be inaccurate. Some would show that people lied and people told the truth. There’s a reason the lie detector test is not admissible.

https://liedetectors-uk.com/how-accurate-is-the-polygraph/

While all that may be true, I still think it would be interesting to see which of the players would volunteer to take a polygraph. Of course even that wouldn't be conclusive, but I might be willing to change my opinion about some of the doubtful ones based on their willingness to put their veracity to the test. And if they followed through and passed the test, I would definitely be inclined to believe them, even though it wouldn't prove that they were telling the truth.

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

It’s a no win situation. Take Moore for example. He takes the test and passes. I guarantee kevy and his ilk would then say he’s a sociopath and beat the machine.

LAPhil wrote:

While all that may be true, I still think it would be interesting to see which of the players would volunteer to take a polygraph. Of course even that wouldn't be conclusive, but I might be willing to change my opinion about some of the doubtful ones based on their willingness to put their veracity to the test. And if they followed through and passed the test, I would definitely be inclined to believe them, even though it wouldn't prove that they were telling the truth.

EmilyStrode

JFlorio wrote:

It’s a no win situation. Take Moore for example. He takes the test and passes. I guarantee kevy and his ilk would then say he’s a sociopath and beat the machine.

Voting for Moore is the main definition of moral relativism

LAPhil Loc: Los Angeles, CA

EmilyStrode wrote:

Voting for Moore is the main definition of moral relativism

You make some very interesting posts, and that was one of them. Could you elaborate on that?

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

EmilyStrode wrote:

Voting for Moore is the main definition of moral relativism

Why thank you Mrs. Webster.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

EmilyStrode wrote:

Voting for Moore is the main definition of moral relativism

In other words hang the guilty SOB right after a fair trial? It is a dangerous downward leap you're making by convicting someone based upon allegations only. Are you allowing any chance for innocence? This would not be the first time Democrats pulled this dirty trick out of their nasty bag.