Is there a new American Standard?
- Thread starter memyselfi
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well......the law deems innocent until proven guilty.....unfortunately......the accuser gets all the hype when it come to open political cases and or cases involving famous people.....even in society a rumor carries more weight than the truth and exactly why God said to not even receive an accusation unless there are 2 to 3 credible witnessess and or absolute proof
-
6
-
1
- Show all
... or the person confessed to having commited the crime.
While "innocent until proven guilty" is the popular phrase, it doesn't mean much these days. You cannot both believe an accuser and consider the accused "innocent". The applicable phrase when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct, abuse, or harrassment (especially of a woman by a man, or of a child by a man) is simply "guilty!" There is no such thing as innocent in such matters, because once a complaint is publicized, the question mark hangs over the person forever, even if deemed "not guilty" in a court of law.
There is a flaw in a legal system which supposedly presumes innocence, but rules an accused as "not guilty" rather than "innocent". They aren't the same thing. Many police officers are trained to presume guilt and treat an accused or suspected person as certainly guilty until proven otherwise (which still never means "innocent").
Thankfully, we have a Judge who knows the truth in all matters, and who judges with true justice.
While "innocent until proven guilty" is the popular phrase, it doesn't mean much these days. You cannot both believe an accuser and consider the accused "innocent". The applicable phrase when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct, abuse, or harrassment (especially of a woman by a man, or of a child by a man) is simply "guilty!" There is no such thing as innocent in such matters, because once a complaint is publicized, the question mark hangs over the person forever, even if deemed "not guilty" in a court of law.
There is a flaw in a legal system which supposedly presumes innocence, but rules an accused as "not guilty" rather than "innocent". They aren't the same thing. Many police officers are trained to presume guilt and treat an accused or suspected person as certainly guilty until proven otherwise (which still never means "innocent").
Thankfully, we have a Judge who knows the truth in all matters, and who judges with true justice.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
I have to be honest I am sickened, especially as a woman, that if a woman just throws out an accusation about a man, he is now damaged "goods". A person should always be presumed innocent until proven guilty; especially if the ponderance of the evidence cannot back the allegation. I do not in anyway they both parities can be right, and yes, I am directly speaking about Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanagh, I believe she is a flat out liar! I feel bad and pray for men in America today, the tide has turned, but it has not become a fair fight between the sexes.
-
1
- Show all
AMEN and a fair, honest, non-bias person would give the benefit of the doubt until proven guilty....I have dealt with many people in my life, been both sides of the proverbial tracks and street.....My radar pegged she was not being honest.....and she seemed very disingenuous and coached......he on the other hand seemed really peeved.....which is what I would be if I was accused of something I had never done......
-
1
- Show all
I have been accused, falsely, accused of things (never horrible crimes) and I don't know if I was more girl or just human.... I was angry, making threats, calling names, then hurt, crying, filled with faith G-d would vindicate me, then back thru all the phases again within less than 5 min.
-
1
- Show all
In most countries you are guilty until proven innocent. Now the rabid Leftists (generously funded by Soros and his ilk) wish to make America another Socialist/Communist country where the presumption of guilt takes precedence over everything else (unless another Left-Liberal is the guilty party, when a double standard comes into play). Keith Ellison gets a free pass no matter what he does. Hillary And Obama get a a free pass no matter what they do.
-
2
- Show all
I like the way US supreme Court Justice Kavanagh denied being at the party the alleged assault was said to have occurred.
The reason I like it is due to the fact that in order to deny being at the party on a specific date when the incident occurred represents that either;
1. he was told the date the alleged incident was said to have occurred; or
2. he knew what date the alleged incident occurred.
In an interview with FoxNews on September 24, 2018, the SCOTUS Justice despite being told that the individual who was making the accusation didn't know the date or place the alleged incident occurred yet somehow he able to recall the date and place.
From the transcipt of the interview:
MACCALLUM: .... Now, she doesn’t remember the date and she doesn’t remember the place. But what she does remember that I just detailed, is very specific.
...........
MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
B. KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present. I was never at any such party.
Source: RealCLear Politics.com Fox News.
However, didn't you have to be 21 years old to legally drink alcoholic beverage back in 1982?
The reason I like it is due to the fact that in order to deny being at the party on a specific date when the incident occurred represents that either;
1. he was told the date the alleged incident was said to have occurred; or
2. he knew what date the alleged incident occurred.
In an interview with FoxNews on September 24, 2018, the SCOTUS Justice despite being told that the individual who was making the accusation didn't know the date or place the alleged incident occurred yet somehow he able to recall the date and place.
From the transcipt of the interview:
MACCALLUM: .... Now, she doesn’t remember the date and she doesn’t remember the place. But what she does remember that I just detailed, is very specific.
...........
MACCALLUM: You don’t remember ever being at parties with her ever?
B. KAVANAUGH: I do not. And this is an allegation about a party in the summer of 1982 at a house near Connecticut Avenue and East West highway with five people present. I was never at any such party.
Source: RealCLear Politics.com Fox News.
However, didn't you have to be 21 years old to legally drink alcoholic beverage back in 1982?
-
1
- Show all
