Conviction is not subject to the whim of moral indignation.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
But association is.
I agree with almost everything you said in this post, Rourke. (I fear liberals as much as I fear conservatives, but that's another debate for another day.)
However, while moral indignation should not decide criminal conviction, it can -- and arguably should -- shape our associations. If we believe person X is a scumbag, should we associate with that person? Perhaps not. Should we give less credence to said scumbag's moral judgments or personal opinions? Perhaps.
Do I think Chmura a scumbag because of his spending time in a hottub with underage girls. No. Do I think his doing so exhibited very bad judgment? Certainly. If I had a teenage girl, would I invite that Mark Chmura to a party for said girl? No.
Do I think he was guilty of the legal charges against him? I defer to the jury. I didn't have the facts. What pieces of the story I had came through journalistic reports and rumor and press releases. On the legal question, I consider all of those worse than a courtroom constrained by the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. The law is an ass, but deciding legal culpability via the court of public opinion and today's non-journalism is far worse.
Do I care what Mark Chmura says about anything? No. But not because of what he did or did not do on the night people always talk about. Combined with his acquittal, I'm tempted to consider it a case of bad judgment by someone under 30.
As someone who has been guilty of exceedingly bad judgment more than once, I'm hardly in a position to judge others in that respect. (Though my own bad judgments with teenage girls happened when I was a teenager, I've had no shortage of other kinds of bad judgments, including ones with possible moral impliations, as an adult.)
Because Chmura to me seems to fit the stereotrype of an ex-jock politician pretty well. Because he strikes me as a hack. I don't really consider him particularly immoral (except insofar as I consider all politicians immoral), but I also see no reason to pay attention to what he says.
Seriously, why should anyone care what Mark Chmura says about anything other than, perhaps, how to play TE? What has he done that gives him credibility to anyone who thinks?
IMO Chmura has the importance of Paris Hilton. Or Susan Sarandon.
Which is to say, not much.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)