Former youth pastor arrested after allegedly sexually abusing at least 6 teens
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • last year • 81 commentsBy: Elizabeth Chuck and Mike Hixenbaugh
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Thomas Pinkerton Jr. used to tell children in his youth group in Maryland that it was normal for a pastor to kiss boys on the lips, because that's how Jesus greeted his disciples, according to an arrest warrant made public last week.
Kissing was just the beginning, several men from Pinkerton's former youth group told police.
Pinkerton, 52, a youth minister known as Pastor Tommy, is being held without bond following accusations that he sexually abused six teens from 2006 to 2010 while working at Central Christian Church, an Assemblies of God church in Baltimore County. He was extradited from his home state of Georgia to Maryland last Wednesday to face 24 felony and misdemeanor counts in Baltimore County. His attorney, Justin Hollimon, said he pleaded not guilty.
An arrest warrant said the alleged abuse included inappropriate touching and kissing of six teenagers in Maryland, who ranged in age from 13 to 19. The warrant said the alleged abuse happened at the church and at Pinkerton's former home in Maryland. A seventh man reported abuse by Pinkerton in Georgia, according to the warrant, and that report was referred to authorities there, officials in Baltimore County said.
Detectives believe there may be more victims and have asked anyone with information to come forward.
Pinkerton, who has worked as a traveling evangelist in recent years, was "completely shocked" by the charges, his attorney said Monday.
"He is a pastor. He gave his life to the community, worked for the community," Hollimon said, adding that he filed a motion Monday morning seeking another bond hearing for Pinkerton after a judge denied his release last week. "He's anxiously waiting his day in court."
Pinkerton's arrest comes as the Assemblies of God, the world's largest Pentecostal denomination, with nearly 3 million members across 13,000 churches in the United States, is grappling with a string of child sex abuse allegations.
As part of an ongoing investigation into the denomination's handling of abuse claims, NBC News published an investigation last week based on interviews, emails, court filings and police reports that examined how an Assemblies of God college ministry guided hundreds of students to the home of Daniel Savala, a convicted sex offender lauded by some as "the holiest man alive." Days later, Assemblies of God leaders addressed the issue of sex abuse in the denomination during a biennial gathering in Orlando, defending their handling of the Savala case while also pledging to make changes to prevent similar abuses in the future.
According to Pinkerton's arrest warrant, detectives started investigating him after the seven men came forward last fall. The men alleged that when they were in their teens, Pinkerton would give them massages and rub their penises; several said Pinkerton would greet them with what he referred to as a "heavenly kiss" or "brotherly kiss" on the lips, likening this to Jesus. The men said Pinkerton called them his "favorites" and referred to himself as a "spiritual father" to them.
Assemblies of God officials distanced themselves from Pinkerton on Monday, telling NBC News that, although Pinkerton worked at an Assemblies of God church, he was never formally credentialed as a minister with the denomination.
"We are so saddened to hear of this report, and are deeply concerned whenever reports like this come out," said Benjamin Rainey Jr., secretary-treasurer of the Assemblies of God regional office that oversees the three-state region that includes Maryland.
Pinkerton's former church in Maryland did not return a phone call Monday. In a statement posted last week on its website, Central Christian said Pinkerton served on its staff more than 15 years ago and hasn't been affiliated with the church since he left to start his own ministry. It also said that since the alleged abuse was reported to law enforcement, additional individuals "have come forward with similar accounts," including some in other states.
"There is absolutely no place for abuse — ever — in the church," Central Christian's lead pastor, Larry Kirk, said in the statement.
In the years since the alleged abuse occurred, Pinkerton has preached in at least six different states, NBC News found, and according to his ministry website, he has evangelized in South America, Europe and Asia.
Pinkerton's attorney said Monday that his client was not facing charges in any state other than Maryland.
One church where he preached, the New Chapel in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which is not an Assemblies of God church, posted on its website over the weekend that it had cut ties with Pinkerton before he was arrested.
"We were heartbroken to hear of these serious allegations that occurred in Baltimore, Maryland nearly 20 years ago, and communicated the situation to our church family after severing all ties with the accused several months back. Our prayers and continued cooperation are toward justice for the victims," New Chapel's statement said.
Authorities in Maryland and Georgia said Baltimore County police obtained an arrest warrant in late June for Pinkerton. The Forsyth County Sheriff's Office in Georgia said it then arrested him at a traffic stop in July before he was extradited to Maryland last week.
Pinkerton has a preliminary court hearing scheduled for Sept. 5.
Tags
Who is online
122 visitors
How many teen boys did he abuse along his journey?
Have to wonder if there are pictures of Pinkerton hanging out with Trump out there somewhere, they both liked em young...
check with barron ...
I'm still waiting for red states to start passing laws against youth pastors. Where's those Million Moms now?
they're out there fighting for this kind of "religious freedom" ...
Where's the beatitudes now? If the church had barred this buy then the church would have been vehemently denounced. Christians are expected to welcome those with an alternative lifestyle and identity. And, yet, the church is somehow expected to prevent those with alternate lifestyles and identities from harming others.
The story really isn't about Pinkerton who seized an opportunity to prey on vulnerable people.. The story is really about a Godless, depraved, degenerate secular society that does nothing to control predators like Pinkerton. We live in a society of moral relativism where there are abundant opportunities for predators.
Don't throw the beatitudes in the face of Christians when our secular society has no moral foundation at all. Attempting to tear down all morality in the name of enlightened progressivism only creates more opportunities for predators. Pinkerton could just as easily have been a foster care provider, a youth counselor, a juvenile parole officer, or a college professor. But that wouldn't have been newsworthy.
WTF are you talking about, Nerm? This committed crimes. This has nothing to do with religion or lack of. Is the guy amoral? Yes, of course, he is. But who knows why he is the way he is. And if you suggesting he is gay because he likes young boys, then you better twist yourself back around. Pedophilia is all about control. It has nothing to do with sexuality
Lifestyle????
And where does morality fit? Morality is about self control. Morality is about instilling a sense of right and wrong into an individuals choices. Laws are about others controlling you. Laws are necessary to control the behavior of those who do not have a sense of right and wrong.
Instant gratification. Hedonistic pursuit of a good time. Elevating self above all other considerations. Lacking a sense of right and wrong.
Child sexual abuse is a psychological compulsion , which is why presumably "moral" people such as priests, ministers, teachers, scout leaders, coaches and choir leaders end up being implicated.
thank-you, John
I get so sick and tired of the proselytizing around here
Don't predators gravitate toward easier prey? A wolf in sheep's clothing would naturally seek out sheep.
An abuser wouldn't attempt to fit in where their compulsion could not be satisfied. An abuser would seek out those who are more trusting, more compassionate, more open, more accepting. Those who actually follow the teachings of Christ would be more vulnerable to predation in a depraved, degenerate, hedonist secular society.
Did he molest any girls?
does it matter?
If we're talking about whether or not he's gay, pretty much.
It doesn't matter if he's gay. He's a pedophile. A pedo that's attracted to boys. That doesn't make him gay.
I thought we had this lesson
Then why do you insist he's not?
So, by definition, he's a homosexual.
OK. If you say so. But let's be clear, for all either of us know he's also sleeping with 21 year olds.
no problem, he's a thumper and knows his soul gets rinsed clean every sunday. like it never happened ...
OMG Jack! If he's sleeping with 21 year old men then he's not breaking the law and who gives a shit.
Sexually abusing teenage boys is definitely against the law and makes him a pedophile. It doesn't matter if he's gay. I don't if he's gay and you certainly don't know
You keep saying this, but then you keep arguing that he's not.
The VAST majority of child molesters are straight, white males.
Now do rates per capita….
that's because most maga thumpers know that adultery committed with a female is a sin ...
I'm not arguing one or the other. That's the way you're interpreting it.
This conversation is over
This one doesn't appear to be.
Oh, that must be why the Catholic Church has paid billions of dollars in settlements for sexual abuse by priests. Because of secular society. Got it.
Or this: Abuse and cover-ups are rampant in evangelical churches
I dont get into much discussion about child sex abuse anymore because years ago on Newsvine I looked into it pretty extensively, and had a seed about it on NV that ended up with over 2500 comments.
Its not a subject most people have a good grip on.
The bottom line is that child sexual abuse occurs anywhere where the adults (usually men) who have a predilection to sexual attraction to children (I have seen this number expressed as about 10% of males) have unsupervised access to children. It happens in churches, schools, clubs, scouting, sports teams , etc, and most especially within families. Sexual abuse in families is by far the largest number and percentage.
It has nothing to do with religion.
As far as covering up, many groups besides the Catholic Church have covered this stuff up, including other religious organizations. public schools, clubs, scouting, and sports teams.
As well as holier-than-thou evangelical churches. See article linked above.
My comment did not contend that abuse is because of religion. It was, however, a rebuttal to the ridiculous comment that it is the fault of "secular society".
It is a most ridiculous argument
Why Christians? Why not Jews and Muslims, too? Why do these predators seem to prey more on Christians than others?
Could it have something to do with the relative importance of laws and morality? Could it have something to do with vulnerability for predation arising from religious teachings and beliefs?
In northern england, where Muslim rape gangs molested tens of thousands of predominately white underage girls, there were reports that the few times they assaulted sikh girls, the sikh community rallied and attacked the rapists on their own. That stopped the attacks. But the white parents were more conditioned to simply turn it over to the police( who covered it up) and had no community response. It's not necessarily religion, but community ties that matter. Predators prefer the isolated victim, not those protected by the herd.
The Muslim gangs weren't attempting to portray themselves as trusted members of a religious community so they could prey on that religious community. And rape gangs are something different than pedophiles assuming an identity of trust.
The rape gangs were taking advantage of permissive laws of a secular society that reacts slowly to instances of degenerate and depraved behavior. Under secular law, rape is a matter of consent and not morality.
Could it have something to do with the fact that there are far more Christians than Jews and Muslims in the U.S.?
What do numbers have to do with it? A predator attempting to portray themselves as a trusted member of a religious community isn't a fluke of statistical probability.
What is that you are arguing?
Pissed off because the guy's a Christian and got caught with his pants down?
We live in a secular society. We do not live in a Christian society. Why is it necessary to blame Christians for the shortcomings of that secular society? The implied accusations are that Christians do not live up to their moral teachings. Is that supposed to let non-Christians off the moral hook?
So, who is responsible for teaching morality in secular society? It's certainly not Christians. Secular society does not allow Christians to teach morality on the public square. Is there an alternative? And what is that alternative? Are people supposed to learn morality by osmosis?
How is a non-Christian supposed to be on the hook when a Christian molests a child, or when a church shelters a child molester?
Religion, Christian or otherwise, is not the only source of morality. Moreover, I am thankful that most Christians do not do as you are doing, blaming the nonreligious for the actions of some of the religious. If that is the morality you'd have us believe Christians do or should follow, thank God I'm an atheist.
No one is stopping Christians from trying to teach their morality in the public square, I've seen more protest signs with scriptures quoted on them than I can count. In fact you could go walk down the street every single of the year with a sign saying "Stop Pedophiles! The bible hates child rapist!" and I would have a very hard time imagining anyone is going to stop you or even complain.
Well, first and foremost morality should be taught at home, and if you're religious you can go to church and learn whatever brand of morality that religion is disseminating. But since you admit this is a secular society, perhaps learning what laws our society has passed, like the ones against raping kids, to inform our citizens what sort of morality we expect.
We certainly don't need one brand of religion stepping up demanding everyone's attention and then demanding secular society accept its brand of morality as law because their God said so. Especially since its beyond clear that such institutions are simply an amalgamation of flawed humans with no better grasp on objective morality than anyone else.
Now, to be fair, I don't see religious organizations or Christian churches as being any more prone to containing child predators than any other non-religious organization and the studies done seem to support that.
I don't think that child predators are more prevalent among Christian organizations, but I do believe that those Christian organizations are more likely to protect the abusers or to try and prevent the news of the abusers getting out more than secular organizations with perhaps the only exception being Colleges and Universities with a reputation they are desperate to protect.
But to answer your broader question " who is responsible for teaching morality in secular society?" the answer would have to be that secular society in question. We have a constitution and a justice system and a legislative body that write laws and then we vote on them and decide penalties for breaking those laws. We definitely don't need to rely on some ancient bronze age shepherds musings as to what some ancient unproved God thinks is or isn't moral.
It's a direct response to your question.
try using bible prose ...
Or-- could it have something to do with the percentage of the population of each religion?
I just looked up percentage of the population in these three religions:
-Christians 62% of U.S. population
-Jews 2.4%
-Muslims 1.1 %
Guess which group produces the most child molesters? Which group has the most victimes?
(I know the answers-- do you?)
Oh, ok: It is a direct response to thine question.
Nerm's pissed because we all don't live up to his high "moral" standards. Non-Christians are not on the hook when a Christian does something bad. And if he thinks we are maybe he needs to re-read his "good" book
For me it's the blatant hypocrisy of some Christian organizations pushing into politics and forcing biased laws about LGBTQA+ people under the auspices of 'protecting children' who often remain silent when one of their own gets caught. It's disgustingly dishonest.
That removes morality from the social contract. A society needs a source of morality as an anchor for the social contract. Morality has to be consistent and relevant within all aspects of a society. Morality locked away at home cannot serve as a civilizing influence for society.
Pick a damned moral code and stick with it. If you don't want Christian morality then toss it out and settle on an alternative. Don't hate God and love godliness; that's not a viable alternative because godliness cannot be separated from God. Don't sing praises for the beatitudes while denying their divine source. Don't try to be a Christian without Christ. It won't work.
We live in a secular society. We do not live in a Christian society. We do not live in a theocracy. A Pollyanna approach to secular ethics and morality will not establish a social contract that holds civilized society together.
Since we live in a secular society then what is the secular code of ethics and morality that establishes the social contract? What secular institution is responsible for teaching secular morality and making secular moral judgements? Who in secular society determines the morality of law and the ethics of justice?
People demand that secular society give primacy to rational thought and science. So, what does science tell us about secular morality? What is secular morality by the numbers? What is the objective measure of revenge justice that legitimizes its practice in secular society? What does science tell us about how circumventing laws provide cooperative benefit to the social group and strengthens the social contract. What is the rational, logical, objective justification and limitations for separating a human from being a person?
Arguing that morality is strictly subjective and determined by the individual or, perhaps, a democratic majority would make the social contract non-binding. No civilization has arisen from moral anarchy. History provides many examples that a social contract cannot last without a common understanding and agreement on what is right and wrong. No civilization can become civilized without institutions that teach morality and make moral judgements on aspects of cooperative social behavior.
It is a response but not an answer to the question.
Then why isn't this a Christian society? What do the numbers have to do with anything? Since we live in a secular society then sexual predation is a secular crime that violates the secular social contract. Sexual predation should be a violation of secular morality.
All the religions must conform to the strictures of secular society. Christians cannot mete out Old Testament judgement on sexual predators -- that's not allowed in secular society. And Christians are not allow to enter the schools and teach a moral code that would apply to society as a whole. That's the role of secular institutions in a secular society.
Sexual predation is a violation of the social contract that holds civilized society together. That means sexual predation is a secular problem within secular society. Religion has no bearing on that violation of the social contract. The numbers are a distraction; they're not important.
in the eyes of public perception, I don't see thumpers removing the yoke of trump support from their necks anytime soon. if the shit ever hits the fan over trump's lawless activities, they are the proverbial low hanging fruit ...
Nobody here is saying it isn't.
You're building strawmen. I hope nobody around you has a lit match
Then why does the seeded article specifically point out that the Assemblies of God is grappling with a string of child sex abuse allegations?
This isn't a Christian problem; it's a secular problem. What is secular society going to do about it? Run a Google search on "sexual abuse in secular society" and the results are dominated by child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and other religious institutions. Secular society suddenly becomes highly religious.
Change the question to "sexual abuse in education" or "sexual abuse in healthcare" or "sexual abuse in foster care" or "sexual abuse in the workplace" or "sexual abuse in the home" and the moral landscape changes dramatically.
It's not a strawman to point out religions are treated very differently than other institutions in secular society. The moral expectations are different. But we do not live in a religious society; we live in a secular society. The social contract is secular. Sexual abuse in a secular society is a secular problem.
Oh, well. Shouldn't I at least get a participation award?
I believe there are laws against child abuse in all 50 states. Don't tell me that secular society is doing nothing about it. You're mad because it was once again THE CHURCH that was found to be covering up the abuse and it's being discussed out in the open
BTW we're done
Nonsense. That statement doesn't even warrant a response as it means nothing.
Our societies 'anchor' is the constitution that specifically states than there shall be no government established religion. We are a nation of laws and shared ideals with freedom of religion which means you can worship whichever God you want, but part of this contract is that you keep your God out of our government.
Oh, right, consistent like religion...
What great role models for society.
Sure, sure, see above...
We did, it's called the constitution. It's our code of Hammurabi. We do not want or need the bible to be the basis of morality in the Unites States, especially since we are a nation built on the idea of religious freedom.
This is not an all or nothing thing, its a mixing pot of religions and ideas, where Christians can share the space with Muslims, Jews, Hindus, atheists and anyone else on the ideological spectrum but where no Christians are trying to force atheists to believe in a soul being created at conception and no Jew is trying to force Christians to not eat pork and no Muslim is trying to ban all alcohol sales. They all can practice their faith and morals in their own lives but they respect the faith and morals of others. That is what our founders were attempting to create and the 'more perfect union' I believe they wanted us to work towards.
So why aren't you telling everyone that the source of these morals is the great flying spaghetti monster? There is as much evidence for its existence than the God you claim to worship or are you able to produce some sort of empirical evidence that no religion has ever been able to produce before and prove your God exists? If you can't prove the source exists, then how is it possible to be "denying" it?
These are things that have been debated and discussed and laws suggested and voted on and passed which create our framework of laws. Now some may say it is immoral to step on a bug, others say its moral to slaughter animals by the thousands to feed people.
We have laws as to what can and can't be killed legally, but we don't have a law about the morality of killing. A Hindu person might think it beyond immoral and wrong to kill a cow, they are sacred to some. But since we are not a Hindu nation, the laws protect the rights of the Hindu to not kill cows and the rancher who wants to sell beef at the market. That is our social contract.
More nonsense. Nothing about it being supposedly backed by God makes it any more binding than laws backed by police and courts. There is no consistency or more binding laws with any religion, especially Christianity, as they have always changed their laws and rules to meet the needs of those in power since time immemorial. Corruption has run rampant in every faith in every corner of the world, just like it has in every system of government. It is truly the height of hubris and stupidity to claim Christianity is somehow different.
thumpers have had 2000+ years to perfect their divine paradise, and yet, still can't remove the turds floating in their own punch bowls ...
murderers = forgiven
rapists = forgiven
pedophiles = forgiven
criminals = forgiven
non-believers, non-xtian, and non-maga republicans = unforgivable satanic scum
It's all about their posture. Those murderers, rapists, pedophiles and criminals always get on their knees begging their Christian superiors for forgiveness after they commit their crimes. 'Non-believers, non-xtian, and non-maga republicans' don't believe they have anything to beg forgiveness for and they certainly won't bow to some haughty religious bigots, thus we're deemed 'unforgiveable satanic scum'. So even when the pedophiles and rapists are repeat offenders, as long as they keep bowing before their Christian masters they are forgiven. So, in a way, according to some Christians, it is worse to be a man who never rapes, murders or abuses children but doesn't pray to their God than to be a murderer, rapist or pedophile who begs their God for forgiveness. What a wonderful religion. /s
it's not like I haven't done my part forcing thumpers back onto church property in this life. from not removing JW clients from my holiday card list when asked, to calling the cops on door to door thumpers that were trespassing in my posted "no soliciting" condo complex and watching a few of them get ticketed and/or arrested for arguing green river ordinance laws with the cops. rolling missionaries bikes into the duck pond. speaking directly to the unfortunate children that were forced to accompany their thumper parents as props, while they proselytized door to door, and letting them know their life is their own when they turn 18. risking arrest for what I did to the thumper dwarf that tried to get 3 underage girls that wanted to share "the good news" into my condo while he was 1 flight up the stairwell hiding. I saw him when I stepped into the hallway to get the phone number for the cops off the HOA call list posted on the wall. offering the 3 unhappy thumper males that came to my door afterwards a free introduction to their savior in the next 60 seconds if they tried anything. kicking the ass of a street preacher that stepped in front of my car at an intersection yelling at me without provocation 15 years ago. assaulting a defrocked priest that was panhandling customers in a place of business I managed and wouldn't leave when asked repeatedly. thankfully I'll never have to spend eternity with irredeemable thumper scum. who would want to?
Morals can't be legislated.
Laws are literally morals given legal standing.
that type of legislation is ignored by maga anyway ...
Blaming one group for the actions of members of another group does not constitute "high" moral standards.
Commentary that attempts to characterize members of a group as immoral or amoral because they do not follow a particular religion reeks of religious bigotry.
So, they choose to hide their crimes and protect them from the punishment that secular society would mete out? Sure, Nerm, that makes sense.
They can teach a moral code. They can't teach a religion. They can't teach that a conquering army should rape the virgins of the population they conquer (cuz god says so). They can't teach that slavery is hunky dory, and beating one's slaves is fine so long as they don't die straight away (cuz god says so). They can't teach that all the little girls in class are subject to be sold into sex slavery by their daddies (cuz god says so). They can't tell women who are raped that it's best if they marry their rapist and be raped repeatedly for life (cuz god says so).
Frankly, in light of some of the stuff that's in the Bible, I have doubts that sexual predation is incompatible with Christianity.
Maybe we've found the problem.
I imagine there's some jingle in the collection plate for influence with the big guy, too.
Wait, JWs object to having religious stuff showing up unasked-for at their house?
Damn, if that ain't ironic.
selling absolution built the catholic church ...
Morality: noun - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Laws aren't always deciding between "right" and "wrong". In fact, the law makes no distinction of "right" and "wrong", it only concerns itself with "legal" and "illegal".
This difference isn't just semantics.
I believe a person cheating on their spouse is immoral, but it's not illegal. You can have lots of moral positions that have nothing to do with whether something is legal or not.
Most laws we have in our country have ZERO to do with morality. Most of our laws revolve around safety for our citizens as well as protecting the rights of our citizens. OSHA laws, food safety laws, motor vehicle laws, tax laws, etc. You could claim the laws against theft could be "moral" laws, but when you examine them it's not really about the morality of stealing something, it's about someone's loss of financial goods.
Laws against murder and assault aren't about morality either, they're about safety and protecting our citizens from bodily harm.
That's literally the point of most law. Distinguish between right and wrong, fair and unfair etc..
aws against murder and assault aren't about morality either,
Of course they are. .
truly, and I appreciate your sense of humor. he stopped calling to lecture me after the third year ...
today's thumpers are all about getting back to xtian fundamentalism, incest and pedophilia ...
Yeah because nothing screams family values like incest and pedophilia
I completely disagree. Most laws exist to protect one party from the actions of another. If you speed on the highway, you're breaking a law meant to protect other drivers and yourself, but is it immoral to speed?
There is a law against murder, but what if you feel it's moral to kill the person who raped and murdered your daughter? Is killing that person moral or immoral? There is still a law protecting that person who in many people's minds, especially the parent of their victim, might think it very moral to exterminate such a criminal.
The law concerns itself with legal and illegal. Now, of course the voters who supported the law or supported the legislator who wrote the law and voted on it would have been doing what they believe is "right" but even then, it may not be considered "moral". Would a city councilman or mayor think that adding a stop sign at an intersection or putting a 15-mph zone in front of a school be a "moral" issue?
And yes, we all want our laws to be "fair" but again, does "fair" mean "moral"?
Moral : adjective - concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Fair : adjective - impartial and just, without favoritism or discrimination.
Clearly, those two words are not synonyms for each other. Something considered moral can be fair, but something fair could also be seen as immoral, "Hey Fred, it's only fair that I sleep with your wife since you slept with mine...".
Our laws are for everyone, even the assholes and those with shitty human characters and even immoral brain-dead bigots like the President. Our nation is a nation of laws, but interestingly the constitution doesn't specify any required morals. Our constitution concerns itself with justice, fairness, transparency, accountability and ethics which at best one could argue uses "moral reasoning".
While the U.S. Constitution is an amoral document focused on justice, fairness, transparency and accountability; its interpretation and application could be seen as involving moral considerations, but that's as far as it goes.
he also informed me that they don't give customer referrals, although they didn't seem to have a problem referring people to their savior for some unknown reason ...
those dots are too close together for thumpers to connect them ...
Correct. It is based on concepts of right and wrong; fair and unfair. That's why it's considered a justice system.
Yes, it is immoral to speed, defining speeding as going significantly faster than everyone else on the road. This is because no one has the moral right to put others lives at risk. Highways and roadways are generally safe because people recognize this principle and act accordingly.
Assuming you mean vigilante justice, yes. That's immoral. Imagine a father that kills the man who he believes raped and murdered his daughter. Only he killed the wrong guy. The guy he killed didn't do it. He was just convinced he did.
Or suppose it's known beyond doubt that the man raped and killed the daughter. He is tried and convicted to a life sentence, but the father wants to kill the murderer. For society to operate effectively, it must live by the fair and just laws it creates. If everyone decides they don't have to live by the law, society breaks down and everyone suffers.
Yes. Fair and moral are the same thing. Justice, which is what fairness is, is a moral concept.
Fair synonyms: just, equitable, fair-minded, open-minded, honest, upright, honorable, trustworthy, impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory
While morality and fair may not (arguably) be synonyms, it is due to "fair" being one element of a subset of what morality consists of. That is, they cannot be separated.
No, not "at best". Those traits are what morality consists of.
You're trying, for whatever reason, to claim that the Constitution isn't a morally based document. Why? The basis for the Constitution's power is morality. That is, it is from beginning to end, a moral argument as to how a moral government should be operated. The checks and balances it enshrines is for the purposes from any one person or branch of government from gaining too much power. It strives to create laws and statutes that are moral. You recognize that it focuses on justice, fairness, transparency and accountability yet, inexplicably claim these aren't moral positions but are "amoral". Not sure how you get there.
there are no xtian religious leaders in this country holding the high ground on morality.
Thanks for your opinion, but what would that, even if it were true, have to do with what I said???
what does religious hearsay have to do with anything?
Sticking with your schtick, I see. Well, I gave you a chance, wanted or not.
maybe you should pray for me then ...
We do dev...
good luck with that ...
If they aren't molesting children, they are abusing them.