It sees that you are admitting that no specific allegations have been made other than "Cain did something inappropriate".
Is that what we are to understand?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Should we trust Cain?
- Thread starter Ruiz
- Start date
It sees that you are admitting that no specific allegations have been made other than "Cain did something inappropriate".
Is that what we are to understand?
I doubt that there is a pastor on this board who has never been accused anonymously of something. I shudder to think of the many times I have been anonymously tried and convicted of something that I have not done.
The things I have done wrong and the things I haven't done that I should have are bad enough.
The things I have done wrong and the things I haven't done that I should have are bad enough.
As to the settlement agreements...
If Herman Cain was not party to the investigations or settlements as he recused himself at the time and left it up to the board of directors, does he even have the authority to lift the non disclosure agreement?
Especially considering that he is no longer the president of the association.
If Herman Cain was not party to the investigations or settlements as he recused himself at the time and left it up to the board of directors, does he even have the authority to lift the non disclosure agreement?
Especially considering that he is no longer the president of the association.
Again, anonymous accusers with no details with no evidence to prove the allegations.
I think you work for the Perry campaign. It makes sense for your obsession over Cain's presumed guilt.
Targus,
These issues are two different issues. I did not demand an investigation for McCain when the New York Times insinuated McCain had an affair in the last month. Why? The differences are apparent in both of these instances. Here is why I am calling for full disclosure and why I think he should step down.
1. Cain admits there were sexual harassment allegations. Thus the allegations are confirmed.
2. Cain admits there were settlements. Thus, the charges were serious.
3. The initial two women said they were harassed at the time, filed a complaint, and left.
Yet, even there I did not call for anything. My comments on this was that we should believe Cain. But since then the following occurred.
4. A conservative talk show host says that Cain said some very inappropriate and sexual things towards his staff.
5. A staff member of the NRA has come forward claiming he witnessed sexual harassment by Cain.
6. A third woman has come forward and claimed she has been sexually harassed. An investigation reveals she complained at the time but never filed an official complaint.
7. There have been others who confirm they witnessed sexual harassment behavior.
Thus, I would not call for a complete investigation on Obama because at this point, the evidence is much less. I didn't call for it against McCain because it was unverified allegations. In this case, the allegations have been proven to have been made, substantiated by other people, and other statements collaborate the other stories. I didn't call for anything when just two women came forward, I said I believed Cain. Now, it is much more than two women who filed charges over 12 years ago, there is a series of allegations from a variety of sources that date back to the very night he harassed a lady.
Thus, I believe it shows a character issue.
BTW, I don't think Obama is qualified to be President for other reasons. But that is another issue.
I don't like Perry.
I have been on an investigation of a sexual harassment case. Based upon this evidence, we would have acted on any employee. You never get complete evidence, but you get testimonies and actions. If this was brought before me when I was in management, we would have deemed the person guilty and fired them. One allegation is significant, but five different people?
Yes, they are anonymous, but you must admit that two of them are so to us because they filed a non-anonymous complaint and settled. They can't come out in the public. Two men are not anonymous. The final lady is anonymous. Thus, you can't trust that since you don't know them that it doesn't mean they are not known. That is a fallacy of your argument.
He does not have complete authority, but oftentimes they will not release the information because of the impact it will have on the company. This would be a legal liability for the NRA if Cain wanted to sue them. So, I assume that part of the problem with the NRA is fear of repercussions from Cain on this situation. He has threatened to sue Politico over factual statements made by them (and he said they were true) so, unless the NRA gets a release from Cain, they probably would be reluctant to release any information.
First, I have never been accused. We have had very strict rules for when I was in the ministry.
Secondly, this is not one person accusing Cain. There are over 5 people now who have come forward and said that they have witnessed or been the recipient of sexual harassment from Cain. Three complained at the time, one the night of the incident.
If five people brought a complaint of this nature about any of our Pastors, I would strongly investigate and we would ask him to step down with pay while we investigate fully the situation. If it were one person, we may or may not ask, but five different people is rather convincing.
No, there are plenty of specific allegations. There were two settlements over specific allegations. One man said he witnessed sexual harassment behavior from Cain. Another lady was given sexual innuendos and asked to join Cain in his Corporate apartment. That is very specific. If my Pastor asked a lady in our congregation to join him in his apartment, there is a problem. One lady testified that she felt that if she didn't perform that her job was at stake. That is very specific.
Yet, sexual harassment behavior does not even have to be that specific. The law makes it much more broad than these allegations actually need to be.
Hank,
The problem here is that two of the victims have come forward and faced Cain, over 12 years ago. They are anonymous to us, but they have faced Cain at the time. Like with rape victims, the media is right to protect these victim's identity. However, they addressed it at the time (not being anonymous) and received a settlement. Because they are anonymous to you, does not mean they have hidden from Cain. Two people are not anonymous to us, we know their names. One is a talk radio host. One is involved in politics. Both came forward publicly with their accusations.
There is only one truly anonymous victim. Yet, even the media found that she complained of Cain's actions at the time, but never filed a formal complaint.
Thus, the anonymous issue is a talking point, but not a good one. While the public does not know their names, they are not anonymous. Like a rape victim, we should not publicize their name. That would be a gross injustice in our system and one that I would not want to put any victim through.
Let me address two of the "talking points" being advanced.
1. These are anonymous charges. No they are not. Two women filed and are known to Cain and the people they filed to as well as the investigators. They are not anonymous, but are known and have a settlement. They are not known to the public, but they came forward and Cain knows who they are. Two men are not anonymous, they have been interviewed by the media. One lady is anonymous, but she complained at the time to people but never filed official charges. The anonymous charge is bogus.
2. They should come forward and make themselves known. No they should not. Like rape, they should have the right to not be known worldwide as a result of a jerk's indiscretions and immoral habits. I knew a rape victim whose name was published in a newspaper. This is a horrendous overstepping of the media and should not be done. Only if these ladies' accusation are proven false or they allow the release of their names would I be for this. This has been the standard policy of media since the 1980's, and it should remain as such. Those who advocate otherwise truly do not have compassion for the intimate nature of these charges the the victims' plight.
Thus, these are not anonymous charges (I suspect someone in talk radio is saying this) and these women should be afforded privacy as they are victims of a sexual crime.
1. These are anonymous charges. No they are not. Two women filed and are known to Cain and the people they filed to as well as the investigators. They are not anonymous, but are known and have a settlement. They are not known to the public, but they came forward and Cain knows who they are. Two men are not anonymous, they have been interviewed by the media. One lady is anonymous, but she complained at the time to people but never filed official charges. The anonymous charge is bogus.
2. They should come forward and make themselves known. No they should not. Like rape, they should have the right to not be known worldwide as a result of a jerk's indiscretions and immoral habits. I knew a rape victim whose name was published in a newspaper. This is a horrendous overstepping of the media and should not be done. Only if these ladies' accusation are proven false or they allow the release of their names would I be for this. This has been the standard policy of media since the 1980's, and it should remain as such. Those who advocate otherwise truly do not have compassion for the intimate nature of these charges the the victims' plight.
Thus, these are not anonymous charges (I suspect someone in talk radio is saying this) and these women should be afforded privacy as they are victims of a sexual crime.
freeatlast
New Member
Even though I am not a supporter of Mr. Cain I don't agree with your assessment. This is a character damaging event. Since the charges have been levied all the truth needs to come out and Mr. Cain has every right to ask for that. The women gave up any privacy one they came forward. Any person who has had charges levied against them has every right to have all the information brought into the open. Other wise what ends up happening is the accused can be crucified just by accusations. That is why our constitution requires the accuser to face the accused in court. Hidden accusations are not of the Lord, but they are art of communist governments which we see in many countries around the world.
What needs to be kept in mind that many times such things are settled in private paying off the accuser even if the accusations are false just to keep all the mud that goes along with the accusations. Because this has been brought to light now Mr. Cain has every right to seek to disclose every part of it he wants to defend himself. If those disclosers hang him so be it. If they exonerate him so be it. Keep in mind very seldom does the innocent want full discloser. Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton is a clear examples.
Last edited by a moderator:
The first two women have not come forward, yet. They came forward back then, and that is what is being reported. Secondly, they are not anonymous either. Their names should be with held from the public, but not from investigators.
I worked with an issue where a person in a church was accused of molesting a minor. Never did we give anyone the name of the minor and after the investigation, the man was kicked out of the church and now sits in jail. To this day, only a few people know the identity of the victim, even though they are the ones who went to the Elders. We felt she had a right to privacy and after further investigation, her story proved to be true. This situation is very much the same. While this is not a minor, the general public does not need to know that lady "X" may have been groped. This will do as much to hurt their character as it would Cain's.
If we required them to become public, there would be much fewer allegations and more offenders would walk free being able to offend others. We should only require enough to investigate fully, not enough for the entire world to know the identity.
Yet, the myth that this is anonymous charges is false. They are known, just not known to the general public. I would fight for their privacy.
However, let me note that Cain's campaign is the one who said they are trying to keep these women from testifying. I think I posted a link to that story elsewhere. So, I do not think Cain wants full disclosure. For that reason, arguing you want them public but to be kept silent is only to attack and defame these ladies.
Last edited by a moderator:
You asked a question "Should we trust Cain?"
My answer is yes and I gave my reasons.
Let me repeat the reasons...
The accusers still remain anonymous to the public who were scandalized by the damage done to the name of Herman Cain.
Therefore the public has the right to know their identity and have access to the evidence should it exist.
Every man has the right to face his accusers and defend himself especially concerning allegations which are damaging to one's reputation. They allowed it to become public they must face him publicly.
Until such time the allegations are hearsay.
They must provide evidential documentation of the charges and decision made 12 years ago. Until then I have no idea if these allegations are true. Let them come forth with proof. You may not like it but it's the law.
When and if they identify themselves and face Herman Cain with these accusations and documentation then I will observe, listen and make my decision and not rush to judgment based upon anonymous testimonies.
Personally, I am going to make the presumption of innocence until they come forth and face him publicly (since they allowed it to be published publicly - howbeit anonymously) with their accusations, then I will decide.
Until such time I still trust him, I will still vote for him.
I may or may not still trust him even after hearing their testimony, that's what its all about, sorting the truth from the lies. That's the reason for the The Bill of Rights and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
HankD
I echo those words.
The public does not have the right to know the identity of victims who were sexually harassed. This is an ethics question and ethically, I think the media and public have been near unanimous that the rights of the victim takes precedence over the "need" for the public to know their names. You are wanting to change the entire ethics and the way we handle victims in America. They have faced Cain publicly, over 12 years ago. Doing it now is rehashing what they handled back then.
Secondly, they are not anonymous. They are known, but not by the public. BTW, two of them can't be known because of agreements signed by them and the NRA. Cain said he is opposed to us getting more information on them. So, he seems to be hiding things.
Finally, two of them we do know their names and they have made their statements public. So, what do you do about those two? People are discounting these testimonies and ignoring them as though they have not been made. Yet, they are public testimonies and we have the names of the people and the allegations. Why are you ignoring their testimony?
You see, I think this "anonymous" is just smoke and mirrors. We have two testimonies where they are not anonymous. You are just ignoring them. You see, if they came out into the public, you would find another reason not to believe them. So, that is just smoke and mirrors. Did you believe Anita Hill against Thomas? You see, these are just smoke and mirrors in my opinion. We have two public testimonies and yet you are still saying "I won't believe until they are not anonymous." Yet, you never address the two people we do know. Oh, you will probably attack those two who have went public, but that is to be expected.
Last edited by a moderator:
You are wrong on all counts.
Herman Cain has been publically charged by those who choose to remain publically anonymous.
The Bill of Rights now takes precedence over their anonimity, they must come forward now so that he can defend himself.
The law of the land along with the right of presumption of innocence makes the anonymous public charges without publicly revealed documentation hearsay.
Name the two people "we do know" and present their evidence.
Until such time these folks identify themselves and present their evidence to his face my response to your inquiry "should we trust Cain" remains - Yes.
Also you yourself have now publically made an oblique allegation against me by casting aspersions upon my character and judgment:
HankD
Last edited:
freeatlast
New Member
All wrong! This has went public and the only way to defend himself is to make it public if Mr. Cain sees the need for that. By the way His campaign manager has called for the women to come forward.