Should A Congressional Aide View ‘Forensic Faith’ As An Oxymoron?

People on Capitol Hill often speak of the importance of doing a “forensic audit” of a government program, a corporate expenditure or a political campaign, typically in conjunction with a court case or a congressional investigation.

The purpose of a forensic audit is to uncover facts that would otherwise likely go undiscovered, which could in turn render the case or investigation inadequate or outright wrong. Can there be such a thing as a “forensic faith?”

I mean, it’s one thing to determine if X dollars were surreptitiously transferred from one account into another, thus proving that Y defendant defrauded the government because he or she caused the account transfer.

But that’s tangible and measurable, whereas faith is about intangibles, stuff that is immeasurable, right? Isn’t it impossible to concretely measure an intangible like faith? Having a forensic faith sounds like an oxymoron.

OneMinuteApologist Bobby Conway asks NBC Dateline’s cold-case detective J. Warner Wallace to explain a “forensic faith.” Here’s how Wallace responded:

Photo above by João Silas on Unsplash

Author: Mark Tapscott

Follower of Christ, devoted husband of Claudia, doting father and grandfather, conservative lover of liberty, journalist and First Amendment fanatic, former Hill and Reagan aide, vintage Formula Ford racer, Okie by birth/Texan by blood/proud of both, resident of Maryland. Go here:

One thought on “Should A Congressional Aide View ‘Forensic Faith’ As An Oxymoron?”

Comments are closed.