How 'bout them Duggars?

[Hetta]

Here is something else that bothers me about this story.

Let's suppose some other kid is falsely accused of molesting his own sisters or something equally gross, but he didn't do it. The names of the minor alleged molestees are protected by the state.

But the accused is not charged with a crime and not convicted due to lack of evidence, since he is innocent.

Later, he becomes famous, runs for office, or whatever. The press start snooping around. They find a police report with his name, his parent's name, and other personal information on it in the public record.

Why does the state make public the names of minors accused of such a stigmatized crime when they aren't found guilty of anything? One didn't have to do such a thing or even be convicted for the press to get the record and drag his name through the dirt.

But he did it. Period. You should start a separate thread about this, because it has no bearing on what Josh Duggar actually did. To minimize that offense by saying "someone else might not do it ..." is pretty offensive actually.

 

[Hetta]

"
So, by the LORD taking matters into his own hands and defeating our abuser, - satan - He was "dis-empowering the victims," i.e. US?

He called it redeeming and protecting and so do I.

If anyone (even a family member) was threatening my wife or any of my kids when they were small I would not hesitate to "take matters into my own hands" and use deadly force to stop them.
And that is NOT murder; at least not in the biblical sense.

A threat is not the same as an act. I'm thrown that you would murder someone (and, yes, it's murder) for threatening you.

 

[Hetta]

I agree. Not only that---but part of what a victim feels is their power being stripped away from them.....so by others taking "matters into their hands".....they are (again) dis-empowering the victim.

That's a great point MKGal. Well said.

 

[Hetta]

I don't get what you are saying. What does a perp dying have to do with the victim feeling powerless, unless the victim wants to do the killing like in the Hollywood movies?

Nobody is suggesting that the victim is to kill someone, in fact the preference is that no killing get done at all.

 

[Hetta]

ImaginaryDay wrote,

That's not the issue. We all know sexually fondling a child in their sleep is illegal. The issue is whether it was illegal for parents in Arkansas in 2002 to not report a case to the police and try to deal with the situation and arrange some kind of counseling on their own without bringing in social workers who could, conceivably, break up the family.

Sometimes families do need to be broken up to protect the innocents - the children. If you really think that children would rather stay in a home where parents turn a blind eye to incest, then I've got news to you.

 

[Hetta]

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I really think all of this could have been avoided if the parents had not relied so much on Gotherd's rules. They handled it by his booklets (incorrectly, of course), and coached the girls into saying what they wanted.

Still, once those particular victims are adults, even if they're still living with their parents they should be able to legally bring up charges. If they just got married to escape, then divorced if it was arranged (and since all of that courting was like arranged dating, it probably would be) and then they'd finally be independent enough to feel like they could come through with the charges. Maybe someone would have to "enlighten" them? I doubt most people would care enough, though. We don't even know which of the girls are the victims, and I never watched the show so I can't take a guess.

Someone further back in the thread does know the details of the family and said that the girls were 4, 8, 9, 11 and 13. They are all teens now, or young adults.

 

[LinkH]

You keep bringing it down to minor offenses. Stealing a nickel =/= touching the breasts and vaginas of little girls.

My point is, you draw some kind of arbitrary line somewhere like everyone else. There are two questions here, whether justice requires getting the state involved (especially if the state does not mandate that those who know report it.) The other is whether the one making the decision believes the state will handle it best.

LOL. One of the mandatory reporting categories was "parents". Another was "clergy". So the church failed too.

I didn't catch 'parents' on the list when I read it, or on another website I looked at. You could be right about clergy. I don't know if Baptists count their elders as 'clergy.' I'd always heard of Baptists having deacons and not elders. They usually have 'pastor' as a separate thing. If their pastor handles baptism and communion and fits the IRS description of clergy, but not their elders, they may legally be able not to consider elders to be clergy. The RAINN website says there are exemptions for clergy whose religion requires them to keep information confidential. Roman Catholic priests are required to do so. I wouldn't think Baptists are, but they may have some other beliefs in their church I'm not familiar with.

You don't know what the parents would go through? It astonishes me that the victims are not the major concern for everyone.

If you really feel that way, why are you posting anything about the parents. You are attacking the parents, and I don't think you are being fair, so I commented. If the victims were your only concern, and you hadn't attacked the parents, I wouldn't have responded to your post.... about the parents.

Of course the victims are the ones who really suffered the most here. But it is also suffering for the parents. They didn't decide for one of their kids to molest another.

I even saw where some Christian leader suggested that JD become an advocate for molested kids.

Maybe he could talk to perpetrators who were minors. But it makes sense for him to stay out of the spot light for these types of causes, IMO.

 

[LinkH]

Sometimes families do need to be broken up to protect the innocents - the children. If you really think that children would rather stay in a home where parents turn a blind eye to incest, then I've got news to you.

Where do you get this 'turn a blind eye' thing. They sent him out of the house, sent him to counseling, and probably did other stuff we don't know about as discipline.

 

[LinkH]

You mean like Bill Cosby? He's a wonderful target, but because he's not a 'Duggar' (or anyone like them), it's alright if he gets hung out to dry. Sometimes the double standard of Christians is sickening. But that's for another thread.

When did I hang Bill Cosby out to dry? I felt bad about the whole Cosby thing. He doesn't seem to be a big advocate for Christianity, or anything like that, but a few months before the scandal hit the news, I saw an episode of 'Fat Albert' with the kids, and I reflected on how Bill Cosby was trying to teach children good values, and how he tried to do that on The Cosby Show. it seemed like he was trying to provide a good role model for African Americans, all good things. I sure hoped the allegations weren't true, but there was accusation after accusation from different women in the press. But I don't see where I've castigated him or treated him worse than Josh Duggar. Did Christians, in general, treat him any differently? There is a lot of outrage toward both of these guys. Can you say what Josh Duggar was accused of was worse? He was 14 years old, too. Neither of them have been convicted in a court of law over it either.

 

[LinkH]

Huh that's so offensive these jokes are the reasons police think less of black life it has no place in a Christian thread

Do you know she meant it as a racist joke?

 

[grandvizier1006]

Someone further back in the thread does know the details of the family and said that the girls were 4, 8, 9, 11 and 13. They are all teens now, or young adults.

Well, then, they should press charges. But I kind of hope that they would forgive him--I mean REALLY forgive him, not just do what Jim Bob says. That said, forgiveness doesn't mean off the hook. I kind of feel sorry for the republican candidates, as well, a tiny bit, seeing as they were basically forced by PR people into associating with the Duggars.

That said, I DO kind of have to agree with some on here about the unfair treatment Josh got. the people who are most mad about this didn't like them to begin with. But that's the thing about being a Christian in the public eye: people will watch your every move for this sort of thing.

 

[Hetta]

Well, then, they should press charges. But I kind of hope that they would forgive him--I mean REALLY forgive him, not just do what Jim Bob says. That said, forgiveness doesn't mean off the hook. I kind of feel sorry for the republican candidates, as well, a tiny bit, seeing as they were basically forced by PR people into associating with the Duggars.

That said, I DO kind of have to agree with some on here about the unfair treatment Josh got. the people who are most mad about this didn't like them to begin with. But that's the thing about being a Christian in the public eye: people will watch your every move for this sort of thing.

Josh Duggar got unfair treatment? For real? The guy molested little girls. He has received no punishment for that. All he got was well paid jobs.

I'm done with this thread if this is an example of Christian thinking.

Yeah, poor old Josh Duggar. SMH.

 

[Hetta]

Where do you get this 'turn a blind eye' thing. They sent him out of the house, sent him to counseling, and probably did other stuff we don't know about as discipline.

They said what they did - they sent him off to work with a guy on building houses. That's not counseling.

Nor has he faced any consequences .. until now.

The guy intimately touched little girls. I guess that Christians give Christian guys a pass for this now.

If this was a non-Christian guy - if it was an atheist or someone who was LGBT, they would be evil beyond belief. The double standard here is unbelievable.

 

[Hetta]

My point is, you draw some kind of arbitrary line somewhere like everyone else. There are two questions here, whether justice requires getting the state involved (especially if the state does not mandate that those who know report it.) The other is whether the one making the decision believes the state will handle it best.

Tell me, is it just Christian families that get to "draw an arbitrary line" or is it all families everywhere? Because I don't see that in the constitution of this country, nor do I see it in the Bible. You do understand that if people start deciding where a line is drawn, you are creating a system whereby law and order is dependent on the whims of parents. Parents aren't perfect. Of course some parents would rather their kids didn't have to face consequences, this is particularly true in America where parents don't even like to say no to their kids. However, if Christians decide they are outside the law, they needn't look to the law for assistance when crimes are committed against them, because you can't have it both ways.

I didn't catch 'parents' on the list when I read it, or on another website I looked at. You could be right about clergy. I don't know if Baptists count their elders as 'clergy.' I'd always heard of Baptists having deacons and not elders. They usually have 'pastor' as a separate thing. If their pastor handles baptism and communion and fits the IRS description of clergy, but not their elders, they may legally be able not to consider elders to be clergy. The RAINN website says there are exemptions for clergy whose religion requires them to keep information confidential. Roman Catholic priests are required to do so. I wouldn't think Baptists are, but they may have some other beliefs in their church I'm not familiar with.

The Duggars aren't Catholics, and it doesn't matter what the church calls itself - "clergy" is quite clear on its meaning. Again, if this was a non-Christian, I doubt you'd be picking at the definitions so closely.

If you really feel that way, why are you posting anything about the parents. You are attacking the parents, and I don't think you are being fair, so I commented. If the victims were your only concern, and you hadn't attacked the parents, I wouldn't have responded to your post.... about the parents.

You should look at it without emotion. Referring to "attacks" is emotive language. The parents have done wrong, and they are in the public arena making public comments about the "evil" that other people commit, while hiding the evil their own kid committed. So, yes, hypocrisy and I'm not going to feel bad for calling it what it is. They have plenty of other people cosying up to them, making excuses. I'm stating the facts according to much that the parents have said themselves. There's a lesson here for many people, if they would only take it, which is, don't trumpet your perfection to the world and point your finger at other sinners with contempt and hatred. It gives you an awful long way to fall when things go wrong. And it will. Because people.

Maybe he could talk to perpetrators who were minors. But it makes sense for him to stay out of the spot light for these types of causes, IMO.

It's not about him staying out of the spotlight, it's about perpetrators of crimes staying away from the victims of those crimes.

 

[LinkH]

They said what they did - they sent him off to work with a guy on building houses. That's not counseling.

No building houses is not counseling. From what I read he got counseling and he was sent out to work with someone the family knew. Can you explain to me why someone who works on building houses can't get counseling?

Nor has he faced any consequences .. until now.

He's parents are independent Baptist. He might have been spanked or disciplined severely in other ways. I don't think they do that when the camera is around. I wouldn't be surprised if they did at other times. You don't know, and I don't know.

The guy intimately touched little girls. I guess that Christians give Christian guys a pass for this now.

Why do you write this junk? I haven't read of any Christians approving of any kind of incestuous fondling or other behavior on this thread or anywhere. I can understand why you would be angry, but I suspect you already didn't care much from the Duggars, based on previous posts, and it seems like some of those who are angriest at the Duggars about this didn't care for them before.

If this was a non-Christian guy - if it was an atheist or someone who was LGBT, they would be evil beyond belief. The double standard here is unbelievable.

No, the double standard is a higher standard of criticism for conservatives and Christians. I don't have cable, and I don't know the woman or the show, but there was some other reality star on cable who was a lesbian who talked about 'sexual exploration' with her sister, and she didn't face the kind of outrage that Josh does. (She didn't say it happened in her sister's sleep, either.) Ozzy Ozborne was a reality show and people didn't flip out or ostracize him for past violence against his wife.

It does make sense that we expect more out of a Christian promoting Christian values than out of an atheist or LGBT advocate, though.

Bill Cosby took a lot of flack for the accusations against him. Anyone with those allegations against him would have, but he probably shocked the public more because he promoted a lot of good values, even if he didn't associate them with Christianity like the Duggars do.

 

[LinkH]

Tell me, is it just Christian families that get to "draw an arbitrary line" or is it all families everywhere? Because I don't see that in the constitution of this country, nor do I see it in the Bible. You do understand that if people start deciding where a line is drawn, you are creating a system whereby law and order is dependent on the whims of parents. Parents aren't perfect. Of course some parents would rather their kids didn't have to face consequences, this is particularly true in America where parents don't even like to say no to their kids. However, if Christians decide they are outside the law, they needn't look to the law for assistance when crimes are committed against them, because you can't have it both ways.

If the government wants to draw a line, it can do so with it's reporting requirements and with how it enforces those requirements. If you told me you would report your child when he was small for stealing some change from you or for jaywalking on a street that wasn't crowded, I just might not believe you.

The Duggars aren't Catholics, and it doesn't matter what the church calls itself - "clergy" is quite clear on its meaning. Again, if this was a non-Christian, I doubt you'd be picking at the definitions so closely.

No, it's questionable if Baptist elders are considered 'clergy.' If they've got another group of ministers who are 'pastors' who are definitely clergy who handle the Lord's Supper and baptism and the pastors are clergy on their IRS forms and the elders aren't, then that's definitely a fuzzy area. Biblically, I don't see the pastor/elder distinction that some churches have in place, but churches set up like that see it differently.

And it's possible that a church could believe elders or pastors are required to keep certain things confidential if they aren't Roman Catholic. I've never been to an Independent Baptist church that had 'quiverfull' families. I'm assuming that's wher ethey go.

You should look at it without emotion. Referring to "attacks" is emotive language. The parents have done wrong,

That's purely your opinion. Josh did wrong and admitted to it.

and they are in the public arena making public comments about the "evil" that other people commit, while hiding the evil their own kid committed.

If they told everyone what happened, they'd be doing wrong to their girls. We have all sinned. that doesn't make it wrong to call sin sin. Are you perfect? have you ever sinned? By your own standards, aren't you calling yourself a hypocrite if you have ever sinned, and you just said the Duggars did wrong?

So, yes, hypocrisy and I'm not going to feel bad for calling it what it is.

So if you have ever done anything wrong, how are you not a hypocrite?

They have plenty of other people cosying up to them, making excuses. I'm stating the facts according to much that the parents have said themselves.

If they were crucified or got the electric chair, would you feel better about the situation?

It's not about him staying out of the spotlight, it's about perpetrators of crimes staying away from the victims of those crimes.

I was thinking more along the lines of his advocating for victims. I don't think victims are going to go for him as some kind of counselor anyway.

 

[grandvizier1006]

Josh Duggar got unfair treatment? For real? The guy molested little girls. He has received no punishment for that. All he got was well paid jobs.

I'm done with this thread if this is an example of Christian thinking.

Yeah, poor old Josh Duggar. SMH.

Hey, now, calm down. Don't lump me in with whatever stereotypes you have, that's condescending and insulting to me. I think the Duggars are weird and crazy, too, so at least we agree on that much!

I can guarantee you that if I had kids I wouldn't sit by and react the way Josh's parents did. Most of us wouldn't make our daughters think it was their fault, or given our sons a slap on the wrist with a gentle cop if they did this.

It's kind of awkward to say, but yes, child molestors and sexual predators are human beings, too. Behind their despicable acts is some sort of twisted, warped motive that clouds their judgment.

God calls on us to deliver justice and speak up for those who are opressed. Granted, that tends to be executed in a bit of a cumbersome manner by a lot of Christians, but opressed people would include the victims. I don't think there's anything wrong with seeing that this guy gets prosecuted or something, or that these girls are given some autonomy and protection from their Gotherdite parents. Maybe child protective services could take all the kids after an investigation.

But at the same time, this was not recent, like a lot of scandals like this. It was ten years ago. While the victims probably still have the mental scars, isn't there a chance that Josh was able to reform himself? If he had gone on to molest his own children or his wife, do you think the show would have been able to hide it? Probably not, they would have cancelled the show much more quickly if that had happened, or perhaps never started it at all if they had just a bit of suspicion. My point is he probably isn't as depraved as he used to be.

And one major aspect of Christian ideology is the idea that people came forgiven and reform themselves, no matter how messed up. And yet secular society seems to have this other motto: "everything is fine and forgivable to some degree unless it's terrorism or child molestation, in which case you're going to rot in proverbial Hell without any forgiveness."

It's like there's this hierarchy of sins in our modern world. But to God there is no hierarchy, whatsoever. I'm not saying that crimes should all get the same sentences, or that we should treat everyone with the same amount of contempt regardless of whatever bad things they do, but I think that as Christians we can't treat a person as if they have done this one terrible, unforgivable thing, since God looks at all of,our sins the same way we see Josh's-- as sick, depraved acts that destroy their victims, although in some cases the perpetrator and the victim are one and the same (not here, of course). so I think there's hypocrisy on both sides here--it's wrong for Josh to be worried about gay people molesting kids when that's what he did, but it's also hypocritical for people to look upon child molestation as the worst type of crime possible, when in God's eyes there is no worst crime--it's all worthy of death and in need of redemption and grace. And it seems to me that as misguided as he is, Josh eventually got God's grace, although if I'm wrong and his faith is just a ruse for political influence, which might be possible, then I'd acknowledge that.

I say he's gotten unfair treatment because this happened years ago and yet people are talking about it like it happened yesterday, and because some people genuinely enjoy seeing Christians behave hypocritically because it gives the impression that the entire Christian faith is undermined by the acts of one person. Most of it is pretty deserved, though. He resigned, the show is gone, etc. eventually the victims will be freed from their parents and it will be decided what happens. If he goes to trial, then even though he'd probably get convicted, this would stay in the media longer, which I don't think anyone would want.

And remember Michael Jackson? It was assumed he molested kids, but he was acquitted. His reputation didn't get tarnished as much as you'd think.

What would you prefer his sentence be, if tried and convicted? And do you believe there is any possibility of him getting some kind of effective counseling/reform for his issues, if they still linger?

 

[LinkH]

It's like there's this hierarchy of sins in our modern world. But to God there is no hierarchy, whatsoever.

I totally disagree. I can find lots and lots and lots of scriptures that show some sins are worse than others, and not a single one that clearly indicates that they are all on the same level. Some sins are worse than others. And some sins are worse because of the attitude or knowledge of the sinner.

I think the idea of all sins being equal is an outgrowth of Americans obsession with equality. They think God has to love everyone equally, all sins have to be the same, etc. Equal, equal, equal, even if it doesn't make any sense. Equality and freedom. Somehow fighting a war against Saddam Hussain is supposed to be about defending Americans freedom.

so I think there's hypocrisy on both sides here--it's wrong for Josh to be worried about gay people molesting kids when that's what he did,

Gay people molesting kids or just messing them up with their LGBT philosophy they promote in the schools is a legitimate concern. There were some lesbian parents in the news recently who were giving their boy hormones so he could be a transecual. I've never molested any kids, and it's a concern of mine.

It's not wrong for Josh Duggar to call good good and evil evil even if he's done some bad things in his past. If everyone who sinned couldn't say what was right and wrong after they'd sinned, then we'd live in an even more wicked and anarchical society.

I say he's gotten unfair treatment because this happened years ago and yet people are talking about it like it happened yesterday, and because some people genuinely enjoy seeing Christians behave hypocritically because it gives the impression that the entire Christian faith is undermined by the acts of one person.

People talking about it now are a consequence of a past sin. God and his sisters may have forgiven him, but there can still be consequences. It's bad for the girls that this came out. Who wants people to know this stuff, especially conservative girls who blush from side hugs.

But I agree with you that some people enjoy finding out about Christian's past sin so they can rub it in their faces. Apparently from the Psalms, some people delighted in David's past mistakes as well.

Most of it is pretty deserved, though. He resigned, the show is gone, etc. eventually the victims will be freed from their parents and it will be decided what happens. If he goes to trial, then even though he'd probably get convicted, this would stay in the media longer, which I don't think anyone would want.

I think they just stopped showing re-runs of the show. We dont' know if they are going to renew. The married sisters were in dialogue with the network about a show. They could do 19 kids and just not include Josh and his family.

Btw, the statute of limitations has run out, so criminal prosecution is out of the question. But do you think the state is going to prosecute people for fondling others as a minor? Would they try him as an adult or a minor? I don't think his sisters are going to sue him and prolong the media ordeal either.

And remember Michael Jackson? It was assumed he molested kids, but he was acquitted. His reputation didn't get tarnished as much as you'd think.

He was a JW, but not associated in the public mind with Christianity. Just look at his funeral. Christians and conservative celebrities take a lot harder hit for their transgressions from the media and the public than others do. But that is to be expected.

 

[LinkH]

I Corinthians 6
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (NIV)

 

[RedPonyDriver]

I read something today about this...IF this sort of thing had come out about our sitting president, that he had done this same sort of thing as a young teenager, people would be calling for his head on a platter, his resignation from office, finding a way to file charges against him for that crime...yet because it's a man from a "good Christian" family, he gets a pass because he claims he accepted Christ and was forgiven.

Double standards?