# 19 and counting The Duggers



## sdnapier (Aug 13, 2010)

Hi All,

My elderly mother watches The Duggers and is concerned about the youngest child who had a seizure. She missed a few episodes and wants to know the status of the child. Does anyone know what is going on? I'd love to be able to explain it to her.

Thanks,

Sheryl


----------



## cmd1965 (May 8, 2011)

She had a fever related seizure. She was taken to the hospital & the fever treated. She was released later that night, and was fine the next day. It apparently is something that has happened before when she ran a fever.


----------



## Ohio dreamer (Apr 6, 2006)

Yep, what cmd1965, said. Some kids "fever fast and hard" and have a seizure, they usually grow out of it as their immune system strengthens. 

My son use to fever very high (104 range), but slow enough I could catch it and keep it from going too high. It usually took my son 45-60 min to get that high....some kids can do it in the blink of an eye. Scarry as heck at the time (especially when the child's parents are out of town as in the Dugger case), but the child bounces back easily.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

My daughter ran a fever up to 107 and never had a seizure. She was 15 days old and naturally ended up in the hospital with an infection but she regularly ran fevers of up to 105 throughout the rest of her young childhood with no seizures ever. But they did scare me for a good while.


----------



## sdnapier (Aug 13, 2010)

Thanks all. I appreciate the info. Will pass on to my mom so she can sleep at night!


----------



## Selena (Jun 25, 2005)

TLC = breeder channel. Won't be a moment too soon when the duggars drop off the radar and pay their taxes.


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

Selena said:


> TLC = breeder channel. Won't be a moment too soon when the duggars drop off the radar and pay their taxes.


Nope pop duggar is a politician, they never pay taxes, ever...


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

The father on that show creeps me out. He looks like a child molester to me.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It's my understanding they are TV personalities and I figure there's likely more important things in life than worrying about what folks on TV are doing.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Thanks for the info. I missed that episode and was wondering too. Must have been so scary for that poor little girl.

Not sure why the hateful comments were necessary, but, oh well.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> It's my understanding they are TV personalities and I figure there's likely more important things in life than worrying about what folks on TV are doing.


True. I think it's strange that they don't watch tv but document practically every event of their lives and their kids lives on tv for public consumption.

Exploitative.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

basketti said:


> True. I think it's strange that they don't watch tv but document practically every event of their lives and their kids lives on tv for public consumption.
> 
> Exploitative.


You've got me there. I don't watch TV but I don't document anything publicly.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

TxHorseMom said:


> The father on that show creeps me out. He looks like a child molester to me.


Wow, really?


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Selena said:


> TLC = breeder channel. Won't be a moment too soon when the duggars drop off the radar and pay their taxes.


I'm just trying to figure out just HOW these "reality" shows have ANYTHING to do with "learning"...you know, "learning" as in "The LEARNING Channel"???

Sheesh! TV as we once knew it is gone.


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

my3boys said:


> Wow, really?


Yeah, really. I CAN NOT watch that show because of it. He may be a perfectly nice person, but I just can't watch.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

wr said:


> You've got me there. I don't watch TV but I don't document anything publicly.


You just documented publicly that you don't watch TV. Lol&#128521;


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Vahomesteaders said:


> You just documented publicly that you don't watch TV. Lol&#128521;


:rotfl:


----------



## Songbird (Apr 2, 2006)

TxHorseMom said:


> The father on that show creeps me out. He looks like a child molester to me.



Well, the oldest son, Josh, is a child molester. He confessed it publicly this past week. He's molested his sisters and other young girls. Sick.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It's a sad mess and I feel very sorry for the girls because the media frenzy will simply victimize them again.


----------



## Helena (May 10, 2002)

I have watched he show on and off over these years. Interesting and enjoyed the children and their antics as kids. With the oldest boy and his troubles as a teen it seems as though the family found help for him at the time and it seems to be doing well. Perhaps each of us would have handled it differently and I have girls of my own...I would have wanted to have known if they had been abused. So in saying that...the Lord has worked in this young boys life and his wife knew and understands the situation now. Anyone on TV can not have any secrets. Just like politicians. The public will find out anything and everything about you and your family eventually. I would not go as far as calling the son a molester. He seems to have worked things out now. The show will go off the air and another reality show about will take it's place. But, as all TV shows these days..it will be replaced with a "modern family" which does nothing but down play a family that is trying..and I say trying as all of us have with our families...in raising them right without outward obvious wrongs. So...I wish them the very best. I'm sure the family will enjoy their time now as a family and pull together outside of the public view.They have made money but no more than any other reality show and if people don't like the show..then don't watch TV. But, unkind remarks against anyone having a hard time in life isn't right. We all have skeltons in our closet.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Uh, I don't think a family whee a brother rapes his sisters should pull together. 

I hope those girls run fast and far, and find health. Nothing was handled well, or right, through this.


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

Songbird said:


> Well, the oldest son, Josh, is a child molester. He confessed it publicly this past week. He's molested his sisters and other young girls. Sick.


Sadly, it seems I wasn't that far off.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

jen74145 said:


> Uh, I don't think a family whee a brother rapes his sisters should pull together.
> 
> I hope those girls run fast and far, and find health. Nothing was handled well, or right, through this.


He didn't rape them. He fondled them while they were sleeping, but nothing further. 

I'm not at all condoning or making light of the situation, but I think we need to take care and be accurate when discussing matters of this nature. More could come out later of course, but until it does let's be careful and, again, accurate.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

TxHorseMom said:


> Yeah, really. I CAN NOT watch that show because of it. He may be a perfectly nice person, but I just can't watch.


That's fine. I watch very little tv because most of it has the same effect on me.

What I should have said was that I don't think it's a good idea to make a statement like that, now especially with everything that's going on with the oldest son. It puts ideas into people's heads and then false rumors get started.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

TxHorseMom said:


> Sadly, it seems I wasn't that far off.


Yes, you were. The father is not the son. We should not assume because someone's child is guilty of wrongdoing that means the parent must be like that too.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

The father covered the sexual assault and apparently knows a number of offenders as the police officer they went to is in prison for child porn. Also one of the father in laws thinks everyone would molest children if they could get away with it.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Josh's behavior was wrong, but I don't think he should be condemned today because of mistakes he made as a hormone driven curious 14 year old. Inappropriate behavior to be sure, but there is a huge difference between a sexual predator and inappropriate behavior by a pubescent teenager acting out.

The parents did not ignore the behavior. The dealt with it in a way that hopefully prevented further damage to their family. The son is part of the family as well as the girls who were fondled. Did they do 100% the right thing? I don't know and I refuse to judge. 

I personally would hate to be judged today by some of the stupid teenaged stunts I pulled.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> Josh's behavior was wrong, but I don't think he should be condemned today because of mistakes he made as a hormone driven curious 14 year old. Inappropriate behavior to be sure, but there is a huge difference between a sexual predator and inappropriate behavior by a pubescent teenager acting out.
> 
> The parents did not ignore the behavior. The dealt with it in a way that hopefully prevented further damage to their family. The son is part of the family as well as the girls who were fondled. Did they do 100% the right thing? I don't know and I refuse to judge.
> 
> I personally would hate to be judged today by some of the stupid teenaged stunts I pulled.


Did you rape anyone during a stupid teenage stunt?

There were two families involved, his sisters and girls from another family. So, what else is acceptable at the hormonal age of 14? Actual penetration? These girls were raped, this isn't a "he was a kid thing" it was repeated rape of minors, some well under the age of 10. 

His father covered it up making him as guilty. Both parents, their church, and others have made it out that it was girl's fault. That is just wrong. The only thing that causes rape is rapists. Not clothes, not actions, not immodesty, rapists cause rapes.

ETA: Just curious. If the Duggars were Wiccan, Heathens, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, etc... anything other than Christian, would your opinion of "he was a hormonal teen" still stand?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Did you rape anyone during a stupid teenage stunt?
> 
> There were two families involved, his sisters and girls from another family. So, what else is acceptable at the hormonal age of 14? Actual penetration? These girls were raped, this isn't a "he was a kid thing" it was repeated rape of minors, some well under the age of 10.
> 
> ...


Again, NO rapes occurred. 

And AT NO TIME were the girls blamed for this. Especially by the parents and members of the church. Do you have proof to back up your statement? If not then you'd best not be saying it.

If this is going to be discussed, it must be done so accurately.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> Again, NO rapes occurred.
> 
> And AT NO TIME were the girls blamed for this. Especially by the parents and members of the church. Do you have proof to back up your statement? If not then you'd best not be saying it.
> 
> If this is going to be discussed, it must be done so accurately.


Were you there? If not then you have no idea if he raped them or not.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> The father covered the sexual assault and apparently knows a number of offenders as the police officer they went to is in prison for child porn. Also one of the father in laws thinks everyone would molest children if they could get away with it.


The father did not cover it up. If that were true he would not have gone to church leaders and a state trooper. Do you have proof he knew the trooper was into child porn? 

As far as the statement made by the father in law maybe you could post the entire quote? The context under which a statement is made means everything.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

[No message]


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> Again, NO rapes occurred.
> 
> And AT NO TIME were the girls blamed for this. Especially by the parents.
> 
> If this is going to be discussed, it must be done so accurately.


It's rape if he penetrated any of those girls. The police report (remember the Trooper that Jim Bob reported his son to is now doing time in prison for child porn) indicates "forcible touching" but I'm going to assume he's "lessening" what really happened. After all, he's a pedophile himself and has to help his own. 

Every time a person says "oh, he was just a hormonal teen" or "boys will be boys" or says "the girls were immodest" that is blaming the girls. And ALL of them, Duggars, their church members, their inlaws, etc... have said the things I listed. 

So, yes, lets make sure this is accurate.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

my3boys said:


> The girls were certainly there, and they told the authorities that interviewed them there was only touching, no rape.


That is right, there is no possibilty that the girls were told to not say everything. No possibiltty that they were pressured to keep quite about their brother.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> That is right, there is no possibilty that the girls were told to not say everything. No possibiltty that they were pressured to keep quite about their brother.


Those poor girls are so protected and so sheltered that they could be told it was normal and I think they'd believe it. 

No education, no unsupervised anything... they do as they are told.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> The father did not cover it up. If that were true he would not have gone to church leaders and a state trooper. Do you have proof he knew the trooper was into child porn?
> 
> As far as the statement made by the father in law maybe you could post the entire quote? The context under which a statement is made means everything.


Yup. Here's the proof the Trooper is in prison for child porn. Plus new information from him as well, apparently Jim Bob lied about how many girls were involved. 

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/27/for...e_said_josh_had_only_molested_one_young_girl/


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

painterswife said:


> That is right, there is no possibilty that the girls were told to not say everything. No possibiltty that they were pressured to keep quite about their brother.


And there's no possibility that they were not pressured and told the truth? Why do you assume they were told to lie? Because they are conservative Christians?


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yup. Here's the proof the Trooper is in prison for child porn. Plus new information from him as well, apparently Jim Bob lied about how many girls were involved.
> 
> http://www.salon.com/2015/05/27/for...e_said_josh_had_only_molested_one_young_girl/


I asked for proof the dad knew. 

Salon? No leftist, Christian hating bias there.

So you believe the guy who's in prison, but not the girls? It's not possible this guy is looking for an excuse, is it?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> And there's no possibility that they were not pressured and told the truth? Why do you assume they were told to lie? Because they are conservative Christians?


They are told when, where, and why on everything else why would lying about what their brother did be any different? 

Are you only supporting a pedophile because they are conservative Christians? Same question I asked prior: "If the Duggars were Wiccan, Heathen, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, etc... anything other than Christian, would your opinion of "he was a hormonal teen" still stand?"


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Those poor girls are so protected and so sheltered that they could be told it was normal and I think they'd believe it.
> 
> No education, no unsupervised anything... they do as they are told.


No education? They were all homeschooled. And homeschooled kids tend to do way better academically than public school kids.

The one daughter is in training to be a midwife. That doesn't say sheltered to me.

Do you mean to tell me their parents actually supervised them? And they do as they are told? How awful! Guess next thing you know they'll be out rioting and looting and otherwise acting out!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> I asked for proof the dad knew.
> 
> Salon? No leftist agendas there.
> 
> So you believe the guy who's in prison, but not the girls?


Why are you bringing politics into this? Proof the dad knew what? His friend was a pedophile? I have no idea... but it's an odd coincidence, isn't it? Plus more people surrounding the family are stepping down (or being asked) from their positions for sexual misconduct. More coincidence, right?

If you don't like my link Google, "Duggar State Trooper in prison for child porn" there are many links. Perhaps one will tickle your fancy.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> No education? They were all homeschooled. And homeschooled kids tend to do way better academically than public school kids.
> 
> The one daughter is in training to be a midwife. That doesn't say sheltered to me.
> 
> Do you mean to tell me their parents actually supervised them? How abusive!


No outside education, no unsupervised anything, no knowledge of the real world. 

Do you mean the married daughter? She was allowed to train as a midwife, do you honestly think one of the unmarried daughters would be allowed that training? Really? ETA: I don't follow the Duggar family and have never watched the show. One of the daughters is a midwife and I have no clue of her married status. 

Where did I say supervision was abusive? Please point that out... Can we stay on point here? Please?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Do you mean to tell me their parents actually supervised them? And they do as they are told? How awful! Guess next thing you know they'll be out rioting and looting and otherwise acting out!


I'd rather they rioted than molested children.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

If they were supervised he wouldn't have assaulted his sister.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Irish Pixie said:


> No outside education, no unsupervised anything, no knowledge of the real world.
> 
> Do you mean the married daughter? She was allowed to train as a midwife, do you honestly think one of the unmarried daughters would be allowed that training? Really? ETA: I don't follow the Duggar family and have never watched the show. One of the daughters is a midwife and I have no clue of her married status.
> 
> Where did I say supervision was abusive? Please point that out... Can we stay on point here? Please?


From what I have read the two girls were training to be midwives and even assisting in births long before they were married.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

RichNC said:


> From what I have read the two girls were training to be midwives and even assisting in births long before they were married.


I've since did more research (after I edited my post to reflect that I have never watched the show) and there is one certified midwife and she's married now. The other one that was in training is no longer and is not certified. 

The bottom line is neither of these girls could have even started in training if their parents didn't allow it. Actually, in any endeavor without permission from their parents, even after reaching 21. In my quest for more information I learned that the midwife was not allowed to help an unwed mother because she was an unwed mother.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> If they were supervised he wouldn't have assaulted his sister.


The older Duggars had to have unsupervised time with the younger children because they pretty much raised them.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

They rug swept abuse, and the pulled these girls up on tv to talk shiny eyed about purity, modesty, and being careful not to tempt men.

Are you even kidding me. How are some of you okay with this? 

Jesus. 

The police reports are available Online. How anyone can be more worried about the fourteen year old who touched baby girls, and the woman whose parents were like "oh sure go right ahead and make babies!"... And not the girls who were abused... That's is beyond me.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

jen74145 said:


> They rug swept abuse, and the pulled these girls up on tv to talk shiny eyed about purity, modesty, and being careful not to tempt men.
> 
> Are you even kidding me. How are some of you okay with this?
> 
> ...


Exactly.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I worked as a nanny with a rather complicated family last summer (grandmother raising her step daughter's 4 children) and the eldest son, who was 12 at the time, was found to have molested a much younger cousin and I ultimately had to resign because I just couldn't see things the way the grandmother did. 

The actual assault was always passed off as 'boys will be boys or he's just playing doctor,' even though counselors and psychologists had clearly defined the acts as pedophilia. The younger children in the home were to be interviewed but grammy came up with a hundred and one excuses why the others could not be interviewed even though the two younger boys had clearly told me about him duct taping their genitals and then ripping the tape off. With an actual court order in place requiring this boy not be left alone with children under the age of 12, he was continually left alone with his younger siblings for a couple hours at a time with very clear instructions to tell anyone who should ask, that they were always supervised or people would come and take them away from her. 

The little girl that was molested almost became a side note in the whole sordid tale because nobody sees her as a victim, it's all about boys being boys and the belief that some people are prudish and overreact. 

When I read the police report, I read it objectively but what I saw was not 4 or 5 isolated incidents, I saw 5 victims, who indicated they had been fondled multiple times. More than enough times for 'doctor' to figure out what girl parts look and feel like. I question the scope of the assaults because I'm not as certain as others are that because a parent told him this was bad, he suddenly concluded it was and stopped because I'm fairly certain that at 15, he had a good idea he shouldn't be doing what he was. 

Did he suddenly see the light or did he just get better at not getting caught?


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

my3boys said:


> That's fine. I watch very little tv because most of it has the same effect on me.
> 
> What I should have said was that I don't think it's a good idea to make a statement like that, now especially with everything that's going on with the oldest son. It puts ideas into people's heads and then false rumors get started.


That statement was made BEFORE it was announced about the son. I didn't know anything about it. It was just my opinion.


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

my3boys said:


> Yes, you were. The father is not the son. We should not assume because someone's child is guilty of wrongdoing that means the parent must be like that too.


Look at the date of the original comment. It was BEFORE it came out about the son. So, no, I wasn't basing my comment on the news, nor assuming anything. And the father still creeps me out.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

jen74145 said:


> They rug swept abuse, and the pulled these girls up on tv to talk shiny eyed about purity, modesty, and being careful not to tempt men.
> 
> Are you even kidding me. How are some of you okay with this?
> 
> ...


The whole thing is sickening.
*I am more concerned that these 'urges' more often than not, NEVER go away.......*
Did they "home church" (meaning have church at home) OR did they go to a local congregation? 
And if they did......was he every alone in the nursery or preschool Sunday school rooms? 
Did he volunteer for Vacation Bible School? Was he every alone with anyone else??

Sickening.


----------



## my3boys (Jan 18, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> They are told when, where, and why on everything else why would lying about what their brother did be any different?
> 
> Are you only supporting a pedophile because they are conservative Christians? Same question I asked prior: "If the Duggars were Wiccan, Heathen, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, etc... anything other than Christian, would your opinion of "he was a hormonal teen" still stand?"


You are accusing me of supporting a pedophile?! Are you kidding me?!

Check my posts. At no time have I made any excuses for Josh Duggar. My comments have been in regards to the father and the girls only. Yet another example of inaccurate accusations.

For your information madam, I was molested by a family member when I was four years old. No sympathies for child molesters here!

You owe me one huge apology!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

my3boys said:


> You are accusing me of supporting a pedophile?! Are you kidding me?!
> 
> Check my posts. At no time have I made any excuses for Josh Duggar. My comments have been in regards to the father and the girls only. Yet another example of inaccurate accusations.
> 
> ...


My observation was that you are making excuses for a pedophile, and making excuses for the parent, church members, etc. covering it up. My opinion and I'm not apologizing for it.

ETA: How in the bloody whatever would I know you were molested as a four year old? I am sympathetic, but not clairvoyant.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

3boys, Irish pixie isn't the only one who reads your posts as a defense and minimization of other peoples opinions.

The message given to young girls by many conservative Christian churches could easily be considered grooming. From a young age, these girls are made to feel responsible for the actions of others, if anything happened its because your skirt was too short or your makeup too whatever, bite your tongue and be silent around the all powerful men, etc etc. A woman should be able to walk anywhere naked as the day she was born and walk away unscathed, but churches teach little girls to cover their knees, keep their heads down and their hair long.

I don't take my children to church because of that nonsense above. Attitudes like "well, it's not THAT bad to say these things and have these standards..." When really it is, and needs to be changed. I have found Christianity in its current practice to be largely patriarchal, while at the same time absolving men of any responsibility for their own behavior.

But you know, have any problems with church and you are a leftist who his just anti-Christianity. You want to view people that way that's up to you, but it's not constructive. 

The purity message gothard and ati preach is unhealthy and damaging. The stumbling block tripe is just that, tripe. Women are devalued into an assortment of body parts of restrictions therein, and if you dont do it all just right and something happens to you, well, your fault. Also, you have less worth now, you damaged product, you.

Zero tolerance for anyone pushing the crap at my daughter, or my son, that I was raised in.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Pedophiles exist in all sorts of environments. I'm sure that there are more than a few paragons of liberal thought that are mirror images of the Duggars in attempts to hide the issue and protect the abuser. 
That is issue has come down to the same ol' argument over Christians versus anti-Christians is not surprising as that seems to be more important an issue to some than the abuse itself. There is certainly more than one who believes that religion is the cause of evil and others who believe that religion is to antidote to evil.
There is one thing that is certainly true- people who want to abuse children find it in their interest to put themselves in a position of authority and trade on the appearance of righteousness as camouflage. And this makes it dangerous for children when their parents would rather believe than disbelieve.
There are many abuses taking place in public schools because that is where children congregate. It does no make all teachers guilty nor does it make public schools a bad institution. And I bet that most sexual abuse of children takes place in the family, yet no one says families are bad.
The best that can be done is to teach a child what is acceptable and that they are not to blame if some treats them unacceptably. And make sure they know that there is someone to listen to them if they can't deal with a situation. And be careful of authority anywhere- from pastors to progressive ideologs.


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

Where I want, that is true, but some denominations/side groups hand this stuff down from the pulpit. The diggers are quite involved in two of them. It's an ugly thing when religions tweak their dogma into oppressing a certain group of people, and so often folks just turns. Blind eye. Wheat from chaff, take the good and leave the bad, etc. nope. You can't do that when it's dangerous.

I do not care where it comes from, treating people like possessions is wrong.

I really hope no one thinks I am an anti Christian heathen after the above. We'll actually I suppose I don't care what is thought, but please don't dismiss anything you don't like as leftist and anti Christian. That's pointless.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jen74145 said:


> I really hope no one thinks I am an anti Christian heathen after the above. We'll actually I suppose I don't care what is thought, but please don't dismiss anything you don't like as leftist and anti Christian. That's pointless.


I agree that it is pointless but unfortunately seems to be the lowest common denominator in arguing issues. It seems to be part of the belief some have that whatever is part of their own heritage is prefectly ok to bash while refraining from criticizing other heritages, not matter how clearly equally or more troubling, is an admirable display of personal tolerance. Sort of like the family that treats outsiders with courtesy while being rude to their own.
The statement that someone has that their religion considers something a sin is met with a response that religion is an ugly crock. Nothing in less than total condemnation. When the useful response is something to the effect of silence or at best disagreement with the results of that idea. Because the sinfulness of an idea or action is for the definer's use only.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

jen74145 said:


> 3boys, Irish pixie isn't the only one who reads your posts as a defense and minimization of other peoples opinions.
> 
> The message given to young girls by many conservative Christian churches could easily be considered grooming. From a young age, these girls are made to feel responsible for the actions of others, if anything happened its because your skirt was too short or your makeup too whatever, bite your tongue and be silent around the all powerful men, etc etc. A woman should be able to walk anywhere naked as the day she was born and walk away unscathed, but churches teach little girls to cover their knees, keep their heads down and their hair long.
> 
> ...


The cult of the "man is superior" all the while making women feel guilty and worth less for simply not being men, burns my biscuits. There isn't much that makes me more angry, it sets up girls/women for a life of trying to please men, in trying to please everyone. It is the one of the biggest reasons that abused women stay with their abusers, and because their children live it the abuse becomes normal to them, and they continue it. 

I'd feel the exact same way if a pedophile/rapist (or someone covering up for a pedophile/rapist) were Wiccan, Heathen, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist, etc... or republican/democrat. *This is not a political or religious issue.*


----------



## jen74145 (Oct 31, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I agree that it is pointless but unfortunately seems to be the lowest common denominator in arguing issues. It seems to be part of the belief some have that whatever is part of their own heritage is prefectly ok to bash while refraining from criticizing other heritages, not matter how clearly equally or more troubling, is an admirable display of personal tolerance. Sort of like the family that treats outsiders with courtesy while being rude to their own.
> The statement that someone has that their religion considers something a sin is met with a response that religion is an ugly crock. Nothing in less than total condemnation. When the useful response is something to the effect of silence or at best disagreement with the results of that idea. Because the sinfulness of an idea or action is for the definer's use only.



I am saying that abuse is not okay, no matter how it is couched under what authority. The last place it should be rugswept is in, I would think, a religion, but such has never been the case, historically.

A persons right to religion ends where another person begins, IM. THe whole purity emphasis is so damaging, it disgusts me it still goes on.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Misogyny kills as well. It's the leading cause of suicide in girls 15-19.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...creases-suicide-risk-in-young-women?CMP=fb_gu


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

jen74145 said:


> 3boys, Irish pixie isn't the only one who reads your posts as a defense and minimization of other peoples opinions.
> 
> The message given to young girls by *many conservative Christian churches *could easily be considered grooming. From a young age, these girls are made to feel responsible for the actions of others, if anything happened its because your skirt was too short or your makeup too whatever, bite your tongue and be silent around the all powerful men, etc etc. A woman should be able to walk anywhere naked as the day she was born and walk away unscathed, but churches teach little girls to cover their knees, keep their heads down and their hair long.


I will go one step further and say "Cults".
ANY 'organization' that call's itself 'church' that peddles the above carp you described is a cult. It's not from Scripture (it's mans twisting of the word) and it's twisting is so that control (in a NON Biblical way) is kept over women.



> I don't take my children to church because of that nonsense above.


I didn't allow the kids to participate in Youth Group, because it was sketchy and ill supervised. Everything was a little too Kum Bye Ya for me.....no leadership, no teaching-training-mentoring, and too much fluffy watering down of the Word, IMHO!!



> Attitudes like "well, it's not THAT bad to say these things and have these standards..." When really it is, and needs to be changed. I have found Christianity in its current practice to be largely patriarchal, while at the same time absolving men of any responsibility for their own behavior.


I have found that today's christianity is little more than 'country club' mentality. 



> But you know, have any problems with church and you are a leftist who his just anti-Christianity. You want to view people that way that's up to you, but it's not constructive.


I am anti religion.
I am Pro Jesus!! Pro Scripture!! 



> The purity message gothard and ati preach is unhealthy and damaging. The stumbling block tripe is just that, tripe. Women are devalued into an assortment of body parts of restrictions therein, and if you dont do it all just right and something happens to you, well, your fault. Also, you have less worth now, you damaged product, you.


Which is 100% the opposite of what Jesus taught, preached and died for.
Look at how many women He TALKED to (you just didn't do that back then). 
The devaluation of women today is sickening.(in the church)
It's nothing like what Jesus said, or taught.



> Zero tolerance for anyone pushing the crap at my daughter, or my son, that I was raised in.


Yep, totally agree with you!!!

What's the difference: If I am raped and I was wearing a cute black dress with red pumps, or if I have been laying on the couch for 4 days without a shower in sweats and unbrushed teeth?
Nothing.
Rape, is rape. 

The next time someone says "boys will be boys" I just might throat punch 'em. That's the second stupidest saying on the face of the earth.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Great article about how bad this cult of purity is for daughters.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-duggars-dangerous-cult-of-purity/?hpid=z3


----------



## greatlakesmom (Nov 14, 2014)

Purity is bad for our daughters????? I've had enough of this anger toward the conservative Christian view. I teach my daughters that they should wait for marriage to have sex and I lay out why. Each of them is a treasure to give to their future husband, and yes, I expect that my son will keep himself as a treasure for his future wife. Having sex outside of marriage opens you up to a world of STD's, emotional hurt, pregnancy, etc. I do not tell them that it is the rape victim's fault if they are raped. I do not tell them that those who err and have babies out of wedlock are fallen creatures. Yes, we have a young woman in our church who had a child out of wedlock, remained in the church without persecution, and is now married with a second child. We all screw up now and then. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to have a goal to not screw up.

Staying pure for your spouse takes someone who has been taught that they are a person of great value, worthy to be waited for instead of pawed at indiscriminately. Purity is a gift to your spouse, and hopefully you have chosen your spouse carefully enough to receive that same gift from them.

No doubt I'll be hammered for my conservative views, but the anger in this thread has driven me to speak. I, for one, will continue to encourage modesty in my daughters and respect for women in my son. My church teaches both of these things as well. 

Will I continue to submit to my husband? Yes. That does not mean that I am a silent, abused partner in the relationship. My voice is strong and my husband considers my opinion. Every company has a CEO, why shouldn't a home have it's head? The CEO is held liable for failings of the company, and God holds men accountable for failings in their home. Our church is not filled with weak mousy women. They are strong, and they make their husbands stronger by being so. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. You live your life and I'll live mine. The difference seems to be that I'm not dragging your choices through muck and mire.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Great article about how bad this cult of purity is for daughters.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-duggars-dangerous-cult-of-purity/?hpid=z3


This should be required reading.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

jen74145 said:


> I am saying that abuse is not okay, no matter how it is couched under what authority. The last place it should be rugswept is in, I would think, a religion, but such has never been the case, historically.
> 
> A persons right to religion ends where another person begins, IM. THe whole purity emphasis is so damaging, it disgusts me it still goes on.


But no one has said it's ok. Not even the perpetrators. The worse that has been done by posters is questioning whether the facts are as damning as some alleged. And part of that questioning is the agenda of those posters. 
So it seems that even questioning is going to be interpreted as supporting evil by some. And questioning their motivation is the same as condoning the acts.
Somehow the idea of wanting 'purity' has become equated with supporting evil. That blaming all religion because evil can appear in places where that is a value is like saying a religion approves of murder because some priest or minister has murdered. Murder and child abuse occur outside of religion.
In truth what is really the focus is not whether a holier-than-thou person violated their touted beliefs has discredited religion but whether people who believe in that religion can have that manipulated to cover up evil. Or even be convinced that if done under the auspices of religion, that evil is good.
But to say that religion can be misused should not be equated with all religion is evil. And that seems to be the focus of the most virulent posters.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I taught my children absentence and purity.
I taught them that sex was a gift, a husband and wife share when they have taken a vow before God. 
I have taught them HOW people look at them, or perceive them is the 'lookers' problem, not theirs.
I have taught my son that a woman's body is not for his slobbering or gropeing pleasure.

Oh, I taught them purity, and abstenence.
I taught them what The Word says.
If I didn't understand the passage, I looked up the Hebrew, or the Greek.
I prayed and asked the Lord to guide me.
And He did. 
And they turned out pretty dern good.

This load of horse carp that 'religion' says "dress like this, act like that so you don't tempt a man'" is horse carp. GOD told men to be self controlled. 
Jesus said "it is better to hang a millstone around your neck and be thrown into the sea, than to hurt little ones such as these" (He was surrounded by children).

All for God.
Can't stand religion.


----------



## Selena (Jun 25, 2005)

greatlakesmom said:


> Purity is bad for our daughters????? I've had enough of this anger toward the conservative Christian view. I teach my daughters that they should wait for marriage to have sex and I lay out why. Each of them is a treasure to give to their future husband, and yes, I expect that my son will keep himself as a treasure for his future wife. Having sex outside of marriage opens you up to a world of STD's, emotional hurt, pregnancy, etc. I do not tell them that it is the rape victim's fault if they are raped. I do not tell them that those who err and have babies out of wedlock are fallen creatures. Yes, we have a young woman in our church who had a child out of wedlock, remained in the church without persecution, and is now married with a second child.  We all screw up now and then. That doesn't mean that it's wrong to have a goal to not screw up.
> 
> Staying pure for your spouse takes someone who has been taught that they are a person of great value, worthy to be waited for instead of pawed at indiscriminately. Purity is a gift to your spouse, and hopefully you have chosen your spouse carefully enough to receive that same gift from them.
> 
> ...


And I'm tired of the persecuted "christian" spin. If a Duggar daughter had pre-marital sex or even intimacy, she's a ----, damaged goods. The "patriarch" and "matriarch", and I use these terms loosely, are hypocrites. We'll be well rid of the Duggars, TLC will be hard pressed to find sponsors. If the Duggars didn't save their welfare, I mean TLC money, wisely they'll be in dire straits. 

My final thought - good old mom Duggar makes it quite clear that any time, a woman needs to be ready to pleasure her husband, give him what he wants. So Fifty Shades of Gray is acceptable if both participants are married. After all, no one said the rod was reserved for the children. 

Good bye and good riddance to the Duggars. I have no use for Santorum but at least he had the cajones to rid himself of the Duggars via mainstream media. He came across as very honest and sincere.

I've not seen you front and center in the public eye slamming the lives of others while hiding your dirty laundry. And if you have been in the public eye, remember that the harsh light you shine on the so-called sins of others shines will shine very brighter on your sins.


----------



## Mickey (Aug 28, 2002)

It seems to me that the family did what should have been done. The boy was turned in and they got counseling for all of the kids involved. I mean really, what would you have had them do with a 14 year old boy? And I don't see what any of this has to do with their being Christians. Seems to me some of you are using this as just another reason to slam the Church. And I don't see how preaching/teaching morality is a bad thing either. Seriously, just look at how well the world is doing since moving away from the Lord's teachings.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

> Seriously, just look at how well the world is doing since moving away from the Lord's teachings.


In many ways, quite a bit better if we examine the whole scope of history.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Tiempo said:


> In many ways, quite a bit better if we examine the whole scope of history.


No, the venue of horrible has changed only. The same impulses that created brutality now finds other authority to use. You ignore that freedom you enjoy came from religious thought and philosophy. As a matter of good versus evil. Of seeking God's word, sincerely or otherwise.
Now that banner carrying philosophy of atheism called Communism for example has a much shorter history of dominance to have cornered a much more violent , restrictive and brutal record.
All that most people do is pluck out the advances created by the religious philosophers of the world according to their own preferences at the moment and call themselves free of religion. 
A true freedom from religion is really no idea of good and evil at all. Only success or failure. At least as far a personal behavior goes.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

I must admit, I have never heard of the duggars until this week and on HT.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Apparently Mom & Pop Duggar have agreed to an interview with Megyn Kelly and I'm not sure how I feel about that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wr said:


> Apparently Mom & Pop Duggar have agreed to an interview with Megyn Kelly and I'm not sure how I feel about that.


I know I wouldn't watch it if I were paid to.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Most people equate something like this to something similar to their own past. Whether something similar happened to them or someone they know. I am no different. It's why tempers flare and the context of someone else's post doesn't read (to some) the way the poster meant it.

I've friend I know was molested by a14yo when he was ten. It was his uncle on fact. After it all panned out the uncle's older brother did it to him when he was even younger. To make s long story short, the uncle's got help and is now 48. He can't stand pedophiles and had made amends to the nephew. The oldest odd on prison for more of the same including rape and assault. I guess my point is this.

With all the accusations about a 14 yo rapist and some wanting to throw him to the wolves at first glance, had anyone considered he might have been abused too? Wouldn't the cover up seem like it fit more? He may be the most vile person on the planet or be may be a victim too. My wife took social work in college and learned that young people who are abused trend to accuse those they trust because they will be forgiven for it. What if the real abuser was someone who could've gone to jail if caught?

How about we calm down some and let this play out and see who is guilty and who is not first before we hang the first one we see?

Just my nickel


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

mreynolds said:


> Most people equate something like this to something similar to their own past. Whether something similar happened to them or someone they know. I am no different. It's why tempers flare and the context of someone else's post doesn't read (to some) the way the poster meant it.
> 
> I've friend I know was molested by a14yo when he was ten. It was his uncle on fact. After it all panned out the uncle's older brother did it to him when he was even younger. To make s long story short, the uncle's got help and is now 48. He can't stand pedophiles and had made amends to the nephew. The oldest odd on prison for more of the same including rape and assault. I guess my point is this.
> 
> ...


I did consider it could be learned behavior and I honestly do feel that counseling for offender and victims may have resolved a lot of issues in this case but the family felt that a work program and possibly church shaming (I have read there are some episodes which show him with a shaved head and this was part of the shaming the church meted out). 

I might be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time but getting to the root of the problem and treating it so it doesn't happen again would be an approach I would support.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> I did consider it could be learned behavior and I honestly do feel that counseling for offender and victims may have resolved a lot of issues in this case but the family felt that a work program and possibly church shaming (I have read there are some episodes which show him with a shaved head and this was part of the shaming the church meted out).
> 
> I might be wrong and it wouldn't be the first time but getting to the root of the problem and treating it so it doesn't happen again would be an approach I would support.



Yes me too but the point I was trying to make was he may not even be guilty of anything other than taking the blame for someone who could've done prison time where he was a minor. As far as the church goes, well I have never watched that show but sound like that church needs a lot of changing. Not any church I have ever seen does that stuff. Maybe it's a good thing I don't get out much anymore. I would have to call them on that. 
Yes


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Mickey said:


> It seems to me that the family did what should have been done.



Should they have gone on TV and risked putting the victims through this? 
Say that everything they have said is true, and they did put the kids thru counseling, etc, and it was handled perfectly and the boy is really not a child molester, etc. 

Should they have put their entire family on television and used their celebrity as a means to proselytize their controversial beliefs? How could they not know this might all come out and hurt the victims and the son? 

Seems like they were blind to everything but furthering their own means. Very exploitative people. But I have always thought that. What kind of people claim to not allow their kids to watch the evil television but make those same sheltered kids live their lives on TV and be exposed to the world.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

basketti said:


> Should they have gone on TV and risked putting the victims through this?
> Say that everything they have said is true, and they did put the kids thru counseling, etc, and it was handled perfectly and the boy is really not a child molester, etc.
> 
> Should they have put their entire family on television and used their celebrity as a means to proselytize their controversial beliefs? How could they not know this might all come out and hurt the victims and the son?
> ...


Wish I could like that twice. You are so right.


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

I wonder if, as the duggar money tree begins to die (advertisers are distancing themselves fast), and everyone begins to see their unlimited money go away all because Josh likes to feel up little girls while they're sleeping even if it's his own sister(s), who and where will this family begin unravel? 

Once that money stops, knives are going into backs...

I wonder how long it will be before X duggar is up on stage with Mylie Cyrus in pasties signing "My Neck, My Back"...

The family covering up and hiding this from law enforcement is so typical "christian hypocritical", on one hand pop duggar is saying people who commit this crime should be executed, but on the other hand covering up and protecting the molester, good christians...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

XtreemLee said:


> I wonder if, as the duggar money tree begins to die (advertisers are distancing themselves fast), and everyone begins to see their unlimited money go away all because Josh likes to feel up little girls while they're sleeping even if it's his own sister(s), who and where will this family begin unravel?
> 
> Once that money stops, knives are going into backs...
> 
> ...


The only reason that this would be considered hypocracy at all would be that there is an insistance of ethical behavior in the first place. So I guess hypocracy means something more than the average molester who doesn't consult anything but his own inclinations from the first. According to some, that would seem to make him at least an honest creep. Or maybe just an irredeemable creep. 
Is it better to not have standards than to violate them?


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

XtreemLee said:


> I wonder if, as the duggar money tree begins to die (advertisers are distancing themselves fast), and everyone begins to see their unlimited money go away, who and where will this family begin unravel?
> 
> Once that money stops, knives are going into backs...


Hmmmmm . . . . . . I myself wondered how long it would be before one of the kids did something that would put the family in a bad light. I mean really, just your normal size family of 2 - 5 kids, there is usually one bad apple in the bunch. Having 19 kids, well, the odds were stacked.

It will be interesting to see what exactly happens with the family if their money empire does collapse. Perhaps another reality show in 5 years - "Meet the Duggars - 19 and counting and all on welfare". 

If the money dries up, all the children may have to use . . . . . gasp . . . . . contraception.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Hmmmmm . . . . . . I myself wondered how long it would be before one of the kids did something that would put the family in a bad light. I mean really, just your normal size family of 2 - 5 kids, there is usually one bad apple in the bunch. Having 19 kids, well, the odds were stacked.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what exactly happens with the family if their money empire does collapse. Perhaps another reality show in 5 years - "Meet the Duggars - 19 and counting and all on welfare".
> 
> If the money dries up, all the children may have to use . . . . . gasp . . . . . contraception.


They don't need the shows money, they have many rental properties and a few other businesses. 

I'd like to know who leaked this juveniles record. That's illegal in every state! I understand that the Oprah show filed an foi request, but it's illegal to turn it over even if most of it was redacted.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Hmmm, didn't think of that Jeff.


----------



## Mickey (Aug 28, 2002)

Obviously someone who had it in for him; just like so many on here


----------



## TxHorseMom (Feb 21, 2011)

It is my understanding that he was never prosecuted as a minor. His family covered it up, so as to the leaking of a minors "record", there never was one to leak. I AM curious as to how/why this came out now.


----------



## tlrnnp67 (Nov 5, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> They don't need the shows money, they have many rental properties and a few other businesses.
> 
> I'd like to know who leaked this juveniles record. That's illegal in every state! I understand that the Oprah show filed an foi request, but it's illegal to turn it over even if most of it was redacted.


Oprah didn't submit the FOI request. She faxed the letter she received about the abuse to CPS and reported it. In Touch magazine was the one who submitted the FOI request.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

TxHorseMom said:


> It is my understanding that he was never prosecuted as a minor. His family covered it up, so as to the leaking of a minors "record", there never was one to leak. I AM curious as to how/why this came out now.


We were foster-parents four times during my Active Duty military career. With one of the sibling groups that we had there was some 'molesting' that occurred between siblings, while they were with us.

They were all in therapy at the time [and will stay in therapy until they age-out of the system]. We did not know about it happening. We were told about it via one of the case-workers afterward.

One child told his therapist, who told the state. All three therapists were told and then all three children were asked and they told their therapists about it. All before we were told about it.

From the courses that we were required to take for our foster license, it sounded to us like standard test-book sexual predator in-training behavior among those children. But the case-workers insisted it wasn't, that none of the children were developing into a predator.

Later after the children were bounced on to their next group home, their new therapists made the official diagnosis that one of them was a 'predator'. Which then initiated an investigation against me [as being the last previous adult male they had lived with].



There was NO prosecution of the minor predator.

We did NOT cover up anything.

The only time that Law Enforcement became aware was when the state case-workers wanted to have me arrested. The police refused once they saw the time-line.

So for this little predator, there is no police record. 



At least in Ct, a child feeling another child is not a crime that police can make an arrest over. An adult encouraging such behavior would be illegal.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> We were foster-parents four times during my Active Duty military career. With one of the sibling groups that we had there was some 'molesting' that occurred between siblings, while they were with us.
> 
> They were all in therapy at the time [and will stay in therapy until they age-out of the system]. We did not know about it happening. We were told about it via one of the case-workers afterward.
> 
> ...



And that case worker wanting to arrest you it's a perfect example of acting with emotion instead of try to get facts. These things happen too often these days.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Mickey said:


> It seems to me that the family did what should have been done. The boy was turned in and they got counseling for all of the kids involved. I mean really, what would you have had them do with a 14 year old boy? And I don't see what any of this has to do with their being Christians. Seems to me some of you are using this as just another reason to slam the Church. And I don't see how preaching/teaching morality is a bad thing either. Seriously, just look at how well the world is doing since moving away from the Lord's teachings.


Problem is the boy was not turned in by them and they did not get any of the kids counseling. I keep hearing that from people defending them or trying to say it isn't as big of a deal as others are saying. The family fudged the facts on this case or outright lied.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

TxHorseMom said:


> It is my understanding that he was never prosecuted as a minor. His family covered it up, so as to the leaking of a minors "record", there never was one to leak. I AM curious as to how/why this came out now.


Are we sure that he committed a crime that could have been prosecuted?


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

Mickey said:


> Obviously someone who had it in for him; just like so many on here


If Pop Duggar where a proper christian he would have cut the head off the boy himself, a proper old testament christian would have pulled the plug, so disappointed...


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> If Pop Duggar where a proper christian he would have cut the head off the boy himself, a proper old testament christian would have pulled the plug, so disappointed...


Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> Where do you get this stuff?


From Pop Duggar...
"Duggar patriarch Jim Bob called for rape and incest to be punishable by DEATH during failed 2002 Senate campaign... two months after his son first abused a minor"

It's his own rule!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nate-campaign-two-month-son-abused-minor.html


----------



## Jlynnp (Sep 9, 2014)

I think my biggest concern is they safety of Josh Duggar's own children. Personally I would kick him to the curb and not let him around my kids..


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

Jlynnp said:


> I think my biggest concern is they safety of Josh Duggar's own children. Personally I would kick him to the curb and not let him around my kids..


That what his first arranged to-be-wife did, Anna wasn't the first choice...


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> From Pop Duggar...
> "Duggar patriarch Jim Bob called for rape and incest to be punishable by DEATH during failed 2002 Senate campaign... two months after his son first abused a minor"


I see so now you want to change the topic to rape and incest.

Can we go back to discussing the Duggar situation?


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> I see so now you want to change the topic to rape and incest.
> 
> Can we go back to discussing the Duggar situation?



You can go back to ignoring the elephant in the room everyone does...

Isn't molesting your sister incest?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> You can go back to ignoring the elephant in the room everyone does...
> 
> Isn't molesting your sister incest?


Some idiot said 'rape'. Rape requires sex.

Incest is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.



As far as I have read no sex happened. Therefore no rape happened, and no incest happened.



Roast your elephant and serve the steaks if you got any.

But stop making up stuff.


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> Some idiot said 'rape'. Rape requires sex.
> 
> Incest is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.
> 
> ...


One must wonder why you are so actively shilling for this insestual child molester, the facts are Jim Bob Duggar wanted to apply sharia law to everyone but his own rabid progeny, I bet molestation is common in the Duggar house(s)... Remember men are the head of the household in sharia law christians, women are nothing but baby makers and house moms...


The only difference between sharia law muslims and sharia law christians is the color of the crazy...


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

basketti said:


> Should they have gone on TV and risked putting the victims through this?
> Say that everything they have said is true, and they did put the kids thru counseling, etc, and it was handled perfectly and the boy is really not a child molester, etc.
> 
> Should they have put their entire family on television and used their celebrity as a means to proselytize their controversial beliefs? How could they not know this might all come out and hurt the victims and the son?
> ...


For the *LOVE of money* is the root of ALL evil.

Jesus ate with sinners. Tax collectors (ironic, they are consider 'sinners' and the dreck of the earth EVEN in Bible times!) thieves, etc.
He didn't tell them "if you wear this, you're going to hell".
He didn't say "unless you walk like this talk like this your going to hell".
NO.
NO NO NO.

I don't know WHAT the Duggars are doing, what* "religion" *they are practicing (because calling them "christians" is just wrong) but it's not right.
Maybe Cafeteria Christian; where you pick and choose what you like and pass on the rest???

Westboro Baptist Looney's call themselves "christians" and they are off their rocker too.....

They give Believers a bad name.......makes it hard for people to see the Real Jesus, when you have tool bags like the above folks making a mess out of His Word.


----------



## MichaelZ (May 21, 2013)

From a biblical standpoint, the unfortunate event that occurred within the family would have disqualified the father from being a church leader (see http://www.gotquestions.org/qualifications-elders-deacons.html ). This makes good sense - one in a prominent position must be found blameless so as to avoid scandal and controversy that pits one believer against another. One could easily argue that this would also apply to any Christian in a prominent public position. This does not mean that the parents did wrong or were phony Christians - it appears they took proper corrective steps and I believe their faith is sincere, even if it involves a type of Bill Gothard legalism that I do not agree with. But, for the sake of the church as a whole, it seems they should have stepped down from the publicly prominent position they had.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

MichaelZ said:


> From a biblical standpoint, the unfortunate event that occurred within the family would have disqualified the father from being a church leader. This makes good sense - one in a prominent position must be found blameless so as to avoid scandal and controversy that pits one believer against another. One could easily argue that this would also apply to any Christian in a prominent public position. This does not mean that the parents did wrong or were phony Christians - it appears they took proper corrective steps and I believe their faith is sincere, even if it involves a type of Bill Gothard legalism that I do not agree with. But, for the sake of the church as a whole, it seems they should have stepped down from the publicly prominent position they had.


I agree.

Though in churches we see, it is common to see leaders who are disqualified from leadership.

In my own church, we see this. The 'sin of Jeroboam' [choosing leadership by using ungodly methods]. While I can point this out, it falls on deaf ears. People are chosen because they hunger for power, or they chase after money.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> For the *LOVE of money* is the root of ALL evil.
> 
> Jesus ate with sinners. Tax collectors (ironic, they are consider 'sinners' and the dreck of the earth EVEN in Bible times!) thieves, etc.
> He didn't tell them "if you wear this, you're going to hell".
> ...


They would probably say that you are the one who is not a "real" Christian. I think they would say you are the cafeteria Christian, picking the bits you like and they are the real Christians because they follow more of the rules. It's all rather moot isn't it? To those on the outside you both claim the faith and you can both back up your claims. I'd say you are both Christians with some differing opinions on legalities.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> They would probably say that you are the one who is not a "real" Christian. I think they would say you are the cafeteria Christian, picking the bits you like and they are the real Christians because they follow more of the rules. It's all rather moot isn't it? To those on the outside you both claim the faith and you can both back up your claims. I'd say you are both Christians with some differing opinions on legalities.


Jesesh- just like those infamous moderate Muslims.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I might be misguided but I don't see this as a religious issue at all. To date, nobody has said that the Duggar's faith condones these acts and to my understanding, Pop Duggar has clearly stated on more than one occasion that he has strong opinions about pedophilia. 

I may consider Pop Duggar to be a hypocrite or possibly misguided or maybe he's like many others that seems to misunderstand that boys rights to be boys does not extend to their sister's bodies. I might even think he was arrogant enough to assume that he could hide something from the tabloids and media but nothing nothing indicates that this is a faith based issue.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

I agree it shouldn't. But there have been several instances in thenews lately about sexual abuse of children by teachers for example yet there is no discussion of it. It is suspicious this family that has become a hot topic and the thing that distinguishes them from many other cases exactly like it is their promenant religious status. Too suspicious to overlook despite protests that religion has nothing to do with it.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> I agree it shouldn't. But there have been several instances in thenews lately about sexual abuse of children by teachers for example yet there is no discussion of it. It is suspicious this family that has become a hot topic and the thing that distinguishes them from many other cases exactly like it is their promenant religious status. Too suspicious to overlook despite protests that religion has nothing to do with it.


The thing I find that distinguishes them from other cases is that they have become celebrities and like so many that have come before and so many yet to come, they believed that they could control or contain the media. It's really no different that the Kardashians, Paris Hilton or so many others famous for nothing more than being famous. The media and tabloids got them there and the media and tabloids will be right there to kick the stool out from under them if given half a chance. 

I remain firm that this is a serious issue, was poorly handled and think the televised interview being planned is as poorly conceived notion as Michael Jackson's interview with Martin Bashir. At this point, there is nothing the family is going to say to dig themselves out, explanations and excuses with dig them in further, discussing the situation will cause the victims further grief and ultimately, if the girls speak, it will seem scripted. 

The best thing they could do is walk away from the limelight, appreciate their 15 minutes of fame and heal their family in private.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

What does it matter what people say about you - [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeccTYUrb_Q[/ame]


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

The thing that bothers me the most are the constant excuses. 

This boy (and yes he was a juvenile) did not make a mistake. He made a choice. The first time. 

He was old enough to know that what he was doing was wrong. He did what he did because he wanted to. 

The reason/excuse given was that he was curious. Well one breast and pubic grope and examination should have satisfied that curiosity. 

The rest of the groping and examining (and we don't know what else of course) was premeditated. He planned to do it and he did it - for sexual gratification. It gave him pleasure and he did not care that what he was doing was immoral (against his upbringing and religious beliefs) and criminal.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> One must wonder why you are so actively shilling for this insestual child molester, the facts are Jim Bob Duggar wanted to apply sharia law to everyone but his own rabid progeny, I bet molestation is common in the Duggar house(s)... Remember men are the head of the household in sharia law christians, women are nothing but baby makers and house moms...
> 
> 
> The only difference between sharia law muslims and sharia law christians is the color of the crazy...


'Sharia' does not apply to any Christians that I am aware of.

Your post, in my hearing sounds to be filled with open hatred.

I am so sorry that you must go through life carrying so much hatred. Christ can heal. Even your wounds can be healed.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I agree it shouldn't. But there have been several instances in thenews lately about sexual abuse of children by teachers for example yet there is no discussion of it. It is suspicious this family that has become a hot topic and the thing that distinguishes them from many other cases exactly like it is their promenant religious status. Too suspicious to overlook despite protests that religion has nothing to do with it.


No discussion of it? Every time it has happened I have seen plenty of news stories and discussions. 

I don't think anyone has said religion has nothing to do with Duggar's case. Their hypocritical efforts to force their religious laws on other people has been an angle. So has the craziness of the little cult they are members of and how it opens the girls in their families up for sexual abuse.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

The most disturbing thing I saw out of the whole interview was this statement:



> "KELLY: Iâm asking you more as the father of your girls than as the father of Josh. You know, it must have been very hard to look at your little one and know the behavior had been ongoing, as difficult as your position was.
> J. B. DUGGAR: Right. I was so thankful, though, that Josh came and told us. And our girls, even though this was a very bad situation, as weâve talked to other families who have had, you know, other things happen, a lot of their stories were even worse."



How many families do they know really? I mean I know they are famous and yet they also keep themselves very isolated too. So what does it say that they know quite a few other families that had this happen and it was worse in their cases? I don't think people really comprehend how much their particular little homeschooling cult (Patriarchal, Quiverfull, ATI, Bill Gothard, etc.) sets young women up for sexual abuse.



> "This combination of zero sexual knowledge and deeply-ingrained submissiveness left many young girls in our church especially vulnerable to sexual abuse. As a teenager, I became aware that several of my friends were being molested by their older brothers or fathers. They would start stilted conversations with me about it, but none of us actually understood the concept of sex or rape or molestation enough to actually discuss it, so it stayed on the level of furtively whispered hints.
> 
> That vulnerability to abuse increases through the isolation of homeschool. There are no teachers or school counselors for abused children to confide in, so for most of them, the abuse would continue for their entire adolescence. The only hope of escape for young women was through courtship and marriage to a man, who would attempt to immediately impregnate her and to whom she would then relinquish all sexual control."


http://www.salon.com/.../i_couldve_been_a_duggar_wife_i.../


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> ... How many families do they know really? I mean I know they are famous and yet they also keep themselves very isolated too. So what does it say that they know quite a few other families that had this happen and it was worse in their cases?


As foster-parents, we have been active in foster support groups, where this discussion has occurred. As well as among our own foster-children.

We have been licensed four times [different duty stations], and I think this type of child behavior was discussed as happening in each support group. There may have been one specific support group where none of the families were seeing it, I would have to check with the Dw.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

To me it sounds as if the family handled this as best as they could. You do not throw away your son just because he does something wrong. You do everything you can to get him the help he needs while at the same time protecting the other children. Parents are human, Christians are human ergo they will make mistakes. Did Duggers do 100% the right thing? I have no idea and I have no right to judge. They did the best they could at the time and it appears that the family had healed. 

Now the family has been ripped into by the media for what reason? Ratings? How decent of the media to commit these acts of abuse while demanding something "better" of Duggers! Who are the real hypocrites? I think the media. They demand free speech for themselves, but don't want any free speech from Christians. Why are Christians not allowed to share what they believe? 

The BIGGEST ISSUE HERE is the fact that this report on JUVENILES was illegally released to the media. The media that is crying for Dugger blood has by all the frenzy they've created actually raped the girls involved in the public forum. Much worse and harder to overcome than what they suffered at Josh's hands. And Josh who by all accounts had overcome his bad juvenile choices and become an upstanding man is now having his life destroyed by the media feeding on illegally released information. A decent person would say this involves juveniles so we will not report it.

I also think it is interesting that the media has chosen to ignore all wrong doing by Mrs. Clinton while ripping into this family. Mrs. Clinton's failures are of national interest and should have had ongoing media attention and investigation until answers were received. Potentially illegal activities on the part of the Secretary of State should trump bad behavior by a teenage boy who made bad choices as he entered puberty.


----------



## Mickey (Aug 28, 2002)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> To me it sounds as if the family handled this as best as they could. You do not throw away your son just because he does something wrong. You do everything you can to get him the help he needs while at the same time protecting the other children. Parents are human, Christians are human ergo they will make mistakes. Did Duggers do 100% the right thing? I have no idea and I have no right to judge. They did the best they could at the time and it appears that the family had healed.
> 
> Now the family has been ripped into by the media for what reason? Ratings? How decent of the media to commit these acts of abuse while demanding something "better" of Duggers! Who are the real hypocrites? I think the media. They demand free speech for themselves, but don't want any free speech from Christians. Why are Christians not allowed to share what they believe?
> 
> ...


100 times yes to this one ^^^^^^


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

We know that following the Clintons there have been many deaths. We know that there have been many criminal deeds.

With the Duggers, I have yet to hear if any criminal activity has occurred.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The files were not released illegally. The police report was not filed until he was an adult. No sealed juvenile files.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> To me it sounds as if the family handled this as best as they could. You do not throw away your son just because he does something wrong. You do everything you can to get him the help he needs while at the same time protecting the other children. Parents are human, Christians are human ergo they will make mistakes. Did Duggers do 100% the right thing? I have no idea and I have no right to judge. They did the best they could at the time and it appears that the family had healed.
> 
> Now the family has been ripped into by the media for what reason? Ratings? How decent of the media to commit these acts of abuse while demanding something "better" of Duggers! Who are the real hypocrites? I think the media. They demand free speech for themselves, but don't want any free speech from Christians. Why are Christians not allowed to share what they believe?
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that the police report was not illegally released. The police department issued a statement and because Josh was no longer a minor when it was reported, the file was not sealed. If the parents had notified the police at the time of the incident, it would have been a juvenile matter and the information was made available. Ultimately, delaying reporting for so long kinda came back to bite Pop Duggar in the back pockets.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The BIGGEST ISSUE HERE is the fact that this report on JUVENILES was illegally released to the media.


They ere not obtained illegally, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act", you could request the same documents if you wanted to.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

RichNC said:


> They ere not obtained illegally, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act", you could request the same documents if you wanted to.


While the foia requests are legal, and the city attorney said it was, many legal scholar's have said it wasn't because of the age of the victims and the age of the perpetrator, and that not enough information was redacted so as to not identify them. I would agree that making juveniles information public is wrong.

I frequently file foia requests, just so you know!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

RichNC said:


> They ere not obtained illegally, it is called the "Freedom of Information Act", you could request the same documents if you wanted to.



It's my understanding that records involving juveniles have the names of any minor children redacted and Josh's name would have been too but he was no longer a minor when his parents reported it.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> As foster-parents, we have been active in foster support groups, where this discussion has occurred. As well as among our own foster-children.
> 
> We have been licensed four times [different duty stations], and I think this type of child behavior was discussed as happening in each support group. There may have been one specific support group where none of the families were seeing it, I would have to check with the Dw.


Since many foster children come from sexually abusive families that would stand to reason. The Duggars and their friends are not foster families.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> While the foia requests are legal, and the city attorney said it was, many legal scholar's have said it wasn't because of the age of the victims and the age of the perpetrator, and that not enough information was redacted so as to not identify them. I would agree that making juveniles information public is wrong.
> 
> I frequently file foia requests, just so you know!



It's my understanding that the perpetrator was no longer a juvenile when the complaint was filed. 

I do agree that unless public safety is at risk, juvenile records should not be public information but under the laws as they are now, I don't think Pop Duggar is going to win any lawsuits he's considering.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

> &#8220;&#8217;I don't think [the agencies] had a choice,&#8217; said John Tull, a Little Rock attorney who specializes in public-record cases. &#8216;They had to release the reports. Those records are not closed under FOI. The alleged perpetrator had attained his majority at the time it was released, and once his name and all the victims' names were blacked out, it was subject to FOI.&#8217;
> 
> 
> &#8220;The Washington County sheriff's office contacted Zimmerman's office on May 22, the day after the court ordered the destruction of the Springdale investigation report, the sheriff's office said in a statement, &#8216;to advise her the Sheriff's Office also had records about this case and wondered if her order stated for us to destroy our records. It was at that time she advised us she believes even our records are covered under 9-27-309(j) and we shouldn't release them on this case.&#8217; That section of the law exempts juvenile records from the Freedom of Information Act.
> ...


http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/...-didn-t-tell-you-the-cover-up-continues-59917​


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/...-didn-t-tell-you-the-cover-up-continues-59917​


So, your ok with the girls having to go through this again, because it needs to be made public? Just to expose a young Christian man? Was it worth it to them?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JeffreyD said:


> *So, your ok *with the girls having to go through this again, because it needs to be made public? Just to expose a young Christian man? Was it worth it to them?


Did you read the same post I did?

The reason I ask is because the one I read dealt only with legal opinions of third parties, and had no comments about anyone being "ok" with anything at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you read the same post I did?
> 
> The reason I ask is because the one I read dealt only with legal opinions of third parties, and had no comments about anyone being "ok" with anything at all.


Yup, I did. It was a question. It wasn't about anything else and it wasn't direct at you either, just saying. 

But, if you want to answer, I'll listen!


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The crime occurred when all were juveniles. As I understand the law nothing is to be released that identifies juveniles. Obviously, this did identify the juveniles. Beyond that it is immoral to crucify these young adults in the media. The public has no need nor any right to know this information. The system had already dealt with the issue so why does everyone think they have the right to try and convict this young man in the public media. He made bad mistakes when he was 14 or 15 and then turned his life around. Now all that he did to change has been destroyed -- for what reason? 

A friend commented that obviously the people raising he!! over this in the media and on the Internet never raised a teenaged son or had a teenaged brother.


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

wr said:


> It is my understanding that the police report was not illegally released. The police department issued a statement and because Josh was no longer a minor when it was reported, the file was not sealed. If the parents had notified the police at the time of the incident, it would have been a juvenile matter and the information was made available. Ultimately, delaying reporting for so long kinda came back to bite Pop Duggar in the back pockets.


The state police were originally notified when he was a minor. The fact that they did not proceed with a prosecution is on the police not the Duggers. The identity of a sex crime victims are never to be released yet the release of the police reports clearly identified the victims as Josh's sisters. ILLEGAL.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The state police were originally notified when he was a minor. The fact that they did not proceed with a prosecution is on the police not the Duggers. The identity of a sex crime victims are never to be released yet the release of the police reports clearly identified the victims as Josh's sisters. ILLEGAL.



I will have to reread but I thought relationships were not shown. If they were and it it not legal then Josh and the girls have grounds to sue.


----------



## Mickey (Aug 28, 2002)

I don't know whether release of the info was legal or not, but it was certainly immoral to release it. What purpose was served other than to have caused those kids a lot of embarrassment and pain. Shame shame on whoever did this.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The crime occurred when all were juveniles. As I understand the law nothing is to be released that identifies juveniles. Obviously, this did identify the juveniles. Beyond that it is immoral to crucify these young adults in the media. The public has no need nor any right to know this information. The system had already dealt with the issue so why does everyone think they have the right to try and convict this young man in the public media. He made bad mistakes when he was 14 or 15 and then turned his life around. Now all that he did to change has been destroyed -- for what reason?
> 
> A friend commented that obviously the people raising he!! over this in the media and on the Internet never raised a teenaged son or had a teenaged brother.


I raised 3 sons and none of them fondled 6 year olds when they were 14.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The state police were originally notified when he was a minor. The fact that they did not proceed with a prosecution is on the police not the Duggers. The identity of a sex crime victims are never to be released yet the release of the police reports clearly identified the victims as Josh's sisters. ILLEGAL.


As to being 'on the police'. Police do the same thing every where.

Police rarely ever arrest or prosecute minors over this topic.

Social Services are contacted, who arrange for counseling. 

Maybe it will go before a judge, If the perpetrator is diagnosed as a 'predator', then maybe he/she might go to a group home for predators for counseling among predators. But otherwise the result is the same.

No police record.

No arrest record.

No criminal record.

No 'crime'.

It is not a matter of anyone hiding anything.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Mickey - your missing something - these people don't have any morals so what they do doesn't bother them - they are Godless people who hate Christians because Christians often speak out against the perverted life style that they follow - speak out against gay marriage or abortion and they are all over you and try to do anything to hurt you - that's what is happening in this case - clear and simple - there's a war going on - good versus evil - so don't get surprised when things like this happens - people need to exert themselves and just fighting back 

Some baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay marriage and the gay community tries to ruin the baker's business - well Christians have to start fighting back - don't support any gay business or company that supports their agenda - two can play this game -


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> As to being 'on the police'. Police do the same thing every where.
> 
> Police rarely ever arrest or prosecute minors over this topic.
> 
> ...


http://www.nbc-2.com/story/19856256/14-year-old-arrested-on-molestation-charges-again

*Teen arrested on molestation charges - again*

_Posted: Oct 18, 2012 2:25 PM CST _ _Updated: Oct 18, 2012 5:44 PM CST _ 
 


 



> CHARLOTTE COUNTY - Deputies in Charlotte County arrested a 14-year-old boy again on molestation charges. This time, deputies say, the cases involved a 5 and 9-year-old.
> A Major Crimes Unit detective arrested Nathan Jay Supplee Thursday afternoon at the Justice Center in Punta Gorda for allegedly molesting two young boys.
> He has since been charged with two more felony counts of Lewd or Lascivious Molestation.
> On September 29, detectives arrested Supplee for molesting a 6-year old boy. The alleged acts happened twice in the restroom during a youth function in a Gulf Cove church, and another time at a relative's home.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JoePa said:


> Mickey - your missing something - these people don't have any morals so what they do doesn't bother them - they are Godless people who hate Christians because Christians often speak out against the perverted life style that they follow - speak out against gay marriage or abortion and they are all over you and try to do anything to hurt you - that's what is happening in this case - clear and simple - there's a war going on - good versus evil - so don't get surprised when things like this happens - people need to exert themselves and just fighting back
> 
> Some baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay marriage and the gay community tries to ruin the baker's business - well Christians have to start fighting back - don't support any gay business or company that supports their agenda - two can play this game -


You a don't find a teen groping a 5 or 6 year old child to be a bit perverted and amoral? It seems to me that Christian is defined by something more than the ability to quote scripture. 

Our dear Melissa would be a great example of a good Christian women. She never spoke an unkind word about anybody, treated folks with kindness and decency and lead folks to her faith by her examples of everyday living.


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> 'Sharia' does not apply to any Christians that I am aware of.


Sharia means Old Testament, like killing those folks who commit rape and incest (except when it's my own son), those kind of laws.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

ET1 SS said:


> Some idiot said 'rape'. Rape requires sex.
> 
> Incest is the crime of having sexual intercourse with a parent, child, sibling, or grandchild.
> 
> ...


There is more to sex than penis-in-vagina sex. Molestation, fondling, oral sex, handjobs...those all fall under the category of "sex". Otherwise, we'd have to agree that Clinton was actually telling the truth when he claimed that he did not have sex with that woman....(and for the record, I consider that to be not only a lie, but throwing her under the bus, so cowardly as well).


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> Sharia means Old Testament, like killing those folks who commit rape and incest (except when it's my own son), those kind of laws.


Sharia law is the Islamic legal system derived from the religious precepts of Islam.

Which has nothing to do with the Old Testament.

Now does it have any bearing on this thread, since this thread has no subject matter of rape of incest.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

In an interview with the Washington Post, In Touch has indicated there is more of this story to come.


----------



## 258Pots (Apr 23, 2015)

ET1 SS said:


> Now does it have any bearing on this thread, since this thread has no subject matter of rape of incest.



You hate definitions don't you? He committed insestual rape

Were the victims direct family? Yes = incest
Did the victims give consent for sexual activity? No = rape

sorry old boy. but your christian hero is a rapist... Now you can redefine the words how you like, but if it were your sister, wife or mother instead of your hero you are shilling for, you would see that...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Again I ask, if the main concern is sexual abuse of children, why is there no mention of all the recent disclosures about teachers engaging in the practice with ensuing cover ups and lack of criminal prosecution? There are any number of them right now.

I think that is because that is not the issue for many of the posters. It's a substitute for an anti- versus pro-religion debate with all the accompanying emotions. 

No one is debating alleging the man's acts were right- they are just defending themselves against attack that their religion actually caused this to happen. And those accusing based on religion are using this example as if there were no examples outside of religious people because it suits a non-related agenda.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Again I ask, if the main concern is sexual abuse of children, why is there no mention of all the recent disclosures about teachers engaging in the practice with ensuing cover ups and lack of criminal prosecution? There are any number of them right now.
> 
> I think that is because that is not the issue for many of the posters. It's a substitute for an anti- versus pro-religion debate with all the accompanying emotions.
> 
> No one is debating alleging the man's acts were right- they are just defending themselves against attack that their religion actually caused this to happen. And those accusing based on religion are using this example as if there were no examples outside of religious people because it suits a non-related agenda.


I am reading of lots of teachers being prosecuted. Therefore if you have a particular story you wish to discuss then maybe you should post it and see what the opinions are.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Again I ask, if the main concern is sexual abuse of children, why is there no mention of all the recent disclosures about teachers engaging in the practice with ensuing cover ups and lack of criminal prosecution? There are any number of them right now.
> 
> I think that is because that is not the issue for many of the posters. It's a substitute for an anti- versus pro-religion debate with all the accompanying emotions.
> 
> No one is debating alleging the man's acts were right- they are just defending themselves against attack that their religion actually caused this to happen. And those accusing based on religion are using this example as if there were no examples outside of religious people because it suits a non-related agenda.


I addressed this previously. What are you looking for a thread on here or news articles? Because it has been in the news and it has been discussed.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Patchouli said:


> I addressed this previously. What are you looking for a thread on here or news articles? Because it has been in the news and it has been discussed.


Yeah, what other threads? I don't always find all new threads. But the reason I want to see such things it to stop thinking that everything gets hyjacked by Christian hatred. Sometimes I think a thread on everything ends there.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> Yeah, what other threads? I don't always find all new threads. But the reason I want to see such things it to stop thinking that everything gets hyjacked by Christian hatred. Sometimes I think a thread on everything ends there.


Well first it has become sadly common enough it doesn't come up every time it happens. Took a bit but I found this one. It's a little hard to search for because this board has been so puritanical about "bad words" that people had to resort to euphemisms. 

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...lies/215002-having-boy-toy-one-thing-but.html


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

XtreemLee said:


> You hate definitions don't you? He committed insestual rape


Fully clothed and he penetrated his penis [however slight] inside them?


I had not heard of this.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Well first it has become sadly common enough it doesn't come up every time it happens. Took a bit but I found this one. It's a little hard to search for because this board has been so puritanical about "bad words" that people had to resort to euphemisms.
> 
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...lies/215002-having-boy-toy-one-thing-but.html


2007? You weren't even a member then! 8 years a go was the best you could do? :hysterical:


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> Fully clothed and he penetrated his penis [however slight] inside them?
> 
> 
> I had not heard of this.


They were not all fully clothed. And you might want to look up the definition of rape.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> 2007? You weren't even a member then! 8 years a go was the best you could do? :hysterical:



That depends on where topics have been posted. We used to be required to prune our forums and we each did it differently. 

Some pruned anything past a specific time period, others pruned chatty threads past a certain page and some cleaned house and deleted everything and in order to compensate, others pruned nothing.


----------



## chamoisee (May 15, 2005)

Also, some of us have been members here under a different handle. My join date says 2005, however, I have been a member of these forums since '99.


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

What many forget here is that it was Josh, and no one else, that reported his deeds to his parents.

So apparently HE knew what he was doing was wrong and went seeking help. Far different than slick willy and his denials with monica what's her name.

I have to wonder how many now, male and female, finding themselves tempted to perversion of ANY kind, or yielding to it, will find the courage to seek help. Won't they just want to hide it rather than admit it and face it?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Patchouli said:


> They were not all fully clothed. And you might want to look up the definition of rape.


The girls were interviewed and have stated that they were fully clothed.





> ARTICLE 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
> (a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
> 
> (b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

ET1 SS said:


> Fully clothed and he penetrated his penis [however slight] inside them?
> 
> 
> I had not heard of this.


Penetrated with anything, not just a penis. Digital penetration is rape as well. He very well could have raped the girls while they were fully dressed.

The fact that he was caught and confessed what he did does not absolve him of molesting girls, some of them very little girls.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> The girls were interviewed and have stated that they were fully clothed.


If you want to quibble the technicality, he reached up under their dresses and nightgowns and touched bare flesh.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Where do you get this stuff?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

ET1 SS said:


> Where do you get this stuff?


His own admission and the police report.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> If you want to quibble the technicality, he reached up under their dresses and nightgowns and touched bare flesh.


In one of the statements within the police report, a young female indicated she was in the laundry room (wide awake) and he pulled up her dress and pulled down her pants to fondle her.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> Yeah, what other threads? I don't always find all new threads. But the reason I want to see such things it to stop thinking that everything gets hyjacked by Christian hatred. Sometimes I think a thread on everything ends there.


Was it also Christian hatred when folks were upset about RC priests molesting young boys?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Was it also Christian hatred when folks were upset about RC priests molesting young boys?


You know, I never assumed that. I thought it was that the authoritarian and self protective reaction of the church hierarchy was attacked by Roman Catholics as well as outsiders. But then I never saw such a discussion on this site and that very well might have been the turn it took here.
And people keep misplacing the direction of the comments. No one, no one has excused this behavior on the basis of religion, while some posters have insisted that is what other posters have done.
I still think it's being used as a surrogate argument for and against religion as the comments are so selectively that way and that equally egregious child predation among teachers, coaches, etc are never brought at all, although clearly similar. If the real issue was the actual predation, rather than the idea religion allows the predation, the education systems would be an equally large part of the discussion.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I look at it as a timely discussion based on a news report that may bring awareness to those that had no idea that things like this happen more often that people realize. 

The family I mentioned is not christian focused and they've all but forgotten the young girl who was molested in favor of lynching the over reacting mother and screaming about how the poor lad has been crushed by the accusations of the child and her mother. It hasn't prevented him from further sexually abusing his siblings but as long as the world figures boys just need to check these things out, there are people who will continue to warn their children about stranger danger, adults in positions of authority but few are aware that a child has a greater chance of being molested by someone much younger and often a family member. 

I have no desire to bash on Christians or any other faith because child molesters seem to come from all walks of life and while I don't feel Christians are exempt, I also don't feel there is a greater concentration.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> I have no desire to bash on Christians or any other faith because child molesters seem to come from all walks of life and while I don't feel Christians are exempt, I also don't feel there is a greater concentration.


I guess I do because the comments themselves, which match the orientation on other subjects, keep raising that very issue. And as for topicality, there are a number of stories in the news right now about teachers engaged in abuse. Yet silence on that. 

It may not be your orientation but it is pretty clear that it is dominated by religious references.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

If there are a number of stories in the news right now about teachers engaged in abuse how is there silence on these stories? They are in the news so you learned of them. People are reporting on them. If there are trials in progress or persons awaiting charges and prosecution then there should not be information in the media. That is how it becomes impossible to find an untainted jury pool. 

And distracting from one crime and its perpetrators by pointing out other crimes by other perpetrators does not excuse the first crime or nullify interest in it.

The Duggars are not being charged with anything - yet - so of course there is a three ring circus going on in the media. Isn't this the sort of salacious story that people follow? Look at all the threads and posts on this one board alone. And I am, like everyone else, interested.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The Duggars are celebrities of a sort. that is why this is being discussed. Bruce Jenner is a celebrity that is why he is being discussed. Religion has been brought into both discussion by many viewpoints. The threads were however started because they have TV shows.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

where I want to said:


> I guess I do because the comments themselves, which match the orientation on other subjects, keep raising that very issue. And as for topicality, there are a number of stories in the news right now about teachers engaged in abuse. Yet silence on that.
> 
> It may not be your orientation but it is pretty clear that it is dominated by religious references.


Why don't you start a story on a teacher student relationship that is in the news? 

The reaction here has been in part because as soon as this hit the news Christians waded in and excused Josh Duggar's behavior and tried to turn the discussion to how the media hates Christians instead of addressing what he did and why it was wrong. The other thread here on HT was one of the worst I have ever seen and there were plenty of people defending Josh Duggar's actions.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lesbian-kiss-exposed-dark-family-secrets.html

I am reading that there is also more to come out about the Duggars. They are getting ready for it. that is why some of them are quitting there jobs ahead of the news.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

I guess it's true . . . . . . . all empires do rise and then fall.

If you want to be rich and famous, you should be prepared to show the world the skeletons in your closet.

One has to wonder if the "19 and counting" is talking about how many children the Duggars have or how many children Josh molested?

One has to wonder how long the Duggar money empire will hold out. Have they saved and invested their money wisely and how long will it last? 

One also has to wonder how long before the family has infighting and back stabbing? I don't think it's going to be one big happy family anymore.

It might be interesting to watch this November's - Duggar Family Thanksgiving. I wonder if they will have it aired?


----------



## nodak3 (Feb 5, 2003)

Hmm--I haven't seen ANYONE defending Josh Duggar's actions.

What I have seen is people pointing out HE is the one to turn himself in to begin with and seek help. Some have pointed out the Duggars had limited choices on how to handle it. Whether or not they chose wisely only time can tell.

I'd like some to say what they think should happen when a person who is legally a child does wrong, gets treatment, and apparently has stopped doing wrong. Should he never be spoken to by family members again? Never hold down a job? Never marry? If he is to live a totally isolated life from now on, how is he to get his living/shop/etc?

I guess I'm asking if "you" did something incredibly stupid and wrong, owned up to it, sought help to stop it, and apparently had stopped it, would you want the punishment to last a lifetime?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I'm very torn on the whole fiasco. While I have worked as a volunteer for a program that often includes kids who were sexually molested, I do see some value in society understanding that there are no exemptions and sexual abuse can happen to children within any kind of family. 

Another part of me read the last article posted with shock and horror. The person who claims to have outed this family did not do this to save a child or even create awareness. It was simply done to defame someone they didn't agree with and smear politics has never been something I understand and at some point, the young children may find their way to the internet and discover this whole sordid mess in a way they don't deserve. 

In Touch has indicated that after they're done with the Duggars, they may turn their attention on the Robertson family but that might truly be tricky because rather than waiting for the tabloids to dig up their dirt, the Robertson family shared it publicly as an example of why they aren't perfect and how their faith affected them in a positive way.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

nodak3 said:


> Hmm--I haven't seen ANYONE defending Josh Duggar's actions.
> 
> What I have seen is people pointing out HE is the one to turn himself in to begin with and seek help. Some have pointed out the Duggars had limited choices on how to handle it. Whether or not they chose wisely only time can tell.
> 
> ...


I think a lot of reaction has to do with not knowing. The parents have indicated that Josh came to them and fessed but but the police report seems to show a different aspect. 

Did he get treatment? Again, there is conflicting stories on this because there is an indication that he went away to work for a couple months. 

Has he stopped? Again, that is unknown. 

For the sake of argument, I don't feel someone needs to be punished for a lifetime for a mistake made in their youth but there are two very different scenarios involved in this. 

One would be the one you set forth and no, they shouldn't be punished for life but since his employer probably had a fairly strict morals clause in his contract and he did publicly state that he did these things, he was very likely in violation of that contract and was offered the choice to resign before he quit. 

The other more concerning one would be that he hasn't had treatment, hasn't stopped and has just been more cautious about getting caught. Is he a teen that just made poor choices over and over again or is he something more predatory? If he is something more predatory, is society okay with continued behavior? 

I might be misinformed but I truly don't think losing a TV show is a life sentence especially when you consider there are guys who have served time for the very same thing.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

When you put your family, religion and lifestyle out there as they did, you are inviting the scrutiny. The person who outed this story only did so after the parents did a truly horrendous robocall. Even then it was the pushing of the media that really escalated it. 

I am not condoning any of the players in this story but if you are not prepared for the heat don't step into the fire.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

nodak3 said:


> Hmm--I haven't seen ANYONE defending Josh Duggar's actions.
> 
> What I have seen is people pointing out HE is the one to turn himself in to begin with and seek help. Some have pointed out the Duggars had limited choices on how to handle it. Whether or not they chose wisely only time can tell.
> 
> ...


According to the police report he was caught coming out of one of the bedrooms and confessed. He did not come forward until he was caught. Again according to the police report he received no counseling only "built houses" for a family friend for a few months, and who knows what he's doing now. I don't, do you?

He should go on a sex offender registry for life and follow the rules like every other sex offender in the country.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> ... He should go on a sex offender registry for life and follow the rules like every other sex offender in the country.


I have had children living in my home, who did acts far more severe than what this guy did, yet they are not on any sex offender list.

That is not how the sec offender list works.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

ET1 SS said:


> I have had children living in my home, who did acts far more severe than what this guy did, yet they are not on any sex offender list.
> 
> That is not how the sec offender list works.


That's how it works but you have to be convicted of a sex crime first. I left that part off, so had his father not covered it up he could have ended up on the registry.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

It is my understanding that unless a young offender has been charged and convicted as an adult, they can't be placed on the sex offender registry so from that aspect, I do believe that there is no special treatment for Josh Duggar because of his faith or because of celebrity.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

In my opinion most of the comments on this post are pure bull poo. We as humans love to "what if" everything we hear. What if his dad covered up the incident or his dad did not cover the incident? That has nothing to do with the guy being on a sex offender registry. What if he confessed, what if he didn't, what if he got treatment, what if he didn't? What if his sisters were victims what if they were participants? We actually have NO way of knowing the total and absolute truth about any of this so we have no business judging these folks. The only one who knows and can judge is our Creator. We, as mortals, are just spreading harmful gossip and should be ashamed of ourselves for we too are causing harm. sis


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sisterpine said:


> In my opinion most of the comments on this post are pure bull poo. We as humans love to "what if" everything we hear. What if his dad covered up the incident or his dad did not cover the incident? That has nothing to do with the guy being on a sex offender registry. What if he confessed, what if he didn't, what if he got treatment, what if he didn't? What if his sisters were victims what if they were participants? We actually have NO way of knowing the total and absolute truth about any of this so we have no business judging these folks. The only one who knows and can judge is our Creator. We, as mortals, are just spreading harmful gossip and should be ashamed of ourselves for we too are causing harm. sis



I actually totally agree with you and it's looking like if the Duggars hadn't passed judgment on someone, their own dirty laundry wouldn't be all over the news. 

Sometimes it all comes back reaping what you sow.


----------



## sisterpine (May 9, 2004)

So true, hopefully they have learned the same lesson I have!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

sisterpine said:


> So true, hopefully they have learned the same lesson I have!



To a degree, it is human nature to judge and we all do it in some way. 

Some, like yourself on another thread, judge victims, other judge what they don't understand and I will admit to harshly judging those who lie under any circumstances. Often our desire to judge is based on our own experiences or fears.


----------

