U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:08 AM
 
Location: Fairfield of the Ohio
708 posts, read 511,245 times
Reputation: 2091

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mtn. States Resident View Post
Here you go. It's in the late 30s pages here.

For all who want the police report, here you go. It should be 33 pages.


Bombshell Duggar Police Report: Jim Bob Duggar Didn

This is frightening to read. The manual of how to deal with a "Family Moral Faith Crisis," or some name like that, the Gothard way. The rest of us would say sexual abuse or incest.

The Duggar Homeschool Program's Terrifying Advice on Sexual Assault


MSR
I read both of the documents. Yes, they are both horrifying. However, neither one of them indicates the ages or the date of births of the victims.

 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:16 AM
 
Location: Fairfield of the Ohio
708 posts, read 511,245 times
Reputation: 2091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry View Post
As a childhood victim of molestation worse than what the police report shows Josh Duggar did, I'm going to disagree with those screaming that the victims will face horrendous lifetime effects.................................The fact that this juvenile record has come to light shows there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Possibly the best post I have read on the entire matter. #Survivor
 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:31 AM
 
Location: My beloved Bluegrass
14,619 posts, read 10,521,232 times
Reputation: 19744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry View Post
As a childhood victim of molestation worse than what the police report shows Josh Duggar did, I'm going to disagree with those screaming that the victims will face horrendous lifetime effects. I certainly haven't let a couple of incidents scar me for life.

According to the victim and witness statements, the fondling was a one-time incident, while both the child and Josh were fully clothed and the clothing was a barrier. (This negates those who are arguing that there was vaginal penetration.) There was one incident of a shirt being pulled up, and another of a skirt being pulled up, but those incidents were not fully described in the witness statements, so it's difficult to say exactly what occurred then.

Three years after the incidents, the victims said there had been no repeat offenses. Some had fuzzy memories, likely because they were young and time is a great healer. A couple of the victims seemed unaware that they had actually been molested. One was because she had been asleep and the only thing she remembered was Josh removing a blanket; it's unclear why the other one or two were unaware. They all claimed to feel safe in the home. Only one specifically said she didn't trust Josh anymore.

Josh's offenses were relatively minor in terms of sexual molestation. (That doesn't mean I condone what he did. He was wrong. Period.) Clothing was a barrier. Several of the victims indicated it was a one time occurrence. It's difficult to say about the others, but there is nothing in the police report that indicates this was an ongoing, daily occurrence that some here like to suggest. It also sounds like the parents (once they were aware of what had happened initially) had talks with all of their children about appropriate and inappropriate touch, and when it happened later, the child knew to report it to her parents. We're not privy to what precautions and talks may or may not have occurred before the molestation became known.

All this publicity, public condemnation, and embellishment of the facts is more likely to have far more damaging consequences than what originally occurred. Based on the victim statements, the girls were well on their way to recovery and getting on with leading normal lives. They felt secure in their homes, and they felt their parents had taken steps to protect them. They were apparently never made to feel like the perpetual victims their naysayers insist they must be. From my personal experience, I will agree that they aren't perpetual victims. My parents never knew what happened to me, so they were unable to counsel me appropriately. Yet, I survived, put the incidents past me while learning how to recognize perverts and protect myself and others from them, and moved on with my life. Despite what many will claim for me, I do not have lasting scars, and I rarely ever think about the couple of incidents in my own life.

-------

Many here are claiming that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have covered up this incident. They also claim that Jim Bob never took Josh to the police department. They claim the Duggars took him to a family friend who only gave him a stern talking to. That's not what the police report indicates. The report says the family handled the incidents internally after the initial occurrences. When another incident occurred a year later, the family took the issue before the church elders who recommended a treatment facility which Jim Bob thought was affiliated with a police department since it shared facilities with one. The elders were wary of state-sponsored juvenile detention facilities that have long been seen as "finishing schools" and training centers for more hardened youth. The chosen treatment center provided four months of hard manual labor while providing counseling from an uncertified individual/s. (Personal opinion -- effective counseling doesn't necessarily have to come from a certified individual. Some certified therapists actually exacerbate the problem.) After the four months were up, the elders thought the incidents needed to be reported to the police.

Jim Bob took Josh to the police headquarters, where he asked to speak to an officer he knew professionally through his business as a car dealer. There's no indication this was a close personal friend. Since this man was currently still employed as a police officer, there's no reason to believe Jim Bob had any knowledge of the officer's possession of child pornography. Since Josh had already completed a treatment program, the officer chose not to pursue charges but chose to give Josh a stern lecture. Police and DAs have rather broad discretionary judgment regarding cases to pursue. Apparently, the officer was satisfied with the steps the Duggars had undertaken to correct the problem.

So, the Duggar parents didn't cover up the incident. The path they took actually made more people aware of the situation. If they had only gone to the police, there would have been no need to involve members of the church. Instead, the Duggars chose what they perceived as wise counsel and accountability, and they followed advice. There was no need for them to shout a juvenile son's indiscretions from the public rooftop. This protected both their son and their daughters.

While I believe the Duggars were unwise to put their family in the public eye after these incidents, they were not obligated to air their dirty laundry publicly. If they had some kind of morality clause with TLC, that's between them and the station. I seriously doubt that any of the people accusing the Duggars of a cover up would have acted any differently if their own families had been through something similar. In fact, many parents cover up much worse offenses their children commit, up to and including murder. Even worse, such parents even excuse abhorrent behavior. The Duggars didn't cover up their son's actions, and they acknowledge he was wrong.

Some here seem to think that the Duggars should have turned over Josh when the police requested an interview. I doubt that any attorney would agree. Standard legal advice is to always have an attorney present during questioning, whether one is a suspect, a victim, or a witness. The police don't like that advice and claim you don't need representation if you're innocent, but the courts disagree. The Duggars presented their daughters for questioning; there is no indication an attorney was present for their interviews. Furthermore, the female investigator questioning the girls displayed actions that indicated she was properly trained to question sexual assault victims, so she surely knew what signs to look to determine if the girls were still in danger. There is nothing in the report to indicate the investigator was concerned. The Duggars were well within their rights to keep Josh from police questioning without the presence of an attorney.

Some here also think Jim Bob Duggar is a mastermind of criminal deceit by being a member of the legislature and knowingly stalling the process until the statute of limitations had elapsed. First, that's giving a lot of credit to legislators, considering we have members of Congress that can't accurately identify the three branches of government let alone accurately apply legal statutes (even when they're lawyers). Second, the statute of limitations had already passed before the investigation started. The police were doing due diligence to ensure the daughters were no longer in danger, but it is doubtful they could have done anything to Josh other than give him another stern lecture.

-------

What I find telling is the deliberate distortion of the facts presented throughout this thread. That says far more about thread participants than any of the faux outrage designed to deliberately discredit the Duggars, the Family Research Council, or the politicians with whom Josh Duggar has been photographed. In fact, there is no reason for news outlets to include such pictures in the coverage other than to create guilt by association. There is no reason to believe the FRC or any politician was privy to the private lives of the Duggars, nor for them to have access to the records regarding a juvenile offense. The fact that this juvenile record has come to light shows there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
THIS

Without doubt the best post of the thread. Way too many people are approaching this story with an agenda instead of rationally looking at the whole picture. You can dislike, even hate the Duggars, but at least be honest that your outrage is more about disliking them (or more specifically their moral/political veiws) instead of acting like a 14 year-old who touched his sisters inappropriately is the worst pedophile to walk the Earth or deluding yourself that every other parent would have immediately marched their child to the police station in the same situation.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.Moderator - Asia, Kentucky, Lexington, and Louisville
 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:59 AM
 
Location: Planet Earth
2,782 posts, read 2,427,040 times
Reputation: 4982
"Persecute" Christians? No Christian is locked up or starved, in America, that's persecution. Calling the "moral majority" out on their misogynistic ways is not persecution. Pointing out hypocrisy is not persecution. People are not looking to deny Christians their rights.

Last edited by FlowerPower00; 05-29-2015 at 06:08 AM..
 
Old 05-29-2015, 05:59 AM
 
176 posts, read 126,264 times
Reputation: 489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
THIS

Without doubt the best post of the thread. Way too many people are approaching this story with an agenda instead of rationally looking at the whole picture. You can dislike, even hate the Duggars, but at least be honest that your outrage is more about disliking them (or more specifically their moral/political veiws) instead of acting like a 14 year-old who touched his sisters inappropriately is the worst pedophile to walk the Earth or deluding yourself that every other parent would have immediately marched their child to the police station in the same situation.
Maybe raising children in a cloistered environment with little to no outside contact makes it easier for molesters to exploit children and get away with it?

So the molestation scandal wasn't shocking to a lot of people given the secretive nature of their "sect", especially in light of similar scandals such as the infamous Catholic sex abuse cases where it was intentionally covered up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlowerPower00 View Post
"Persecute" Christians? No Christian is locked up or starved, that's persecution. Calling the "moral majority" out on their misogynistic ways is not persecution. Pointing out hypocrisy is not persecution. People are not looking to deny Christians their rights. Unlike Christians who persecute gays and lesbians.
While I may be biased - I feel the nature of the sheltered Christian homeschool groups encourages abuse like this to take place - since religious fundamentalists have been known to try to cover up things like this, or even blame the victims such as in the Bob Jones University scandal, so I believe this is why a lot of people have resentment for the family. It's not because they "hate Christians", it's because the cult-ish behavior of fundamentalists encourages abuse like this and provides avenues for abusers to get away with it Scott free.

Here's the fundamentalist Bob Jones University sex scandal I was talking about:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us...tudy.html?_r=0
 
Old 05-29-2015, 06:30 AM
 
1,703 posts, read 872,324 times
Reputation: 2729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry View Post
As a childhood victim of molestation worse than what the police report shows Josh Duggar did, I'm going to disagree with those screaming that the victims will face horrendous lifetime effects. I certainly haven't let a couple of incidents scar me for life.

According to the victim and witness statements, the fondling was a one-time incident, while both the child and Josh were fully clothed and the clothing was a barrier. (This negates those who are arguing that there was vaginal penetration.) There was one incident of a shirt being pulled up, and another of a skirt being pulled up, but those incidents were not fully described in the witness statements, so it's difficult to say exactly what occurred then.

Three years after the incidents, the victims said there had been no repeat offenses. Some had fuzzy memories, likely because they were young and time is a great healer. A couple of the victims seemed unaware that they had actually been molested. One was because she had been asleep and the only thing she remembered was Josh removing a blanket; it's unclear why the other one or two were unaware. They all claimed to feel safe in the home. Only one specifically said she didn't trust Josh anymore.

Josh's offenses were relatively minor in terms of sexual molestation. (That doesn't mean I condone what he did. He was wrong. Period.) Clothing was a barrier. Several of the victims indicated it was a one time occurrence. It's difficult to say about the others, but there is nothing in the police report that indicates this was an ongoing, daily occurrence that some here like to suggest. It also sounds like the parents (once they were aware of what had happened initially) had talks with all of their children about appropriate and inappropriate touch, and when it happened later, the child knew to report it to her parents. We're not privy to what precautions and talks may or may not have occurred before the molestation became known.

All this publicity, public condemnation, and embellishment of the facts is more likely to have far more damaging consequences than what originally occurred. Based on the victim statements, the girls were well on their way to recovery and getting on with leading normal lives. They felt secure in their homes, and they felt their parents had taken steps to protect them. They were apparently never made to feel like the perpetual victims their naysayers insist they must be. From my personal experience, I will agree that they aren't perpetual victims. My parents never knew what happened to me, so they were unable to counsel me appropriately. Yet, I survived, put the incidents past me while learning how to recognize perverts and protect myself and others from them, and moved on with my life. Despite what many will claim for me, I do not have lasting scars, and I rarely ever think about the couple of incidents in my own life.

-------

Many here are claiming that Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have covered up this incident. They also claim that Jim Bob never took Josh to the police department. They claim the Duggars took him to a family friend who only gave him a stern talking to. That's not what the police report indicates. The report says the family handled the incidents internally after the initial occurrences. When another incident occurred a year later, the family took the issue before the church elders who recommended a treatment facility which Jim Bob thought was affiliated with a police department since it shared facilities with one. The elders were wary of state-sponsored juvenile detention facilities that have long been seen as "finishing schools" and training centers for more hardened youth. The chosen treatment center provided four months of hard manual labor while providing counseling from an uncertified individual/s. (Personal opinion -- effective counseling doesn't necessarily have to come from a certified individual. Some certified therapists actually exacerbate the problem.) After the four months were up, the elders thought the incidents needed to be reported to the police.

Jim Bob took Josh to the police headquarters, where he asked to speak to an officer he knew professionally through his business as a car dealer. There's no indication this was a close personal friend. Since this man was currently still employed as a police officer, there's no reason to believe Jim Bob had any knowledge of the officer's possession of child pornography. Since Josh had already completed a treatment program, the officer chose not to pursue charges but chose to give Josh a stern lecture. Police and DAs have rather broad discretionary judgment regarding cases to pursue. Apparently, the officer was satisfied with the steps the Duggars had undertaken to correct the problem.

So, the Duggar parents didn't cover up the incident. The path they took actually made more people aware of the situation. If they had only gone to the police, there would have been no need to involve members of the church. Instead, the Duggars chose what they perceived as wise counsel and accountability, and they followed advice. There was no need for them to shout a juvenile son's indiscretions from the public rooftop. This protected both their son and their daughters.

While I believe the Duggars were unwise to put their family in the public eye after these incidents, they were not obligated to air their dirty laundry publicly. If they had some kind of morality clause with TLC, that's between them and the station. I seriously doubt that any of the people accusing the Duggars of a cover up would have acted any differently if their own families had been through something similar. In fact, many parents cover up much worse offenses their children commit, up to and including murder. Even worse, such parents even excuse abhorrent behavior. The Duggars didn't cover up their son's actions, and they acknowledge he was wrong.

Some here seem to think that the Duggars should have turned over Josh when the police requested an interview. I doubt that any attorney would agree. Standard legal advice is to always have an attorney present during questioning, whether one is a suspect, a victim, or a witness. The police don't like that advice and claim you don't need representation if you're innocent, but the courts disagree. The Duggars presented their daughters for questioning; there is no indication an attorney was present for their interviews. Furthermore, the female investigator questioning the girls displayed actions that indicated she was properly trained to question sexual assault victims, so she surely knew what signs to look to determine if the girls were still in danger. There is nothing in the report to indicate the investigator was concerned. The Duggars were well within their rights to keep Josh from police questioning without the presence of an attorney.

Some here also think Jim Bob Duggar is a mastermind of criminal deceit by being a member of the legislature and knowingly stalling the process until the statute of limitations had elapsed. First, that's giving a lot of credit to legislators, considering we have members of Congress that can't accurately identify the three branches of government let alone accurately apply legal statutes (even when they're lawyers). Second, the statute of limitations had already passed before the investigation started. The police were doing due diligence to ensure the daughters were no longer in danger, but it is doubtful they could have done anything to Josh other than give him another stern lecture.

-------

What I find telling is the deliberate distortion of the facts presented throughout this thread. That says far more about thread participants than any of the faux outrage designed to deliberately discredit the Duggars, the Family Research Council, or the politicians with whom Josh Duggar has been photographed. In fact, there is no reason for news outlets to include such pictures in the coverage other than to create guilt by association. There is no reason to believe the FRC or any politician was privy to the private lives of the Duggars, nor for them to have access to the records regarding a juvenile offense. The fact that this juvenile record has come to light shows there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Blueberry, yours is the most intelligent, most objective, most comprehensive and most insightful post of this entire thread. You have summed up everything, from the situation as faced and handled by the Duggars to the themes and attitudes running through this discussion, and done so in a manner of utmost professionalism.

The long term effects of molestation while still a child at the hands of a not-yet-adult young teenage boy (in this case, a sibling) are unpredictible. None of us were there, none of us fully understand the family dynamics, none of us have had our brains and thinking processes molded during our developmental years as the Duggars have done to their own children. According to "Alice", posting in 2007 (I think), authorities were aware of the situation at that time and the Duggars were being monitored every six months. Had there been a continuation of the molestation or obvious deterioration in the mental health of the girls involved, I have to assume that a corrective intervention would have taken place. There was none. More than likely the case was closed after a period of time.

TLC was right to cancel their show.

Love them or hate them, approve or condemn, the Duggars did take steps to handle the situation as they saw fit--they didn't ignore it. As far as we know, what they did, did have the desired effect upon young Josh as--again--as far as we know, he did not continue the molestation beyond the age of 15. There is no evidence that we can see that the molestation had any severe, long-term, detrimental effects on the girls involved. From what I can ascertain, everyone has moved on and put the whole, unfortunate event behind them and gone on with their lives. While none of us view their lifestyle as "healthy", it's their life to live and as long as the parents are not defrauding the system (according to legal standards), abusing their children (again, according to legal standards) or doing anything else illegal, IMO they should be left alone to deal with the public humiliation and their fall from grace as best they can.
 
Old 05-29-2015, 06:42 AM
 
Location: Holly Springs, NC
300 posts, read 564,756 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by ca_north View Post
The bigger apology should be for promoting overpopulation and shunning birth control on this overcrowded planet with a 78 million annual net gain of humans who are slowly pillaging nature to death. The fact that he got tempted by teen girls (not uncommon) pales in comparison to the whole Quiverfull attitude that ignores carrying-capacity and resource scarcity.

Then again, most people still behave as if the Earth has no limits so the Duggars are just showcasing human gluttony.
Overpopulation is definitely a problem within the Quiverfull movement although Michelle was questioned about it and laughed it off. Despite her laughter, she fails to realize that if each of her children were to have 19 children and each seceding generation were to do the same by the time that JB & M's grandchildren had grandchildren, they would have over 2.5 million descendants. While I realize it's doubtful that each of the offspring will follow in their footsteps and that their children will do the same, it's frightening to realize how quickly the world would become further burdened with too many people in a relatively short timespan, especially considering how young they marry and have children.

2.5 MILLION descendants within 5 generations, from only TWO people?! That's certainly disturbing, to say the least, but M has said she doesn't believe in the idea of overpopulation. Irony meters exploded everywhere considering the size of the family the Quiverfull movement promotes!
 
Old 05-29-2015, 06:48 AM
 
9,173 posts, read 7,019,504 times
Reputation: 11145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry View Post
Pee Wee Herman, if I recall correctly (I'm not going to look it up), committed his lewd act while his show was on the air. He was also an adult at the time. It's not the same as a 12 year old juvenile offense which should have been sealed because police had no case for charging the offender with a crime coming to light while the show is on the air.

Honey Boo Boo got yanked because her mother was currently dating a sex offender who, if I recall correctly, had molested one of her daughters. Again, this was the action of an adult, in real time, with children currently at risk.

Does the term "apples and oranges" ring a bell?




First, I never said any such thing. You're the one doing the assuming. Second, I never made a blanket statement which incorporated everyone who objected to Josh being on the show. Third, I never mentioned religion or Christian fundamentalists; I did mention politics. People have many bones to pick with this family: religion, fundamentalism, quiver full, conservatism, home schooling, family planning, environmental impacts, Republicans, and probably a few other things I've missed.




If the Duggars truly believe in family values, how does what one person did negate what the others believe in? If Josh has truly repented and changed his ways, is he no longer allowed to believe in family values or to lobby for societal change? It's only hypocritical if the family or Josh spouts family values while not believing in them or not attempting to live by them. Please note the word "attempt." No one can live up to the expectation of perfection some are demanding of this family.

There used to be law enforcement programs along the lines of "Scared Straight" where hardened criminals, doing time, attempted to discourage at-risk youth from making their mistake and suffering the same consequences. Was it hypocritical of them to try to set others on the right path?

How about a lung cancer patient who tries to warn others about the danger of smoking? Is he also a hypocrite? Isn't he performing a public service to attempt to prevent others from sharing his fate?

Have you ever heard the adage, "Do as I say and not as I do?" That is the mantra of many people, especially parents who want their children to live better lives or have better habits than themselves. People generally know the difference from right and wrong. Although they might struggle in various areas themselves, they still want others to do the right thing and not follow their bad example. Is it really hypocritical to encourage others to do what you believe is right even though it might be a personal struggle for you? If so, then we should all put a piece of tape over our mouths and remove ourselves from any public forums.


But, it seems that the only people who can be hypocrites are Christians, conservatives, or Republicans. That's the same as saying that the only people who can be racists are Whites.

The idea of making Christians, conservatives, or Republicans live up to their own set of standards is straight from Alinsky's, <u>Rules for Radicals</u>. Demand perfection from others while ignoring the standard for ourselves. I've actually heard both liberals and non-Christians say they cannot be hypocrites because they don't have a set of standards they believe in. If true they don't have standards, they're a sad bunch of people. Second, ignoring their own foibles and "preaching" doesn't excuse them from wearing the label of "hypocrite" they are so quick to slap on others.
Uh huh. That all sounds very reasonable.

Except, the Duggars have done no such good with their platform. Did they come out and say "look, here's some issues we've had within our own family, here's what we did to mitigate the harm, here's some resources for victims, perpetrators and parents struggling with this issue, let us help others by using our family as an example of how to get through it."

No. They used their political clout, spotlight and actual jobs to point out to the community at large how (in their opinion, not evidenced in fact) LBGT persons are a hazard to children everywhere and as such should be denied rights afforded others, while publicly disregarding the enormous mote in their own eye.

That is doing none of what you suggest here. In fact, it's the height of hypocrisy to "do as I say" without even admitting that you have done it too.

There is much good people can do by helping others navigate issues they themselves have had. The Duggars have done no such thing.
 
Old 05-29-2015, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Holly Springs, NC
300 posts, read 564,756 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by sspistol View Post
I read both of the documents. Yes, they are both horrifying. However, neither one of them indicates the ages or the date of births of the victims.
The documents you refer to indicate that the victims all lived within the home except for one. That means that at the time, it was Josh's sisters and an unknown family acquaintance. The ages that, although they may be speculation, are the ages of the five oldest girls in the family at that time. It's an easy process of elimination.
 
Old 05-29-2015, 07:09 AM
 
Location: Holly Springs, NC
300 posts, read 564,756 times
Reputation: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueberry View Post
Pee Wee Herman, if I recall correctly (I'm not going to look it up), committed his lewd act while his show was on the air. He was also an adult at the time. It's not the same as a 12 year old juvenile offense which should have been sealed because police had no case for charging the offender with a crime coming to light while the show is on the air.

Honey Boo Boo got yanked because her mother was currently dating a sex offender who, if I recall correctly, had molested one of her daughters. Again, this was the action of an adult, in real time, with children currently at risk.

Does the term "apples and oranges" ring a bell?




First, I never said any such thing. You're the one doing the assuming. Second, I never made a blanket statement which incorporated everyone who objected to Josh being on the show. Third, I never mentioned religion or Christian fundamentalists; I did mention politics. People have many bones to pick with this family: religion, fundamentalism, quiver full, conservatism, home schooling, family planning, environmental impacts, Republicans, and probably a few other things I've missed.




If the Duggars truly believe in family values, how does what one person did negate what the others believe in? If Josh has truly repented and changed his ways, is he no longer allowed to believe in family values or to lobby for societal change? It's only hypocritical if the family or Josh spouts family values while not believing in them or not attempting to live by them. Please note the word "attempt." No one can live up to the expectation of perfection some are demanding of this family.

There used to be law enforcement programs along the lines of "Scared Straight" where hardened criminals, doing time, attempted to discourage at-risk youth from making their mistake and suffering the same consequences. Was it hypocritical of them to try to set others on the right path?

How about a lung cancer patient who tries to warn others about the danger of smoking? Is he also a hypocrite? Isn't he performing a public service to attempt to prevent others from sharing his fate?

Have you ever heard the adage, "Do as I say and not as I do?" That is the mantra of many people, especially parents who want their children to live better lives or have better habits than themselves. People generally know the difference from right and wrong. Although they might struggle in various areas themselves, they still want others to do the right thing and not follow their bad example. Is it really hypocritical to encourage others to do what you believe is right even though it might be a personal struggle for you? If so, then we should all put a piece of tape over our mouths and remove ourselves from any public forums.

But, it seems that the only people who can be hypocrites are Christians, conservatives, or Republicans. That's the same as saying that the only people who can be racists are Whites.

The idea of making Christians, conservatives, or Republicans live up to their own set of standards is straight from Alinsky's, <u>Rules for Radicals</u>. Demand perfection from others while ignoring the standard for ourselves. I've actually heard both liberals and non-Christians say they cannot be hypocrites because they don't have a set of standards they believe in. If true they don't have standards, they're a sad bunch of people. Second, ignoring their own foibles and "preaching" doesn't excuse them from wearing the label of "hypocrite" they are so quick to slap on others.
Rules for Radicals by Alinsky? I don't think I've ever seen a book quoted by so many people who have likely NEVER read it, as I have in the past 7 years. I mentioned this a few years ago on another forum and at the time, someone did a search on Google and it showed that 97% of all mentions of the title came after President Obama was elected. Did all Conservatives read this or are you just quoting talking points? There is no book that is followed by Democrats or Liberals as so many refer to them.

I have to take issue with the fact that you claim because you never had any problems after being molested that you don't necessarily think the Duggar girls have, either. I was raped at the age of 16 and effectively shut it out for almost 20 years. When it came out again, it was traumatic and I had to deal with the fact that I never properly addressed it at the time it happened. That is what bothers me about the Duggar girls. There is no mention of any counseling for them, either. Considering Josh was NOT counseled and the Duggars lied about it, I doubt they allowed it for their daughters. The Quiverfull movement's literature on molestation have a tendency to blame the victim or to try to claim it's better to have been molested because it allowed them to move closer to God. I think that's horrendous, no matter what religion it's associated with.

I also read that the police officer they originally took Josh to who "gave him a stern talking to" has come forward in an interview and said he's disturbed to have learned that they lied to him. Hutchins (?) said that JB told him that the incident only happened once and to one girl, not several girls and several times. Considering that Hutchens and JB have both been proven to lie, I don't know who's telling the truth. However, this guy Hutchens is behind bars, wasn't compensated for the interview and doesn't benefit in any way by lying now. He won't receive a reduction in sentencing time, etc.

No matter what has happened, the Duggars are not someone I'd hold up as an example as a family to emulate. Not because of religion, although their religion has led to quite a twisted way of behavior and thought IMO, but because they don't appear to have learned from the past. You can't hide the truth. It always comes out and by hiding it, you make others question why you did so and what else are you covering up?!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top