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.
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.
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.
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?!
Not at all - but if you found out that a star of a reality show was charged with attempted murder at age 14, would you want him staring on a "family-oriented show"?
14 isn't exactly 7 either - in some states a 14 year old is old enough to marry with parental consent.
He's hardly the "star" of the show. The boys seem peripheral at best. Even when TLC is filming his family, they seem to focus more on Anna and the kids.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,387,379 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDriver
What makes you think he's repented simply because he said so (only after the scandal was brought to light)?.
Honestly, I have no idea if he's truly repented. I'm not inside his head or his heart. However, the 2006 police report details that Jim Bob and some of the victims stated Josh had repented and apologized. There hadn't been another incident in over three years, nor do we know of one since then. He reportedly told not only his future wife but also her parents that he had repented. Someone has stated that the family has been evaluated every six months. Apparently, there has been no reportable incidents.
It seems to me you wanted him to publicly come forward as a 14 year old. Deny it all you want, but people want this family held to a different standard than they would want for their own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDriver
Looks to me like you're suggesting that this is part of an agenda to persecute Christians - as opposed to a non-partisan objection to child molestation.
Puh-leeeze . . . If this were a non-partisan objection to child molestation, people would not be making derogatory statements against Christianity, conservatives, or Republicans. Neither would the media be posting pictures of Josh with various Republican presidential hopefuls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDriver
Also I'm not sure what liberals or non-Christians you're referring to - but I doubt the majority would say they don't have standards. Many of the Founders were deists but had a strong set of Enlightenment values that they believed in for example. So did the Classical philosophers.
It sounds like you're just using a false dichotomy here - you're suggesting that there's no alternative to fundamentalist Christian values other than simply "having no values at all". There are a lot of people, including Christians who aren't fundamentalists who'd object to the Duggard's values for a variety of reasons (such as them teaching their kids science denial, and raising them in away which leaves them sheltered and unequpped with the life skills needed to live independently outside of their fundamentalist sect), not simply because "they have no values of their own".
It might surprise you to learn that there are plenty of fundamentalists who disagree with the Duggars' lifestyle. A long time ago, I was part of a homeschooling forum (not C-D), that often discussed the Duggars because some of the participants also had large families and similar values. However, some people found cause for concern. One family had even met the Duggars for a play date in the park. I don't remember exactly what was said, but I got the gist that the Duggars weren't their cup of tea. I don't mean to imply there was anything sinister afoot, just that we all have our own ideas about some right and wrong ways to raise children. Some people mesh well, while others do not.
I don't know how sheltered the Duggar children are because I don't know them personally. I don't know what their church teaches, nor do I know how their homeschooling is conducted. I do, however, know that many people who disagree with similar lifestyles distort various aspects, either through intentional malice or through ignorance.
I do know families in very strict sects of Christianity that definitely go off the deep end (IMNSHO) and allow their children no freedom, expect their girls to dress frumpily and in even longer skirts, and have a narrow view of education and expectations for their children. Their children generally look miserable, which is not something I can say of the times I have seen the Duggars. I know Amish families that have a wider and more joyful view of life, religion, and education. As a self-identified Christian fundamentalist, I take exception to any family that raises their children with such a narrow view of life, whether they be Christian, atheist, conservative, liberal, or whatever.
If one thinks his beliefs, standards, and ideas have merit, then he shouldn't be afraid of opposing viewpoints. If the viewpoint is valid, it can withstand rigorous debate and testing.
-------
I'm afraid I didn't express very well my statement about liberals and non-Christians having no standards because it has been awhile since I last heard the argument, and it changes with the individuals making it. They might admit to having standards, yet they believe themselves immune to the label of hypocrite since they're supposedly not the ones going around telling others how to live their lives. Yet, many of them are doing exactly that.
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.
Frankly, I can't imagine most parents would haul their 13-14 year old kid into the Police station to be charged, under similar circumstances, regardless of religious beliefs and/or politics.
Did you see my post that eight more sponsors have removed themselves from the show. I posted that link, I think somewhere between pages 90-94. A few I can remember off the top of my head: Ace Hardware, one of the paints (maybe Sherwin-Williams, but I can't remember for sure), Pizza Hut, Allstate Insurance, Con-Agra, an Iced Tea I can't remember the name and Crayola among others. The link has the additional 8. That should be 12 sponsors who have canceled. On another site I read Party ???? I can't think of the second name.
What matters to me about this is concerned adults are letting sponsors know on Facebook, via Twitter and by phone. I have to give it to these companies for being responsive to customers/adults who don't think everything is okay in that household.
MSR
I'm so glad these companies have pulled their ads. They're being responsible which is something TLC doesn't seem to comprehend. Let's hope there will be enough pressure put on the network to cancel this show for good.
It seems to me you wanted him to publicly come forward as a 14 year old. Deny it all you want, but people want this family held to a different standard than they would want for their own
Yes, they do.
You don't stop wanting to protect your child from harm, real or perceived, because they have done something wrong. Parents lied to me all the time about their child's homework because they didn't want them to "suffer" getting a zero on a paper worth .4% of their grade. The research indicates that most parents to not report sibling sexual abuse to authorities. Most reports are a result of victims telling it to third parties, who report it. I have been that one making the offical report before.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
I'm so glad these companies have pulled their ads. They're being responsible which is something TLC doesn't seem to comprehend. Let's hope there will be enough pressure put on the network to cancel this show for good.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with responsibility, it has to do with thinking if the public associates their brand with the family it will make people feel negatively about their product and therefore not purchase it. If TLC pulls the program it won't be because they are being responsible, it will be because either the rating are going to go down, or more importantly, that advertisers won't pay for commercial time when it's airing.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,387,379 times
Reputation: 3539
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlowerPower00
People are not looking to deny Christians their rights.
Hang out on the "Religion and Spirituality" forum for awhile. I've not participated over there in several years, yet during my time there I encountered participants who wanted to see children taken away from Christian parents, claiming that religious teaching was child abuse. Others wanted to physically torment Christians who have the nerve to knock on their doors. Some thought Christian ideas have no place in the public market place, while many believed Christians should be banned from politics. There was also the thought that publishers should be banned from printing Bibles and other Christian material. Those are just some of the discussions I remember from that forum.
Also, keep your ears open to what's happening in education, especially in colleges and universities. Christian speech is often banned at all levels. Young kids aren't allowed to take Bibles to school, draw religiously themed pictures, write an essay from a Christian viewpoint, or share their beliefs with others, despite the courts ruling time and again that children have the right to free expression. In higher education, professors badger students who don't agree with them, and encourage others to shout out Christian ideas by either ridicule or sheer volume (as opposed to a reasoned discussion). Christian speakers and clubs have been banned from many campuses, and Christian events are often held to such ridiculous standards that organizers are hamstrung. I recently saw an article where an academic was advocating that all med school students be forced to conduct abortions.
If you're still not convinced anyone is looking to deny Christians their rights, look at recent court rulings and various lawsuits designed to do exactly that. Christian businesses are being denied the right to free association, and they're being fined for taking first amendment stands. They're being forced to act against their conscience, even when there are other business nearby that are willing to accommodate the "disenfranchised." Lastly, there is a move afoot to prevent Christians from reading and preaching about certain Scriptures within the confines of their churches. That's the ticket! Let's criminalize the parts we disagree with. -- Such movements have nothing to do with discrimination and everything to do silencing Christian critics.
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.
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.
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. 
