Duggar watch: the left is chortling with glee…
…and pointing with anger and derision at the revelations that Josh Duggar, now 27 and married with children, once sexually molested several minor girls and the issue was dealt with extra-judicially.
I’ve written about the Duggars before, here. They are a fundamentalist Christian family who have very strict rules about dating and sex within dating (basically, there is none; not even kissing), do not believe in birth control (“19 Kids and Counting”), have a reality TV show, and had already aroused intense ire on the left for all the reasons you would think.
But now the left feels it really has something to sink its teeth into. Hypocrites! Degenerates! Coverup! Child molesters!
Most of the articles on the subject make a huge point about the fact that Josh molested “minor girls.” But they don’t call him a minor at the time, although his stated age (a month after his 14th birthday for the first charge, and about a year later for the second, although that’s not as clear) indicates that he was most definitely a minor at the time, too. The charges appear to have been fondling, and the details provided in the articles I read indicate it was touching on the girls’ breasts while sleeping.
There is no indication of the ages of the girls except that they were minors. Were they around his age? Or were they young children? Children much younger than he was at the time don’t have much in the way of breasts, so my guess (and it’s only a guess) is that Josh was not a pedophile, but chose girls who were around puberty or past it.
When I was being trained in the field and worked on some research involving child sexual abuse, the definition of sexual abuse rather than sexual play was that there had to be at least a five year difference in age between the minor perpetrator and his/her minor victims. It is inappropriate sexual behavior for Josh Duggar to have touched any girl of any age on her breast while she was sleeping, but it is not necessarily actionable abuse (even in juvenile court, which is exactly where he would have landed if this had gone that way) if the age differential is not large enough.
At least, that’s the way it used to be many years ago. Perhaps this has changed; many things have. This article indicates that they certainly have; 14-year-old perps and even younger can land on 25-year sex offender charts due to the Adam Walsh Act.
Many professionals in the field think this is wrong, and I agree. Molestation by children of that age, especially acts such as fondling, are incredibly common and ordinarily are not the mark of sex offenders of the future:
Basic data about child-on-child sex abuse is detailed in an authoritative, Justice Department-sponsored analysis of crime data from 29 states. Conducted by three prominent researchers, the 2009 analysis found that juveniles accounted for 35.6% of the people identified by police as having committed sex offenses against minors.
Of these young offenders, 93% were male, and the peak ages for offending were 12 through 14, the researchers found. Of the victims, 59% were younger than 12 and 75% were female.
The report referred to a popular misconception that juvenile sex offenders are likely to reoffend, and said numerous studies over the years have shown the opposite ”” that 85 to 95% of offending youth are never again arrested for sex crimes.
University of Oklahoma pediatrics professor Mark Chaffin, a co-author of the 2009 report, says efforts to deal constructively with juvenile sex offenders are complicated by the tendency of some legislators and others to lump them together with adult sexual predators.
“That used to be the message ”” that we should apply the template from what we know about adult pedophilia,” Chaffin said. “Now that the data has shown most of those assumptions were wrong, it’s difficult to undo those messages that people in the advocacy and treatment fields were putting out a generation ago.”
Experts say the young offenders differ from adult sex offenders not only in their lower recidivism rates, but in the diversity of their motives and abusive behavior.
While some youths commit violent, premeditated acts of sexual assault and rape, others get in trouble for behavior arising from curiosity, naivete, peer pressure, momentary irresponsibility, misinterpretation of what they believed was mutual interest, and a host of other reasons.
Josh Duggar clearly belongs in the latter group. He has not offended again, he long ago apologized to his girl victims and they forgave him, but the Duggar-haters (and there are many) cannot possibly let it rest at that.
When I was a child, sexual molestation of children was a hush-hush thing—denied and not talked about. Child victims really were frightened to speak about it, thinking that they had done something to bring it on and feeling tremendous shame. Now the table has turned and we take it far more seriously as a society (unless, of course, it’s committed by a famous movie director such as Roman Polanski, whose sexual predation of the underage as an adult has been winked at by many in Hollywood). Child victims are still sometimes reluctant to come forward as well as afraid, but much less so than before, and the perpetrators face more serious consequences most of the time. But it seems to me that some sort of re-calibration for child perpetrators of the “curiosity” type, whose offenses are limited to fondling and who appear to have learned their lessons, is in order.
As for the charge of hypocrisy of the Duggars—children are sexually curious, and all families (including, of course, those who like the Duggars limit the sexuality of their adolescents very vigorously) have to deal with the raging hormones of their growing children as they mature. With nineteen children, it’s not at all surprising that there would be some problems of this nature. It seems to have been dealt with effectively and nipped in the bud.
Christians have a belief in the power of forgiveness. Leftists not so much, unless the wrongdoers are on the left.
[ADDENDUM: A commenter brought up the Lena Dunham sibling abuse case, which reminded me that I’d written on that subject, too, and my position was consistent with what I’ve written here. You might be interested in reading my earlier post about Dunham (whom I can’t stand). In that post I went into considerably more detail about what we know about the phenomenon of intersibling abuse.]
If everything is outrageous than nothing is. Interesting article about Robert Downey Jr:
http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/21/for-robert-downey-jr-forgiveness-transcends-mistakes/
This is just one more piece of evidence that the right and the left in the US are nothing more than degenerate scum. This piece of trash needs to be locked up to protect his current family from his dangerous and clearly uncontrolled predatory nature. Who knows how many other children he has molested. This family is clearly very, very sick, and should be investigated to protect other innocent children. How many more of their spawn are predatory child molesters?
mreden:
By that reasoning, we should lock up something like a third to half the population of America, who have engaged in fondling another child or adolescent when they were children or early adolescents.
This happened ten+ years ago and there is no indication whatsoever that there was any more activity of the sort from Josh.
Some perspective in in order.
Don’t forget Lena Dunham and her admissions. I sincerely dislike the duggar family but weren’t these same people defending her in the name of feminism?
Also, mreden’s comment reminds me of a general theory that I’ve seen around the internet – as some forms of sexual misbehavior become normalized and celebrated, society has to compensate by excessively demonizing other forms of sexual misbehavior.
For example, people need to believe in some form of sexual purity but there is basically no such thing anymore so they project their need onto children, and make the violation of children the utmost sexual sin. When in fact, children aren’t always sexually pure and can act out sexually. Whether it’s healthy or not is another story but there are currents afoot to normalize that as well.
Another example is the “consent” juggernaut. Doing things without “consent” is a bugaboo now much more than it ever was. Of course rape is wrong, but people need to feel in control of their sexual choices so they project their need onto this whole “consent” narrative, when in fact we are finding more and more that consent can be a really gray area and coerced sex is a thing, which now some people want to redefine as the same thing as violent rape.
Disclaimer – I am Christian so subscribe to judeo-christian sexual ethics. I dislike the Duggar family because I feel that they have a wrong interpretation of scripture which is damaging. They care about purity in clothing but don’t care about attention whoring which is just as bad.
Adventurous adolescent stirrings are criminalized by the pre-crime patrol as the culture sexualizes children and adolescents. Yes, there’s something wrong, there’s something degenerate, there’s something immoral. And none of it is the doing of children. Gaol and public pillories for the violators; gibbets for the Liberal/Leftist culture defilers. I guarantee children/adolescents would be exponentially safer.
*looks at the leftists*
Let he who has not defended Roman Polanski cast the first stone.
I’ll be over here drawing figures in the sand. I expect to be there a very long time.
Also: have they consider his experience to be part of the reason for his rather draconian views on sex?
Matilda:
Good point about Lena Dunham.
Many people on left AND right are inconsistent on these things, excusing those who are politically allied with them and condemning (in very harsh harsh terms) those with whom they are not in political harmony.
At least I’m consistent. You might be interested to read what I wrote about Dunham (whom I can’t stand) at the time. It is similar to what I wrote in this post, only I went into more detail about what we know about intersibling abuse in the earlier post.
This is a family that has bred a child molester, who knows how many of their brood are sexual predators. It is likely that the parents are molesters as well. Like father, like son. They should all be castrated.
Once they are in prison, then they can molest and be molested to their heart’s content. They will be with their own kind, like the disgusting degenerate animals that they are.
“We should lock up a third of the population who have engaged in fondling”
Like I said, this country is filled with degenerate trash.
This post is not without its own degree of disengenuousness as it downplays main reason for the ire of “the left”: Josh Dugfar and the Duggar family’s hypocrisy. Taking a cue from Jim Bob Duggar, Josh has — as head of the Family Research Council’s Action Network — spent an inordinate amount of time alleging that gays pose a threat to children, equating gays with pedophiles.
Well, fact is, most gays do not fondle children in their sleep and did not fondle younger children in their sleep as teenagers. And Lena Dunham does not hobnob with Democratic politicians attempting to curry favor with the Democratic party’s base the way Republicans have with Duggar. Mike Huckabee is the Republican frontrunner in a poll or two an has already posted a defense of Duggar.
When Lena Dunham’s integrity is so important to “the left” thatHillary Clinton feels the need to write an essay in defense of her, then the comparison will make sense. Until then, it’s specious. Dunham may be a liberal, but she is not a Democratic operative the way Duggar is both a movement conservative and a Republican political figure via his FRC work.
mreden is either a troll or a hateful moron.
DK,
The main reason for the ire of “the left” regarding Josh Duggar and the Duggar family is NOT hypocrisy but hate for their religious ideology.
The proof is that the “ire of the left” toward the Duggars existed well before there was any awareness of hypocrisy and, would continue to exist if Josh Duggar had never even thought to touch any girl but his wife.
The ‘ire’ of the left, which is actually delighted contempt, toward Josh Duggar’s hypocrisy is due to their belief that it discredits Christianity.
The ‘disingenuousness’ is thus yours sir as well.
Dk, Lena Dunham did an ad for Obama iirc.
Geoffrey Britain:
Why “either/or”?
A 14-year-old boy, while understandably sexually curious, is mature enough to know and respect the boundaries in sexual contact. I agree that teenage behavior is sometimes blown out of proportions and excessively criminalized, but this seems to be a rather clear-cut case where lines have, indeed, been crossed. Multiple times. With multiple people. Over a period of time.
So why are we criminalizing normal childhood behavior?
I don’t find that the comparison between Lena Dunham and Josh Duggar is convincing. Lena Dunham’s activities with her little sister were planned, manipulative and invasive and involved masturbation whereas Josh Duggar’s transgression was probably an impulsive one time act. When Lena Dunham viewed and probed her little sister’s naked vagina and manipulated her into intimae actions over an extended length of time that is much more invasive than one touch of a clothed breast. The only reason anyone would consider their behavior comparable is because our matriarchal society is much harsher in judging male sexuality than it is in judging female sexuality.
Anna:
Of course “lines were crossed.” Fondling of five people (several of them his sisters), during the space of a year, in two separate incidents (there were several people per incident), while sleeping, is definitely wrong and involves line-crossing.
But that was the sum total of the offenses as far as I can tell (it’s a bit hard to figure it out from the articles I’ve read). It wasn’t many times, it was two—at least, that’s my impression. The first time when he was just-turned-14 and then about a year later the second incident. That was about 11 or 12 years ago, with no repeats of any sort after that second incident. There have been apologies and discussions of what happened and why it’s wrong, and the girls in question saying they forgive him.
What more could one want? Nothing is served by having Josh Duggar—or anyone else in that position, because I’m not making an exception for him—be on some predator list. If a person was that young, the offense was relatively small, and many years have passed with no allegations of any sort, I don’t think there’s any reason to keep going with some sort of punishment or treatment.
Adult offenders are very very different.
After reading some more I realize that Josh Duggar’s offense was more serious than what I originally suspected. Since those things happened 12 years ago, it does appear that his therapy was successful and that his parents handled the situation appropriately.
Dennis:
I’m doing this mostly from memory (and looking at my post on the subject, linked in the ADDENDUM), but unless I’m mistaken, in Dunham’s case the masturbation was Dunham herself masturbating rather than doing it to the sister. Dunham was in bed beside her, but my impression is that Dunham was under the covers and her sister might not have even been aware of it. Dunham reports bribing her with candy to kiss her on the lips, which seems relatively innocuous. One time out of curiosity she looked at her vagina and touched it. I didn’t read Dunham’s book, but that’s what I gleaned from the articles I read.
Recall also that Dunham’s family, unlike the Duggars, was HIGHLY sexualized and vaginas were out and about around the house. From my post:
Now, THAT is a form of child sexual abuse, IMHO—to subject a child to those pictures on the wall of the home in which she grows up. It is inappropriate sexual titillation, and it is not at all surprising that Lena might want to take a look at her sister’s vagina. Actually, it’s a miracle she isn’t even more effed up than she is. If anyone should have been cited or treated for abuse, it should have been the parents.
I don’t make distinctions between boy and girl perpetrators here. My distinctions are between adult perpetrators and child perpetrators, even adolescent ones (older adolescents are somewhat different, such as when a perp is very close to 18). Take a look at the information in my Dunham post on the phenomenon of sibling abuse by children.
We don’t know how many more people this sick bastard has molested or raped. His degenerate family helped to cover up the crimes he perpetrated against his own sisters, until they were past the statute of limitations. They should be considered co-conspirators or accessories after the fact. Who knows how many other people he has molested since then that they are still covering up.
Once a molester, always a molester. This man should be in prison, not hobnobbing with Republican elites.
mreden:
14 and 15 year old child molesters, even ones with offenses much more serious than those of Josh Duggar, don’t get set to prison.
They are juveniles.
And his family REPORTED his offense, albeit about a year later.
As for “once an offender, always”—that is completely untrue of juveniles. The following is in the post, but I’ll repeat it:
It seems speculation about this molestation about this has been going on for many years, since at least 2006 when Oprah withheld her blessing of the family with a special show because she got wind of it. What could the Duggars possibly have been thinking? Seems mighty weird they’d think it would remain hidden forever.
mreden is a typical example of the unchecked, spittle-flecked rage against the Duggars or anything else that smacks of Christianity. Remember “Horton Hears a Who?” It’s like that. Boil that dust speck! And his little dog, too! And his entire family. And everyone they’ve ever met. And everyone who watches their show. And everyone in America, etc. Yeah, ALL THEM.
Pavlov would be … proud?
neo-neocon at 5:09 pm,
LOL! I must admit that I hadn’t considered the obvious 😉 Common decency and an inclination to extend the benefit of the doubt can be an impediment to quick identification of the truly loathsome.
neo-neocon at 6:14 pm,
It’s obvious he’s not interested in facts. But he should be credited with providing another example of Alinsky’s;
Of course, in this case, the damage sought is to the Duggar’s Christianity.
Seems mighty weird they’d think it would remain hidden forever.
Leftist authorities hide things forever from you. This is what normal people would have called a private dispute that society has no part in, except as an overlord.
Youthful sexual curiosity is normal and not criminal. It only becomes disturbing and in need of intervention when there is an age difference involving several years or more. A14 year old playing show me yours and I will show you mine with a 13 or even 12 year old is normal and is not molestation. And the idea that youths crossing over the line remain life long threats is far fetched.
This bruhah is just one more example of the left practicing the politics of personal destruction; to borrow a turn of phrase from hrc.
What was mreden’s view about Hollywood director?
If the Left thinks they are the only ones who know how to inflame rage and hate, they might be in for a lesson soon.
Should he have his life/career destroyed 10+ years post factum – no, probably not. And I am not sure anything more should be done in such cases, too much time has passed and at some point everyone has to move on.
Still, I find it hard to accept an apology of his actions based on his age. From my memory/experience, age 14-15 is in many ways more adult-like than child-like. Also, intimacy is that sphere of life where basic prudence would have it that, in an ambigous situation, you always err on the side of LESS (contact, initiative etc.), not more, and that solves most of those “miscommunication” situations; but here it was not even ambiguous, it was just wrong, they were sleeping.
“What could the Duggars possibly have been thinking? Seems mighty weird they’d think it would remain hidden forever.” Anna
But as I understand it, they didn’t try to hide it. They simply didn’t let it stop them. Perhaps because obeying Christ’s commandment to ‘spread the good news’ overshadowed their admittedly fallen, sinful nature? That demonstrating to the best of their current ability (regardless of how imperfect) a living, familial example of what they believe to be the truth, supersedes all other considerations?
* disclaimer; In important ways, I don’t share the Duggar’s POV but I’ve had enough interaction with people who do so, as to believe that I fully understand their POV.
Geoffrey:
Ann and I are different commenters.
I agree with you though, and I did not get an impression that they were actively trying to hide something. I still found this affair an unpleasant surprise though. I watched some of their show, and while I also do not subscribe to their particular version of Christianity, I thought it unlikely (until now) that the rumors circling around were true.
Anna,
Sorry for the mistake, I’ll try to pay closer attention in the future. Hopefully it’s just that and not a early sign of approaching senility;-)
I suppose I should have prefaced my first comment with an acknowledgement that, not having TV reception, I’ve never watched the show (won’t subsidize the MSM any more than I have to) but I’m confident that I understand the Duggar’s religious POV perfectly well.
Anna:
I think everyone agrees what he did was wrong.
His apologies came a long time ago; not just recently.
You may have been more mature than the average teen when you were a teenager, if your maturity now is any guide. In addition, teen boys tend to be less emotionally mature than teen girls. But as I said, what he did was wrong.
Fortunately, we do not judge people as a class (e.g. extrapolation, inference) unless it is on principles held in common, a reflection of personal prejudice, or for politically opportunistic causes.
Im 1000% with Geoffrey and you, Neo. I have quit gossip blogs because they are full of hateful yet “tolerant” libs who just love seeing people destroyed because the people have a different POV (usually Christian) and must be destroyed.
The Duggar issue was the last straw. The glee from this issue (which really was dead and buried years ago, esp since the parents did prosecute their own son and the victims forgave him) from the gossip blogs is downright evil.
We called it “playing doctor,” and everyone lived. Most of it was just silly business.
Like the little boy up the street (my age) who invited me to watch him water the dogwood in his front yard. I, being curious, did, even though I knew it was baaad. Alas for him, his mommy saw him and hauled him inside for a lickin’, and ordered me home. AND she called Mom!
I didn’t get in trouble, though. Sugar and spice. 😉
But the boy didn’t get on any “sexual predators” list, either. Good Grief.
These were not the actions of a young child playing doctor — you should look at the police report.
Actually, you all convinced me. This guy is totally cool. It wasn’t molestation. He was just play raping them.
mrreden Says:
at 9:00 am
“Actually, you all convinced me. This guy is totally cool. It wasn’t molestation. He was just play raping them.”
Whose trying to convince you? When I read a post which contains nothing but invective it is hard for me to take that person seriously.
Sorry for the spelling error. Let’s try that again.
mrreden Says:
at 9:00 am
“Actually, you all convinced me. This guy is totally cool. It wasn’t molestation. He was just play raping them.”
Who’s trying to convince you? When I read a post which contains nothing but invective it is hard for me to take that person seriously.
Interesting about kids. I happen to have a nephew, who when he was 5 came home very protective of his genitals. My sister noticed and investigated, and there was a lot of bruising, and she was naturally very upset to find out the cause.
Eventually, he told her that he and his best friend next door, a 5 year old girl had decided that they would cut off his penis and she would try it on, and she would be able to play as a boy. Fortunately, they only had plastic safety scissors at their disposal. Both of them grew up to be normal people, married with kids, etc. However, the doctor my sister took my nephew to see had the best observation of all when asked if she should be concerned about her son.
He quipped “no, but I think that little girl might be someone to watch – that’s the most serious case of penis envy I’ve ever seen”.
Not a joke, a true story. And they’re all rabid liberals, so they will never see this post.
The Left used hypnosis to brainwash children with memories of rape and molestation, false implantation via regressive hypnosis and Authority commands.
The Left also used the power of the State schools to force two girls to kiss each other in front of the school assembly. This is Power speaking to Truth.
So when people who come here talk about hating the Left or Right, I wonder what their credentials and authority are that they base their decision are. Do they truly hate what is going on? Or are they just using the political excuse to ignore it, to fall into step with the Left, to take their bribes and keep quiet. Such collaborators mask their guilt with talk about Right wingers and Left wingers. They have no clue, usually, and until they’ve proven otherwise, they won’t be treated as a neutral or ally.
mrreden
The Left will rape you and your children. You will be labeled a rapist soon enough, or a false woman, or anything in between. What will you say then, that we convinced you?
We didn’t convince you, the Left stomped your head in. Have you done anything in your life to deserve otherwise?
mrreden:
Nice strawman you got there.
And I am not sure anything more should be done in such cases, too much time has passed and at some point everyone has to move on.
Who do you think you are, Anna, that you can decide what’s going on here? Have you forgotten that you were the one all for state/national healthcare, thinking that it’s the government’s job to take care of us like we’re stupid livestock?
The problem you should be solving is how you are being used by the system, not criticizing the targets of the system and attempting to solve problems that don’t exist.
People like me are not going to forget certain things, no matter how much time passes.
The idea that the Left is just going to let you “move on”, is pretty old school naive there. People will do what the Left decides to do, once you’ve accepted their Authority you have no choice about it.
Ymarsakar:
Are you sure you have the right “anna”?
Anna doesn’t even live in this country, and I don’t recall her being involved in the discussion of healthcare at all.
Ymarsakar:
Read the police report (linked by Ann).
Do you truly believe that these are trifle matters – problems “that don’t exist” – and that ANY sort of criticism is misplaced here?
The Duggars are hardly “targets of the system”; they are a *brand*, they market themselves with regard to their lifestyle choices. They even conceive of their show as a sort of ministry/outreach. Josh Duggar was a child when the show began, but as he became an adult, moved out and started his own life, he willingly continued to be associated with the *brand*. He is not an anonymous individual who accidently found himself in an unduly harsh spotlight, but a prominent “conservative family values” activist (working for FRC) fraternizing with high-profile politicians. Which is a legitimate life path, but was it not expected that, if he had a skeleton in his closet that goes directly against the “family values” he promotes (and for livelihood), it would eventually become known?
I do NOT think that Josh Duggar needs to have his life/career destroyed over something from remote past. Presumably he moved on, is a different person today, and he seems to be a good husband and father from whatever superficial impression I can get.
But I also cannot concede that these are trifling matters. They are not, especially to the girls on the receiving end. Believe me that the sort of contempt unwanted sexual touch can provoke is a very powerful thing, at any age.
Sexuality is potent stuff. Lines crossed there tend to be felt much more acutely than other lines crossed. There is a reason why this particular sphere of life is a taboo, and why those lines HAVE TO be respected, at all ages, and at whatever personal cost it involves for the “curious” ones. It erodes respect like nothing else.
When you get hit by another child on the playground, even physically painfully, ten years later you may be laughing over that, together, and in good spirits. It is virtually NEVER the case with having been touched inappropriately. I do not know anyone who looks back on unwanted sexual touch, no matter how “insignificant”, smiling and in high spirits. It is a different level of gravity, and while I can understand that many people may find that downplaying it a bit is the proper pedagogical approach with children and teenagers, to discount it as a “non-issue” is misguided.
You may find my raising an eyebrow over this issue to be in poor taste, but can you not understand where it stems from?
(P.S. I never took part in healthcare debates. Universal healthcare works beautifully, provided you are not *actually* sick.)
* accidentally
(Just to make sure we are not misunderstanding each other:
– I am NOT invoking any penalty for Josh Duggar or his parents, 10+ years post factum! And if it were happening right now, I would probably not be invoking any additional consequences to how it was ultimately handled, provided it was timely and effective.
– I do not wish him ill in any segment of life, private or professional. This is probably a very hard time for him, I hope he goes through it with his friends’ and family’s support, and rebuilds his life.
– I have reservations about the police report ending up in the media in the first place – not only for Josh, but primarily for the girls who might have wished the affair to remain private. I am not sure how ethical it was to dig it out and publicize.
– My opinions of the Duggars has not changed in light of this information. I still have the same reservations I had before, mainly concerning some aspects of their particular version of Christianity and educational choices, but I still accord them the same respect as far as some shared values are concerned.
My being unpleasantly surprised, and disagreeing with some people regarding the relative gravity of Josh’s actions in function of age etc., does not negate any of the above. No “glee” here.)
The process is the punishment. For Zimmerman, it matters not to the Left whether he could be found guilty or innocent. What mattered was that they would destroy his life using public censure and invasion of privacy, no matter what. If he ended up in jail, it would make their task easier, but if not, they would continue to hold the trial in public, for the mob to be satisfied.
Anyone that participates in this process, speaking of what penalties should or should not be invested, are not speaking in the abstract. They are participating in the process.
Nothing will or should save them when the Left turns their eyes on the rest of the community.
Your reasoning is then that we ought not even *comment* these scandals when they happen, in order not to feed the beast – even when it comes to people who have willingly put themselves in the spotlight by accepting to be public personae – or only that the talk of penalties is inappropriate?
Comments are not the issue. Participating in the social consensus and conferring authority on the Corrupt Society that is around us, is a different issue.
You’re only commenting on it because the Left made you do so. If you are satisfied dancing on their strings, so be it, but people should realize there are consequences for that kind of behavior.
The rope you think you’re going to use to hang or punish or sanction the Left’s targets, is in fact the rope and justification they will use to hang you. Or are people so ignorant they don’t even get that by now.
Christian Rejection of Humanism: Josh Duggar and Bill O’Reilly
By Danny Cardwell on Sun, 05/24/2015 – 8:07pm |
Matthew 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Instead of pointing out the contradictions between Bill O’Reilly’s and Josh Duggar’s professed beliefs and their actions, I thought it would be more interesting to focus on the continued elevation, by many evangelicals, of media figures. Duggar and O’Reilly join a long list of fallen religious personalities who were (foolishly) placed above the flesh they reside in by Christians who should’ve known better. The need to maintain a pseudo-symbolic order is the modern day version of Aaron creating a golden calf. bThe idolatry lies in the false belief that political affiliation and social status can grant you direct access to the Most High.
Believers are tasked with accepting weakness and sin as constitutive strains in our molecular structure. While some choose to struggle daily with the ways they fall short, others engage in the willful denial of their sinful nature. Yes, there will always be people playing the role and faking the funk, but why do so many believers fall into their trap?
Many want/need the illusion of man made wholesomeness to be authentic. Some of their actions lead me to believe that their faith is as dependent on projecting righteousness through an in-group identification as it is on deep metaphysical investigation. We get examples of this every election cycle; some hyper-partisan believer emphatically claims that their candidate is a “true” Christian, or that God is backing their political worldview. These arguments, as compelling as they may seem to some, overlook the fact that none of us can see into the deepest darkest corners of a person’s soul, nor do we possess the ability to know God’s will.
It’s hard to follow Jesus and admit sin around folks who have a utopian view of what it means to be a Christian. Some of our most vulnerable brothers and sisters find themselves on the outside looking in. There’s more dignity in admitting weakness than faking perfection, yet too many feel forced to accept a Stepford religion that forces them to suppress their humanity. Some of us become so consumed with a public figures shiny clear coat that we forget to lift the hood and see what the engine looks like. Some churches and religious leaders have hurt their credibility by professing their faith and allegiance to those who were better at hiding their sins than confronting them. If you’re around Christians who make it a regular habit to demean and chastise the very people Jesus died for then maybe the fruit they are bearing isn’t of the Lord.
Bill O’Reilly and Josh Duggar hurt real people. While some are dancing on their proverbial graves, we shouldn’t forget the tragedy visited upon the children who were molested by Josh, nor the domestic abuse by Bill. Their transgressions are more than ammunition in the war against holier than thou Christians. This isn’t an argument to absolve them of their wrong doings. Publicly humiliating them may feel good and vindicate their political enemies, but it does nothing to shrink the pedestal they were standing on. There’s a revolving door of people waiting to get access to the money and spotlight that comes with being a public figure; maybe we should lower the pedestal they stand on and do a better job of vetting the character of those we elevate. These men are just symptoms of a greater problem.
Are you sure you have the right “anna”?
Anna doesn’t even live in this country, and I don’t recall her being involved in the discussion of healthcare at all.
Lives in Europe somewhere, thus made comparison promotion for national healthcare systems. That was what I remembered back then.
Reading the archives, Ann was the person talking about Hussein’s latte salute and flag ceremonies.
The healthcare talk with Mitsu in 2013, Anna wasn’t there, but Anne was in 2014 at least. What I would be remembering would be somewhere around late 2014 or 2015 with Anna. The focus on foreign national healthcare was pretty distinct.
If Anna’s position on sheepcare is a lot weaker or counter than I thought, then I’ll fix that misperception.
America’s Most Wanted TV-guy John walsh not only expressed how he had an addiction for woman-but he also admitted to an affair he had with a 16 year old girl; when he was 24 years old.
Josh Duggar violated children as they were asleep.
But urinating in public lands you on the sex offender registry…Okay…