Duggar scandal

[PhuturePriest]

I think it's uncharitable, immature, and unwise to assume anything. We don't know. That's the point: we don't KNOW. It's unfair to other victims of abuse for you to assume that no one struggled with their situation or the effects. It's grand that you've healed so miraculously from what was apparently a very traumatic situation, but that is not the case for all victims of abuse. You also don't know the extent or details of the abuse incurred by others. Further, every person is affected by and copes with abuse differently. So again I will say, you cannot take your experience and assume it's everyone's.

​

I don't think it is fair or prudent to assume the parents did anything. I know the Duggars are a family-meeting style family, but Michelle and Jim Bob seem to be the kind of parents who pray about what's best for their family, make a decision, and then tell the family what's going to happen. If I wanted to play the speculation game (I don't), I would guess they probably asked for everyone's input (after giving them some reflection time), prayed about it, made a decision, and went forward.

But like I said, we don't know. It's not fair to decide (or assume) either way.

​I'm in full agreement on all accounts of this post. I never said the victims probably were in a good state, I merely said that we don't know and it's unfair to assume either way. We can hope that they were healed by that time, but as we don't know, it's unfair to assume that they weren't, as so many are doing. We don't know, so it's not fair to make any judgments on the matter. And honestly, it's not our place to make a judgment on the matter, which I'm sure you would agree with. 

[CrossCuT]

The thing with homosexual relationships is that there's an additional error of thought: not only does the child get the idea that "marriage doesn`t matter``, but that `you can marry anyone` - not just someone you can have a child with, with is according to natural law.

​This I find quite offensive. I am sure if you ask any homosexual person in a committed relationship with their partner they would tell you that they did not just marry "anyone". They are humans with the capacity to think, feel, and make choices. Just because they are homosexual doesnt mean they turn into mindless droids that they simply settle down with the first person they see. 

[superblue]

Actually, I disagree.  The viewing audience SHOULD morally poliece the content their viewing.  We'd be alot better if we did that.  Considering the allegations against the dad from 7th heaven and Bill Cosby, I think we'd all be a bit more careful in our viewing habits.

Actually, it was far worse.  The girls were exploited by their own parents.  This is not some creepster in a dungeon that they chose.  Their parents forced them to be "actors" in a happy family when they were dealing with abuse.  Thats horrid.

At this point it's not about gossip.  It should be a big warning.  If you have children who are molested (no matter who the molester) and you place them on television you SHOULD be made to pay for it.  You should be treated as a somewhat dangerous person, willing to place your children's well being on the alter of fame.

The parents should be shamed into anonomity

The Duggars were adimant that they did this show to show that big families worked and that the quiverfull movement was great.  They did this knowingly and willingly at the expense of their daughters.  In non-personhood it should be treated as something that is a warning sign.  Don't put children on the air when they are dealing with trauma.

​This concept you are posing doesn't really add up, if we were to beaver dam every scandal a person has on TV then by the standard you are posing, no one should ever watch another episode of the Brady Bunch because the actor Robert Reed who played Mike Brady was a homosexual ( who kept that private for a very long part of his life ) that show alone with its good values shaped society to a degree in a positive manner, but running with this train of thought, no one should from here on out not watch that show because now we know that Robert Reed was gay. Same goes for Bill Cosby in the context of his scandal .  We don't support what they do off screen, but we can appreciate what they have brought to our society as actors. That is different though with " reality tv " and the debate seems to now be on did these parents purposefully put their children through the lime light for their own personal gain. If one can prove that then i would be fine with not watching the show on those grounds alone, but with the context of coulda, woulda,shoulda in regards to Josh and what he did to his sisters and who knows else, yes it is horrible, but i go back to my previous statements, an if it remained on the air it wouldn't be some kind of signal that TLC is fine with what happened.

IF TLC really wanted to keep things as a reality tv program, and not some scripted BS then they should have kept the show on, just based on the sheer wow factor that people love drama. They shot themselves in the foot is what they did, so TLC feeling embarressed instead of owning the croutons they made pulled it. The blame for the Duggars' embaressment though rests with three people, the mother, father, and Josh .

 

But you are wanting to blame the Parents for basically using their  children, if we are going to go down that road, then we have to look at TLC and their culpability for putting it on the air and going along with the idea, and then we have to also blame society or the fans of the show for the so called exploitation of the children in this family on air.

These kids, have strong bonds, and stronger faith in Christ, they probably have a lot of issues but who doesn't ; i do not doubt their faith and believe in the end they will be fine.

Edited May 28, 2015 by superblue

[MarysLittleFlower]

​This I find quite offensive. I am sure if you ask any homosexual person in a committed relationship with their partner they would tell you that they did not just marry "anyone". They are humans with the capacity to think, feel, and make choices. Just because they are homosexual doesnt mean they turn into mindless droids that they simply settle down with the first person they see. 

​I didn't mean anyone in that way. I meant: not person of the opposite gender. Like the view "you decide what marriage is" - rather than God deciding what marriage is... ie: the very definition of marriage is altered and it's no longer based on natural law. That's what I meant. It's the whole view that "marriage is anything you want provided you love each other" - but the basic requirements of natural law need to be there for it to be valid. It's not up to us.

Edited May 28, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[hotpink]

​This concept you are posing doesn't really add up, if we were to beaver dam every scandal a person has on TV then by the standard you are posing, no one should ever watch another episode of the Brady Bunch because the actor Robert Reed who played Mike Brady was a homosexual ( who kept that private for a very long part of his life ) that show alone with its good values shaped society to a degree in a positive manner, but running with this train of thought, no one should from here on out not watch that show because now we know that Robert Reed was gay. Same goes for Bill Cosby in the context of his scandal .  We don't support what they do off screen, but we can appreciate what they have brought to our society as actors. That is different though with " reality tv " and the debate seems to now be on did these parents purposefully put their children through the lime light for their own personal gain. If one can prove that then i would be fine with not watching the show on those grounds alone, but with the context of coulda, woulda,shoulda in regards to Josh and what he did to his sisters and who knows else, yes it is horrible, but i go back to my previous statements, an if it remained on the air it wouldn't be some kind of signal that TLC is fine with what happened.

IF TLC really wanted to keep things as a reality tv program, and not some scripted BS then they should have kept the show on, just based on the sheer wow factor that people love drama. They shot themselves in the foot is what they did, so TLC feeling embarressed instead of owning the croutons they made pulled it. The blame for the Duggars' embaressment though rests with three people, the mother, father, and Josh .

 

But you are wanting to blame the Parents for basically using their  children, if we are going to go down that road, then we have to look at TLC and their culpability for putting it on the air and going along with the idea, and then we have to also blame society or the fans of the show for the so called exploitation of the children in this family on air.

These kids, have strong bonds, and stronger faith in Christ, they probably have a lot of issues but who doesn't ; i do not doubt their faith and believe in the end they will be fine.

​"Being Gay" isn't wrong.  Molesting children...and in the case of Cosby raping women..is.

Oprah found out (quiet easily) that there was molestation and she chose not to proceed.  TLC magically didn't know.  I'm not saying Oprah is all wise, however, if even she determined that it wasn't best for them to be on a one-time episode how did anyone in their right mind think an entire televison show was a good idea?

[Yaatee]

I have heard about the Duggars only peripherally. I don't follow them on TV.  I find their huge family objectionable in many ways. I think he is abusing his wife. She has long ago past the threshold of being in serious danger when she delivers, even if she has managed to survive so far.  (I'm a physician.)  Father D is using his family for financial gain, understandable in view of their costs, but exploitative just the same.  I hope that the married children aren't expected to follow in his footsteps, with unrestricted childbearing.

However, all this is moot.  Unless the American TV audience doesn't take abuse of children or family abuse seriously, the Duggars' TV career is dead.

After the Cosby revelations appeared, his TV career and endorsements---vanished. 

[PhuturePriest]

And now we're back on the subject of not being able to judge peoples' intentions, not that some people care to listen, however. 

[Lilllabettt]

I think the point is that children are entitled to a mother and a father. Entitled. Period. 

 

Actually, ​children are entitled to their natural mother and father. Period. To intentionally take a child from its natural mother and father when it is avoidable is the work of monsters. Many gay and straight couples do this - they grow a child using IVF specifically for the purpose of taking it away from its natural mother. In a just society such people would be imprisoned for their crime.

 

[Credo in Deum]

How has this made it to page 7?

Edited May 29, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[PhuturePriest]

How has this made it to page 7?

​At last, someone gets to the real matter at hand. 

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

How has this made it to page 7?

​Because somehow the conversation (mostly) turned away from the specific situation of the Duggars into a general discussion of adoption by homosexual couples (and some other related comments). On Phatmass, when the conversation turns to homosexuality, 7 pages is short. 

[Ark]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Ark

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

​FYI--There were five victims reported, and four were Josh's sisters, so the victims could not all have been the same age. One of the victims went to court recently to have the reports destroyed, so that her name would have no chance to be released because she is still a minor. Since the reported molestations happened in 2002/2003, and the victim who went to court recently to request the destruction of the records is still a minor, this particular victim must have been much younger than 12 at the time of the molestations.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all.

[CrossCuT]

Actually, ​children are entitled to their natural mother and father. Period. To intentionally take a child from its natural mother and father when it is avoidable is the work of monsters. Many gay and straight couples do this - they grow a child using IVF specifically for the purpose of taking it away from its natural mother. In a just society such people would be imprisoned for their crime.

 

​We are getting closer to technologies that allow us to reprogram certain adult somatic cells into embryonic stem cells. From there we may potentially be able to create an embryo from two people of the same sex.

[hotpink]

Duggar should have kept his hands to himself, he hurt those girls, and so I'm not excusing him when I say he was 14  years old and they were 12. There probably is a connection with the fact that the family is "devotely Christian" and opposes same-sex marriage and made comments that such relationships can cause harm to children. 

​It's easy to look up the ages of the sisters.  When the oldest duggar was 14 they were 11, 10, 9, 8 and 3.  Some reports via the internet on Free Jinger say the oldest was not touched...so they were all 4+ years younger than him.

​FYI--There were five victims reported, and four were Josh's sisters, so the victims could not all have been the same age. One of the victims went to court recently to have the reports destroyed, so that her name would have no chance to be released because she is still a minor. Since the reported molestations happened in 2002/2003, and the victim who went to court recently to request the destruction of the records is still a minor, this particular victim must have been much younger than 12 at the time of the molestations.

Your second sentence makes no sense at all.

​You're right, even mathematically the youngest victim was either 8 or 3 just based on the birth order of the sisters.

[Guest]

Gross. Poor kids.

[PhuturePriest]

How has this made it to page 7?

​

[Ice_nine]

I think it's uncharitable, immature, and unwise to assume anything. We don't know. That's the point: we don't KNOW. It's unfair to other victims of abuse for you to assume that no one struggled with their situation or the effects. It's grand that you've healed so miraculously from what was apparently a very traumatic situation, but that is not the case for all victims of abuse.

​I would say it's not the case for MOST victims of abuse.

[Cherie]

Wow, I'm surprised where this thread took a turn. I'm kind of getting back to the original post with this, but the post from Elizabeth Esther was SO GOOD, I think it's worth reading. I posted it on my FB page, though I decided not to post anything about it, just because I thought her points were well-made and needed to be seen. I'll reproduce it here, but put the link at the bottom (since I know people don't like clicking through to links):

 

"I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist cult. You can read more about that in my book, Girl at The End of the World. Suffice to say, I understand the fundamentalist/Quiverfull system. I know the theology. I know what happens in these home-churched, no-kissing-before-wedding-day families. I know because my childhood cult was very, very similar.

But today, I'm not interested in rehashing my own past. Today, I want to address WHY these things keep happening.

I am far more interested in the systems and structures that enable and perpetuate abuse because until those systems change, we'll just keep putting out fires.

The greatest mistake we can make right now is believing that this latest exposure of sexual assault is an isolated incident. I am here to tell you that the Christian church—as a whole—has a major,MAJOR problem with the physical and sexual abuse of children. It's time we examined not only WHAT is happening but WHY this is happening.

To get a clearer understanding of the problem, let's look at how prominent Christians are responding to the information that Josh Duggar sexually assaulted multiple young girls.

Within hours of the Duggar statement, prominent Christian leaders began trumpeting a "Josh Duggar Redemption Story." I mean, we barely had time to process the information before we were bombarded with Christians demanding we all Stop Judging! Forgive! Haven't You Ever Sinned? Look! He repented! 

Mike Huckabee took to Facebook to express his righteous indignation over the "insensitive bloodthirst" of those who exposed "long ago sins." Apparently, the real horror here was NOT the sexual assault itself but the fact that it had been made public.

Popular Christian blogger, Matt Walsh, published a piece on The Blaze opining that the problem was not sexual assault but....hypocritical, opportunist liberals.  He even went so far as to say if his son confessed to sexual assault, he wasn't sure whether he'd report him to the authorities. Um. WHAT?

The Christian Post published an article called "Finding Redemption in The Josh Duggar Story" wherein author Michael Brown suggested that "Josh can be an ambassador on behalf of the abused" and that his "future can be bright in the Lord." Um. Pretty much the very LAST thing survivors of sexual abuse need is for their perpetrator to advocate on their behalf. 

Billy Graham's grandson and founder of the website "Liberate," published an article by two pastors who claimed that ALL of us are the Duggars because "all of us harbor our demons." So, essentially, sexual assault is just like any other sin. Come on, guys! FORGIVE! EXTEND GRACE. 

These are just a few examples. I'm sure there are dozens and dozens more.

Here's what troubles me: these Christians demonstrate a profound (and dangerous!) confusion about the differences between forgiveness vs. reconciliation and forgiveness vs. accepting the reality of consequences. And THAT confusion is symptomatic of an entire system that enables abuse.

SYMPTOM #1: EQUATING FORGIVENESS WITH RECONCILIATION

The authors of the bestselling book "BOUNDARIES" explain the difference between forgiveness and reconciliation: "Do not think that because you have forgiven means you have to reconcile. You can offer reconciliation, but it must be contingent upon the other person owning [their] behavior and bringing forth trustworthy fruits…Forgiveness is very hard. It means letting go of something that someone ‘owes’ you…Warning: forgiveness and opening up to more abuse are not the same thing. Forgiveness has to do with the past. Reconciliation and boundaries have to do with the future." (p. 256,257,258, 268, 269).

Especially in spiritually abusive environments, people are told that forgiveness is the same thing as reconciliation. We are told we must accept the abuser’s apology and allow him/her back into our lives. Victims are often encouraged to smile and welcome the abuser back because once an abuser has "repented," it's a sin to "hold bitterness" in our hearts. But this isn’t true. It’s actually harmful for us to reconcile with someone who hasn’t demonstrated changed behavior because it’s a violation of our God-given rights and boundaries. 

Forgiveness is something I can do on my own; i.e., release someone from the debt they owe me, "charge off" their account, so to speak. But forgiveness DOES NOT MEAN I am required to reconcile with that person. And furthermore, it does NOT mean that I am required to release them from the legal consequences of their actions.

SYMPTOM #2: DEALING WITH CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR "IN HOUSE" AND NOT REPORTING TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES

As demonstrated by Huckabee and Walsh's posts, the greater sin is not the crime itself but the exposure of the crime. This is a classic tactic of spiritually abusive systems. I can't tell you HOW MANY times I've heard stories of abuse that were simply brought to the attention of the "church authority" but never reported to civil authorities. The theological justification for this is that since sin is essentially a "spiritual matter," it needs to be dealt with in a spiritual context; i.e., the church. But this idea is wrong and it enables abuse.

Christ's forgiveness does NOT mean immunity from earthly consequences. As Christians, we believe Jesus died to save us from the eternal consequences of our sin. But let's be clear: we are still responsible for our earthly actions and whatever consequences those may incur. Indeed, a true Christian ethic respects and acknowledges the validity of civil authority. We do not get to circumnavigate the laws of our country just because we believe Jesus forgives our sins.

SYMPTOM #3: WE ARE ALL VILE, EVIL HUMAN BEINGS

Fundamentalist Christians (and many other Protestants, too) ascribe to the we-are-inherently-wicked theology. This is why pastors (like the ones above) can assert that we are ALL THE DUGGARS because, hey! we're all evil! Essentially, every sin carries the same weight. Thinking hateful thoughts is the same as murdering someone. Gluttony is just as bad as sexually abusing a child.

But here's the problem: when EVERYTHING and EVERYONE is equally evil, then NOTHING is actually evil.

In other words, the unintended consequence of we-are-all-evil is that it literally makes a mean thought as bad as actual murder. There are no gradations of sin in fundamentalism. And therefore, since we wouldn't take a glutton to court for overeating, then we shouldn't prosecute a sexual molester for abusing children because it's ALL THE SAME.

Can you see how dangerous this theology is? Can you see how this is a system that perpetuates abuse?

SYMPTOM #4: FOCUSING ON THE ABUSER'S "REDEMPTION STORY" 

This is the most insidious symptom of abusive systems. And it was neatly embodied in the writing of Michael Brown (above) where he claims that Josh Duggar can still have a bright future and become an ambassador for the abused. YEAH. Let's talk about that.

First of all, focusing on the abuser's "redemption story" piles abuse on abuse because it inherently de-centers the victims story and the victim's needs. What sex abuse victims want above all else is for their abusers to be held accountable for their crimes and prevented from ever hurting anyone else. Sex abuse victims DO NOT want perpetrators advocating on their behalf (talk about re-traumatizing! how is this not obvious???). Sex abuse victims ARE NOT REQUIRED to rally around the abuser's "redemption story." Sexual assault is not just a "teenage mistake" that everyone will laugh about later on. 

Putting on a pair of mismatched socks? That's a mistake. Forgetting to change the oil in your car? That's a mistake. Sexually assaulting girls while they are sleeping is a CHOICE. And it's a CRIME. 

Over and over again I've witnessed Christians dismissing, minimizing and denying the severity of sexual assault. Even among my own real-life acquaintances I've heard ridiculous things like: "Hey, it's a big family, that stuff is bound to happen." Or, "Didn't we ALL do stuff like that when we were kids?"

We break the cycle by focusing on accountability for the abuser and providing unequivocal support and advocacy for the victim.

On a personal note, the past few days have been very triggering and difficult for me. It's absolutely crushing to see how many Christians do not take abuse seriously. I haven't felt this discouraged about the state of Christianity since I left my childhood cult. I have spent years (YEARS!) writing about this stuff—including a painfully personal book (the writing of which exacted a steep, emotional toll on my life) and honestly, it's super depressing to see how LITTLE (nothing?) has changed. Furthermore, it's frustrating and sickening to see major media outlets pounce on the Duggar situation with ratings-starved glee. As Micah Murray noted, these media conglomerates have NO IDEA what it's like for sexual, physical and spiritual abuse to be your normal: "What the gawkers and headline-makers can’t comprehend is that for every scandal splashed across their glossy tabloids, there are a thousand broken lives that will never make the news....there will never be headlines for broken marriages and broken hearts, for eating disorders and suicidal depression. For innocent faith destroyed beyond repair. You won’t read in the news about years and years of therapy, about brainwashing and codependency and deprogramming."

Like Micah, I am SO SICK of writing about this. My archives are full of 8 years of this writing. I am exhausted. And I am DONE. And I am SO ANGRY that big name Christians have NOT stood up to unequivocally denounce this evil.

On the other hand, I am thankful that this stuff is finally hitting a bigger platform. I am thankful that more people see what's going on.

I am thankful for my little band of encouragers who have read my blog for all these years. I am thankful that yes, maybe things are changing a tiny bit. I am thankful for other writers who have spoken out for years, as well. 

This past week I've been called all kinds of names by Christians who do NOT want to look at what is going on. You know what? I laughed. Yeah, I did. I laughed because if defending children means I'm "bitter," then so be it. If speaking up against the systems that enable abuse means I "deny the Gospel," then I'll wear that label proudly.

I'm not afraid of these systems of religious power. I know how weak they actually are—I've seen them fall.

And now I'm going to go drink a second cup of coffee and eat a donut. Carry on, beloveds. We are loved, lovable and loving and we WILL NOT STOP until all the children are free and happy and safe."

( http://www.elizabethesther.com/journal/2015/5/27/its-not-just-about-josh-duggar-its-about-an-entire-system-of-abuse )

 

Edited May 29, 2015 by Cherie

[Ice_nine]

it's unfair to assume that they weren't.

​It's not really unfair, it's statistics and probabilities. Most, I would say the overwhelming majority, don't get over sexual abuse within a few years esp to the extent where they're ok with their lives are being broadcasted on national tv. And knowing that Josh's therapy was remodeling a home, I think it's ok to say that the girls were probably not given adquate treatment and they probably weren't fully healed from sexual abuse.

Probably.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Ice_nine