Sign in to follow this  
Guest LiterateParakeet

Duggar Son Accused of Child Molestation

Recommended Posts

I've always had a slight fascination with the Duggars. For many different reasons. Haven't read the article but I guess this just goes to show that even the seemingly happiest families have skeletons in their closets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

The really sad thing is that people will use this to bash all Christians with. 

 

That said, I've always found that family strange. I feel guilty saying that because I can't put my finger on why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to make excuses for the guy, but I believe the term "molested" is incorrect. Teenagers messing around in a sexual way with other teenagers is not molestation, it would be if he had been over 18 at the time but he was not. If that were true than practically every young woman I grew up with could claim to have been molested at least once. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because what we're supposed to do with 13-year-old boys when they touch sleeping girls is castrate them, slit their bellies open, and strangle them with their own intestines.

 

Failing that, we can wait until they're grown up and married, then bring it up to publicly destroy them. That works, too. If the victims foolishly have forgiven them and moved on, be sure to report that by putting "forgiven" in scare quotes.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest LiterateParakeet

Char, as far as I know the ages of his FIVE victims was not given....they may have been quite a bit younger than him. The article says some of the incidents were felonies, which makes me think they were younger. And regardless of age, some were asleep when he assaulted them. There was no consent given.

What should have been done is to follow the law...call the police and get therapy for Josh Duggar and all his victims. His "therapy" was being sent to stay with a friend of the family. I'm guessing the only therapy the girls got was "forgive and forget". Which is not helpful. "forgive and forget" is from Shakespeare not the scriptures.

Edited by LiterateParakeet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is true as far as it goes, but you are ignoring the obvious and central reality: The purpose of this article had nothing at all to do with "getting help" for Josh Duggar, or even for his victims. The purpose of this article was to destroy a man and, hopefully, his associated family.

 

I am no fan of the Duggars. I have never watched their TV program, and I know who they are only because they have been extensively talked about in the news media. But I know a hatchet piece when I see one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only vaguely know who the Duggars are. The Christians with the big family.

 

On one hand, I do trust them when they say he has moved beyond this. People do dumb things, and I don't know what his sex education was like. If he truly has been counseled and he has repented, why drag it out now?

 

On the other hand, I believe in following the law. It's all well and good to counsel within one's own family, and I say even seeking therapy that way isn't totally out of line, but we have laws for a reason and justice ought to prevail. Keeping it from law enforcement for so long is wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was 14, and I read somewhere that the offense was that he fondled their breasts. Girls under the age of 13 generally do not have breasts - hence why I said "teenagers messing around with other teenagers." Now I read that the girls may have been asleep at the time - certainly that makes it worse but not nearly as bad as the media is trying to paint it. Just walking through the halls of high school this thing (horrible as it is) happens to girls all the time. It is inappropriate, and the boys ought not be able to get away with it, but it is not molestation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we have laws for a reason and justice ought to prevail. Keeping it from law enforcement for so long is wrong. 

 

Agreed. If there was an adult crime here, it was the father's failure to report an allegation of sexual abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is inappropriate, and the boys ought not be able to get away with it, but it is not molestation.

 

Actually, I disagree with this. If he felt up sleeping girls, it does qualify as molestation of a sort -- he had no business or right to do that, and the girls certainly were not consenting to it. If my daughter were treated in like manner, I would be out for blood, even if the boy were only 13.

 

But as a father, I'm expected to want to rip the boy to pieces. No one expects me to be rational in that scenario, which is why I would never be allowed to sit on a jury to judge the boy who did it. Rational minds should prevail.

 

Of course, this shameless hatchet piece seeks to inspire anything but a reasoned, rational response to these happenings -- issues which were in fact reported to and investigated by police, though later than they should have been. This article does not expose some unknown sordid deeds. On the contrary, the only reason these deeds are able to be "exposed" is because they were reported to and investigated by the police, and records were kept of those proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of observations, based on things I've gleaned working in the juvenile court system for the past year:

 

1.  If this had been timely reported, Josh would have gone through the system, appropriate treatments/therapies would have been done, Josh would have aged out of the juvenile court system at 21 (if the case weren't closed already), the cases would be closed and sealed, and he'd be more or less in the same situation he is right now.

2.  While we have the police report, we do not have the juvenile court records and nor are we likely to get them.  My guess is that from a legal standpoint, this issue is fully resolved.

3.  The police report is not for the faint-of-heart.  It does describe behavior above and beyond mere fondling of the *ahem* upper regions over the clothes.  The manner in which one of the daughters was interviewed about her experience, suggests to me that she was well under 10 years old at the time of the interview.  (Incidentally, at least some aspects of the interviewing technique that seems to have been used has come under some criticism in recent years; but I suppose that's neither here nor there since no one's disputing that the incidents actually happened.)

4.  I can empathize with the parents' reluctance to report this kind of thing and put their son into a "system" with which they were wholly unfamiliar.  On the other hand:  Sex abuse is a very. big. deal.  Those girls needed help, and it sounds like they didn't get it--not for a couple of years, at least.  And unless I'm misreading the police report, it looks like Mom--and maybe Dad--straight-out lied to the cops (or at least to their social circle) about what sort of "treatment" they had already gotten for Josh.  I have a really, really hard time just letting that slide.  If you want the media to hold you up as examples of good Christian parenting--this ain't how you do it.

5.  This sort of thing is far more common than we like to think.  There are kids who have done this--and been through (or in the process of going through) the system for it--who go to school with your kids and go to church in your stake, if not in your ward.  It is crucial that you discuss this sort of thing with your own kids at a very early age, and certainly by the time they start school.

6.  Dude.  Josh.  I recognize the road you've walked, and I feel for the hell you must have gone through, and I understand the concept of forgiveness and all that.  And I admire you for discussing this openly with your wife before your marriage.  But . . . taking a job at the Family Research Council?  Really?

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In seriousness: 

 

I know someone who was molested by her older brother across years when she was 9+ and he was 15+.  As I did my research in the 2000's, I've come to learn that many, many, many of the details of her abuse are shared by many, many, many different people.

 

* Not only did nobody call the cops, nobody put a stop to it.  In one instance, she heard the mom coming up the stairs, then pause, then go back down the stairs.

 

* The biggest worry was that the brother would fall away from the church and not go on a mission.  As people outside the family started to notice, the entire ward gathered together to fast for the brother.  Parents kept a very careful spin on what brother's issues were, careful to never let details of incest escape.

 

* His victim never heard that it wasn't her fault, until she was seeing a shrink in her early 20's.

 

* She's been called a boat rocker, told she just needs to forgive, and she's been accused of trying to destroy the family for seeking counsel and discussing details.

 

* From her viewpoint, her parents hold the greater sin than anything her brother ever did.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reason this is being dragged up is to assisnate the character of a well known christian family. Yes? I think so too.

 

Where was all of the public outrage over Lena Dunham (an actress) when she bragged about what she did to her sister?  Was she given a pass because she's not Christian?  Because everything related to same-gender sexual contact is A-Okay in today's society, no matter the circumstances?

 

Have we banned Woody Allen movies yet?

 

Why was this thread even started?  Is it for the same reason people are gleefully discussing this elsewhere?  Yay, those disgusting, modest-dressing Christians are BAD and that just proves that religion -especially Christianity - is bad?

 

Why were juvenile records unsealed? 

 

Does no one care that they are putting the girls through a public trial that is not in their best interest?  That they are also being subject to being judged and gossiped about?

 

 

Does the atonement only extend to those we approve of? Is it not for everyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

Where was all of the public outrage over Lena Dunham (an actress) when she bragged about what she did to her sister?  Was she given a pass because she's not Christian?  Because everything related to same-gender sexual contact is A-Okay in today's society, no matter the circumstances?

 

Have we banned Woody Allen movies yet?

 

Why was this thread even started?  Is it for the same reason people are gleefully discussing this elsewhere?  Yay, those disgusting, modest-dressing Christians are BAD and that just proves that religion -especially Christianity - is bad?

 

Why were juvenile records unsealed? 

 

Does no one care that they are putting the girls through a public trial that is not in their best interest?  That they are also being subject to being judged and gossiped about?

 

 

Does the atonement only extend to those we approve of? Is it not for everyone?

The thread was started because the rules apply to all of us, even those who are modest and good Christians. Just because he's a Christian doesn't mean we can excuse his bad behavior. What he did was flat out disgusting. It's also disturbing. 

 

His juvenile records were unsealed because he chose to be a celebrity. No one forced him. When you put yourself in the public eye you must accept that there will be unfair attacks against you. It's like an ER nurse complaining she doesn't like the sight of blood-if you don't like it, you could have chosen to live a nice, quiet life with your beautiful family. There is nothing wrong with that. 

 

Everyone cares about the girls. 

 

No one here has been gleeful about discussing it. It's in the news and it needs to be discussed. 

 

The atonement extends to everyone. 

 

I get how all of us Christians want to rally around the troops when one of our own gets accused of something but we simply cannot point to Lena Dunham or Woody Allen or anyone else (Two vile people, by the way) -just pointing out another wrong doesn't justify the wrong he committed. IE-If I commit arson and burn my neighbors house down I can't say "Well John down the street got a DUI. Why don't we arrest him and leave me alone?"

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get how all of us Christians want to rally around the troops when one of our own gets accused of something but we simply cannot point to Lena Dunham or Woody Allen or anyone else (Two vile people, by the way) -just pointing out another wrong doesn't justify the wrong he committed. IE-If I commit arson and burn my neighbors house down I can't say "Well John down the street got a DUI. Why don't we arrest him and leave me alone?"

 

The point is that between Josh Duggar, Lena Dunham, and Woody Allen.. only one of them is remotely repentant. And only one of the offenses has been remotely atoned for, and only one of these perpetrators seems in any way ashamed of what they have done. And only one of them happened when the perpetrator was a minor themselves. Only one of them has resigned from their position in disgrace and will likely not be prominent in their given field ever again. Only one of them is a professed and practicing Christian. That is the point. 

Edited by char713

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

His juvenile records were unsealed because he chose to be a celebrity.

 

I know of no law that says the juvenile records of celebrities get to be unsealed. My assumption is that this is all above-board, because no one is complaining about it being illegal. His name was redacted in the police report, though they are not denying it was him.

 

but we simply cannot point to Lena Dunham or Woody Allen or anyone else (Two vile people, by the way) -just pointing out another wrong doesn't justify the wrong he committed. 

 

The comparison was not made to justify the teenage actions of Josh Duggar, but to point out the vomitous hypocrisy of the political left in general, who on the whole gave Lena Dunham a free pass when she admitted to her own vile actions (and toward her own sister!), yet now seek to crucify Josh Duggar and his parents for his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
His juvenile records were unsealed because he chose to be a celebrity. No one forced him. When you put yourself in the public eye you must accept that there will be unfair attacks against you. It's like an ER nurse complaining she doesn't like the sight of blood-if you don't like, you could have chosen to live a nice, quiet life with your beautiful family. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

I agree with most of what you write; but I take issue with this for a couple of reasons.

 

First, legally sealed is legally sealed.  Those rules don't just evaporate because a person becomes famous.  We still can't get our own President's full college/law school transcripts, for Pete's sake.  I'd be really interested to know how this FOIA request was processed; because as far as I know, FOIA requests in and of themselves don't usually trump confidentiality of juvie court proceedings.

 

Secondly, Josh did not choose to be famous.  He had no part in his parents' making another eighteen kids after him, no part in their working the talk-show circuit, and (so far as I know) no part in their deciding to turn their family life into a reality TV show.  (Where he did show an awful lot of chutzpah, as I've indicated above, is in becoming a lobbyist for the Family Research Council (of all organizations!), knowing full well what his own history was and knowing that there was at least a possibility that that background could become a liability to his cause).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

I didn't say the unsealing of his records was fair in the least. It ISN'T. It's horrible, it's unfair it's nasty. 

 

But it happened so it's not that relevant to talk about it being unfair or not. We can't go back in time and re-seal them. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

\

 

Secondly, Josh did not choose to be famous.  He had no part in his parents' making another eighteen kids after him, no part in their working the talk-show circuit, and (so far as I know) no part in their deciding to turn their family life into a reality TV show.  (Where he did show an awful lot of chutzpah, as I've indicated above, is in becoming a lobbyist for the Family Research Council (of all organizations!), knowing full well what his own history was and knowing that there was at least a possibility that that background could become a liability to his cause).

 Right, but after the show was over he could have shrank from the public eye. He didn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator

 

The comparison was not made to justify the teenage actions of Josh Duggar, but to point out the vomitous hypocrisy of the political left in general, who on the whole gave Lena Dunham a free pass when she admitted to her own vile actions (and toward her own sister!), yet now seek to crucify Josh Duggar and his parents for his.

 

 Agree 100%. It's the double standard you just have to accept. Like I said, it isn't fair in the least but it's not going to change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this