Getting the focus back on the Duggars - TLC is trying to save the show.
Question: in all earnestness, I ask what exactly would you now have happen to Josh, to his parents, to the family. If you ran the zoo, that is. How would you make this all better? Short of having a time-turner-thingy like in Harry Potter?
They need to not be on TV, that’s for sure. I’d hope the entire family would band together and get some heavy duty counseling. I’d also like to see the older kids move on…college, a job and an apartment. You know, getting on with their lives.
I’m pretty sure that “whole crowd” refers to the Duggar family (which is a crowd in and of itself) and their multitude of avid supporters who have taken to the internet to voice their continued adulation as well as accuse others of throwing stones from glass houses because who hasn’t sinned (besides Jesus).
Well, here’s hoping the “loyal, evangelical” fanbase won’t continue to support something so blatantly wrong and hypocritical.
If I ran the zoo: get real jobs.
And for once, I hope money talks: “As for the option of canceling “19 Kids and Counting,” TLC is said to be divided between concerns over losing major advertisers, since General Mills has already dropped the show, and continued support for the series from its “loyal, evangelical” fanbase.”
fair enough.
Here’s mine: I would hope that they would maybe stay on TV and boldly and openly admit to the fact that there were problems. Address those. Show how important it is to seek and to give assistance in situations like this, etc. They have a large platform…I would hope they could somehow use it to help others.
As for the older kids “moving on”… if that is what THEY want, then fine. We cannot assume to know what they really want to do, though, right?
Question: would there be this much ire if the Duggars were just a nice christian family without any of the outspoken prejudices against the LGBTQ community? Would there be more pity/understanding for the methods which they employed in trying to “help” their son?
They “evangelical” fan base wasn’t supporting child molestation. They were supporting what they thought was a moral family. They’re still reeling from the surprise, most likely. “Evangelical” Christians of some stripes can be a bit fanatical, which explains the oddity of the continued support from some.
I understand that. Hence why I said won’t CONTINUE to support. They would, hopefully, pull support (and I do believe most will).
Here’s mine: I would hope that they would maybe stay on TV and boldly and openly admit to the fact that there were problems. Address those. Show how important it is to seek and to give assistance in situations like this, etc. They have a large platform…I would hope they could somehow use it to help others.
<<<>>>
As for the older kids “moving on”… if that is what THEY want, then fine. We cannot assume to know what they really want to do, though, right?
<<<<absolutely!>>>></absolutely!>
ps…can’t remember how to quote on my iPad. Sorry
Yes . . . boldly admit that there were problems but that they were able to pray them away.
“Stop looking for things that aren’t there…Well as I’ve said many times, some people just look for reasons to be offended”
Obviously, to some of us…there seemed to be “something there” in DonnaL’s statement. I asked a question of DonnaL, seeking clarification re: that statement, and you answered for her. TBH, I wasn’t asking you. I think it is reasonable in the context of her statement, and of this thread, to be unclear as to what she meant by “the whole crowd”. How is asking a question for clarification “looking for reasons to be offended”??
“Question: would there be this much ire if the Duggars were just a nice christian family without any of the outspoken prejudices against the LGBTQ community? Would there be more pity/understanding for the methods which they employed in trying to “help” their son?”
I think that if they were a nice, more liberal Christian family without the prejudices, people would have stood behind them. After all, we are all sinners. I have a murderer in my congregation . Our congregation still loves and cares for this man who is now serving life without parole, and his father, who still attends worship. We have stood by other troubled families and individuals. We would understand that the parents of a sex offending teen are in great pain, especially in an incest situation where the victims are also loved. But I think that we would hold them accountable for getting help from licensed and qualified professionals, not a “Christian counselor” without psych training. We have a convicted sex offender in the congregation, who has served his time. We support him, but he is always in the company of an elder to help him stay away from temptation or become victim of false accusation.
That is a really good question. I have no clue…
In fact, I really was blissfully unaware of the stance the Duggars had taken, and specifically the content of the robocall that Michelle had made some time back. I do NOT agree with any of that…it’s abhorrent to me, in fact.
but the thing is, I have many friends—people I love and admire----who sincerely believe things that are very different than what I believe to be Truth. In fact, I have almost lost my job over my stance over these issues. I just have to work to increase understanding and communication and acceptance in my little corner of the world (and maybe of the internet) and pray that things will change sooner, rather than later.
Here’s what I would expect from the Duggars.
To get the help needed for the children in their family - the help that is recommended by medical professionals (and preferrably more than one opinion), to keep believing whatever they belief - because, if they stopped, that would make them even more hypocritical IMO, BUT to not do it on tv. To NOT parade their underage children in the media. Got some news? Fine, you’re a known family - we’d don’t expect to never hear from you again , but to parade it weekly on television??? No.
I wonder how much each member/couple in this family relies on the $$$ made from the show to live. I know the family has other business ventures, but the show must be feeding a lot of mouths - so to speak! 
Oh, gosh. I didn’t know what “the whole crowd” meant either. I had suggested we end this generalization of believers as one set of “them” and someone comes along with “the whole crowd.”
They aren’t going to magically go to college or “modernize.” Their whole position is formed in the ultra conservative. The early fascination was this very unusualness. And frankly, they do have a basic right to, say, limit internet, no matter how much we don’t like that.
And this healing is going to take a while (breaking the old pattern of acceptance or shame) and should NOT be freaking broadcast.
But as for this: I can only assume the reference was to Christians as we are all indeed hypocrites. If you know someone personally who professes to be a Christian, ask them if they are perfect. …if they ALWAYS do what they mean to do…to be good… I am pretty sure the answer will be no.
Respectfully, I think you miss the point. One can still feel superior for admitting sin, errors, mistakes, tragedies and being hypocritical, etc. One can still hide behind that. Or say it by rote without appearing to comprehend the effect of their behaviors and any lasting damage. And then, even that confession may be, sorry, hypocritical.
I, for one, would like to see something I felt was more than “Oh, we are all sinners, but for the grace of God…”
Yep, you are absolutely correct. People do come across as being hypocritical and insincere. My problem is that I do not feel qualified in any way to judge whether someone else’s “confession” is rote or hypocritical. It’s just not my place and I don’t really think anyone else can do it either.
There is a difference between saying one thing and doing the opposite of what you meant to do, and advocating to force your beliefs on others or deny others rights because they conflict with your beliefs, while not living those things yourself.
It is two faces of a coin (or maybe three 
). We can live in a larger secular world of human laws or we can let anything go and recuse ourselves from judgement because only God can judge. I guess the third way would be to have a system of human law that is based in either Biblical (old or new testament) of Koranic law. I often hear very conservative Christians voice fear that Sharia Law is sweeping the nation. I also often hear very conservative Christians talk about wanting something that might be considered OT law. It seems that only when they transgress do they want NT law or the “let God sort it out” variety.
Maybe it’s just my Meyers-Briggs type but I have never gone in for a “who am I to judge” tack. I have no problem at all judging a serial child molester.
I know almost nothing about these people, but the little I do know about them causes me to really despise them – having all those kids, being on a reality show, their sexist and bigoted views, the hypocrisy, courting publicity during a time that they should have been focused on dealing with the perpetrator and victims of these crimes. I don’t think they should be on tv; however, my view is that they never should have been on tv.
However, I do think that some of the rhetoric has failed to sufficiently account for the fact that the perpetrator was a juvenile – 14? – when these crimes were committed. Just from some quick googling, it does appear that juvenile sex offenders can be rehabilitated and that the rate of recidivism is much lower than for adults. Because of this, Human Rights Watch and other organizations formally oppose placing juvenile offenders (especially young adolescents) on public sex offender registries, for example.
We obviously do not have all of the relevant facts regarding this perpetrator, but there apparently have been no public accusations regarding repeat behavior after the age of 14 or 15. This is not meant to understate the severity of the crimes or the likely impact on the victims, especially in an environment in which they are very unlikely to get the needed support. But I do think the fact that he was so young when he committed these crimes is a factor to be considered.
The man does seem like a hypocrite and I would be happy if I never heard another word about these people again. I just don’t want the extreme distaste over this particular family to govern policies that apply to juvenile offenders more generally. I think these are very difficult issues (to figure out the consequences that should apply to juvenile offenders when there is no evidence of repeated violations during adulthood).