Or ‘special’. If every other word out of your mouth is how special something is, how special can it really be if that’s your standard?
Well, according to the free dictionary that usage is way down at #8 but apparently legit.
Well, if it weren’t for the fact that Josh abused his sisters, I don’t think we’d care about what language they use.
True - but it’s an interesting diversion
Well, I think it’s piling on. I’ve always been fascinated/horrified by them, but let’s criticize them for legitimate things.
Like, having 19 children.
I was somewhat horrified when they had 14 kids…and kept on going adding more and more. 19 kids is more than my kids had in their 3rd grade class!
http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2015/may/31/duggar-witness-contradicts-corporal-s-c/
More confession details
^^^ Thank God there remain actual respectable journalists in this world.
So someone else would have gone to jail. Sounds like Josh got away with something, doesn’t it. IMO, this epitomizes white Christian privilege.
All the Duggar facebook and twitter accounts have gone silent since the news broke. I don’t expect much from the interview, but you know I’ll be watching.
Still, as much as we think we know, courtesy of this magazine or that other media source, there’s a lot we don’t. As I went through different links here, some contradict others or some seem to shoot from the hip, to have something to say. Just be aware of that as you go.
I thought that Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette article appeared to be very well-sourced.
"Evangelical: of or relating to a Christian sect or group that stresses the authority of the Bible, the importance of believing that Jesus Christ saved you personally from sin or hell, and the preaching of these beliefs to other people.
Fundamentalism: a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching; the beliefs of this movement; adherence to such beliefs"
Like the internet, dictionary definitions can be misleading and this one contains several misnomers. First of all, technically all Christians are supported to be evangelizers, in the NT texts it is one of the main points of being Christian, so technically, any professed Christian is an evangelical. More importantly, there are many ways to evangelize, and the Mormon missionaries, the Jehova’s withnesses, who go door to door, or the loudmouth televangelists and the idiots who get in your face, and tell you you are going to hell, are the visible ones. I have spoken to Episcopal missionaries (and Episcopalians these days tend to be pretty liberal, if not out there), and they did so by doing good works, medical care, caring for those in jails, in poor areas, you name it, they showed love and let the person’s heart decide. On the other hand, the out there extreme types we talk about, do missions, but they also do strong preaching and such, there are right wing Christian soup kitchens and such that have gotten into trouble, because they accept state and federal money to run the kitchens (which is fine), but did things like require patrons to listen to a sermon or talk to ‘counselors’ about finding Jesus, which is a violation (when religious groups use public money, they are not supposed to use it to proslytize). Under dear of George W Bush, and his ‘faith initiatives’, they had the kind of Christians were are talking about, running a clinic in Pakistan under USAID backing, where they had crosses up all over the place, and signs sayong “Do you know Jesus?”, which among other things, in a moslem country is not exactly going to encourage people to get help, one of the objections I had to the ‘faith based initiatives’ thing was it was de facto using public money to allow these clowns to preach their religious message, using public money for them to evangelize and proslytize (not a big surprise, given Bush’s professed faith). It isn’t about using public money in charities run by religious groups, it is allowing religious groups to use that money to try and convert people, rather than simply giving aid.
As far as Fundamentalism goes, it is dead wrong. Fundamentalist started in the 1830’s, it is thought to have started at a convention in the 1830’s upstate NY (I think it was called the Niagra conference), and one of the things this laid out was the idea of the literal truth in the words in the bible, that that was in fact the ultimate word of God, in the strict reading of it. It was in direct response, not surprisingly, to the challenges that science was making to faith, not to mention even biblical theology and history (for example, by that time, scholars and many theologians realized the NT was not some sacred book that dropped out of the sky, they realized that the books were not written by the namesakes, and ore importantly, they also realized there is no such thing as original texts of the NT, so by then there was question about what was originally known and not…plus there also were the first revelations of texts that didn’t make it into the NT, that were basically rejected by the Bishops who put through the Canon. The publication of Darwin’s theories put the fire to this, since before that a lot of people took Genesis to be literal, in the sense that man was not part of the animal kingdom, etc…so it isn’t 20th century, it has roots way, way back, in part to try and lay down a line in the sand that no matter what science said, what scholars said, the bible was it…William Jennings Bryan came from these roots, and his coaliton included what we would call fundamentalists today (interestingly, Bryan’s coalition, that once was part of the base of the Democrat,s, is a major part of the GOP base today, the farm populists with the anti wall street, anti banking view of things, and the rural southern voters and the religious fundamentalists).
Someone said that the fundamentalists Christians often exist in their own world, and that is true. The problem with that isn’t their views, I could care less if they think dinosaurs were on the Ark or that Dinosaurs were in the garden of Eden and other such things, but the problem is they live in their own world and want everyone else to accede to their beliefs. Sorry, but when they push Creationism in schools, or push that we should teach as science that the earth is 6000 years old, or as the idiots in Kansas and other states have done, tried to outlaw teaching evolution, or teaching it is just a ‘guess’ (and no, not talking Scopes, talking Kansas in the 21st century and other places), that is where it ends Fundamentalists hold the idea that science is just another set of beliefs, which is untrue, because unlike their beliefs, science is based on fact and logic (something Fundamentalists don’t believe in, the GOP in Texas tried to get ‘logical thinking’ curricula banned in the state, because ‘it questions long held beliefs’…).
Fundamentalism makes the mistake that mainstream religion does not, mainstream Christians, conservative or liberal, operate under a principle Aquinas and others said, that faith without reason made no sense. In the Anglican traditions, one of the three legged stool is reason, and Fundamentalist totally throws that out the window, they take 3000 year old writings (well, okay, 2-3000 year old writings) and turn them into literal truth, no reason allowed.
The ELCA these days is pretty liberal, like the Episcopal Church, most of the conservatives have left from what i can tell. The ELCA had a big impact on my childhood, they produced the Davy and Goliath cartoons, and to this day, when someone screws up, including myself, I say “Err, Davey, you forgot to use a cotter pin” (Goliath uttered this, Goliath being the dog, when Davey tries to make a go cart and the wheel comes off…) lol. The ELCA should not be confused with the Missouri Synod of the Lutherans, who for all I know like the original lutherans, would throw feces at the Devil and whose other beliefs are equally out there…
The ELCA has “joint communion” with the Episcopal church. That happened in, I think 2000 or thereabouts. D sang in the massed children’s choir at the local Episcopal Cathedral for the celebration. The Missouri Synod are the no drinking, dancing or card playing people.
Thought provoking piece about what happens when parents DO turn a child molesting son in to the authorities.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/emily-horowitz-defense-josh-duggar-parents-article-1.2240603
I sympathize - you would want your son to get help - and protect the siblings from any further abuse - but don’t want son’s life ruined either. Interesting perspective.
The author is right about some things, the sex offender laws are often a combination of hysteria (the same hysteria where it is a crime to let your kid walk home alone from the park), and also quite honestly religious sexual puritanism inflected as law (a 15 year old boy having sex with his girlfriend should not be statutory rape, but in many parts of the country they can be charged as such, usually down in the ‘sex before marriage is a sin’ belt; statutory rape laws were designed to protect children from adults, a 15 year old boy does not have the same power over a 15 year old girl a 24 year old man would. I use male/female here simply for example purpose, would apply the other way or with same sex partners). There is a nude beach in NJ, that if a couple was found having public sex on it, would end up with felony charges and would be on the sex offenders list, even though they hurt no one and the worst they should face is misdemeanor charges and a fine—not defending public sex, just saying the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.
With a minor such as Josh Duggar, or frankly anyone caught up in these charges, the law doesn’t seem to allow for opinions on the nature of the crime, there has been such hysteria about sexual abuse it isn’t even funny, it was like the hysteria about missing kids a while ago, it was way overblown. First of all, a kid doing this should be treated differently, with juvenile crimes with kids so young there should be a different standard. They should be charged as juveniles, and should be required to get help, and depending on the nature of the crime, an evaluation done when they reach 18 and/or are released. If they get help and a case can be made they are not a threat, then it doesn’t make much sense to put them on a sex offender list (remember, talking about a kid here). If the crime is that bad, where for example the kid raped someone, especially violently, then when they hit 18, if the evaluation is they are still a threat, transfer them to an adult prison and put them on the registry (again, assuming that evaluations show he is still a threat). Likewise, laws that involve sex but don’t involve consensuality issues, like two teens having sex consensually (which should not be a crime, sorry, our job is not to enforce parental religious beliefs or the beliefs of religion in our laws), or public sex, or yes, even patronizing a prostitute, should not be put on a sex offender list, not unless the sex was somehow forced or non consensual… What has happened is anything involving sex that is illegal has become a ‘sex crime’ as in sexual abuse, like rape, and that is the puritans using the law as a weapon to enforce their beliefs, or with prostitution, the misguided notion that a john is some sort of abuser automatically and the sex worker a victim, it is using the law for something it isn’t intended.
It doesn’t help that those laws are in place because no one trusts authority figures any more. For many years, the law ignored sexual abuse, they treated it as a joke (put it this way, things like a parent sexually assaulting a child, or domestic sexual abuse, were often treated as ‘private matters’ by the cops and DA offices, and dealt with in that fashion). Then we had the sexual abuse cases in the Catholic Church and the response of the Catholic hierarchy to it, not to mention the so called experts they shopped for who told them pedophile priests could be cured (experts in sexual abuse came to the conclusion 40+ years ago you can’t cure a pedophile, yet the Church was ‘curing’ priests into the 1990’s and beyond). Law enforcement, when the crimes were reported against priests, often ignored it, and state legislators to this day refuse to revise the statute of limitations on crimes like chlld molestation and the cover up by authorities, which has meant that those doing the molesting and those that covered it up face no charges. So we come up with sledgehammer laws that end up hurting people whose crimes are pretty minor, or for example kids who might have done something stupid but can be saved, in the hope that the hard core pedophile or rapist is caught.
That said, I don’t think this woman’s hypothesis about the Duggars is entirely correct. One of the problems with insular religious communities is they have this concept of ‘keeping it in the faith’, and it often boils down to covering it up. There are major problems with sexual abuse in the ultra orthodox Jewish community in NYC, with claiming the 'right to deal with it ourselves under Rabbinic law" ,and law enforcement treads lightly, claiming that if they clamped down they wouldn’t get any kind cooperation, and partly because politically they are afraid of the repurcussions), there have been problems among the Amish, and among other sects and such where abuse often goes unreported and unchecked. I think the Duggars really believed that Jesus would cure Josh and that there church basically thought it was no big deal. It could be that Josh is fine, that having grown up he will no longer be a threat, but I don’t think reading the bible or praying or doing manual labor cures you, either, and as bad as the law is, at least there is some idea of treatment there, evaluating the person. I think our laws around sex are antiquated and often used wrongly, but I won’t give the Duggars or Ultra Orthodox Jews (who have said, in NYC, they don’t trust the authorities because of the experience as a people Jews have had with authorities, specifically mentioning the Holocaust and other past wrongs) a pass, because at the very least, neither of them tried to get the perp evaluated. Back on 2004, there wasn’t even the mandatory reporting laws, most of them have come about since the exposure of the priest abuse scandal in the last decade or so, so they could have gotten him help and not had the fear of him being reported.
Two great, thought-provoking posts, musicprnt.
What should have happened, and did not, is that the family should have been supervised by the local child protection services to protect the victims and potential victims.
I am sure that that’s what would have happened to a less politically-connected family.
While reading Duggar news I ran across this current case from Perquimans, NC. Six Christian homeschoolin’ brothers raped and abused their little sister for a decade. She’s now 17. The parents saw some of the incidents and are in jail themselves.
http://wavy.com/2015/05/21/4-brothers-plead-guilty-in-rape-incest-case/