You need to edit your copy to stress that Josh “Self-Confessed Child Molester” Duggar actually molested his sisters.
Obviously though, Jim Duggar meant that acts of rape or incest that result in pregnancy should be a capitol offense. If no fetus is created, then there is no victim. /s
So, about all those incesty parts in the Old Testament…
Even if you make the reasonable assumption that there’s an “incest spectrum” (for lack of a better term) and not all acts of incest would be capital crimes … it’s reasonable to assume his stand was that all acts of incest are crimes.
In this guy’s defense. He’s got 19 kids. It’'s a lot of keep up on. I mean, he’s gotta pick his battles and not let Every. Single. Grope. be turned into a full blown investigation.
I suppose this is why people like us shouldn’t be allowed to put people to death.
So Poppa and Momma Duggar still had additional children even after they knew for certain that at the age of 15, son Josh Duggar was raping/molesting his sisters? They had an officer of the law have a stern talking to Josh concerning his predilection to pedophilia, oh the humanity.
I find that point about as disgusting as I find their canceled TV show…
Absolutely, that’s why you should kill the offender and keep the baby!
Where does the woman fit into this? She’s a willing and submissive vessel regardless of what happens, as women were always intended to be.
(That’s the view of fundamentalist, quiverfull Christianity btw, not mine.)
The primary tenant of Quiverfull Theology is that you don’t get to make any choices or planning regarding your reproduction, not even celibacy — God will tell you when it’s time to stop having children.
From their point of view, the Duggars couldn’t stop making more babies for any reason, including having a known predator in their midst.
Isn’t old man Duggar responsible for turning his son in in the first place? And the cop who did the investigation turned out to be a child molester himself.
Nope, he’s responsible for NOT turning his child molesting son in, he studiously kept him OUT of the legal system until after the statute of limitations had passed.
Waited a year and took him to a trooper who’s now in jail for child pornography.
Well, clearly he showed good judgment in talking to an expert.
Man’O Manischewitz, Dog Bless these People!
I have the sudden urge to go back to bed and stay in it till morning dawns a new day on planet Earth!
According to a self-described expert a woman’s body had a way of “shutting down”, with the result that no pregnancy could occur from a “legitimate rape”.
I find his hypocrisy as loathsome as the next person, but it’s probably important to understand the modality of the original statement, too. It is a positional statement on a political platform web page. As such, it’s main relationship to the world is in the identification of tribal affiliation: Christians are tough on sexual crime; I am tough on sexual crime: I am therefore not demonstrably non-Christian.
Yes, to forestall the next objection, I find Duggar’s original statement–if it was his and not written by a staffer–reprehensible. (A side note: In isolation, this isn’t as easy a statement as it seems in the current context. “So, you’re okay with rape and incest?,” you might rhetorically ask. Dismissable in conversation, but elections aren’t conversations.) But, is it more interesting that Duggar made a reprehensible statement based on a chain of knee-jerk reactions and simplistic thinking, or that his position has changed now that he has come into contact with an actual case of incestuous abuse?
To be clear, Duggar does not strike me as a man who comes to his value system through careful thought, cautious introspection, or a spirit of humility; I do not think he did so then nor that he does so now. Probably, though, a more fruitful way to think about this than “Ha-ha! He’s a hypocrite!” is to think about how we address people who both have ideas like these and whose minds we want to change.
Mr. Duggar may be ill-equipped to deal with nuance and reflection; We must be better than that, or we will lose to the worst possible panderers.
Then he REALLY shouldn’t be in politics
On the contrary: He would be remarkably well-suited to the American political climate!