Power, Purity, Meekness and God. The Ugly Reality of Rape Culture.

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Bells, May 23, 2015.

  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Are you now trying to deny you actually said this:

    What emerging sexuality?

    Why do you keep bringing his sexuality up? What does his heterosexuality have to do with his child molestation?

    You are completely missing the point, aren't you?

    Not probably. You actually did.

    Yes. And?

    This was already covered earlier in the thread. I wasn't talking about the parents being mandated reporters. Why are you trying to change the subject again?


    It's about the victims. Not about a juvenile offender.

    You don't need to. Just read the legislation. That is pretty clear.


    Didn't you read the link?

    Who do you think does the accreditation for professionals?

    What, exactly, do you think is meant by "accredited"?

    Prove it. Accredited is, by any definition, a licensed professional. It appears as though you are trying to deny reality, lie and claim that the clergy are accredited counselors when it is clear that the State of Arkansas has a fairly detailed standard for how accreditation can be obtained. I even linked it for you, for Arkansas. Even if the clergy involved in this case have a master's degree in psychology and are accredited, it still does not mean that they are not mandated reporters. The legislation is very clear on the matter and when and if any exemptions apply. Josh did not confess to them, nor was this treated as a confidential discussion between the criminal and his priest. The Church community were aware of it.

    Completely different state and completely different thing.

    And as the legislation you linked, clergy are not exempt from reporting in this particular case. Nor did the parents advise that their children were counseled by their priest. Instead, the parents advised they received counseling from "accredited professionals". Note his words, as linked earlier:

    Jim Bob Duggar said the counseling came from “accredited professional counselor.”

    Pay particular attention to the word "accredited". Look it up if you don't understand what that means.

    Do you even understand that what you linked contradicts you?

    And what does this have to do with this discussion?

    Context and keeping up with discussions is a foreign concept for you, isn't it?

    The point, milkweed, is that it wasn't a confidential issue if the whole church knew about it. Ergo, it was clearly not a confession to the clergy, who was a mandated reporter.

    And it is interesting at the amount of hoops the right are going through to excuse and protect the molestation of children. No one is chomping at the bit to treat him like an adult. But to suggest that at 14 and then 15 years of age, he didn't know it was wrong to sexually molest his sisters and the baby sitter, and even his 5 year old sister when he was 15 years of age is laughable at best and despicable and deranged.

    And comparing a situation in which an unarmed 17 year old was murdered by a deranged gun toting lunatic to a 14 and then 15 year old molesting multiple children is ridiculous and perverted.

    The belief that it is normal or just simple curiosity that drove him to molest even his 5 year old sister is perverted. It wasn't a mistake. It was a deliberate act and he did it multiple times. And now conservatives are treating child molestation as a political battle ground and they are defending the molestation of children? Really? It has come to this? This is how low people are going to go?

    When people can't even agree that molesting children is bad and they view any criticism of child molestation as being an attack on Christianity or the Right, then it's a fairly safe bet that they lost any political ground or battle or whatever you want to call it, before they even begin.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884
    Consider that thing we have with the American press, which for its part has no use for notions of the Fourth Estate.

    This is what happens; with no standard of truth it's all relative. There is only small comfort in the fact that once again it is the same sectors leading this descent that warned of it three decades ago. No, really, doesn't anyone remember how the push against godlessness used to be to complain about moral relativity in secular humanism?

    This keeps happening. The censorship sectors of my youth who worried that people would become Satanic killers because of a song about the troubles of alcoholism have tremendous overlap with those who were outraged by the suggestion that putting crosshairs on one's political opponents might send an unintended message to the mentally ill. Yeah, myth and allegory are going to turn kids evil, but a former vice presidential candidate calling for political violence has no effect whatsoever.

    Or the denunciation of a certain feelgood culture. My generation was raised in a time when people complained about the idea of a school or day camp "citizenship" ribbon, because, well, "citizenship" isn't important compared to how fast you can run, or how hard you can throw a baseball. We ought not be surprised that emergence of a conservative political movement dresses itself in libertarian clothing and essentially demands the end of civilized society as a matter of personal freedom.

    We ought not be surprised, then, that these same overlapping sectors include those who worried that art and a lack of fascism would result in sexual immorality, and who in turn happen to be living one of the most immoral group sexplay fantasies we could ever be witness to―rape culture as a response against the immorality of human rights. This automanifestation of their own proclaimed worst fears keeps happening.

    And in a societal endeavor that reduces everything to a sales pitch, in which there is no consistent moral baseline or institutional vigilance over truth, we ought not be surprised that the moral relativism and lack of genuine truth result in the market demand for an equivocating perspective whereby we must presuppose against reality itself.

    This is, for some people, only political because all things are. People can't even agree that molesting children is bad because that's how the politics work; the map has become the territory for these people. But the inherent nature of ownership culture is itself so corrupt and corrosive that there isn't really much room for two-stepping to compromise. Thus we find ourselves in a situation in which people are arguing to find one redeeming, nonviolative manifestation of something that is inherently violative. Or, rather, thus spake Sarah.

    This is all these people have. Meanwhile―

    • blaming other people

    • recidivistic behavior

    • fomenting cultural paradigm

    • community support and empowerment after the fact​

    ―well, you know, this is really, really dangerous. That cheap line about impropriety being inherent to molestation? I actually got to have a grim chuckle with that, hanging around a friend who is actually in the business of working with both at-risk and displaced youth, and, yes, "Why does there have to be any molestation that isn't wrong?" is the sort of thing that qualifies as gallows humor in these circles. After all, the counterpoint, inherent impropriety, seems rather quite obvious.

    And, no, we ought not wonder at the blurring of lines whereby she will thank him for "molesting" her. I mean, we can certainly pass over that one, except it is worth noting that's how it works in the other direction. And given what cultural boundaries we're dealing with on this occasion, there is some value in suggesting neither should we be surprised that the paradigm would create a circumstance whereby the lack of difference between molesting and nonmolesting sexual behavior overlaps. That is to say, maybe she thanks him because it wasn't molestation. You know, like, sure, she came ... twice. But, you know, she wanted to. And here's the trick: If there's no difference between that circumstance and the sort of molestation with which there is apparently "no problem" ...?

    But for all this, look at how far the molestation advocates will take this. To wit, regardless of anything else our neighbor might try to argue about mandated reporters, he seems determined to (ahem!) "overlook" the point that once the police officer had knowledge of an allegation of sexual violation against a minor, he had duty to follow through on the report.

    Oh, right. Still, though, I suppose the point bears repeating: Notice how the argument consistently aims to create vagary by invoking general (ahem!) "principles" in issues where we already know more specific circumstantial answers.

    For whatever reasons, some people see a field for contention. In some cases, it seems personal. In others, perhaps it has something to do with the larger question; as long as we rehash the Duggars specifically, we're not examining the processes and interrelationships of the larger phenomena of ownership and rape culture. For others, since this involves left-right political and Republican presidential trappings, sure, why not?

    But there really isn't any room for politicking. This one is clear, and the factors lending to range of discussion make the pretense of opposition a matter of individual priorities. For whatever reason, these people would give safe harbor to child molestation. You know, the kind that is "no problem".

    It's all they have. Once the decision to stand with the molester is undertaken, this is pretty much the only available route. Why would anyone want to do that? Again, it's simply a matter of what is important to them.

    The idea that people would find a reason to make this into some sort of basic political dispute? Well, I am an American, after all; it is unsurprising. This is what we do. And, yeah, this is kind of how we do it.

    And no, that's not supposed to make anybody feel better.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    Nope, not denying I said these things. Not denying I said your an extremist either.

    sex·u·al·i·ty
    noun: sexuality
    1. capacity for sexual feelings.
      "she began to understand the power of her sexuality"
      synonyms:sensuality, sexiness, seductiveness, desirability, eroticism, physicality;
      sexual appetite, passion, desire, lust
      "she had a powerful sexuality"
      • a person's sexual orientation or preference.
        plural noun: sexualities
        "people with proscribed sexualities"
        synonyms: sexual orientation, sexual preference, leaning, persuasion;
        heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, gayness, the love that dare not speak its name, bisexuality
        "I'm open about my sexuality"
      • sexual activity.
    synonym early 15c. (but rare before 18c.), from L. synonymum, from Gk. synonymon "word having the same sense as another," noun use of neut. of synonymos "having the same name as, synonymous," from syn- "together, same" + onyma, Aeolic dialectal form of onoma "name" (see name).

    Actually its about the WHOLE family effect including those accused. There are 18 other children in that household that are all impacted by the decisions parents make. And in this particular case the steps taken fall in line with what I expect (well except for number 1. Unusual for the kid to tell on himself).
    1. josh tells on himself
    2. Parents discuss behaviors and implement safeguards.
    3. Josh is told on when behavior occurs again
    4. parents get outside help
    5. No more evidence of continued behavior.

    But I know you cant stand the methods the Duggar family took; even though through your own experiences (if australian families react like American families), this is exactly the course most families take. Try to handle it within the home then if continued behavior seek outside help.

    I KNOW it means more than the limited application your trying to present and thats what I pointed out. Its not me dening the reality. You were talking about what the Duggars said and not what LICENSURE requirements are. Linked earlier to Arkansas Exemptions to Licensure.

    http://abec.arkansas.gov/aboutUs/Documents/act593.pdf

    Those exemptions allow clergy to present themselves as counselors legally. And if their degree is 'accredited' they can say "accredited counselor". Just not Licensed.

    Duggars didnt claim Licensed anything. They claimed 'accredited'. Liberty Uni (Jerry Falwell uni) has "accredited" programs as an example.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_University#Accreditation

    Heres their "Accredited" Divinity program:

    http://www.liberty.edu/divinity/

    You have no idea whether it is regarded by the denomination Josh partook in whether it was confidential. The Arkansas law does not define what is a confidential discussion and clearly leaves that up to the various denomination to define themselves:

    except to the extent he or she has acquired knowledge of suspected maltreatment through communications required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith, or he or she received the knowledge of suspected maltreatment from the offender in the context of a statement of admission.

    Actually its not. There are the same exemptions in MN law on who can call themselves a counselor or not. And the regulation (at least in 2005) was the same. Who can present themselves as a LICENSED... whatever. Worse yet, back in 2005 County/school workers were grandparented into their jobs as counselors with degrees as unrelated as "swedish language" and "mathematics" . In 2005, county child protection workers did not have to be licensed by the state of MN. That was the reality of the 'professional' child protection worker around the time of Josh's exploration. But its not uncommon for government to Exempt themselves from the laws/rules other people have to follow.

    There is no evidence the 'whole church' knew anything about it. As I understand it, the letter found in a book was written by a friend of the mom, who was told by mom about what Josh had done (iirc* the letter hidden in a book was written around 2006 so after the police had investigated). And being as we have no idea who that person was, we cannot assign Mandatory Reporter to them.

    *iirc = if I remember correctly ... so you wont have an aneurism
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Still does not answer the question.

    Or are you trying to equate Josh's lust and desire for little girls as his "sexuality"?

    You didn't read the reports, did you?

    1. Josh tells on himself after 5 or so instances of molestation on his sisters.
    2. Parents did nothing.
    3. Josh molests babysitter and tells on himself.
    4. Parents punish Josh.
    5. Josh molests 5 year old sister and other girls in the house - father informs police of numerous other offenses during this time.
    6. Father approaches their Church, discusses what to do, clergy suggest immediate removal and suggest treatment center for children like Josh.
    7. Father refuses, says he knows of another center.
    8. Josh removed from house, sent to do manual labour. No treatment was given.
    9. Josh returns, taken to family friend who is a police officer, gives stern talking to Josh about what would happen to him if he continued to re-offend.
    10. Story gets out, family lies again, refuses to allow Josh to make a statement to police, family lies and stalls investigation.

    At no time were the girl's safety a priority. The only priority was always Josh.

    The only families I know who allowed their children to remain in the home with a child molester were either complicit or abusers themselves. And I think this is what you are missing in this instance.

    In Australia, the legal system looks at protecting the victim from further molestation. Obviously you disagree with this. Because you seem to believe that child molesters need to be protected and not reported to the police. Not the first time you have defended a molester and whined that they were reported to the police.

    Then you clearly do not understand what I posted, nor do you understand what the Duggar's advised.

    Are you suggesting that the parents lied again about who they took their children to?

    In all of your scrambling because you do not understand what accredited means and the context in which it was used, you still fail to understand that even non-accredited and non-licensed clergy who pose as counselors are still mandated reporters.

    Far out, you still don't get that?

    Now keep reading the rest of that section.

    It was not a confession. So stop misrepresenting it, stop trying to defend it. Josh was never taken to see the clergy, because as the parents advised, he paid for his own accredited counseling and when he was sent away, it was to do some manual remodeling work with someone they knew. When they claimed he received accredited counseling, even if that was with a clergy, that clergy is still a mandated reporter.

    Because you really aren't that clever to even attempt to play these sorts of games. You continuously keep trying to move the goal post to make your version of it fit. There was absolutely no exemption in place for the clergy who learned of the abuse. The law supports this as well.

    At this point, you aren't even making sense.

    Even if the counselor was a member of the clergy, that member of the clergy is still a mandated reporter. And if that counselor is a non-accredited, non-professional counselor, then that means that the parents have lied once more, this time to the whole country, not just to the victims of the abuse, their son and their community.

    There is every evidence that others within their Church community knew something about it, because they even admitted that the note that contained all the details, that was later found and it resulted in the police investigation a few years later, was written by someone from their Church community.

    "James said that several members of their Church were aware of the situation and had been supportive of the family.".. Police report. And no, it does not say that the "family friend" was a friend's of the mother's. Just a "family friend" who had written it all down in a letter. Also from the police report.

    So stop lying and stop trying to change the subject.
     
  8. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    It is about Josh's emerging sexuality. At 14 or 15 or 18 sexuality is a developmental process that is not regulated by an absolute timeline. Shit it doesnt stop your entire life, changes just slow down.

    So yes, in Australia you are aware of the same type of family reaction. What percentage of families attempt to resolve the issue on their own and when it happens again, seek outside help? Now I know you wont be able to give an accurate reflection of reality simply due to the fact sex issues are among (if not) the least reported. And it appears your experiences in this particular subject reflect the most extreme/heinous/egregious examples of human sexual behavior(s) so your personal experience data will likely be skewed in that direction. But seriously, in Australia, What percentage of families attempt to resolve the issue on their own and when it happens again, seek outside help? Or even after the 3rd time...

    Except I dont believe child molesters need to be protected/not reported. The Duggars went to their church, discussed options and sent Josh away to be counseled. On return they brought him to a policeman for a talking to. I have little doubt that talking included Next step is your going to be turned into the police. And the behavior appears to be corrected by their steps.

    Well, you carry on with your beliefs. Examination does not support your conclusions.

    See Above.

    Doesnt mean they were a mandated reporter.

    "In Touch magazine reports that "a family friend aware of what had happened had written down in a letter what he knew of [redacted, Josh’s] actions…That letter had been placed in a book and had subsequently been forgotten about. Just recently [in 2006] the book had been loaned to someone else with the letter in it and another person discovered the letter."

    http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/...e-arkansas-department-of-human-services-59201

    Josh Duggar sued the Arkansas Department of Human Services. A trial was held on August 6, 2007.
    The results of the investigation into the Duggars and Josh’s trial are sealed. But a source familiar with the Duggar investigation told In Touch it was likely that Josh “appealed the DHS decision or finding from their investigation.” The source notes that DHS had the authority to apply “restrictions or stipulations about him being at home with the victims.

    Wonder what the court decided? That DHS had overstepped? That Josh wasnt a threat of re-offending? That the requirements of DHS were unwarrented? That DHS was wrong?
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,884

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Perhaps you might take a moment to explain to us why you find such merit in conspiring to break the law in order to protect and empower sexual abuse.

    And if you want people to believe Josh Duggar is healthy and harmless, perhaps you might explain why (A) he has publicly blamed other people for his conduct, and (B) you are so determined to protect some imagined right to molest children.

    Look, there is nothing healthy about conspiring to break the law in order to protect a sex predator.

    No, really, what is it? That infamy feels better than obscurity? Or when you look at Josh Duggar, do you feel envy while most of us feel disgust?

    No, really. Is that it? Is it jealousy? Did Josh get what you want? Is this all just a particularly ugly case of hero worship?

    Inquiring minds want to know: Why do you advocate criminal conspiracy in support of child molestation?
     
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Which has what to do with sexually molesting little children?

    Are you now suggesting that Josh Duggar may still be a child molester?

    Yes, it is a crime to harbor and protect a child molester in the home of the molested children. In Australia, the parents would have been imprisoned and Josh would have been sent for the treatment he needed and probably still needs, since he still believes that his molesting children is bad because it could ruin his future.

    As I said, parents who allow a child molester to remain in the home with the victim(s) are endangering their children and that is illegal. So parents who do this are breaking the law and are usually punished for this. For reasons already explained.

    And yet, here you are in this thread, praising the protection and non-reporting of a child molester and claiming you would also protect a child molester in your home with the victims also in the home.

    Once again, you are excusing the fact that at least two mandated reporters broke the law to protect a child molester.

    Which contradicts your previous statement that you don't believe child molesters need to be protected/not reported.

    You still don't know what accredited means in the context of this subject, do you?

    And as has already been explained, multiple times, liked and legislation provided, your own link supports the fact that clergy and police officers are mandated reporters in Arkansas. And they were in 2003.

    Which has what to do with the clergy at their Church being made aware of it?

    It was clear this was not a secret in the Church, and the clergy, who are mandated reporters, knew of it and they protected a child molester. Why do you think this is acceptable?


    He probably sued over their decision to regard him as an in-home offender, which would have given the DHS the power to continue monitoring the children and ensuring their safety. Do you think it is wrong to monitor known child molesters around children and do you think it is wrong to not check up on the safety and wellbeing of victims of child molesters?
     
  11. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    And I repeat:
    The report referred to a popular misconception that juvenile sex offenders are likely to reoffend, and said numerous studies over the years have shown the opposite — that 85 to 95% of offending youth are never again arrested for sex crimes.

    "Now that the data has shown most of those assumptions were wrong, it's difficult to undo those messages that people in the advocacy and treatment fields were putting out a generation ago."...

    It is good for society to realize that the majority of these kids are not sexual psycopaths and most are unlikely to re-offend. While I feel disgust with the Duggarts lifestyle in general, it appears the methods they chose to educate Josh worked. He stopped feeling up his sisters. And that is the desired outcome after all isnt it?

    And I repeat:

    Emily Horowitz, a sociology professor at St. Francis College in Brooklyn, said the Duggars' decision to keep law enforcement out of it at first is understandable — even defensible.

    "I don't condone this behavior, but I spoke to so many families that did the 'right thing' and the reaction was so excessive and Draconian that it destroyed the lives of their children," said Horowitz, author of the new book "Protecting Our Kids: How Sex Offender Laws Are Failing."

    Horowitz said that juvenile offenders are the most treatable group of sex abusers, but law enforcement is more focused on punishment, including criminal prosecution with possible jail terms and lifetime listing on a sex-offender registry.
     
  12. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    But that wasnt the question was it? This was:

    What percentage of families attempt to resolve the issue on their own and when it happens again, seek outside help? Now I know you wont be able to give an accurate reflection of reality simply due to the fact sex issues are among (if not) the least reported. And it appears your experiences in this particular subject reflect the most extreme/heinous/egregious examples of human sexual behavior(s) so your personal experience data will likely be skewed in that direction. But seriously, in Australia, What percentage of families attempt to resolve the issue on their own and when it happens again, seek outside help? Or even after the 3rd time...


    Its YOU who has misinterpreted the application of the term Accredited. It does not only apply to a state license. The State does not have a corner on the term Accredited. I cannot call myself Licensed if I am not. And the Duggars did not represent the counselor as Licensed.

    And you ignore the Exceptions. Or you declare the exceptions dont apply here when you have NO Basis In Fact to make that statement. I cant say whether they did or not because I dont get to decide what is/isnt a part of the ministry. Neither does the state. The individual denominations get to decide what is/isnt a part of their ministry and that point was clear in the links provided.
     
  13. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Which was answered. You are trying to move the goalpost to suit your personal agenda. It isn't working out well for you.

    Accreditation for professionals such as psychologists and counselors are usually licensed and/or listed on an accreditation registry. Do you understand now? The link I had provided to explain this about psychologists and counselors for Arkansas explains the whole process. You need an advanced degree in your field for accreditation. Had you read the link which explained how one can become accredited, this would be clear.

    Because your exceptions clearly did not apply. The reason being is that the exemptions deal with confessions. Jim Bob's account to the Church elders was given to mandated reporters who conspired with the parents to hide and protect a child molester and they failed to report. There were no exceptions that applied to this particular case. Even the legislation you linked clearly proves this.

    Once again, the legislation you provided clearly shows just how and why exceptions do not apply in this particular case.

    And no, it is the State's laws which determine who are mandated reporters. Not individual denominations or Church groups. If someone is part of the clergy, then they are mandated reporters. That choice is removed from their hands for a very good reason. Please get a clue before continuing to waste people's times in your attempts to protect child molesters.
     
  14. tali89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    343
    You've pretty much hit the nail on the head. In a house of 19 kids, one of the children goes down a bad path. The parents institute an escalating series of remedial actions, and appear to have raised the child into an adult who no longer molests. And liberals are complaining about this? It's almost like they are pissed that they missed the opportunity to tar and feather, and then crucify, a conservative. Isn't it a shame that you can't punish someone for what they did in childhood, especially when they are reformed?
     
  15. Daecon Kiwi fruit Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,133
    Well it's no surprise which side of the argument tali was going to be on.
     
  16. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,324
    In Arkansas the clergy are not mandated to report abuse when knowledge of such is obtained through privileged communication.

    Any clergy member, which includes ministers, priests, rabbis, accredited Christian Science practitioners, or other similar functionaries of a religious organization (except to the extent that the clergy member has acquired knowledge of the suspected child maltreatment through communication required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith).

    https://rainn.org/pdf-files-and-oth...sources/2009-Mandatory-Report/Arkansas09C.pdf


    And mental health professionals were not added to the list until 2013.

    Arkansas 2013 SB 829

    Specifies public or private school counselors and higher education officials are mandatory reporters. Adds mental health paraprofessionals to the list of mandatory reporters.

    Enacted

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-...ry-rprtg-of-child-abuse-and-neglect-2013.aspx
     
  17. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Once again, it wasn't a confession from Josh. So privilege does not apply.

    ARK. CODE ANN. § 12-18-803 (2012). PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS AS EVIDENCE--EXCEPTION

    (a) It is the public policy of the State of Arkansas to protect the health, safety, and the welfare of children within the state.

    (b) No privilege, except that between a lawyer and client or between a minister, including a Christian Science practitioner, and a person confessing to or being counseled by the minister shall prevent anyone from testifying concerning child maltreatment.​

    Unless of course you are going to try and claim that Christianity and the Bible demands that child molestation and child molesters are to be protected and not reported? Because I am fairly certain that the protection of child molesters was not in accordance with Christianity or the Bible.

    And ermm, I don't know if you are aware of this, but "mental health paraprofessionals" aren't counselors or "accredited professional" counselors. They work as support to the actual counselors. Much like paralegals aren't lawyers, mental health paraprofessionals are not counselors, nor are they qualified to work as counselors. They are sort of like the assistants, who do the grunt work, like make sure people come to follow up appointments, perhaps do some journal searches for the counselor, keep tabs on the patients, facilitate community support networks, and the like. So your point is moot.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2015
  18. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Think you meant "grunt", Bells, unless the assistants are making music.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Eeeep thank you. Mind is elsewhere at the moment.
     
  20. milkweed Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,654
    What goalpost? That xian fundy religions promote the rape culture by:

    And that’s just scratching the surface. The Duggars built their brand on a slavish dedication to ideals of modesty and purity, keeping their children away from Unwholesome Influences, even to the point of shouting “Nike!” when the family was out for a walk in the presence of a woman who was immodestly attired, in order to get them to stare at their shoes. Women must be “modest” and “godly” and pure to attract a godly man. This is where their value lies. Chaperones! Courtship! Side-hugs only! Even hand-holding is off the table.

    Of course you avoid answering "how many families in Australia take the same steps as the Duggars?" You cant blame Arkansas fundy teachings for that same reaction on the other side of the world! The goalpost was a perversion of the issue.

    It really is YOU who doesnt understand. You need a specific accredited degree in your field for LICENSURE.

    The Seminary is also accredited by the Commission on Accrediting of the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada, and the following degree programs are approved:

    MA in Marriage and Family Counseling, MA in Mental Health Counseling, MA in Pastoral Counseling.
    http://asburyseminary.edu/academics/office-of-the-provost/accreditation/

    We dealt with situations such as this when I worked in a particular licensing division for the state.

    You do people a disservice when you imply that an Accredited counselor is the same as a Licensed counselor. The exemptions are required by the state due to separation clauses in the constitution. As an employee of a licensing division for my state, we frequently had applicants whos degree did not count towards licensure because of the schools choice of various .orgs whos function was to 'accredit' (note these unaccepted for licensure degrees were not singularly religion affiliated degrees). That did not mean these people could not be licensed in a different state depending on which degree that state accepted as approved for licensure. And that was simply defined by Which Org Accredited the School Degree.

    And the whole point you were trying to make is false. The Duggars did not represent their counselor as Licensed. Simply Accredited. Which is why I asked "Accredited By Who?".

    Again, you misrepresent the facts:

    except to the extent he or she has acquired knowledge of suspected maltreatment through communications required to be kept confidential pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith, or he or she received the knowledge of suspected maltreatment from the offender in the context of a statement of admission.

    You (and I) do not get to decide what is pursuant to the religious discipline of the relevant denomination or faith. For something a bit closer to home for you, you and I do not get to decide what is pursuant to the religious discipline of Aboriginal religion.
     
  21. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Pretty sure I already answered that question. The only families I know of who have protected a child molester in the home and who do this are the ones who are complicit in the sexual molestation in some way, shape or form.

    You still aren't getting the point that the father clearly stated that they took their children to an accredited professional counselor. Which means that he would have meant someone who is a professional counselor. In Arkansas, to be an accredited professional counselor, you need to have the required degrees and advanced degrees at that.

    Even pastoral counselors have such requirements, especially in Arkansas. It is clear you did not even read your own link, which requires advanced degrees...

    Perhaps you should ask the Duggars who their counselors were and accredited by who, since they are the ones who claimed that their children received professional counseling from accredited professional counselor. You carrying on as though you are trying to claim it was their pastor who provided the counseling with no evidence whatsoever that it was him, and while ignoring the links you are providing which clearly stipulate that even clergy who wish to act as counselors have to have an advanced degree in the field. Even if it was their pastor, still means that individual is a mandated reporter.
     
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Do you even understand what that phrase means?

    Are you seriously suggesting that Jim Bob Duggar's church, has deemed sexual molestation of children as being in accordance to their Christian teachings? Can you please provide proof that protecting child molesters is in accordance with their religious faith or religious belief?

    Because that is the only way that exemption would work.

    Otherwise, you are just clutching the straws coming out of your proverbial backside for excuses to protect child molesters.
     
  23. parmalee peripatetic artisan Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,266
    Sadly, it kinda seems that they have. But no, if phrased expressly as such I'm fairly confident they do not.

    It's rather odd when people choose to ignore that which they explicitly bolded, but I've noticed that a lot of people these days kinda slag off on their reading by the second or third clause. I'd like to blame it Twitter and such-like shit, but this problem has been around for a lot longer than that.
     
    Bells likes this.

Share This Page