Sinning versus Criminal Behavior: one involves God, the other Law Enforcement.

[IdaBriggs]

This may seem like a simple concept, but it a big issue when a religious leader (usually fundamentalist) commits a "sin" and falls from grace. The cry for forgiveness - complete with acknowledgements of unworthiness of all sinners - is usually accompanied by an expressed faith that, having approached the Lord with humbled heart, the sinner has repented, and received forgiveness from the Almighty. With approval from on high already given, can the congregation follow suit? Already aware of their own lack of perfection, and well aware of their own humanity, forgiveness, along with explanations, rationalizations, and sometimes just plain excuses, are all inevitably offered by those who *like* the sinner and wish to continue a positive relationship.

The problem comes in when something is presented as a "sin" but is in reality considered A CRIME by the rest of society. Sins are not necessarily crimes - lust in one's heart, secretly coveting someone else's spouse, taking the "name" of a deity in vain, etc. - and not something the judicial system in this country is going to pay attention to. Even "moral failings" - adultery, non-marital sexual activity, immodest dress - are not CRIMES.

Petty crimes - pilfering from the collection plate - probably get more law enforcement calls, but the major crimes - rape/murder/molestation - are where all heck breaks loose.

Josh Duggar committed a crime. His parents covered it up (another crime). His victims were encouraged to bury their own feelings for "family unity/religious love" and this lack of Justice outrages decent people.

The sin is on their souls, and frankly, not the business of the community. The CRIME is the issue, and the cover up.

None of us is perfect. I suspect the young teen who began molesting his sleeping female victims was acting out his own abuse, but again, the crime of covering up the situation has made that difficult to investigate. The narcissism of the confession is telling.

The 15 minutes of fame is over for this family. Unfortunately, he may appear to be a martyr to those who can't grasp the difference between accountability for one's "sins" versus one's CRIMES (unless the perpetrator has dark skin),

My $.02 - your mileage may vary.

[haikugal]

1. Yes, you've described how they roll very well.

Disgusting and sad all at the same time. These same people could be a force for good but their cult discourages that, they close ranks and vote republican. It's very dark stuff.

We'd all be better off without religion, it warps the brain.

[IdaBriggs]

5. The focus on "forgiveness" emphasizes their own lack of perfection

And the requirement for mercy that we all face. There is also a universal cry of "judge not lest you be judged" which some faiths interpret as "don't participate in jury duty because the Almighty is in charge of punishing people" but this ignores the "render unto Caesar that which is Caesars" which deals with our obligations as citizens.

I disagree with your blanket condemnation of religion as I believe people of faith work hard to try to be better/good people within the confines of their understanding. A wise woman told me "notice what you are noticing" and if you are paying attention to the lessons of the Great Teachers, they are all very consistent: Be kind. Help each other. Etc. Sometimes people stray from the path and listen to Fear instead which is charitably what happened with these parents - in fear of their son getting lost in the system/not getting the help he obviously desperately needed, they took care of things themselves, failing utterly to address issues that experienced professionals would have begun dealing with - but they were focused on the "sin" and not their duty to report a "crime"....see above.

[haikugal]

14. We disagree.

All those things can be practiced without warping the brain with belief in nonexistent beings. Religion has proven over and over to produce, and cover up some of mankind's worst behaviors. We all want to be our best selves and to leave the world better than we found it, even atheists.

For good people to do bad things takes religion...the Duggars, Huckster et al. The system failed the victims and that's because it's full of these bible thumping throwbacks and much of it is paid for by the taxpayers.

We do ourselves a disservice by giving religion a pass or dismissing it as right wing, democrats are part of it too. Do I think we should persecute religion, no, of course not...this is America after all, lol..but I do think we need to call it out and show it for what it is, and isn't. We should not support it with tax dollars and the churches should be taxed along with corporations.

Rant off...

[onecaliberal]

2. Agree. Thanks for great articulation.

[IdaBriggs]

6. You are welcome.

Thank you for the nice compliment!

[MaggieD]

3. Well said

Thanks.

[IdaBriggs]

7. Thank you!

[Initech]

4. Yup it's criminal behavior.

Josh Duggar needs to be locked away for a very long time.

[IdaBriggs]

9. I am not big on locking teenagers away forever, and this was his parents fear.

This was and remains a horribly dysfunctional situation, and the reality is the ADULTS around him were the ones who needed to be locked up - whoever initially molested him (if that happened), and then the ones who did not get the victims the help they needed (possibly including him) and created the whole "you have no power of your own/OBEY OR BURN" mentality.

Failure to protect is a crime the parents should have been charged with - these aren't sins; they are CRIMES.

[malaise]

8. Excellent post

and because their imaginary friend forgives over and over, and they don't give a flying fugg about the law (other than the martyr/persecution part) they rinse and repeat.

Of course that never stops them from judging the 'unbelievers' who are all who don't share their interpretation of reality.

[IdaBriggs]

10. Most people of faith do care about the law - render unto Caesar, etc.

In this case the parents were trying to "protect" their family but failed utterly in multiple ways. They held themselves above the law, possibly because they had no faith in how it would treat their daughters or their son, and in fear they themselves might lose custody of their other children for "failure to protect" - when your entire identity is wrapped up in being a parent, DENIAL OF FAILURE is really about self preservation (until your brain can process/you can regroup). Add in their religious identity, and this was going to covered up EVEN AT THE EXPENSE OF THEIR CHILDREN because everything they are doing is about benefiting their children, and if they are screwing that up, then they are failing God/their eternal souls are in danger.

Telling someone "you picked the wrong religion because it is BAD for the healthy development of your children" can look like temptation to ignore the teachings one is receiving, thus forcing even closer adherence to what looks like insane, unhealthy behavior to those not invested in the crazy....

It is sad. And pretty predictable.

[jwirr]

11. Your subject title is correct. And the outcome is also different. Sinning - God means that you

accept your guilt, ask forgiveness and never do it again. Religious case closed.

Criminal actions - law enforcement means that you are found guilty and that you face the consequences/punishments. Being forgiven does not mean that you should also escape the consequences.

This is a matter of separation of church and state.

[Igel]

12. Yes and no.

Because the state is "we, the people" and the church is at least part of "we, the people," there's an overlap.

Believers aren't to go to court against believers, according to one set of beliefs. They're to resolve their problems internally whenever possible. Now, the courts are there just to resolve problems--to come up with justice according to a formula that all agree on. If one person's wronged another and they agree concerning what "justice" is, that's that. It's a formula that most agree on so it's imposed on all.

The state recognizes its limitations in a very simple way: If John rapes Mary, Mary is asked if she wants to press charges. If criminal acts must be prosecuted, Mary has no choice: She must submit to a rape exam, she must submit to giving evidence to the DA, she must submit to the trial to protect her rights. But that's not how it works: criminal acts don't all have to be prosecuted. Mary still has the right to say, "No, I don't want to press charges."

And suddenly there is no separation of church and state because the portion of the state that would have to press charges is also the portion of a religious group with its own set of values. The state machinery itself is value-less. It doesn't require that charges be pressed; it doesn't prevent it. It's like a lawnmower: It can mow the grass or not, it can chop off fingers or not.

Religious courts are a big deal. But they're perfectly fine, with one large provision. Nobody can be coerced into submitting to them. That's a really tough provision to meet. Another problem is enforcement: Who enforces its provisions. And a third problem is whether the secular system is bound by them: So if a rape is adjudicated in a religious court, can the victim then file charges in secular court? What these courts do is just formalize what can be done informally if a victim doesn't file charges.

There are crimes in which there's no choice. Charges are pressed pretty much whenever possible. Murder is a good example; then again, the victim in a murder has no legal rights and it's really hard to ask, "So, Mr. Deceased, do you want to press charges and testify?" In other cases it's the state that's the victim and some nameless functionary gets to decide (in this, state bureaucracies are very much like corporate bureaucracies)--tax evasion, traffic or health/safety/building code violations. Still, somebody has to decide.

In this case the victims are minors. Somebody else has jurisdiction over them. Presumably her parents, although it's possible that the state has decided it should have jurisdiction. (Although I've pointed out before, how that works really depends on the topic and what we believe about the topic: If it was a 12-year-old girl who was molested and didn't want to press charges, I suspect many would say that she isn't old enough to make the decision; if she wanted an abortion, I suspect many would say she was plenty old enough to make the decision.) But in this case there's a clear conflict of interest in the parents. It was reported to the police at some point, and while it didn't get to the DA as far as I can tell it was still handled informally. But with the knowledge of the police. (That is also a variant. I've known lots of kids where I grew up who were arrested at some point, perhaps held overnight, but no charges were filed. In some cases the kid went on to do worse things or just much more of the same. In many cases it stopped and all was forgiven, both by the victims, the police, and the rest of the secular system. A system without forgiveness is cruel and harsh.)

Where societies draw the line between old enough and not old enough to make these decisions actually varies a great deal. In some cultures and places if you're 13 or 14 you're clearly old enough to make the decisions or at least be the subject of them. In others, 18's the magic age.

How serious a crime can be handled informally also varies. So in come cultures you can pay blood money to get off a murder charge. The victim's relatives don't have to agree, and they can set the price. Or they can not agree and stipulate revenge is the only way out. Or they can file charges. The US made use of this fairly often: accidental deaths could have led to blood feuds, so instead the US Army negotiated for payment of blood money. It was a culturally appropriate device.

As for a secular system not showing forgiveness, that's called "leniency." One problem with US society in the last decade is zero tolerance. In NYC it was the "broken windows" policy. Anything you do, however trivial but which is illegal, must be punished. No forgiveness, no leniency, no mercy. That rather sets up the secular state as an expecially vindictive Moloch.

[jwirr]

13. That may be what a rwer thinks but in my church if you do the crime you pay the price. Your

argument opens the door of government to the church that wants to make the rules to fit THEIR religion. That is not how our government was set up.

Churches are not people (people may or may not belong to a church) so I do not think your we the people argument is appropriate. Many of us are not even part of a church of any kind. We have yet to charge corporations with crimes against people and we actually call them people. In the case where the rape victim will not press charges the person does not represent the church (people are members) but only herself. Often because she does not want to testify or does not want the case made public.

That is what most of us who are not rwers are fighting against. I do not want laws that reflect one type of religion. And yes if the preacher tells them to cover it up then he/she is an accomplice to the crime. On the other hand the preacher can counsel the person who has been raped because many preachers are trained counselors.