If he could have only been allowed to jerk off……

Standard

Sisters Jill, Jessa open up about Josh Duggar’s abuse

Two of Josh Duggar’s sex-abuse victims, sisters Jill Dillard and Jessa Seewald, told their stories in the second part of an exclusive interview with Fox News. VPC

79LINKEDINCOMMENTMORE

Two of Josh Duggar’s sex-abuse victims — sisters Jill Dillard, 24, and Jessa Seewald, 22 — told their stories in the second part of an exclusive interview with Megyn Kelly on Fox’s The Kelly File.

The interview, which was previously recorded, aired Friday night on Fox.

Seewald defends her 27-year-old brother, who inappropriately touched four of his sisters and a family friend during his teen years.

“I do want to speak up in his defense against people who are calling him a child molester or pedophile or a rapist, some people are saying,” Seewald told Kelly. “I’m like, ‘That is so overboard and a lie really.’ I mean, people get mad at me for saying that, but I can say this because I was one of the victims.”

USA TODAY does not usually name victims, but in this case, they have named themselves.

Dillard, who was 12 at the time of the molestation, said, “I was shocked. And I’m sad because this is my older brother who I love a lot. I was angry at first. I was like, ‘How could that happen?’ ”

Seewald said she was 9 or 10 years old during the situation. “In Josh’s case, he was a young boy in puberty and a little too curious about girls. And that got him into some trouble,” she said.

The women said that their parents put up safeguards in the home, including not allowing the boys to babysit, locking doors at night, not playing hide-and-seek or being alone with each other.

Both sisters said that they were unaware of Duggar’s actions until their parents sat them down individually. “It wasn’t like we were keeping a secret,” Dillard said.

Seewald got teary-eyed when she spoke about the InTouch article that came out last month. “I was in tears. I couldn’t believe what was going on.” She said she called her husband. “How do they have a right to do this? We’re victims, they can’t do this to us.” They both told Kelly that they felt victimized again by having the story appear in a tabloid years after it had happened.

The InTouch story, which included pictures of 2006 police documents it was based on, reported in May that Duggar was investigated for multiple sex offenses, including forcible fondling of breasts and genitals, against five underage girls. Some of the alleged offenses investigated were felonies.

In his statement, Duggar said he confessed to his parents and they “took several steps” to address the situation. He also apologized to the victims.

“We spoke with the authorities where I confessed my wrongdoing, and my parents arranged for me and those affected by my actions to receive counseling,” he said. “I understood that if I continued down this wrong road that I would end up ruining my life.”

Duggar was never charged with a crime, and the statute of limitations has now expired.

InTouch reported that his father took Duggar to an Arkansas state trooper who was a personal friend, who took no action other than a “very stern talk.” That officer is now serving a 56-year term in prison for child pornography, the magazine reported, and no case was ever brought against Duggar.

During the first interview, which aired Wednesday, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar, the Christian conservative reality-TV stars of 19 Kids and Counting, talked about how son Josh approached them and told them that he had “improperly touched” some of their daughters. Josh was a teen at the time.

“We were shocked, we were devastated,” Michelle Duggar told Kelly in the first interview. “As parents, we felt we’re failures. We tried to raise our kids to do what’s right — to know what’s right. And yet one of our children made really bad choices.” The pair were interviewed at their home in Tontitown, Ark.

The Duggars said that in 2002 and 2003, when he was 14 and 15, Josh had groped the girls while they slept (the girls slept in the same room), and that he did this more than once even after his first confession to his parents.

They got him out of the house and sent him to a non-professional Christian-based counseling program in Little Rock, Ark. Jim Bob Duggar said it was “the best decision” they made, because Josh became “closer to God” as a result. “It was a turning point in his life,” he said.

The TLC network has pulled the show’s reruns from its schedule but has not decided whether to cancel the series entirely. Meanwhile, advertisers, including General Mills, Payless Shoes and Choice Hotels, have cut ties with the family of the popular show.

In the aftermath of the first interview, folks have come out for and against the family.

On Twitter, viewers slammed the Duggars for defending their actions as parents. They also took shots at Kelly for how she conducted the interview.

Montel Williams tweeted, “What the hell is the point of interviewing ANYONE if you aren’t asking questions that matter? Not asking #Duggars tough questions=stupid.”

Piers Morgan agreed.

Sarah Palin posted a diatribe on her Facebook page on Thursday, defending the Duggar family and attacking Girls star Lena Dunham.

“Hey Lena, why not laugh off everyone’s sexual ‘experiments’ as you haughtily enjoy rewards for your own perversion? You pedophile you,” Palin wrote. She was referring to when Dunham came under fire for a passage in her memoir, Not That Kind of Girl, where the actress said at age 7 she would bribe her little sister with candy for kisses and to see her genitals.

-I actually believe that this kid suffered from complete oppression and suppression of natural behavior and urges arising from puberty and was shamed by his parents into never showing his budding sexual urges. Hell, this kid could get into hot water just for beating off! How do you develop healthy sexual urges when a bunch of fools raise you to believe that a monstrous mythological being will damn you to rot and burn forever for having the natural urge to flog your dick?

Kinder gentler atheist

Standard

I can no longer justify being a militant atheist in the wake of the Thinking Atheist episode featuring the beautiful, perfect, intelligent Cara Santa Maria. I have followed her since Huffington Posts Talk Nerdy to me section, and have followed her into the podcast verse on Talk Nerdy. She has made the very intelligent argument about the benefit of talking to theists as opposed to üUattacking them and has struck a chord. I have normally been a militant anti-theist but have found that as I evolve as a human being, I really don’t want to offend as much as I want to educate.

I want more people to reject theism based upon it’s lack of evidence more than I want to lock horns with them. Theists CAN be turned to sense as proven by the Seventh Day Adventist minister who has recently lost his faith due to following common sense. Most smart people don’t want to be sniveling idiot followers like the Duggars, who do as the church says and pollutes the gene pool with mega-copies of their flawed country DNA. Most intelligent people will surf the net looking for alternatives to being mindless followers but will run into the many sites encouraging them to reject science and embrace utter stupidity! Personal prudence must prevail.

This said, I must say that as long as GOD doesn’t get in my way, I won’t get in HIS way. HE should keep a respectful distance lest I kick HIS mythological ass, but thank you yet again for the cancer death of ESPN anchor Stuart Smith, a person who didn’t deserve your wrath. Also, thank your despotic ass for the crash of the AirAsia plane……are we seeing a trend here? God is a myth period!!

Debate that will frustrate!

Video

The video does not follow the debate content between Alex Botten and Sye Ten Bruggencate, but the audio is incredible in that it shows how sheeple are convinced by the smoke and mirror parlor tricks of Bruggencate. This person asks the question, “How do you know,” so many times in irrelevancy that I cannot count! Circuitous argument is how debaters trick sheep into believing their bullshit arguments. 25 min in the only proof that Bruggencate cites is the most unprovable document produced, the Christian Bible!

BULLSHIT extraordinare

Standard
 
Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost’s signature lineup of contributors
Hot on the Blog
 
 
 

Pastor Rick Henderson

Pastor, blogger and grace addict

 
GET UPDATES FROM Pastor Rick Henderson

 
 
  

Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist

Posted: 12/18/2013 11:13 pm

 
 

 
 

 

You clicked on this post for one of two reasons. Either you’re hoping that I’m right or you know that I’m wrong. For those of you who are eager to pierce me with your wit and crush my pre-modern mind, allow me to issue a challenge. I contend that any response you make will only prove my case. Like encountering a hustler on the streets of Vegas, the deck is stacked, and the odds are not in your favor.

Before our love fest continues, allow me to define an important term, “worldview.” A worldview is your view of everything inside (and possibly outside) the universe: truth, religion, beauty, war, morality, Nickleback — everything. Everybody has one.

While it is true that there is no definitive atheistic worldview, all atheists share the same fundamental beliefs as core to their personal worldviews. While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

Denial of any one of those three affirmations will strike a mortal blow to atheism. Anything and everything that happens in such a universe is meaningless. A tree falls. A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery. A dog barks. A man is killed for not espousing the national religion. These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.

A good atheist — that is, a consistent atheist — recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him “good” in the moral sense is nonsensical. There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.

For those of you who think you’re about to light up this supposed straw man and raze me to the ground, consider the following:

“Modern science directly implies that there … is no ultimate meaning for humans.”
–William Provine

“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
–Richard Dawkins

“No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history.”
–Edward O. Wilson

Based on the nonnegotiable premises of atheism, these are the only logical conclusions. But I’ve never met an atheist who’s managed to live this way. All the atheists I’ve known personally and from afar live as if there is objective meaning and morality. How is this explained? In a Hail Mary-like attempt to reconcile the inescapability of objective morality and their assurances of atheism, two possible answers are launched.

1. Morality is the result of socio-biological evolution. This is a two-pronged attempt at justifying moral claims. First, a sense of morality evolved to ensure human survival. Much like an eye or tooth, it is necessary for the human race to continue. If this were true, for any claim to be moral, it would have to serve the practical purpose of advancing the human race. So compassion for the dying would be immoral, and killing mentally handicapped children would be moral. Perhaps the most moral action would be men raping many women and forcing them to birth more children.

Morality, in this view, can only mean those actions that are helpful to make more fit humans. It does nothing to help us grapple with the truth that it’s always wrong to torture diseased children or rape women.

Second, morality was developed to ensure the success of societies, which are necessary for human survival and thriving. Like the rules of a board game, morality is contrived to bring us together for productivity and happiness. If this were true, there is nothing to which we can appeal when we find the behavior of other societies repugnant and reprehensible. Because morality is the construct of a social group, it cannot extend further than a society’s borders or endure longer than a society’s existence.

Furthermore, within our own society, the most immoral are not merely the ones who transgress our code but the ones who intend to change it. This would make those fighting for marriage equality the most immoral — that is, until they become the majority and institute change. I suppose they then become moral, and traditionalists become immoral. But it’s the math that determines rightness or wrongness of a side, not the content of any belief or argument.

So this view of morality does nothing to provide a reasonable answer for why it would be objectively wrong to torture diseased children, rape women or kill those who don’t affirm a national religion. It only provides a motivation for continuing the delusion of objective morality.

2. Morality is logical. Atheists who take this route start in a position of checkmate without realizing it. First, the temptation is to pervert this conversation into a debate about whether atheists can be moral. Of course they can. That is not the question. The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the rules that atheism demands.

Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality. The only way to make a logical moral argument is to presuppose morality and meaning to start with. Try making a logical argument that slavery is wrong without presupposing morality. It is impossible. A woman wrote to me with her attempt at doing just that. Her claim was that slavery is logically wrong because it diminishes other human beings. The problem is that that argument presupposes human dignity. In the strict framework of atheism outlined above, what reason is there to ever assume human dignity?

All logical arguments for morality assume that human thriving, happiness and dignity are superior to contrary views. The strict framework of atheism does not allow for those starting points. So any person arguing for 1 or 2 would not be a good atheist. That is, he lives in contradiction to the mandates of his worldview.

Conclusion

Intelligent people ask serious questions. Serious questions deserve serious answers. There are few questions more serious than the one I’m asking. How do we explain objective meaning and morality that we know are true? If a worldview can’t answer this question, it doesn’t deserve you.

One sign that your worldview may be a crutch is that it has to appeal to an answer outside itself — becoming self-contradictory, unable to reasonably account for the question. Any atheist who recognizes objective meaning and morality defies the atheism that he contends is true.

If your worldview can’t makes sense of the things that make most sense to you (like objective morality), then it’s not worth your allegiance. This new reality may launch you onto a journey of reluctant discovery. Whoever you are. Wherever you are. Whatever you believe. You deserve a foundation that is strong enough to carry the values that carry you.

 
 

 

Follow Pastor Rick Henderson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Rick_says

REALLY?? Really dude!!?? This tired old bullshit riff again? Are you up with current events? Have you learned of all the horrible things done by the churches in the NAME of your religion??!! Do some real secular research instead of trying to prove the bible WITH the bible! I, personally, have a higher moral standing than your mytical barbarian god mainly because I do not sit idly by while terrible things happen and explain it off as “free will.” I also would NOT fuck with one of my followers and take him nearly to suicide to make him prove his loyalty to me! I would not bless the family of Noah for his daughters’ incest while I was in a drunken stupor! Why on goddamned Earth would any sane being trust a fucking drunk to save mankind? This entire fable is an amoral affront to the reader, and YOU speak of morality? What a joke! Please don’t let us forget that this barbarian egotistical piece of shit also admonished a man to kill his son to prove loyalty. This is plainly the written work of a primitive, Bronze-age author who, at the time was writing to a bunch of illiterate followers.

To even use the WORD morality in the same breath when extolling the virtues of blindly following an ancient myth, leaves me shuddering in a 21st Century when so many people still follow this obvious delusion! Please let me tell you that I will remember this little speech the next time I read the hateful vitriol of some deluded preacher or once again am reminded of the pedophilia in the Boy Scouts, Catholic Church, Mormon Church and many OTHER fine moral bastions of christianity! Yeah bubba! You people REALLY cornered the market on morals, let me say! Also, an atheist is just a person that is not stupid enough to blindly believe in a foolish myth, not someone who absolutely believes in spontaneous being from nothing! On a lighter note, if your myth is so powerful, then why does he require prostration from his followers like some egomaniacal troll in the mountain…HMMMM?

 

The nerve of some people!

Standard

I was sitting in the Subway sandwich shop near my house and happened to overhear a conversation by a couple of men about their Christian ministry. Now the reason that I so rudely kept listening is because I heard the word ‘Bejing’ in the discussion and began to wonder if these people were among the pompous assholes who go to other people’s countries and indoctrinate their poor ignorant citizens. Much to my expectation, these were, in fact, those type of intrusive, close-minded self-rightious idiots who believe that it is their God-given right to invade another nation and spread the poison of religion to the downtrod villagers. They went on and on about the glory of the gospel of Jesus and how God had blessed them with growing resources to pummel the Chinese with missionaries and bibles.

Let’s not go and selflessly build schools and get people to their very first appointment with a modern physician, no! Let’s go over and indoctrinate and show the love of Christ in exchange for belief! THEN we will improve your lot and say that Jesus was the reason that your fortunes changed! I always wonder what goes through these idiots feeble minds when they do this and celebrate when one of them gets a sentence of hard labor when accused of teaching sedition. These people SHOULD be charged with a crime if they go to someone elses country and break the law! I’m a fan of freedom, yes, but this is NOT giving people better lives, it is trading food education and medicine to ignorant people for the price of belief! If they wanted to do some actual service than they would start educating these people about birth control and preventing common diseases and educate them in the sciences and technology. These are real tangible things that would benefit the entire surrounding populace.

These will be more of the same people that come in and preach the evils of abortion and believing in scientific theory. They will teach myth over fact and tell them that the poor will inherit the Earth and give them  false hope about a shining hereafter. The nerve of some people! I really hope that these idiots do get arrested and put in a dark Chinese gulag where they will make poisoned lead painted toys to ship to the U.S! Side note-The Port of Portland here in Oregon just stopped a shipment of lead painted toys that the Chinese shipped out. Great of our wonderful trading partner trying yet again to stab us in the back! Back to the Christians, oh yeah! Fuck ’em. The end!

Oder to the late great Christopher Hitchens!

Standard

You know, I have been missing the enlightened banter of the late great Christopher Hitchens lately and have been traveling Youtube endlessly listening to his debates. I miss his ‘in your face’ indictments of the religious community as they try to justify putting myth above fact. When the depictions of Mohammed in the Danish press caused such a backlash, Hitchens bravely chided the Muslim community for sitting back and tolerating the backward animals that were rioting over simple cartoons. The leaders, of course, did not have any relevant response to the animalistic responses of their fellow myth followers and actually tried the ‘cultural’ angle to the situation. Hitchens, of course, made instant example of the preferential treatment to Muslims in the aftermath of the cartoons and the leaders, of course, stated that the overall response was not mainstream.

Hitchens stated that if the response was not shared by the mainstream Muslim community then why did they choose to stand with the extremists and stand silent as animals rioted because someone had insulted their pedophile prophet. Islam is a myth just as any religion and is an optional belief. While some of us stand with logic and reason, some of us choose to delude themselves and believe shit that requires that you put blinders on. O.K. I can tolerate your unfounded beliefs as long as you don’t try to teach your insane, psychotic creationist bullshit in classrooms and you stay away from my door about ‘the good news.’  I have always said that the good news was that you weren’t going to tell me that your myth had been resurrected to take me to your fictitious Valhalla called ‘Heaven.’ 

 I don’t think that I could put up with GOD checking in on me every time I m about to blow my nut in Scarlett Johansen’s imaginary face! I would take the Hell scenario every fucking time! A cosmic Kim Jong Un is not my idea of paradise and most of the people that I know of would rather have free will in the afterlife too. I cannot imagine bowing to some tin shit GOD every hour of every fucking day so it gives me relief to know that it’s all a fucking myth and the GOD people are a bunch of deluded crazy fucks who LOVE following something regardless if it is real or not! Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu, etc. these are ALL myths and have absolutely NO PROOF whatsoever! To believe is a choice and not a good one! Science changes the world, not devisive bullshit religion. Religion poisons everything while science enlightens all! Give people a theory and they will advance it. Give them religion and they will kill their brothers in self-righteous rage!

I miss your intolerance of stupid religious excuses and have carried on in your absence. I believe that you were on the right track related to the scientific evidence that backed your claims and of the bullshit that religious idiots used to make themselves look even more deluded. I swear to advance the truth in the name of intellectuals everywhere and will fight the dark wherever it presents itself. Darkness comes with the exclusion of cold hard science. Ignorance comes with ignoring science. Religious myth stands in the way of reason and logic and frowns on advancement. I will continue to keep science in the forefront and debunk religious bullshit as it frequently arises. I miss you Christopher, but have learned well.