it's okay to molest your siblings but gawd forbid you have an extramarital affair with a consenting adult

I saw a montage of liberal reaction to this family. No reasonable person could observe those reactions and call it anything but hate - written all over their faces, wrapped around every word, and seeping out of every pore. Only liberals can miss the irony of being the epitome of hateful while accusing others of being hateful.

Are you saying Josh is the monster, or all this publicity is the monster? I agree, if you mean the latter. A friend of mine literally lived and worked with Josh Duggar for a year when Josh was in his early 20's. He told me that Josh is one of the finest people he has ever been around. More than anything, that's what makes me think Josh was failed by his parents, his father in particular, in preparing him to deal with sexual issues, but despite some missteps by his parents, he was able to correct the problem by age 15, and I have a big problem defining the man now by what that boy did. I suspect none of us want to be judged that way.

The allegation of a cover up ("family buried it") seems to have no basis. A state trooper friend was consulted, their pastor and a group of close friends knew, they sought out a mentor, professional counsellors were used, and the parents took their son to the local state police post to report the behavior. If that's a cover up, it's a very poor one. The other sense you may mean "buried it" could be that the family tried to forget about it. That could be true, and it could be appropriate. Forgiveness and restoration could look like burying it, or be characterized as that, but it could also mean that the issue was dealt with successfully, and the matter put and left in the past. Going by the victims' statements, they love their brother, do not carrying resentment of him, and deny any unresolved emotional issues.

[Josh Duggar has held himself out there to be an moral arbiter in judgment of others. I can't even begin to feel the slightest bit of sympathy that he, personally, has to go through this.]

I have real trouble understanding how a child's sin negates his ability to hold and promote moral views as a man. I sense there is a standard being applied here that no one would apply to themselves. It would be like this if I were a public figure: Q: How do you feel about the morality of capital punishment? A: I can't hold a public view on that because I groped a girl in the 8th grade. Huh? Now, if as a 50 year old man I am molesting 8th grade girls, then I would have to agree that I have no standing to advocate any moral position. There is a logical gap/leap some anti-Duggars are taking right on this point.
This gets to one of the roots of the controversy and division this story has created.

It's basically the hypocrisy argument: "If you have ever had a moral failure, you are disqualified from holding any public moral view, and advocating for that view."

Which, of course, is total nonsense. The argument imposes on anyone who holds a public moral view a claim of moral superiority, if not moral perfection. The Duggars would, in fact, claim the opposite. A fundamental element of their faith would be that they are morally broken and imperfect people, and that the only way to be whole is through faith, but that while they have a living body, they are susceptible to wrong-doing. Because of this reality, they need moral boundaries to keep from harming themselves and others. Josh violated those moral boundaries, and he hurt himself and others. This is evidence of his imperfection, and it also demonstrates the need for those boundaries. It does not negate the need or diminish the quality of the moral standard itself, but rather shows why the standard is needed. If I strive to live by that standard, and so do my neighbors, and the people I work with, and all the other community members I come into contact with, we individually and collectively create a very good place for human beings to live with one another, in spite of the occasions where those standards are violated. So, you would want to advocate the setting of those standards for the benefit of yourself and everyone around you. You can't demand those standards are codified into law, although many are (don't murder, steal, lie), but every community has an ethos that defines it - what it values and discourages - and someone with views like the Duggars want that view to have a seat at the public table - not that they are perfect, because they are imperfect like everyone else - but because they feel the moral standard they hold is good for them and everyone around them. They would recogize that others would have other standards, and that a societal consensus may not want to adopt their standard. That's how democracy and freedom works.

But when we require moral perfection for one to hold moral public views, we are simply shaming with the label of hypocrisy in order to prevent a moral standard from being heard. That's not real democratic or freedom-honoring. The hypocisy argument is intended to discourage anyone from holding a public moral veiw they disagree with, since there are no morally perfect people. It's simplistic and inane, but there are a ton of people who buy it and repeat it.

By definition, hypocrisy can only exist where people are trying to live by a higher moral standard than what basic human nature provides. If you believe promiscuity is good for you, and you try to have sex with every woman in the bar, then you are not a hypocrite. But if you are the Sunday School teacher who has promoted sobriety and sexual purity, and you do the same, then you are a hypocrite. So, you see what your standard is determines whether hypocrisy exists. But again, the SS teacher's hypocrisy is only evidence of his imperfection, but does not prove that the standard is faulty. The choice is one in which we opt for a society with the lowest moral standards and no hypocrisy or one with high moral standards with hypocrisy. I'll take the latter, but I understand many prefer the former.

Idealogies clash - political and religious ones in particular. I have contempt for leftist and secular ideologies because I have seen that they are dangerous and destructive (as are some on the other side), and contempt for those from that bent who promote those beliefs through intolerance, hatred, name-calling, personal attack, and throwing fits like spoiled children - essentially what we are seeing in how they are treating this family. On the other hand, I cherish every one of my liberal friends who can sit down over a cup of coffee, make an intelligent argument, and teach me something. By definition, you can only learn something from someone who knows something you don't, or has a perspective you don't know about. Liberals have taught me a ton. Critics will point out to you the weaknesses in your thinking and confirm your strengths. In some cases, I have changed my thinking in subtle or drastic ways, or found confirmation in what I held. It's a great process, but I suspect very few people ever do it.

As for Josh's rehabilitation, you are aware that he received professional counselling, or not? I will assume that you do not claim the same kind of faith as the Duggars, so how can you judge what their faith principles and prayer can and cannot do? What we know now is that there has not been any reported repeat offences for over a decade. The people who know him best say he was/is a changed person. So, who do we believe? Who would have the proximity to make a reasonable judgment on that? I looked it up. The recitivism rate for those in Josh's category is much lower than what I assumed - around 10-15%. So, kids have issues, they get help, and the vast majority do really well going forward. I think we should be very careful about wanting to tattoo the label of "sexual offender" or "child molester" on a man who did what Josh did as a child.

Your noting all the mandatory reporters out there is a good point. I am a mandatory reporter. Because of my job, and my volunteer work with the juvenile court, I deal with social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists, probation officers, and various law enforcement every week. Some of the most outstanding people I know fill those roles, and I love using them to help people and families. The reality is that there are also some who are complete nuts - who I wouldn't want within 10 miles of any child. The minute you report, as a parent, you have no control over the situation. People who do not know you, and you don't know, begin to make decisions about what will happen to your children - what kind of punishment and treatment they will get, and whether they can remain in the home and under what circumstances. Knowing what I know, I would have never gone to the police or any mandatory reporter in this particular Duggar scenario (more violent or drastic offences, I would). I would have first tried to deal with it through parental action, mentoring, and probably a trusted expert who would help without reporting for a limited term (delay the reporting). If that worked, then the reporting could happen later. If it didn't, then you have to let the state have their shot. But it's so easy to tell other people to turn their children over to the state. It's a completely different story when it's your child. Given what I've seen, you would be a fool to do that in a situation like the Duggars found themselves in. Yes, I know what the law is, and there are good reasons for it, but as a dad I have to do what is best for my children, and so, yes, I would definitely skirt it, delay it, or whatever I had to do. The mandatory reporting system itself discourages reporting by parents because of what can happen after - and that creates tragedies when the problem is not solved and it never reaches the authorities.

Well, the Ashley Madison leak reveals that Mr. Josh was cheating on his wife. Now, before anyone goes off in a wrong direction, I do consider child molestation worse than infidelity, but I have no respect for a man who cannot keep his word to his wife and be faithful. Josh may have conquered his sexual curiosity about his sisters, but he did not conquer his desires for sex outside of the boundaries. You won't hear me defending him or his parents.