That is a pretty heavy statement for someone who knows nothing about me, my life, or who my kids are around. You know what happens when you assume, don't you? What a worthless guarantee. :laugh:

Please give it a rest with the linguistic acrobatics to defend a child molester. He may not still be preying on kids. He may still BE praying on kids. We do not know. We DO know that he has a history of preying on kids and it was escalating even after getting caught yet we should somehow believe that this sly, subtle, guy just decided to randomly and completely stop on his own. Why should he be allowed around kids with history? I certainly wouldn't want him around mine! BTW, sexually assaulting your sisters is not "foolishness", it is a crime.

Actually, I have to give real applause to this author. After reading the final chapter, it is pretty clear that it IS good satire in the sense that the grammatical mishaps are intentional and she uses some legit literary devices to reveal her true intentions at the end but the (hopefully few) people who might actually like this non-ironically will probably miss that.

Judging by the ending, it has to be satire. https://www.fanfiction.net/s/10644439/14/Hogwarts-School-of-Prayer-and-Miracles

Remember this? Felt like ages ago! I do agree with the others though on their explanation for the fact you were advised against the term 'as a Christian'. It sounds as though you speak for all Christians or at least the 'true' ones, as though it is a given that you believe this because you're Christian. This is problematic for the many, diverse Christians who do not share your views on this subject.

Rewriting it as a love story at all would take a lot of red ink :p .

This really has got to be satire. Snopes isn't sure, though: http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/harrypotter.asp Spoiler alert: Voldemort = Obama :lol:

With a husband like that, even if they believe his tripe, I doubt one of his wives has ever wanted it when he hasn't been in the mood to force the issue.

I do need to thank SquishyScone for the USPS thread and this one which were truly, truly entertaining. I laughed through most of the posts as I read.

Goldberry, as I read through that I was absolutely horrified and didn't think it could get any worse until I got to that part. He's saying to force yourself on your wife if she refuses EVEN if you don't really feel in the mood because you need to do the right thing and exert your power over her to prove that you have control over her body. That is pretty much the textbook definition of rape. But I guess it is OK because he claims you 'bought' her and she's now your property. Though I'd totally still have a problem with a guy forcing himself on livestock and chattel so you'd think doing that to a human being and the person you vowed to share your life with and love would strike at some part of his morally decrepit conscience.

^ Please tell me that was a satirical website and that guy really thinks that way in the same way that Betty Bowers is the world's best Christian (ie he doesn't).

:eek: I'm sorry, I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

Everyone knows that normal girls are not aroused by the sight of male genitalia, adult or otherwise, till marriage when the switch suddenly flips and they're at the ready all the time. Normal, red-blooded boys however can't even change a baby's diaper without being defrauded, tempted, and forced into stumbling against their will. Poor, poor totally non-pedophile boys. Hey, I said totally normal, good boys and men get aroused by the sight of baby girl genitalia. Boys molesting boys is a disgusting perversion only perpetrated by the sickest individuals. Not because of the molesting part, naturally, but because of the same-sex component.

Translation: Our comments about gay and transgender people weren't hypocritical because we compared them using the term 'pedophile' and Josh is a child molester, not a pedophile, as he was 15 and you have to be 16 to be considered a pedophile. Yeah, picture of humility right there. No, humble, remorseful people wouldn't go on a big hyped up interview with a sympathetic interviewer (obviously trying to salvage their show and put a positive PR spin on things) and drag the victims on there to insist it wasn't a big deal and Josh is a good man. You and I must have very different views of humility if you think the fact they did that interview shows humility. This is not you. These are people who have plenty of resources and the means to send their child outside of the house till he is able to live on his own, even if that means one parent going with him. I'm not sure how touching your single-digit kid sister's vagina as you read her a story on your lap in front of people would warrant lenience just because it isn't rape. He was clearly escalating. There seems to be some fishiness about the 17 year old thing that there is no solid information on? So, we have no way to know whether he just suddenly stopped even though getting caught didn't stop him but we do certainly know that he stayed in the house, the burden was placed on the girls, and the Duggar parents decided to add some more little girls to the house for good measure (and a ratings boost of course!)

Things they could've done: - Taken action when the behavior first started - Reported it when they realized it was escalating - Removed Josh from the home long-term - Gotten Josh real, non ATI therapy - Gotten the girls real, non ATI therapy - Learned some humility - Not minimized and white washed the whole event - Opted not to put their entire lives on camera and the public eye - Not spoken publicly against anyone's legal and victimless sexual proclivities - Not forced their daughters to both live with and serve their older brother as a respected man of the house - Not allowed their daughters to be used as babysitters for the man who sexually assaulted them and his wife - Not raised their daughters with an emphasis on purity and the idea that a woman who had been touched by a man is essentially a dirty, used, product. - Not equivocated sexual assault with consensual sexual behavior. - Gotten him real therapy before encouraging him to 'court' and start procreating a gaggle of his own little girls. - Once the news broke, they could've chosen to retire out of the public eye to deal with the repercussions rather than going on an interview to fabricate lies which can easily be proven false by reading the police report. - They could've opted not to parade their abused daughters on tv interviews so that they could sit there and defend their abuser (who is nowhere to be seen). - They could quit making excuses for their son and give half as much consideration to their daughters, his victims. I'm sure I've missed a few. Should I go on? ETA: Oh, how about not instilled in their daughters the mindset that the aforementioned "precautions" are necessary in the home to prevent your totally normal son from "stumbling" and by stumbling we mean perving on, molesting, sexually assaulting, or raping his little, prepubescent sisters? Rather than taking precautions by putting some locks on the doors, maybe they could've considered that the girls shouldn't have to have locks put on the doors so that they won't be assaulted by their older brother whom they insist to keep in the house? Not giving all of their sons a pass on helping the girls care for the children they're parenting in place of Michelle because the sight of a baby parts during a diaper change will provoke their remaining, non-pedophile sons into assaulting his sisters?!

Bye, Felicia.

I agree with Vegan Richa and cookbooks by Isa Chandra Moskowitz. Isa Does It, the newest one, is great. Also Terry Hope Romero's cookbooks. The Post Punk Kitchen website lists some of their recipes online there. Bryant Terry's Vegan Soul Kitchen, Afro-Vegan and The Inspired Vegan also have some great recipes. I've been able to find all of these books at my library. I just checked out 'Plant Powered Families' but haven't tried anything out of it so I can't judge yet! Oh She Glows is vegan, usually GF, and all her recipes are really nutrition-packed but flavorful. Between her site and her cookbook, I've found some really great recipes. http://ohsheglows.com/ I highly recommend giving her Glazed Lentil Walnut Loaf a try as well as the GF almond butter chocolate chip cookies. http://ohsheglows.com/2012/10/05/glazed-lentil-walnut-apple-loaf-revisited/ Fork and Beans http://www.forkandbeans.com/

Are you serious? Forgiveness goes hand in hand with repentance. Josh does not show signs of repentance or remorse. He didn't make a mistake, he molested/sexually assaulted 5 girls, 3-4 of whom were his sisters and 1 of whom was likely his cousin and did so even after his actions came to light and he faced some sort of trouble for it. Not only did he stay in the house until his marriage, but his interactions with the girls were not the actions of a repentant person who realizes he has caused severe trauma to his sisters and it is likely difficult for them to live with him in those circumstances. He joked with them, was physically affectionate with them, and had them staying at his house helping with his children. He didn't retire to a quiet, humble life and devote himself to God, he took a public platform comparing homosexuality to pedophilia despite the fact that he is the closest thing to a pedophile in that example and promoted good family values, quite rich coming from a person who knew he did this to his sisters. Even now, he sits there covering up, making excuses, and trying to spew some BS about how this brought them closer and closer to God. I don't see how he ever took responsibility or faced true consequences for his actions until he was forced to now. The family maintains that the girl must be at fault because that is what is in the literature and sexual abuse info distributed by their religious group. And because they kept an abusive teenager in a house with his victims and added some more girls to it for fair measure and then taught the girls to idolize their big brother as a man and serve him while they also drilled home throughout the seasons about their behavior, their clothing, their modesty, their chastity, and all the things they shouldn't do to earn a man's attention, defraud him, and cause him to stumble even though they knew what their son had done to them in their house. They continued to promote an ideology that makes the woman feel less than and ruined if she's been touched by a man knowing that very fact. They continued to do bizarre things like that golf-course humping in front of them knowing that their daughters had such an experience.

Here is the "counseling" they probably received. ATI handout on counseling sexual abuse:

I don't want to go off into this because we both know we won't agree but I want to clarify that my statement is that the politics of these groups tend to consist of a leader who may be educated (ex: I've heard the leader of ISIS has some study behind him) and knows that this is wrong but justifies it to himself as deserved to to life-matters and uses it to further a political goal and gain power and largely, followers who are uneducated and don't know better but are convinced by a charismatic leader. Many of these groups originate out of a lack of education or knowledge as a whole. No one would argue that the Taliban is well-studied in religion, for example, nor can many of them even read in the original language. I'm very conservative in my religious views, I tend to be a literalist. However, my argument would be that on study, the support for these ideas does not exist in the same way there is scholarship of history in which one view can be correct and one is incorrect and in science, where I am sure you would agree that the view of someone who denies scientific fact is not the same as one who accepts it. I'm not saying that you must accept Islam as being true to believe this, but to accept the ability of people to know what does and does not exist in their religious texts and what has been integrated from cultural and political strife. Even the most orthodox, conservative scholars of Islam who have spent 60+ years studying this have written books to refute these claims that are full of textual evidence. I doubt we'll agree on this. I DO think one needs to be fluent in Arabic and understand linguistic and grammatical nuances that can completely change meaning, know Islamic history, and be well acquainted with the books of tafseer, hadith, and sharh hadith in order to make absolutist statements on what Islam does and doesn't include (eta: and there are non-Muslim scholars of religion who have done this and say the same as what I am saying).

Last thing. As mentioned earlier, these groups existed even back in the time of Muhammad and his companions and they were called 'the khawarij'. To give an example of what they were like even 1400 years ago, they did this when they encountered one of the respected Companions of the Prophet who have a very high rank in our faith: "The Khawaarij confronted Abdullah ibn Khabab during their rally and asked him if he had heard any narrations of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings be upon him) from his father (Khabaab ibn al-Araat) which he could relate to them. He replied "I heard my father narrate from Allah's Messenger that a time will come of rebellion in which one who sits is better than the one who stands, one who stands is better than the one who walks and the one who walks is better than the one who runs." (Muslim:6893) And he said, "If you are alive at that time, be a slave of Allah who is murdered (rather than the one who murders.)" They then asked him if he really heard his father relate that from Allah's Messenger (may the peace and blessings be upon him) and when he replied in the affirmative. They then took him to the edge of a river and chopped off his head and his blood flowed in a stream like the lace of a sandal. Thereafter, they turned to his pregnant wife, cut open her stomach and spilled its contents..." - From the book 'Talbees Iblees' by Ibn al-Jawzee The narration goes on to detail some of their actions afterwords trying to act strictly with regards to religious regulations on minute details after having done that which is just completely insane. “If they (the Khawaarij) were to gain strength, they would cause mischief on earth – in `Iraaq, in Shaam (and everywhere). They would not leave a small boy or a small girl, nor a man or a woman (except that they would kill them). This is because they think that people have got so much corrupted that nothing can reform them except through mass killing.†[al-Bidaayah wal-Nihaayah (10/584-585)] Sham = Syria/Levant "When you see the black flags, remain where you are and do not move your hands or your feet. Thereafter there shall appear a feeble folk to whom no concern is given. Their hearts will be like fragments of iron. They are the representatives of the State. They will fulfill neither covenant nor agreement. They will invite to the Truth, though they are not from its people. Their names will be agnomens [i.e., Abu Mus'ab, Abu Bakr, etc.], and their ascriptions will be to villages (or places). Their hair will be long like that of women. [They shall remain so] till they differ among themselves, and then God will bring forth the Truth from whomever He wills." - Ali ibn Abu Talib Also, from the ahadith regarding them: Al-Bukhaari (6934) and Muslim (1068) narrated that Yusayr ibn ‘Amr said: I said to Sahl ibn Hunayf: Did you hear the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say anything about the Khawaarij? He said: I heard him say – and he gestured with his hand towards Iraq –: “From there will emerge people who recite the Qur’an, but it will not go past their collarbones. They will pass out of Islam as an arrow passes out of the prey.†Ibn Maajah (173) narrated that Ibn Abi Awfa said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The Khawaarij are the dogs of Hell.†Classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in Saheeh Ibn Maajah.

I also want to add that this attitude is so disrespectful for the Muslims who are fighting these groups right now, putting their lives on the line like those fighting ISIS and the Kurdish army. Wrote this to a friend a while back: The verses that people like to take out of context to use to say we do (usually the one that is along the lines of 'Kill them wherever you find them' is in the context of the Battles of Badr and Uhud that were taking place at that time as a response to the continued aggression, abuse, and oppression of Muslims in Makkah by the Arab Pagans after the Muslims remained patient for many years and tried to solve it peacefully. There was a declared war, hence the verse of revelation. However, the following verse immediately after says something to the meaning of 'but transgress not for Allah loves not the transgressors.' So even in that context, they were warned not to go beyond the bounds of what is allowable in war. During (declared) war, according to Islam: - You cannot kill civilians/non-combatants - You cannot kill women. - You cannot kill children. - You cannot kill the elderly. - You cannot kill people outside of the time of battle/declared warfare. - If one of your enemies comes to you and asks for your refuge, you assure their safety until they return to their side. - You should not kill animals if avoidable. - You cannot kill yourself. The most orthodox also tend to believe that there can be no war without an amir (leader) and without the people having been purified and educated in their religion so that they are unified and so that they don't transgress the bounds of what is forbidden to them in fighting. We'd all agree there is no 'amir' right now and of course we don't consider this horrendous joke 'ISIS' to be an actual khilafah. They're what we call khawarij and one of their trademarks (and ways to circumvent all of these rules) is to just make 'takfeer' (ie to say that they're not Muslim and in this case, they will then kill them) on any Muslim who disagrees or stands against them. The basic precept of the religion is: monotheism. To worship one God and one God alone. Then there are 5 pillars of Islam which are: shahadah (declaring your belief in the faith), salah (prayer 5 times a day), zakat (giving charity), siyam (fasting the month of Ramadan), and hajj (the pilgrimage to Mecca). The 'pillars of Iman (belief)' are Belief in Allah/God, Belief in the Angels, Belief in His Books, Belief in His Messengers/Prophets, Belief in the Day of Judgment, and Believe in his Qadr (divine decree). None of our basic precepts include even jihad done under the aforementioned terms, let alone some basic precept to kill 'infidels'. Moderate Muslims speak out ALL the time against extremists. To the point many are sick of it and ask why no other racial, religious, or ethnic group have to apologize for people who we don't even know, who have nothing to do with us, and who are apparently following some other religion that what we're following. I used to be at this level but now I'm so sick of what these groups are doing that I do openly apologize and put them down/show that they're wrong according to the most conservative scholars and Islamic texts. But all of the major Muslim organizations speak out against them and most lay Muslims do too if you speak to them. But does NBC, CNN, or FOX seriously want to do a news piece on a 'Muslim who thinks what ISIS/AQ do is wrong'? That is not news. No one cares what I think about it. If you look at the current situation though, the Kurdish Muslims are fighting ISIS and they're protecting Christians and Yazeedis. So, they get undermined and written off as terrorists too for being Muslims? And that is not to mention that most victims of "Islamic" terrorism are Muslims and the majority of terrorism is not perpetrated by Muslims either: http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/ http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619 http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/06/most-victims-of-islamic-terrorism-are-muslims-and-why-america-is-to-blame-for-it/ ^I don't agree with the inflammatory 'why America is to blame for it' but I do think that it shows that politics and anger over political situations have a lot more to do with so called Islamic terrorism than actual religious belief. Religion is just easier to sell to the uneducated masses than the political angle which they know they won't benefit from. Also, while they were terrible people, dictators like Saddam and Qaddafi were very effective in keeping the extremist groups down in their countries via the 'power of the iron fist'. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/surprising-study-on-terrorism-al-qaida-kills-eight-times-more-muslims-than-non-muslims-a-660619.html http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:m83XZww0RIMJ:www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/14/al-qaeda-hurts-muslims-most/%3Fpage%3Dall+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us “and do not kill a soul that God has made sacrosanct, save lawfully.†(i.e. murder is forbidden but the death penalty imposed by the state for a crime is permitted)" 6:151 “… whoso kills a soul, unless it be for murder or for wreaking corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and he who saves a life, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind.†5:53 Abu Bakr As-Siddiq commanded that his soldiers (during war) not kill monks, priests, women, children, the slaves, the sick and the aged. They were not to sack any town or village, or destroy or ravage any arable land. There was to be no wanton pillaging, no trees were to be cut, and no crops were to be burnt or destroyed. No corpses of the enemy were to be burnt or mutilated. The dead of the enemy were to be buried with due respect, and where requests were made for particular corpses by the enemy, these were to be freely handed over.

I doubt Albeto is completely ignorant. She is a self-admitted anti-theist and likely would tend to agree with Sam Harris. However, that doesn't change the fact you're contributing to an atmosphere of fear and hate. If I recall, you/your family are from Iran, right? Look, I understand what you're saying and if you want to hate *the people who slaughtered your family*, then you're completely within right to do so. But to conflate that with Muslims in general, to say that behavior is in fact a part of Islam is grossly incorrect and unfair. I don't know as much about the particular sect of Shia Islam that is practiced in Iran but I do know that the Shi'ites are a small minority of the Muslims and that the extreme sect of Shia Islam practiced by these groups in Iran are an even smaller group. To answer your question, my husband's family members WERE slaughtered by members of another faith. My FIL was expelled with some of his family during the 1967 exodus and they walked to Jordan. On the way, there were plenty of dead bodies, even dismembered children along the road. My husband's aunt and cousin both died later during another incident though they were just living in their house and harmed no one. Do we now teach our kids hate or that Jewish or Israeli people do this? Absolutely not. And I'd say that we tend to emphasize the idea that both sides in the conflict have blame and do wrong to a large degree in our household. The important issue, to me, is that you can't act or form deep beliefs in this way based on a reaction to wrongdoing by another. You're only responsible for your actions and your morals and morals should not be dependent on whether the one who has done you wrong is 'worse'. I've actually given some speeches on this topic to explain why, to me, I find it worse when a Muslim has killed innocents than when innocent Muslims are killed by another. Because if you have a good end, then we have faith you'll meet your Lord who will reward you for being good in life. But to take another person's life, to harm another creation, that is such an awful deed and so much worse because of how much we're warned against that by both faith and moral dictates. Even when innocents are killed, often this has more to do with politics/political gain than actual true, sincere religious conviction (though it does happen). So, yes we understand where you are coming from having family members murdered and so do the Indian Muslims who were slaughtered by Hindus and the Hindus slaughtered by Indian Muslims and the Burmese Muslims slaughtered by Buddhist extremists...etc. Violence begets violence and it is a *cycle* and while I understand blaming the one responsible, you lose me when you expand it to a group or to encompass everyone or even to redirect it toward that person's child (who is innocent of the crime of their parents). Honestly, often times this IS the attitude the extremists have. They think that all of the US or all of the non-Muslims are responsible for their family member that was killed by a drone or the destruction of their village or their child's death. And sociopaths like the leader of these groups feed on this, recruit the mentally ill, the rebellious and ignorant youth, and the people who are seething with anger due to political events and want 'revenge'. I don't like when people tell me what my religion states/believes. Especially when these people have opened up an English translation of the Qur'an, pulled a verse out of context, and disregarded existing tafseer or abrogations. I'm not trying to place myself at some high level but I HAVE studied Islam and was working toward a degree in it before I got into the medical field. I firmly believe that Islam is a religion that forbids violence outside what is necessary for self-defense and especially when it involves harm to innocents and does not abide by rules that are set in our religion regarding war. I also believe we have an emphasis on social justice that many are weak on. So, no, I don't care whether you're Negin or Sam Harris, you're not going to tell me what my faith and Holy Book says on this because I'm quite certain I know it better than you. As for the hijab and niqaab, it would be unfair to ban it because it takes away the freedom of women to choose their dress, whether that is to wear less or more clothes and, as we've covered in other threads, unlike parts of the Muslim world this country and many others are not theocracies and are supposed to be governed in a better, democratic way, correct? ETA: FWIW, I am also sorry about what happened to your family.

Except, in a way, you are when you make comments like seeing a woman in Islamic garb makes you worry there is a terrorist under there. I doubt you'd say the same thing when you see a woman wearing a cross necklace or (insert other faith-related example).

We're keeping some things that have been really working and switching some others. When the year started, my son was barely verbal and had extreme difficulty understanding anything outside of math (which he didn't need instruction for and would just figure out by looking at the patterns). He's made enormous progress and made it clear he's ready for more but I'm trying to follow his interests more and set aside any particular ideas I had about what he should do. We're keeping AAR, MEP, and SM but are finishing up so will soon be moving up a level in AAR and MEP and switching to MM1. We're dropping OM and I've bought BYL to try out because the topics are things that are currently interesting to him and he's kind of been independently learning about the topics covered there. I'm also incorporating some unit studies on areas that he is especially interested in and we'll be adding an additional science program at his request.