Doug Phillips is a Tool & Vision Forum is Dead - Part 7

[Palimpsest]

World Magazine didn't name Hero; it was the Christian Post article that did that. Unless World did a second article I didn't read?

Yikes, yes! You are quite correct. I meant to say the Christian Post, not World!

Not very Christian of the Christian Post, was it?

[MamaJunebug]

"Not very Christian of the Christian Post, was it?"

You know, I have been thinking about this for quite some time, and never felt it was the right opportunity to address the topic of the naming.

I don't know whether it's law our not, but back in the day, it was considered prudent and a courtesy not to name the victims of sexual assaults in the newspaper or obviously in broadcast news, but I don't recall that it was ever actually legally binding one way or the other.

( I'm dictating this, which I'm totally not used to. If at any point I become incoherent or downright not me, that would explain it.

(that disclaimer made......)

When I saw that the woman's name was included in the story, it occurred to me that the Post could have gotten it from a legal filing that she made. Now, I'm totally out of my league in matters relating to court documents and such, but if the person has filed some kind of suit against another, unless there is direction that names not be published, is there any actual legal wrongdoing in naming her?

The thing is, and most of you who've seen me post here for several years no I'm not at all insensitive nor anti-female, it seems to me that if the name is given, then she is less a victim than a survivor. Does that make any sense?

Theoretically, if she is willing to have her name out there as someone who was involved in a pretty gross sin, but who has repented, and who realizes that justice needs to be served against the other sinner (because of his influence, etc. – him having been a cleric and a predator) then, does that show a good deal of strength on her part?

Certainly, to have her name out there as far as the Dominionistic and Theonomistic, NCFIC people are concerned, is to put the word "Jezebel" in 3 foot high lit-up letters. However, whether or not they like it, these people still live in a country where the civil law trumps any kind of religious law of a certain sect. So, again, somehow to my mind the fact that her name was published shows a certain courageousness on her part.

[Palimpsest]

^^^^

With the exception of minors and some adult crime victims where there are legal restrictions, AFAIK the decision whether or not to publish the names of individuals who wish to remain anonymous and have not given permission for their name to be used is an ethical policy decision made by the editor and publisher of individual media sources. So they can use their discretion and good taste.

In this case, the Christian Post only spoke with the young woman's lawyer. They could have used the attorney's name only, and their decision to publish her name was, IMO, tasteless. Not illegal but tacky. And disempowering.

The fact that they have now removed the name indicates that she had not given her consent to her "outing." I do agree that if/when she is willing and able to come forward and speak openly it will represent a stage in her healing and identify her as a "survivor" rather than a "victim."

I don't think her not speaking out openly and in person to the press at this stage means that she isn't strong and courageous. I think she is just not ready yet.

[MamaJunebug]

Points well-taken, Palimpsest. Thanks for the response.

[Palimpsest]

Points well-taken, Palimpsest. Thanks for the response.

You are very welcome. I should add that I think the Christian Post's decision to publish her name in the first place is a subtle indicator that they approve of the "Jezebel" label. Julie Anne wasn't the only person to send an email to the editor! :whistle:

[fuglyexfundy]

...When I saw that the woman's name was included in the story, it occurred to me that the Post could have gotten it from a legal filing that she made. Now, I'm totally out of my league in matters relating to court documents and such, but if the person has filed some kind of suit against another, unless there is direction that names not be published, is there any actual legal wrongdoing in naming her?

The thing is, and most of you who've seen me post here for several years no I'm not at all insensitive nor anti-female, it seems to me that if the name is given, then she is less a victim than a survivor. Does that make any sense?

Theoretically, if she is willing to have her name out there as someone who was involved in a pretty gross sin, but who has repented, and who realizes that justice needs to be served against the other sinner (because of his influence, etc. – him having been a cleric and a predator) then, does that show a good deal of strength on her part?

Certainly, to have her name out there as far as the Dominionistic and Theonomistic, NCFIC people are concerned, is to put the word "Jezebel" in 3 foot high lit-up letters. However, whether or not they like it, these people still live in a country where the civil law trumps any kind of religious law of a certain sect. So, again, somehow to my mind the fact that her name was published shows a certain courageousness on her part.

I think these are excellent points.

I think many fail to remember that civil law absolutely trumps religious law or individual causes du jour. As far as I know, NO charges of sexual assault, or violations of Texas clergy abuse laws have been filed against Phillips at present. It doesn't seem like they're pending, either. She was not a minor during the time period in question. The filing of the civil suit probably makes the plaintiff's real identity (already the world's worst kept secret) public information.

I suggest that those concerned about "distasteful" use of the First Amendment in the article should make any possible legal and legitimate efforts to see actual criminal charges filed against Phillips. That might be difficult if there isn't "victim" cooperation or the prosecutor won't bother with a case that supposedly doesn't involve minors.

The media is under no obligation to protect her identity: not a minor, no sexual assault charges presently.

Would I have used the woman's name? No. Then again, for a myriad of reasons, I wouldn't have wouldn't have published the article either.

[RachelB]

I don't know whether it's law our not, but back in the day, it was considered prudent and a courtesy not to name the victims of sexual assaults in the newspaper or obviously in broadcast news, but I don't recall that it was ever actually legally binding one way or the other.

I worked in a newsroom in a Midwestern state for three years, during which we covered a sexual assault case in which the alleged perpetrator was the star of one of the men's sports teams. The victim's name leaked by some other means, so the paper would not have been revealing new information by reporting her name. But we didn't anyway-- she was receiving phone threats and harassment for "leading him on" and "making stuff up to get attention" and "trying to ruin the team's season." (! your priorities! they are messed up!) We couldn't countenance adding to that.

I still wouldn't name a victim without his or her permission to do so. Even though I do not believe having survived sexual assault or harassment is anything to be ashamed of, this is still a culture that blames people (especially but not only women) for their own assaults, and no one person should have to bear the burden of transforming the culture.

[Palimpsest]

I think these are excellent points.

I think many fail to remember that civil law absolutely trumps religious law or individual causes du jour. As far as I know, NO charges of sexual assault, or violations of Texas clergy abuse laws have been filed against Phillips at present. It doesn't seem like they're pending, either. She was not a minor during the time period in question. The filing of the civil suit probably makes the plaintiff's real identity (already the world's worst kept secret) public information.

I suggest that those concerned about "distasteful" use of the First Amendment in the article should make any possible legal and legitimate efforts to see actual criminal charges filed against Phillips. That might be difficult if there isn't "victim" cooperation or the prosecutor won't bother with a case that supposedly doesn't involve minors.

The media is under no obligation to protect her identity: not a minor, no sexual assault charges presently.

Would I have used the woman's name? No. Then again, for a myriad of reasons, I wouldn't have wouldn't have published the article either.

Goodness gracious! Did someone pee in your cornflakes this morning or are you just channeling Beall?

Remind me, this isn't the first time you've stuck that not so exFundie knife into this young woman is it?

The only thing in the above rant that interests me is why you wouldn't have published the article. Please don't bother to give a myriad reasons. The top two or three will suffice quite nicely.

[hoipolloi]

I worked in a newsroom in a Midwestern state for three years, during which we covered a sexual assault case in which the alleged perpetrator was the star of one of the men's sports teams. The victim's name leaked by some other means, so the paper would not have been revealing new information by reporting her name. But we didn't anyway-- she was receiving phone threats and harassment for "leading him on" and "making stuff up to get attention" and "trying to ruin the team's season." (! your priorities! they are messed up!) We couldn't countenance adding to that.

I still wouldn't name a victim without his or her permission to do so. Even though I do not believe having survived sexual assault or harassment is anything to be ashamed of, this is still a culture that blames people (especially but not only women) for their own assaults, and no one person should have to bear the burden of transforming the culture.

Attys here, please correct if needed, but my understanding is that if criminal charges are filed against an alleged assailant, the court records would read "State/City vs. Joe Criminal" since it's the government who is saying that the perp violated the law, not the victim who's making that accusation. Theoretically, the victim's name wouldn't appear in such case records unless s/he is called to testify or be deposed or something. Of course, for cases where the victim(s) take the stand it's much harder to guarantee any privacy, even if news orgs decline to name the person. That plus the fact that one's sexual history is fair game for the defendant's counsel is why many sexual assaults go unreported. Why be a victim twice over?

[fuglyexfundy]

Goodness gracious! Did someone pee in your cornflakes this morning or are you just channeling Beall?

Remind me, this isn't the first time you've stuck that not so exFundie knife into this young woman is it?

The only thing in the above rant that interests me is why you wouldn't have published the article. Please don't bother to give a myriad reasons. The top two or three will suffice quite nicely.

Despite the prior wording, I'll treat you with respect. I always attempt to do unto others etc. even when they have a different point of view.

From this point on, I won't acknowledge anyone who don't appear to have a baseline of maturity to engage in an adult discussion respectfully.

Some perspective: I've dealt with kids, real minors, who faced real abuse and neglect from their parents and other adults in their lives. Some of these parents were real victims of domestic abuse themselves.

When the these abused kids end up in the court system, or juvenile or adult prison for both violent and no-violent crimes, no one cares about their abuse from "father figures," substance addicted relatives, neglect from moms that may really have battered woman's syndrome etc., They are responsible for their actions (to some degree) in the eyes of the law.

True abuse of children (under the age of 18) is often ignored. No one sees a victim, but a criminal. Being a gambling person, I'd be willing to bet that many of you who who weep for the"victim" and less so for Phillips children, don't think twice about the truly vulnerable and abused minors and young adults when they're frogmarched on tv. I hope I'm wrong.

Having had to care for kids that faced the unimaginable, try to understand why I not buying the total victim pov nor shedding tears for the adult victim in question who chose unethical behavior repeatedly. I won't rehash the timeline for those who've read it and thought it through.

Beall is an adult too. She's responsible for 7-8 kids who have been mentally messed up or at least greatly hurt by their dad and his lover the nanny. The kids and Beall will probably bear the brunt, regardless of whatever role, if any, Beall played in this. She'll probably be alright. If not, I'm glad for the truly caring that volunteer or financially support women's shelters and like organizations. If anyone can't understand the point I'm trying to get across because of poor writing skills, apologies. For those who cannot respectfully disagree and won't try to understand, oh well.

Come to think of it, I think I will take some groceries to the local women's shelter or food pantry. Shame on me for wasting this much time on something that has nothing to do with me. I challenge you all to do the same or volunteer if able. I've said my piece and wish you all peace.

[Earthshine]

Despite the prior wording, I'll treat you with respect. I always attempt to do unto others etc. even when they have a different point of view.

From this point on, I won't acknowledge anyone who don't appear to have a baseline of maturity to engage in an adult discussion respectfully.

Some perspective: I've dealt with kids, real minors, who faced real abuse and neglect from their parents and other adults in their lives. Some of these parents were real victims of domestic abuse themselves.

When the these abused kids end up in the court system, or juvenile or adult prison for both violent and no-violent crimes, no one cares about their abuse from "father figures," substance addicted relatives, neglect from moms that may really have battered woman's syndrome etc., They are responsible for their actions (to some degree) in the eyes of the law.

True abuse of children (under the age of 18) is often ignored. No one sees a victim, but a criminal. Being a gambling person, I'd be willing to bet that many of you who who weep for the"victim" and less so for Phillips children, don't think twice about the truly vulnerable and abused minors and young adults when they're frogmarched on tv. I hope I'm wrong.

Having had to care for kids that faced the unimaginable, try to understand why I not buying the total victim pov nor shedding tears for the adult victim in question who chose unethical behavior repeatedly. I won't rehash the timeline for those who've read it and thought it through.

Beall is an adult too. She's responsible for 7-8 kids who have been mentally messed up or at least greatly hurt by their dad and his lover the nanny. The kids and Beall will probably bear the brunt, regardless of whatever role, if any, Beall played in this. She'll probably be alright. If not, I'm glad for the truly caring that volunteer or financially support women's shelters and like organizations. If anyone can't understand the point I'm trying to get across because of poor writing skills, apologies. For those who cannot respectfully disagree and won't try to understand, oh well.

Come to think of it, I think I will take some groceries to the local women's shelter or food pantry. Shame on me for wasting this much time on something that has nothing to do with me. I challenge you all to do the same or volunteer if able. I've said my piece and wish you all peace.

You talk about a having a baseline in maturity and respectful adult discussion, but you aren't exactly displaying such virtues any when you presume that we don't care about abused minors and young adults. I actually feel bad for everyone involved in Doug Phillips' selfishness and that includes the children, the wife, and the young woman. And it is lovely that you are off to do something nice for others, but when you challenge others to do the same, you are assuming that none of us do such things, and that is pretty offensive. So yeah...so nice of you to expect a level of discourse you don't give.

[Palimpsest]

It's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel, but I will respond to this one.

Despite the prior wording, I'll treat you with respect. I always attempt to do unto others etc. even when they have a different point of view.

That's nice. I'm sure when you joined FJ you read the stuff about donning your flame proof undies and being prepared to defend your views. I definitely do not share your views and, although I can be kind, I don't always suffer people I think are foolish gladly.

From this point on, I won't acknowledge anyone who don't appear to have a baseline of maturity to engage in an adult discussion respectfully.

There is a foe button if you don't want to engage me, my child.

Some perspective: I've dealt with kids, real minors, who faced real abuse and neglect from their parents and other adults in their lives. Some of these parents were real victims of domestic abuse themselves.

When the these abused kids end up in the court system, or juvenile or adult prison for both violent and no-violent crimes, no one cares about their abuse from "father figures," substance addicted relatives, neglect from moms that may really have battered woman's syndrome etc., They are responsible for their actions (to some degree) in the eyes of the law.

Some perspective: I've never worked for CPS -- too many triggers for me -- but I have worked for APS and in DV prevention for many years. Although I've worked primarily with abused adults many children have been involved. Yes, I did burn out on direct service and got kicked upstairs to a management and policy level at one point. That doesn't usually happen if you are not very good at your direct service job.

True abuse of children (under the age of 18) is often ignored. No one sees a victim, but a criminal.

True abuse of minors is under-identified and horrific. Some of us spend a lot of time advocating for increased funding for interventions. I hardly ignore it!

Being a gambling person, I'd be willing to bet that many of you who who weep for the"victim" and less so for Phillips children, don't think twice about the truly vulnerable and abused minors and young adults when they're frogmarched on tv. I hope I'm wrong.

I'm very sad for the young woman in question, but ... Huh? Have you missed our compassion here for the Phillips children? I've expressed my sadness about their situation. Who is being frogmarched on TV? Are they horrifically abused or just in a very nasty position right now because their Daddy lost his job. For cause.

Having had to care for kids that faced the unimaginable, try to understand why I not buying the total victim pov nor shedding tears for the adult victim in question who chose unethical behavior repeatedly. I won't rehash the timeline for those who've read it and thought it through.

I applaud you for caring for abused children, if that is what you do.

As far as the young woman in question is concerned, she has accepted responsibility for her part in this debacle. You don't need to shed tears for her but you might want to have some understanding of sexual harassment and spiritual abuse before you so roundly condemn her. Have you expressed these feelings on Recovering Grace? Some of Gothard's victims were over 18 too.

Beall is an adult too. She's responsible for 7-8 kids who have been mentally messed up or at least greatly hurt by their dad and his lover the nanny. The kids and Beall will probably bear the brunt, regardless of whatever role, if any, Beall played in this.

Yes indeed, Beall is an adult. I want to be kind to her and understand why she let this affair go on for so long. I suspect it is because she was trapped by narcissistic Doug and the repulsive "submission" doctrine of the Patriarchy.

You do realize don't you that there is only one truly guilty and unrepentant person here? Doug Phillips. Everyone else are casualties of his actions so stop trying to shove the guilt off onto the "nanny."

She'll probably be alright. If not, I'm glad for the truly caring that volunteer or financially support women's shelters and like organizations. If anyone can't understand the point I'm trying to get across because of poor writing skills, apologies. For those who cannot respectfully disagree and won't try to understand, oh well.

I hope Beall and the children are all right too. You writing skills seem quite good to me, it is your attitudes I disagree with. If you sound foolish you should expect to be called out on it. And your posts are incredibly disrespectful and immature.

Come to think of it, I think I will take some groceries to the local women's shelter or food pantry. Shame on me for wasting this much time on something that has nothing to do with me. I challenge you all to do the same or volunteer if able. I've said my piece and wish you all peace.

Those of us who donate material goods and volunteer our skills and expertise to women's shelters, food pantries, and seniors on a regular basis don't need to announce it every single time or boast about it. My Therapy Dogs have probably vastly more experience volunteering than you. I just go along and hold the leash!

I wish you peace too. And a greater understanding of the issues.

ETA. I almost forgot .. why wouldn't you have published an article exposing Doug Phillips?

[formergothardite]

I'm curious as to why she wouldn't have published that article either.

[Sobeknofret]

I'm curious as to why she wouldn't have published that article either.

Because the nanny is a whore, and we don't love abused children, and she's going to do something charitable because we're all meanies! :roll:

:violin:

[Marian the Librarian]

From the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page:

KJ Fiech

March 29 at 1:57pm

Now that the leading figure promoting it has fallen, is the Patriarchy movement dead? worldmag.com/2014/03/set_adrift

WORLD | Set adrift | Jamie Dean | April 5, 2014

RELIGION | One prominent proponent of ‘biblical patriarchy’ destroyed his ministry with his transgressions. His downfall offers lessons to other leaders

WORLDMAG.COM

Like · Share

Laura Vaivada likes this.

Edward Waverley "IRS documents also show VFI paid her $4830 in 2008. VFM paid her an additional $1750 in 2009."

As you can see, prostitution doesn't pay too well in San Antonio.

April 1 at 4:33am · Like

KJ Fiech Where are the "patriarchy" supporters? I am still one, but looking for support from the rest of you. Cat got your tongues?

April 1 at 5:41am · Like

Edward Waverley Certainly I am a staunch supporter of patriarchy. But an avowed enemy of those who emphasize authority while ignoring the whole counsel of God. Dougie has given Gentiles an occasion to blaspheme and has drug homeschooling and patriarchy with him into the mud.

April 1 at 5:50am · Like · 1

[debrand]

The Nanny should have been paid more-not because of any romantic interest in Duug-but because she took care of the Phillips children. That isn't prostitution.

[Palimpsest]

From the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page:

Jesus wept.

[Marian the Librarian]

Jesus wept.

Yes, they're *such* shining examples of Christianity...

[Arete]

From the Reconstructionist Theonomists Facebook page:

I am actually pleasantly surprised that these types haven't had a bigger platform during the Tool's well deserved Fall.

Easy enough to keep your quiver filled and your mansion in working order when you have access to unpaid nannies. According to the prevailing gossip, Hero was one of many young girls/women who contributed their time without compensation to raise the Phillip's kids.

That, where I come from, is called slavery, not prostitution.

Assholes.

[Dysfundamental]

So this young woman was exploited financially and professionally, as well as sexually?

Doug Phillips is a TOOL.

[hoipolloi]

Welp, that settles that.

The entire Phillips family appears to have attended Darby's wedding: johnacobb.smugmug.com/Darby-Christopher-Wedding/i-XL26jJs

ETA: And Doug Phillips Is A Tool also signed the guestbook:johnacobb.smugmug.com/Darby-Christopher-Wedding/i-T6Jp9Xx

[silvia]

The "D" in Doug's name takes up about three lines on the guestbook page. Not that I put that much store in handwriting analysis, but... http://bodyodd.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/0 ... study-says

[hoipolloi]

Looks like Doug Phillips Is A Tool will have always have a friend in R.C. Sproul, Jr.: johnacobb.smugmug.com/Darby-Christopher-Wedding/i-HKfM9mD

[mirele]

*snipt*

Yikes, yes! You are quite correct. I meant to say the Christian Post, not World!

Not very Christian of the Christian Post, was it?

*way way way way Off Topic*

The "Christian Post" is an interesting story in and of itself. It, the International Business Times and now, Newsweek, are being run by a shadowy outfit led by a former follower of Rev. Moon. I only mention the latter because it appears David Jang has taught some similar beliefs to his followers, like that he's the "Second Coming Christ".

If you read this article you might see why the Christian Post kept Hero's name in the article--for the clickbait.

http://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/0 ... david-jang

[ladyamylynn]

Obviously, a bit off topic, but has RC Sproul Jr. always looked like Mario Batali?