2 Kings 2:23-24: A story about what happens when you make fun of bald dudes
Proud to be a defender of the faith.
With that logic, we would have to have a “guilty until proven innocent” judicial system with vigilante justice against people accused of child abuse because our whole system is designed to be (relatively) fair to people accused of committing crimes.
Still not the same thing. We’re not talking about a 14 year old still living in the same environment as their abuser, we’re talking about a 31 year old not living in the same environment as their abuser.
That is not what I’m saying. I have no qualms with mandatory reporting when it comes to child abuse. I am simply explaining the law in Idaho, which states that a clergy members must have permission from a penitent in order to divulge the contents of a confession. I’m not saying it should be that way, I’m saying it is that way. That’s how it works right now, and that’s why Bishop Miller could not testify against John Goodrich.
Also, this is not a case of “I molested a child last week.” This is a case of “I molested a child a decade ago.” I’m not saying it’s less bad, I’m just saying it’s different. The urgency of removing a child from that situation doesn’t exist when the victim is no longer a child and no longer a subject of abuse.
I’m not sure it’s correct to call Discord spyware, but it certainly has privacy implications. https://nerdbot.com/2023/02/24/using-discord-consider-these-security-and-privacy-factors/
The problem is convincing other people to switch as well. There’s no point in me using Matrix if all of the people I want to communicate with only want to use Discord.
These laws are mostly from the early 19th century. It wasn’t necessary for religious interests to lobby back then because religion was ubiquitous at the time. And even if the laws were more recent, there is nothing inherently immoral or unethical about lobbying for legislation.
I don’t see how the assassination of a former president and current candidate would do anything good for the country. It might be a value add for our adversaries because it would certainly be destabilizing.
That’s what voting against Trump looks like.
These laws exist in nearly every state. Even California has a similar law, and you could hardly say that the Church has a significant influence on politics there.
Irrelevant. That’s not what happened. No child abuse could have continued to occur because the confession was made over a decade later. This isn’t a case of protecting a child who is currently being abused. It’s about prosecuting a past instance of abuse.
Like I said, reading comprehension. It’s like peoples brains melt when they see the word “Mormon” and they forget how to read.
Making blanket statements about an entire group being brainwashed certainly qualifies as a form of bigotry.
Reason failed you, and so you resorted to more bigotry and ad hominem attacks?
Sure, bud.
The last half of your response is bigoted, but I appreciate the words of logic about the issue at hand. I’m not aware of any situations where a bishop has been censured for reporting crimes that they became aware of through a confession, and from my own service in the Church I find such a thing unlikely.
So really, the risk to Bishop Miller in this case has very little, if anything to do with the Church and everything to do with the fact that it would be illegal for him to testify against John Goodrich, and even if he did, his testimony would be inadmissible.
Oh, I see. My guess is poor moderation.
You should probably brush up on your reading comprehension before engaging in debates online. You should also educate yourself on context before arguing about laws and their implications in a country with as different political paradigms from your own as the United States has. For example, there is no meaningful “freedom of speech” in the UK, while here it is largely held sacred on both sides of the political spectrum.
The law in question applies only to people in the US state of Idaho. It does not apply to people in California, Canada, or the UK. It applies to anyone, whether religious or not, who make confessions to members of the clergy in Idaho. It is assumed that one would only make such a confession because one is religious, but I suppose that isn’t necessarily always the case. However, saying that all people who are protected by this law are evil is saying that all people who confess to their clergy are evil. Which is a small-minded, ignorant, bigoted thing to say.
Note again that the law really only exists to protect penitents, not the members of the clergy.
I don’t think it’s appropriate to put a “but” after “people should feel safe in prison”. It implies that there are people who do not deserve safety while incarcerated.
The Fediverse is heavily far left-leaning. The far left is anti-Israel, and thus so are most Fediverse users.
Incorrect. The law protects the penitent by requiring their consent before the clergy member can divulge the contents of a private confession.
Wrong. The Bishop cannot divulge the contents of the confession without permission from the penitent.
The problem is these protections are designed to protect all of us, no matter what crimes we are accused of committing. They include the right to no incriminate yourself (5th Amendment), the right to due process of law (5th and 14th Amendments), and protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Calling me a bad-faith troll and accusing me of raping children doesn’t advance your argument, champ.