What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The States: Maybe A National Divorce Is A Good Idea After All

Status
Not open for further replies.
Proud2baLaker said:
Apparently there was/is a law that allows for clergy confidentiality, but now they have decided it also includes child abuse. Which given so many church's pasts, seems like a great idea.

Things like murder, assault, child abuse, grand theft/fraud, etc should absolutely not be protected by this.
Click to expand...

It's been that way forever. A clergy cannot be compelled to testify as to anything that comes up in confession. (The law is somewhat changing depending on the State)

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/c...h%20confession.

The court ruled (at least on the surface) correctly.

As the grandson of a rabbi I have very mixed emotions about this...
 
But a church isn't a confessor, it's just another racket.

We should never compel a priest or minister or rabbi to divulge confession. But a church's records are just business documents. They aren't sacred. F-ck them.
 
Kepler said:
But a church isn't a confessor, it's just another racket.

We should never compel a priest or minister or rabbi to divulge confession. But a church's records are just business documents. They aren't sacred. F-ck them.
Click to expand...

That is something different. Circumstances of how the info comes to light are absolutely critical.

Moving a priest to another parish to cover up his rep in the old parish is absolutely something that needs to be reported.

The priest confiding in another while actively looking for religious forgiveness for these transgressions is something that should NOT be reported.
 
LynahFan said:
To protect the parishioner, I can be slightly* more sympathetic to. But we’re talking about the church learning of the *church’s* guilt. Totally different ballgame.

*if I’m a priest, and someone confessed to an unsolved murder, it would take me about 13 attoseconds to do the math that tells me that the compassionate, loving thing to do in that situation would be to turn that ****er in, even if I’m not required to.
Click to expand...

And you'd be defrocked shortly thereafter, just like a lawyer would face disbarment or a doctor possibly losing his license.

Easy to say that until it's your career and professional ethics on the line. If your personal ethics mean you can't hold that confidential, then you should avoid careers where you'll learn that kind of confidential information.
 
Last edited:
So religion gets to play by a different set of rules? If I learn of a crime then I'm aiding by not coming forward with this information, but if I'm a priest of the 69th cult of Zimidipididoo, then it is totally fine to not say anything? Is that what is happening, and is that the way it should be?
 
Bronco said:
So religion gets to play by a different set of rules? If I learn of a crime then I'm aiding by not coming forward with this information, but if I'm a priest of the 69th cult of Zimidipididoo, then it is totally fine to not say anything? Is that what is happening, and is that the way it should be?
Click to expand...

The law allows certain privileges, and has so for centuries. The most common of which are:
attorney-client
doctor-patient
priest-penitent
spousal

The privileges are allowed because the law recognizes that certain relationships demand utmost honesty and forthrightness, and believes it's better to allow people to talk in confidence in such situations without worrying about it later being used against them in a court of law. So yes, confessing your sins to a priest/rabbi/imam/whatever is privileged and not forcibly discoverable, but confessing to your work colleague is not.
 
Memphis, TN has re-appointed their defenestrated State Rep, by a unanimous vote.

The unanimity I find remarkable. We can't get 5 people to agree that the sky is blue.
 
unofan said:
The law allows certain privileges, and has so for centuries. The most common of which are:
attorney-client
doctor-patient
priest-penitent
spousal

The privileges are allowed because the law recognizes that certain relationships demand utmost honesty and forthrightness, and believes it's better to allow people to talk in confidence in such situations without worrying about it later being used against them in a court of law. So yes, confessing your sins to a priest/rabbi/imam/whatever is privileged and not forcibly discoverable, but confessing to your work colleague is not.
Click to expand...

This is a very good explanation.
 
unofan said:
The law allows certain privileges, and has so for centuries. The most common of which are:
attorney-client
doctor-patient
priest-penitent
spousal

The privileges are allowed because the law recognizes that certain relationships demand utmost honesty and forthrightness, and believes it's better to allow people to talk in confidence in such situations without worrying about it later being used against them in a court of law. So yes, confessing your sins to a priest/rabbi/imam/whatever is privileged and not forcibly discoverable, but confessing to your work colleague is not.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And it isn't new, it has been around almost as long as the country has.
 
Swansong said:
Memphis, TN has re-appointed their defenestrated State Rep, by a unanimous vote.

The unanimity I find remarkable. We can't get 5 people to agree that the sky is blue.
Click to expand...

That's because the Republicans didn't show up. Two were out of the country and the other 4 decided to not appear.
 
The use of County and State funds to lead police on a wild cross state chase to track down and murder a stolen goat continues to draw digital ink to the screen. Vox has a new article with how 4H indoctrinates children into being merciless killers. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23669586/goat-girl-4-h-shasta-county-seizure

I don't know how to just put the right words down for how I feel about this. What amazes me continually is the wide spectrum in how humans treat animals. For some, placing a slug between the eyes of an animal and moving on about your day isn't a problem. Some have no problem tying up a dozen dogs to a tree, walking away, then (thankfully?) calling the local county humane society and telling them "I'm done hunting, come get these dogs or they'll just die tied to a tree," and hang up. Others treat animals as family members (close or distant).

There has to be some middle ground for cases like this 4H kid.

But, yes, yes, cruelty is the point of Republicans.
 
aparch said:
The use of County and State funds to lead police on a wild cross state chase to track down and murder a stolen goat continues to draw digital ink to the screen. Vox has a new article with how 4H indoctrinates children into being merciless killers. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23669586/goat-girl-4-h-shasta-county-seizure

I don't know how to just put the right words down for how I feel about this. What amazes me continually is the wide spectrum in how humans treat animals. For some, placing a slug between the eyes of an animal and moving on about your day isn't a problem. Some have no problem tying up a dozen dogs to a tree, walking away, then (thankfully?) calling the local county humane society and telling them "I'm done hunting, come get these dogs or they'll just die tied to a tree," and hang up. Others treat animals as family members (close or distant).

There has to be some middle ground for cases like this 4H kid.

But, yes, yes, cruelty is the point of Republicans.
Click to expand...

Animal Curelty is the one crime that deserves to be punished by "An eye for an eye".
 
Kepler said:
That should be in every Dem HQ in the country.

If they had any brains it would be in every GOP HQ, too.
Click to expand...

I said to my GF that will be the picture that is at the start of a chapter in a history book about now. It's perfect!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top