Clergy Privilege

Author: Danielle
Religion
Law
California
First Amendment

Posts

Total: 81
#61
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
We do not need our sacraments recognized or validated by law. Ours is a church of martyrs. When the powers that be encroach on us, we will peacefully resist, and even die for our beliefs.

The Soviet Union killed well over 20 million of us, as a low end estimate, and many martyrs were made. That is how we operate. If there are cowards who cave in, the church will move to the catacombs as it had to do in The Soviet Union and in places that persecuted us before.

#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Danielle
Before I respond, let me ask you a few questions. Suppose someone raped your mother.  The perpetrator confessed their crime to their Scientology auditor (the person who hears Scientologist confessions -- and by the way sometimes auditors are children). The auditor advises the perp to live a better life going forward. Does that qualify as justice to you?  Why do we send people to law enforcement instead of clergy when they do wrong? 
Firstly, justice to me is ensuring that the law is kept and if not that appropriate penalties and remedies are put into place to ensure that the breach has been as repaired as much as possible.  Sometimes this means trying to put people back into the position prior to the breach. Sometimes this is impossible - such as hypothetically a person being raped. In that instance - appropriate remedies can be negotiated. And if the breach committed is one which the perpetrator is likely to do again then appropriate penalties or rehabilitation ought to be put into place to try and ensure it never happens again. 

If someone raped my mother, then nothing is ever going to repair the damage to her.   Compensation will probably pay for some psychological sessions and perhaps enable her to try and find some happiness somehow. But it won't repair her. An appropriate punishment for the perpetrator also won't repair the damage to my mother.  Yes, depending upon what the punishment is -  it may well provide her a sense of vengeance or recrimination. But it won't repair her damage.  Like compensation - punishment can only do so much. But both fail in their endeavors to repair the damage.  Rehabilitation for the perpetrator may well assist in making sure the criminal won't do it again. But 99.9% of reform programs don't actually deal with the underlying issues and so it is very likely that the offender will continue to breach into the future. If they are put in prison - they form friendships with other criminals who will teach them how to get away with their crimes or whom they can brag to in the future. Prisons are the no. 1 education facility in the world for teaching criminals and we poor sucker taxpayers are making sure they get a very sophisticated and free education. 

I do not know how scientologists confessions work. For me it is not a Christian religion in the first place. It is a cult and pretty dangerous one at that. Nevertheless, if their practice is to hear confessions - and if people in their organization  on the basis of privilege - are confident that their confessions are not reported - then the only reason that any person or auditor will ever hear a confession is because of that privilege. BUT FOR the doctrine of privilege - no one will provide such a confession.  Without privilege there is ABSOLUTELY no incentive to confess, unless that person is so guilt ridden that they are seeking forgiveness from God. And if the latter situation is why they are there - then once the priest or auditor tells them to go to the police - then they would.  When people are in such a guilt ridden state that they require God's forgiveness - they will do everything they are told - in order to get that forgiveness.  

In your situation, the auditor tells the person to live a better life. Is that good advice or not? Certainly, it would be worse if they said to the criminal - don't worry about son - God loves you - go and do whatever you want.  There are no rules in life - just do what makes you feel good". True, the auditor in my view should tell this person to go and give himself into the police.  That is what I would do.  And moreover I would move to discuss with the appropriate persons in my organization - who also maintain the same privilege with me, that there will need to be strategies in place to make sure this person would be monitored in all circumstances. I would also ensure that there was counseling put into place - for this person to follow up and follow up and follow up. If the person identified the person he raped - then there would also be strategies put into place to assist in whatever fashion could be done for that person without letting her or him know that we had any idea about what was going on.  Probably anonymous donations provided to that person - (not out of guilt or even responsibility - but out of care and compassion for her and in accord with justice) 

As a lawyer, people often confess crimes to me - many by the way which are not actually crimes but a bad application of their understanding of the law. Too many people are what I call bush lawyers. They don't understand the law - and so immediately miss that crimes require two elements - the act and the intention behind it. Unless both elements are proved in court - the alleged perpetrator will walk without guilt. That is justice.  So - given that most clergy are not lawyers - for someone to confess to them they have committed a crime - the clergy does not know whether it is a crime or not because such is not their role as clergy.  For them to be made mandatory reporters in these situations will also put them into serious litigious scenarios. And whether the person confessing is doing it as a prank - which many teenage boys and girls do - or whether it is someone who does not have the mental capacity to realize that they are putting themselves in trouble when they really are not - the church and the clergy will be the one sued. 

Interestingly in that respect - in Victoria Australia, churches have the power to be sued - but do not have the power to sue. They have had all of their rights ripped away.   Is that justice? I say ABSOLUTELY NOT. It is a failure of justice and it is clearly being done with an intent to hurt the churches.  

We send people to law enforcement - because the STATE demands that it is satisfied. I don't send people to clergy for punishment - that would be absurd. This is why the place of clergy privilege is so important.  It is not the police. It is not the state. The church and the state should remain separate - yet - for some dumb reason people want to get rid of the separation and let the state tell the church what to do.   This in some ways - gives the church the right to tell the state what to do because it opens the door to the church and the state not being separate. But that is the implication of making it mandatory reporting or clergy from confessions.  And personally I think that is unjust. 
#63
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Danielle
For instance, if I said I shouldn't have to report child molestation that I know is occurring because of my devout Pastafarianism and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, would that be acceptable? And if you don't agree, explain why you think the 1st amendment does not apply to rape or child abuse.
Speech should not be coerced. Even if one were told of a crime, one is not obligated, least of all to the State, to divulge such information. One's reasons for withholding information are irrelevant.

As for the institutionalized pederasty (note that I did not state, "paedophilia") that takes place chiefly among the Roman Catholic elite, they do not venerate "God" but "Pan," the Greek incarnation of Lucifer who was both a Satyr and a notorious pederast. This sexual abuse is not an aberration; it's a ritual. And since the predominant "religion" on Earth is Luciferianism, led by none other than the Pope himself, the institution known as Roman Catholic "Church" has been insulated from effective legal response despite years of public scrutiny and hundreds of thousands of accusations and substantiated accounts.




#64
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
Speech should not be coerced. Even if one were told of a crime, one is not obligated, least of all to the State, to divulge such information. One's reasons for withholding information are irrelevant.

Even in instances where there is no privilege at all? For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort? I know that's not really the topic, but I'm curious. 
#65
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Even in instances where there is no privilege at all? For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort? I know that's not really the topic, but I'm curious. 
IT would not be anything more than hearsay evidence in a court of law. Police could not charge someone on the basis of such flimsy evidence. 

True, you can certainly report it.  But the police would require more than just your evidence of what you heard someone did.  That would not even be enough for a search warrant. 


#66
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@ludofl3x
Even in instances where there is no privilege at all?
The statement I made is by no means qualified by legal privilege. So, yes.

For example, if your friends tell you they robbed a bank and someone died, but they're pretty sure they got away with it, you don't think it's right that you're under legal obligation to report it, or be considered an accessory of some sort?
Yes. The law is supposed to reflect a moral economy, not extend the privileges doled out by the State. And if the State's priority in addressing tort takes precedence, then "privilege" should be irrelevant. Hence, law is just a mechanism reflecting the arbitrary interests of the State.

Topic's author
#67
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Mopac
But besides that, I stand on this not beimg a religious issue. No one should be forced to say anything they don't want to. If someone sees a murder, and would prefer to hide and keep it to themselves, that is their business.

Like I said, I understand your position. I disagree with it but think it makes more sense if you apply it to everyone and not just clergy. 


But in particular when it comes to our faith, the sacrament of confession cannot be overturned by secular laws. If secular laws encroach on the church, they are to be disobeyed.

I understand you believe this - I was just pointing out the state does not recognize all religious laws, and rightfully so. For instance a parent that does not seek medical treatment for their child due to religious beliefs can still be charged with negligence. And I'm sure you'd want it prosecuted if people started practicing female circumcision like they do in Africa due to their religious beliefs. 


And on that note, making laws requiring people to snitch on others is unenforceable to begin with.
It's about punishing people retroactively for not reporting. For instance if people find out that your teacher knew you were being molested but did not report it, the teacher would be fired. So it's not about enforcing so much as trying to deter people from silence with the threat of legal penalty. It's kinda sad you need this "threat" to do the right thing and report anyway. 

#68
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
Free speech includes the right to freely NOT speak.

Seems unconstitutional.

I hope these laws get overturned, because it is easy to justify really bad things under the pretense of protecting people.

It isn't a religious issue, but it does potentially effect us and may be an attack on the sacrament of confession.


Topic's author
#69
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Mopac
The law is on your side. Only 7 states consider clergy to be mandatory reporters. 

You didn't respond to my point about other people's illegal religious practices but that's okay. 
#70
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
I recall you mentioning polygamy. Other tban that, I don't recall.

I personally think the government should stay out of marriage all together.
#71
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@ethang5
But do not these good points all equally apply to the spiritual representation of the accused?
What is "spiritual representation"? 
#72
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Danielle
My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client). To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.
Topic's author
#73
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Mopac
The government can't stay out of marriage because of tax implications. I agree they should stop penalizing single people and remove the legal benefits of marriage. Contracts should suffice at establishing power of attorney, combining or dividing joint resources and other marital privileges. 

In addition to polygamy I gave the example of parents being prosecuted for negligence if their religion calls them to refuse their children medical attention. I also gave the example of female genital mutilation. It's common in Africa but actually practiced all over the world as a religious practice. Would you be okay with mutilating female babies in the U.S. due to their parent's religion? If you'd like I can link you to what that practice entails. 

Again it's possible you are okay with it because you believe anything should be allowed under the guise of religious freedom. 
Topic's author
#74
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client). To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.

That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know. 
#75
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
I don't believe that parents should be prosecuted for refusing medical treatment that goes against their faith.

That leads to a situation where for example, parents can be prosecuted for not getting their kids the Covid vaccine.

Topic's author
#76
Danielle
Danielle's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 2,049
3
3
4
Danielle's avatar
Danielle
3
3
4
-->
@Mopac
And what about mutilating a female baby? 
#77
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
I never said they should NOT be held culpable if the person across from them is a lawyer. So I don't know why you asked that question. 
If we implement your opinion, that is what will occur.

I never said a criminal should be "allowed to keep his crime a secret" either.
You said a criminal should be allowed to keep his crime a secret if he only tells his lawyer.

The pedophiles would be in JAIL if they were reported,...
Only AFTER molesting children! Being regulated by societies standards would not have made a bit of difference. Do you know that lawyers molest children too?

If you're saying you do not believe attorney-client privilege is a good thing, then that is an interesting but understandable position. Is that what you believe? 
I'm examining your beliefs, not stating mine. I see no reason why all your points for why attorney-client privilege is a good thing do not equally pertain to priests-parishioner privilede. Your beliefs do not seem to be consistent.

But I wholly disagree that priests should be given the same protections as lawyers because lawyers are governed and regulated by objective standards in society, whereas religious officials get to make up their own rules.
This is untrue. Both lawyers and priests are under the same state laws. Priests are not immune from any law that lawyers àre not.

There is no oversight. Lawyers are disbarred and prosecuted if they violate ethical standards. 
Not by the state. And priests care defrocked and prosecuted if they violate ethical standards. I think most of the public would still agree that lawyers are the most unethical people around.

So why does it matter if their religion is not recognized by the state if they place their religion above the state? 
Because the law says it matters.

You are misunderstanding.
I understand fine. I justvdisagree with the conclusion of the "study". Virtually every "study" today concludes something palatable to liberals. I know this cannot possibly be right because neither nature or science are politically correct. Your study is designed to validate the current group-think that absolves homosexuality of pedophilia.

Attraction to a PHYSICALLY MATURE 16 year old does not qualify as pedophilia.
It does under the law.

You don't even understand the premise of the study to be able to disagree with it lol.
I understand it just fine. It's just that liberals think anyone who disagrees with them must be misunderstanding because their liberal positions are so obviously right.

If most pedophiles are heterosexuals that are married to women, then it makes no sense whatsoever to say that GAYS in particular should be feared. 
I did not say gays should be feared. That is just your SJW paranoia making you think anyone not accepting your views is racist/bigoted/homophobic/transphobic or whatever other silly "-ism" is in vogue with progressives today.

I'm saying homosexuals should be treated just like heterosexual. Same freedoms and same restrictions.

About 1 in 7 girls and 1 in 25 boys will be sexually abused before their 18th birthday (again it looks like gays are not the problem after all).
1 in 25 is acceptable to you? Pedophiles are the problem, gay or straight.

Apparently it's not easy to figure out since it is incredibly rare to hold people accountable for these crimes.
How do you know this?

It's true that sexual predators will seek out kids that seem troubled or more likely to be ignored, but it is unequivocally wrong to suggest that "loopy progressive ideas" about parenting have anything to do with it.
If you look deeper into the cases that go to court, it's mostly parents who believed insane things like children be given contraceptives, 12 year olds be able to have abortions without parental notification, and 8 year olds deciding their gender. Liberal looniness.

You literally just made that up.
No sir. It's just that, for some reason, common sense is not common to liberals.

Grooming is a common practice for child molesters where they form close bonds with the parents and kids in order to be trusted.
And involved, conservative parents nip that in the bud right away.

So you agree that gay men are not more inclined to rape children than straight men since they are so alike. That's good.
It was your liberal PC bias that triggered you. I was never against gay men. My point was that gay men should have the same restrictions with boys that straight men have with girls. We don't know who pedophiles are, so we take precautions. That is just common sense.

But note it is not PC nonsense to accept reality and not be a bigot. That's just called common sense and human decency. Stick with that.
Lol! Welcome to my side. Don't worry, I'm a conservative, I will stick with that, as I always have.
#78
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Danielle
Female genital mutilation is not a religous practice as far as I know.

Male circumcision however is, and I don't believe it should be illegal.
#79
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Danielle
That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know. 
I think a nanny would be considered a mandatory reporter in most states. I imagine there might be a conflict of interest if spouses were required to report on each other. For instance - a spouse might endanger their own well-being (and that of the child) by reporting. 
#80
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Danielle
This is why we need one religion which has the underlying basis for our society.  

And this is why the secular worldview is unable to be this underlying basis. Secular thinking is too fluid. It has no objective points of stability - and is effectively a religion of polytheistic persuasions.  That is not calling it a religion (although I think it is)  but is noting that the implications of the secular position is polytheistic.  Only a monotheistic religion - whatever that might be - is capable of forming an underlying basis for the morality of a nation. 



#81
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Danielle
@SkepticalOne
But do not these good points all equally apply to the spiritual representation of the accused?

What is "spiritual representation"? 
What the government wishes to accommodate by placing pastors in the Army and prisons.

My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client).
And my question is what justifies this exception? All the answers currently given apply equally to priests.

To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.
Every exception does that. The only reasonable conclusion for your choice of exceptions seems to be your antireligious bias.

Skep - My view is that mandated reporting should be applied across the board (with exception to attorney-client). To allow any other exceptions creates an unnecessary foothold for privilege and abuse.

Danni - That would make sense for people who support the mandate. It's interesting that a teacher is considered a mandatory reporter but a nanny isn't, or that a mother wouldn't be legally required to report her husband or something. It seems if the logic stands for one adult it would stand for all adults that are in-the-know. 
This is my argument! And lawyers are "in -the-know". Either make it for everyone, or any exception can be legally mandated.