Washington Democrats are adding a fifth stage for confessions under a new law. If passed, examination, confession, absolution, and penance will be followed by arrest. The blatantly unconstitutional legislation would target priests who learn of any “reasonable” basis to believe that a child “has suffered abuse or neglect.” Putting aside the obvious violation of the sanctity of the confessional, it presents a novel problem for priests if they both encourage the faithful to unburden themselves while at the same time reminding them anything that they say can and will be used against them in a court of law.
The bill would amend the state law that currently applies to law enforcement, teachers, medical professionals or child care providers to report cases of child abuse or neglect. Clergy would be added to the list. The sponsors would also exempt clergy from the exception afforded to lawyers and others who obtain information “solely as a result of a privileged communication.”
The law would apply to any “ordained minister, priest, rabbi, imam, elder, or similarly situated religious or spiritual leader of any church, religious denomination, religious body, spiritual community, or sect, or person performing official duties that are recognized as the duties of a member of the clergy.”
In my view, the law is facially unconstitutional as an attack on the free exercise of religion.
Canon law imposes a “sacramental seal” over the confessional that is treated as “inviolable.” Accordingly, under Canon 983.1, “it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.”
In 1813 in New York, the clergy-penitent privilege faced an early challenge in People v. Philips. In that case, Fr. Anthony Kohlmann learned in the confessional about two people who had stolen jewelry and convinced them to turn over stolen goods to him. He then returned the goods to the victims. However, after the thieves were later arrested, state prosecutors sought to force Fr. Kohlmann to testify. The court, however, ruled that he was constitutionally exempt.
Putting aside the unconstitutionality, it is a law that is ripe for abuse. The state would be using the church as an agent to compel confessions on the threat of damnation and then turn over the evidence to the police. Worse yet, if the priest does not give a type of ministerial Miranda, the confessant may not realize the danger. However, it is rather hard for a priest to say that a person must confess their sin while reminding them of the right to remain silent.
Years ago, I represented Quenton Brown in the case of Brown v. Butler. The issue before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was the use of a police psychiatrist to examine Brown, who had a 51 IQ. The doctor then testified against him. We prevailed in establishing that the doctor was an agent of the police and, as such, was required to give Miranda before any examination.
The danger in the Brown case was that the doctor was viewed by the defendants as a medical expert offering therapeutic services. The environment encouraged defendants to disregard their right to remain silent, even after an invocation with police.
This would be Brown on steroids. The priest is there to see to the faith and moral health of an individual. In an effort to avoid damnation, the confessant risks incrimination.
It is a chilling effort to convert priests into sacramental snitches. Even more chilling is that it is clearly part of a broader effort by Democrats with similar laws pushed in states like Montana.
The Supreme Court recognized in cases like Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) that the government may not “unduly infringe” free exercise. This does not mean that religious figures are exempt from “[c]onduct [that] remains subject to regulation for the protection of society.” citing Reynolds as authority. However, even with a religiously neutral law, it cannot be applied without a “compelling” public purpose. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). That is a high standard but the Court rejected many exemptions and ultimately handed down Employment Division v. Smith in 1990, holding that the Free Exercise Clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”
That decision led Congress to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which exempts persons from any law that imposes a substantial burden on sincere religious beliefs or actions unless the government can show that the law is the “least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling governmental interest.”
In 1993, the Court ruled in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah that a local ordinance against the “unnecessary” killing of animals in a “ritual or ceremony” was unconstitutional.
The Court also later handed down Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. in 2014, allowing a commercial family-owned corporation to refuse to participate in the “contraception mandate.”
In my view, the Washington State law is a frontal attack on free exercise and would be struck down if enacted. The only question is why Democrats consider such legislation to be any more viable politically than it is constitutionally.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Since I am here, I decided to do an Irish Poem. I am a bit rusty, but here goes –
Dirty Harry Paternoster???
or, Cross Fire???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter
There once was a Pedo named Ben,
Who decided to confess his sin!
Father Bob heard all that,
Then pulled out his gat –
And, Ben? He will ne’er sin again!
@Svelaz
You sure have a lot of time on your hands for all of your personas. Makes it difficult to believe you are not either a trust fund baby or paid to post. Your words amount to zero, we have seen this sh*tshow before.
???
Huh???
OT
The absolute end and final corrupt act of the judicial branch will be when the Supreme Court “decides” that federal enforcement of federal immigration law is inferior to state “sanctuary” laws.
BOLO
Washington state bill aims to respect Confession, still mandate abuse reporting
For the second time in as many years, the state of Washington will vote on a bill that would require priests to report allegations of child abuse or neglect.
By: J-P Mauro ~ 01/31/24
https://aleteia.org/2024/01/31/washington-state-bill-aims-to-respect-confession-still-mandate-abuse-reporting
The seal of confession: What it is and why it should be protected[Circa 2017]
The seal of confession is among a priest’s chief weapons in thwarting Satan’s plot.
By: Fr. Christopher Seiler ~ 09/02/2017
https://aleteia.org/2017/09/02/the-seal-of-confession-what-it-is-and-why-it-should-be-protected
DC lawmakers consider requiring priests to report child abuse revealed in confessional[Circa 2018]
Move would raise religious liberty issues
By: Zelda Caldwell ~ 12/31/2018
[Link] aleteia.org/2018/12/31/dc-lawmakers-consider-requiring-priests-to-report-child-abuse-revealed-in-confessional
While this is stupid on the part of the State of Washington. Catholic priests are just NOT going to cooperate.
You can throw them in jail. They are not going to violate the seal of the confessional.
“You can throw them in jail. They are not going to violate the seal of the confessional.”
It is odd to consider concealing a crime to be “free exercise.” It is a worthwhile debate as to where the line is: probably somewhere between shoplifting and murder!
If the complaint is that some paedo’s soul may be denied absolution, tough freaking luck.
It is not about absolution. The seal of the confessional extends to those that a priest denies absolution.
It is about many things – but high among those is that the seal of confession encourages these people to come forward and seek help.
If you confess a crime to a priest they will tell you – possibly even require you to report yourself in order to receive absolution.
They will provide you with help. Would you prefer that these people not seek help ?
While there is a specific religious element in the protection of clergy. And it appears that WA does not also protect psychiatrists, while most places do. The objective is to encourage people to seek help.
I would note that there are TWO elements to this – mandated reporting and giving evidence.
Only a few specific occupations are mandated reporters.
If your friend confesses a crime to you – you are NOT legally obligated to come forward.
But you CAN be forced to testify that your friend confessed to you – even though that is hearsay.
For much of western history no one was a mandated reporter, and specific professions – lawyers, counselors, and priests were either formally or informally protected from being compelled to testify.
Today we are headed in the wrong direction.
We want troubled people to seek help.
As an example – a significant portion of mass killers are paranoid schizophrenics.
Yet paranoid schitzophrenics are only about twice as likely to commit crimes as the population as a whole.
That would be about the same crime rate as blacks.
But in many states if you go to a shrink and are diagnosed as a paraniod schitozophrenic you will lose your right to own firearms.
Even the current supreme court has upheld that. Most paranoid schitzophrenics are functional members of society.
That is just one of many examples.
We want troubled people to seek help. It is far more dangerous if they do not.
Yet we are busy passing laws that punish them for doing so.
Render unto Caesar…
Getting help is not a priority for criminals, getting them off the street is what matters. Once society is safe from the crazies(like BLM, paedophiles, Antifa) then help is an option.
Free exercise nonsense
Why is today’s crop of Republicans okay with people being oppressed?
What does this even mean ?
You live in the US – if you are a black trans witch you are still the least oppressed as you could be anywhere in the world and at any time in history.
Regardless, you are entitled to equal treatment under the law – you are not entitled to be liked respected or to have your free choices embraced by others.
Respect is something that one must EARN. It is NOT an entitlement.
Support for your free choices – is also something that must be earned – and in fact you may NOT be able to earn.
I am free to disrespect you because of the poor choices you make.
Most of those on the left who rant about oppression are merely upset because the rest of us do not respect their free choices.
John Say,
“Most of those on the left who rant about oppression are merely upset because the rest of us do not respect their free choices.”
Got that right!!
This entire nonsense of the left is absurd and incredibly illogical.
I have zero problems with people being gay or trans. h311 despite the fact that only between 5-10% of the population is gay,
somehow in my life being straight puts you in the minority.
That said we do not know and we are not even allowed to know whether being gay or trans is a choice or it is genetic.
We generally do not allow discrimination based on immutable characteristics, Though barring PRIVATE discrimination for most any reason is stupid and a mistake. Free markets naturally punish any form of discrimination that is not routed on a meaningful basis.
The left forgets that Jim Crow was a system of laws to FORCE markets to discriminate – because they were NOT discriminating enough without those laws. Discrimination that has no meaningful basis cures itself over time.
But back to my point – the left tells us that we can not discriminate against someone because of their identity.
Leaving it totally ambiguous whether that identity is a choice or something immutable.
Yet they DEMAND that people are discriminated against because they “identify” as conservatives or republicans or straight or just normal.
ANYTHING that is a choice we are each individually free to elevate as virtuous OR denigrate as vile.
The topic of this article is the law that defines sex with children as vile and criminal.
I am not trying to defend sex with children. All I am pointing out is that there is no logical means to distinguish that from transsexuality or homosexuality. Sex with children has historically been societally punished and accepted at various different times historically.
There are probably more times historically when it was accepted than when homosexuality or transsexuality was accepted.
That would be especially true as it relates to teens – in the past marraiges often occured with teens as young as 11.
In some islamic cultures that still occurs legally and with the blessing of society.
Again I have no problems with homosexuality or trans-sexuality – whether they are choices or genetic.
But the lefts Ideology which REQUIRES acceptance – even celebration of ONE choice or “identity” yet denigrates others, is illogical and hypocritical. It also rests on shifting sands. Nothing precludes the left from tomorrow deciding that pedophilia is just another identity that should be embraced and respected.
Who is being oppressed? Could you be more specific?
“. . . priests who learn of any “reasonable” basis to believe that a child “has suffered abuse or neglect.”
There is no “but” after that. For either party.
I’m Fr Frederick Von Hellzing
My specialty includes, but is not limited to exorcisms, paranormal activities, UFO abductees, Democrat demons, vampires and werewolves.
I always tell my clients to put a zing in your step.
# yes, they do dream horrific dreams, don’t they. Amazing fear and coercion…
Why do I always get that “inquisition” feeling every time a democrat creates a new law? I believe that they, just as any other cult member, cannot see themselves as anything other than warriors for their cult’s cause – much like the Manson cult, the Dominican monks, or your typical islamic jihadist. Push the infidel ( non-prog believers) out of existence so that the world can become a perfect, progressive caliphate.
Don’t worry priests, the idea of examination, confession, absolution, and penance might be under scrutiny, but you’ll still be able to — just like religious leaders of Baptist, Hindu, and Muslim faiths — f*ck all the kids you want. Epstein’s pal, Trump, has got your back.
Crybaby loser^^*
You’re multi-tasking. Monitoring the comment section while you’re banging a kid.
Please seek help for your advanced TDS before it eats away what is remaining of your brain stem. Your stay at a detox center will also raise the general IQ of this site by at least 20 points.
Your cover for child molestation duly noted.
Epsteins pal was Bill Clinton.
BREAKING NEWS
Local Episcopal Church Announces 327 New Bible Study Groups For All The Genders
CINCINNATI, OH — St. Arthwyn’s Episcopal Church of Cincinnati has just expanded its discipleship offerings with 327 new Bible study groups for all the different genders that constitute the parish’s laity.
According to Marilynn Fromson, who has called herself the bishop of St. Arthwyn’s for the past twelve years after her ordination in the Episcopal Church, the update was long overdue.
“We’re just so excited to be able to keep spreading the word by including all the genders,” Fromson told congregants last Sunday. “Here at St. Arthwyn’s, we’re entirely committed to making sure that every gender is represented in our small-group offerings. We believe that offering a Bible study option for each gender will prove to be nourishing and encouraging for all our friends of faith.”
According to Fromson, the Bible studies will all follow the same curriculum: a resource from the Protestant Episcopalian Church in the United States of America entitled “JUDGE NOT.”
“This is a great followup to our previous study on Jesus’ concern for transgender racial minorities,” Fromson said. “Come and see how God wants us all to love one another by not judging each other.”
At publishing time, the only Bible study with regular attendance was still the Women’s Study.
“327 new Bible study groups for all the different genders…”
Sounds like The Bee🤣🤣🤣
“Marilyn Fromson”
🙂
Marilyn Manson and squeaky Fromm???
No, it wasn’t me. I am Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter. I still read the things here, but Penelope Dreadful keeps me too busy to comment. I have been thinking about cranking up The Birther Think Tank again, because the 14th Amendment will be in the news a lot over the next few years.
Penelope even wants to start up Pansies For Plato. But it was hard to stay ahead of the stupidity curve since the Commie Crazies went all apesh!t.
I do miss doing the Irish Poems.
Is she related to/married to, that bishop at the Washington Cathedral. Just how did the Episcopal Church go so far in to the ditch of apostasy?
As a physician we have certain physician patient confidentially rules but not the degree that a priest or minister has. The are some states that compel us to report conditions that pose a danger to others who are not our patients.
This was often the case in TB infections such as in Texas a patient could be compelled to reside in a TB hospital in the eastern part of the state if they were not adhering to treatment and the doctors treating that patient would verify it and report this to the health board. This was not only because they were a threat to the health of other people but also because inadequate or partial treatment led to drug resistance and that made treatment even more difficult. That was many years ago and I have no idea if it is still the law.
Some states required notification of the license branch if a person was having seizures and were not controlled and were a danger for obvious reasons. But our confidentiality was conditional and in no way approached that of a person and their priest. And states varied a great deal in what they did and did not require of physicians.
I don’t always like the result but even I would be very hesitent to try to breach that confidentiality between person and priest. I feel that the state of Washington is less interested in children and more interested in making a political statement.
One question I would have for the state of Washington is “Are physicians or priests compelled to report other physicians or parents or teachers who are pushing minor children towards castrating surgeries and puberty delaying hormones?”.
Especially now that more and more data is showing that gender affirming drugs and surgery is built on a foundation of shifting sand.
GEB is hitting the Black Russians bright and early this morning
He seems to think that society has an interest in “protecting” children from certain medical procedures, but no interest in protecting children by requiring priests to report child abuse.
Hypocrisy.
I think he’s just pointing out the hypocrisy.
“I think he’s just pointing out the hypocrisy.”
Which it it. And which has no bearing on the validity of their argument.
And now the other side is being just a hypocritical.
Anonymous 9:58AM
Appreciate your note.
Anonymous 9:42 AM just has an ongoing rage reaction and makes you wonder why he persists in coming to this column. His seething rage bubbles over so often he cannot understand hypocrisy, subtlety, disagreement, give and take. Only name calling and insults and unfocused rage. Nothing good will come of this.
Anonymou9:42AM
Once again you are confabulating, and how is it hypocrisy when the difference is in our interpretation of what child abuse and gender affirming care is. I regard it as outright child abuse and mutilation while you obviously do not. I practiced based on biological truths that have withstood the test of time. I am not sure what you based your practice on especially when this “illness” seems to be in specific pods around the county and is not generalized and especially seems more a cultural phenomenon that a surgical disease.
Your suppressed anger just tends to get worse and worse as you toss out pointless accusations and basically name calling based on the paucity of your scientific understanding . Like I have said before. Seek help soon.
Besides I only answer for myself and the priests have to answer for themselves and the state of Washington should tread lightly on this. They are going to waste taxpayers money defending a sure loser but what the hell, I don’t live in Washington and never will.
GEB
I made no assertions about whether gender affirming surgery constitutes child abuse.
You have simply made an unjustifiable assumption about my views, probably because the Black Russians are kicking in.
Unfortunately, in your inebriated state you completely missed the point of my comment.
My point is this.
If you regard child molestation and gender affirming care as equally egregious forms of child abuse, then you have to condemn both equally.
If children must be protected from gender affirming care, then they must also be protected from other forms of abuse. Every normal, civilized human being has an absolute responsibility to report child abuse in all its forms to the relevant authorities when they become aware of it. You cannot carve out an exception for the clergy in the name of freedom of religion. That proposition is absurd.
Reporting child abuse has no relevance to freedom of religion.
You are vehement in your assertion that gender affirming care is child abuse.
You are less vehement about requiring clergy to report child abuse. Although you do not explicitly state that clergy should be exempt, you imply this view with your comments that “I would be very hesitent to try to breach that confidentiality between person and priest”, and ” the state of Washington should tread lightly on this. They are going to waste taxpayers money defending a sure loser”.
The fact that you are not entirely convinced that clergy have a responsibility to report child abuse, while vehemently decrying gender affirming care as child abuse indicates a significant dichotomy of opinion.
As I said, you seem to think that society has an interest in protecting children from medical procedures, but you are not certain that society has an interest in protecting children by requiring clergy to report abuse.
Therein lies the hypocrisy.
You are not a Dr., just a retired RN. Too much time on your hands for sure
# I presume there isn’t doctor patient confidentiality with the exception of insurance billing violations.
Or consider billionaire Scott Bessent, Trump’s new Treasury secretary (who’s been allowing Musk’s rats into the federal payments system). Turns out, Bessent paid no Medicare taxes on income he earned through his hedge fund (a practice the IRS has deemed illegal).
So an anon is making wild claims about Trumps secs. Why do I not believe it?
Medicare and Social security taxes are only paid on income. Profits from investments are not income.
Income is wages earned for labor.
None of this is new. The distintion between investment and wages is almost as old as humanity.
Regardless the fact is that government must fund itself somehow. We will ALWAYS be seeking some means of levying taxes that produces sufficient revenue to operate the govenrment, but that does NOT allow government to rapidly consume everything produced.
You rant about Bessent not paying Medicare taxes, yet the Billionaire class in the US pays about 25% of the cost of operating the government.
The bottom 50% in the US pay less than 2% of all taxes. While that might sound “fair” – and as a practical matter we should exempt the bottom 50% from taxes entirely as the cost to collect is higher than the revenue from that collection. But that poses a different and massive moral hazard problem.
When those who receive a benefit do not directly or indirectly pay for that benefit that ALWAYS results in over consumption – this is just the laws of supply and demand in action, and the laws of supply and demand are immutable – you can not wish or legislate them away.
You raised the issue of medicare – medicare is the perfect example of the problems of moral hazard – we have guaranteed medical care to people who pay little or nothing for that medical care and the result since medicare passed has been massive overconsumption of medical services without any discernable benefit, and a concurrnet rapid increase int eh cost of medical care – because that is what happenes when you explode demand on a constrained supply.
Medicare is responsible for 100% of the increased cost of healthcare since its inception.
I would further note with respect to Bessent that he contributes far more to medicare than you do.
LBJ ended the separation of medicare and SS from the general fund. All tax money collected goes into the general fund. All expenses are paid out of the general fund. There is no “locked box” for SS and Medicare that Al Gore used to claim. Since Obama Medicare has been int he red – it pays out more each year than it collects. The deficit is made up by the taxes of those Like Bessent – who pays more in taxes each hour than you do for a full year.
All you are is envious that you are not Bessent.
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Shakespeare.
You are not Bessent. Or Musk or Trump.
They are different than you and as a result are both far more successful and contribute far more to the betterment of the world than you
Including paying far more of the cost of governemnt than you.
John Say- always enjoy your notes although you tend to get a little overexcited at times and your typing and spelling suffer. Not a criticism, just an acknowledgement.
ObamaCare was and is not affordable and basically is a scam. Obama actually had the votes and examples of excellent national health plans but chose this abomination called The Affordable Care Act. Micromanagement at its worst. There were some good points but obviously it saved no money and actually was never designed to do so. And Mr Gruber who designed it, designed health plans but never administered them and day to day management and administration is where health plans either fail or succeed.
And flexibility because it is game theory all the way with action -reaction- changing targets, and novel responses. You basically have to asses and change your plan almost on a yearly basis.
GEB
Thank you.
First I am not paid to write here.
I am paid to write among other things – and when I am – I put a great deal of effort – not just into my the thoughts and words I write by the spelling and grammar. I have two papers published in ACM, I have half a dozen magazine articles in technical magazines, and I have a number of editorials in technical magazines – though nothing near what Turley has.
In my home/office I have computers all over. Some I use to post from. Laptops, phones ipads. desktops.
Each pose a variety of different issues. As one example on about half the devices I use I have wireless keyboards and mice.
Periodically wireless keyboards still or drop characters, It is annoying especially when programming which is ONE of the things I do both for a living and for pleasure. But when I post in places like Turley’s blog. most of the time I ignore the keyboard errors.
I will spend the time writing – not fixing the problems. Further there appears to be no way to go back and edit a comment once you hit post.
Periodically I find an error that I really would like to go back and correct – I do sometimes re-read my own comments.
But alas it is impossible, or atleast I do not know how, and again I would rather spend time writing than editing.
There are other issues. I type constantly. In HS I barely passed typing – we had to be able to do 10words a minute with only 1 error per minute. I have no idea how I eacked by on the typing tests. I managed the other assignments because my family owned a business and we had IBM correcting selectric typewriters that I used to tediously complete my school work.
Today I type probably about 60wpm. But I am a self taught hunt and peck 10 finger typist. Part of that is lack of interest, Part of it is that typing on a computer – particularly for programming works differently than business typing.
I have had to support and train secretaries at the family business (long gone). And they are shocked to seem my fingers flying all over a keyboard defying the way they have been taught.
Very briefly I used a DVORAK keyboard on my personal computer – it was fantastic the error rate went way down. there are several non-qwerty keyboards that are designed to optimize finger movements and to make common sequences have clean rhythms.
Unfortunately using a DVORAK keyboard slowed me back down to under 10WPM on a QWERTY keyboard and shot my error rate through the roof.
Many of the typing errors I make would go away – if we just adopted keyboards that did not actiuvely interfere with typing.
So much for my rant on typing.
With respect – I am not going to change. But maybe in the future AI can come though and cleanup my mistakes prior to posting.
Nobody really gives a shit why your posts are hard to read.
Naw, you’re not paid to write here. So what? Is that supposed to be logic? None of us are. Well, except the lefty trolls. But we take enough care to make our shit readable.
If the only thing anyone put diligence into was what they got paid for, i reckon we would be in a world of hurt.
Do better.
Turley affords you a place to express yourself. Stop crapping all over it.
GEB – with respect – not only was PPACA the mistake you claim, the consequences of PPACA are a massive consolidation in Healthcare.
That is a common result when Government meddles. Ultimately that makes things cost more not less. That is precisely what we have with Big Pharma. I am absoltuely positively NOT opposed to big business of any kind. But I am absolutely opposed to market contratints that inevitably destroy small and media businesses in favor of big business.
In a working market businesses are constantly born and die or grow and die, or grow more and die.
Most of the to 10 largest businesses in the country when I was born are gone. Many giants like AT&T or IBM are still hear but are dwarfed by businesses that did not exist decades ago., That is how free markets work.
Government intentionally or otherwise cuts the bottom out of the free market. They make the birth of new businesses harder,. they make growth harder. More and more domains that govenrment enters become exactly like the pharmacuetical industry – the exclusive domain of multibillion dollar businesses. That is not good for anyone. But it is an inevitable consequence of government involvement in free markets.
PPACA is not the worst thing govenrment has ever done – but it has move the healthcare industry one step closer to where we are with big pharma.
PPACA increased consolidation in heatlhcare, decreased innovation and increased costs.
Pretty much anything governemtn would have done would have had some slightly different permutation of the same results.
I understand and agree with your criticism of Gruber – but I reject your and his premise that. top down healthcare (or most anything in the economy) is going to work over the long run.
Free markets are dynamic – as I noted – the giants of yesterday are gone or dwarfs today. When my kids are my age they are going to be wondering what happened to google, amazon, Apple. They will be gone or far less consequential. If that is NOT the case it would only be because government stepped in.
Decades ago Leonard Read wrote “I, Pencil” – today you can find it on video, or myriads of permutations of the same story – “I, Whiskey” , I, Toaster”, … the gist is that economies are unbeleivably complex – even the simplest things like a pencil are incredibly complex economically. It is probably not possible for one individual to make a decent simple pencil. Yet we produce them by the billions for next to nothing.
ONE point – by far not the only one is that markets are dynamic and top down management thwarts that.
The solution to american health care is to get govenrment out of it entirely. Short of catastrophic failure – which history actually shows us does an EXCELLENT job of clearing out failed top down systmes and rapidly returning to working free markets. Regardless short of catastrophic failure that is not happening.
But we can – unfortunately with great difficulty diminish the top down management of out systems.
You claim that there were know better ways than Mr. Gruber was aware – and you are likely right – probably many of them.
And that is part of my point. You are certain that you know of a way that would have been better.
But the way we find what works best – is in competitive free markets – if your management approach was best – it would prevail.
But again markets are dynamic – and top down management is not.
Even if your idea was an improvement – inevitably over time that would change – markets are dynamic – because the world is dynamic because humans are dynamic. No approach proves best forever.
Free markets – less government means that we are constantly improving – that there is no best way. Just constant improvement.
I try hard (and sometimes fail) to avoid saying “This is the best way to manage a market”. It is easy particularly as a theoretical excercise to come up with something better than whatever is. But anything imposed will ultimately be static, and will prove inferior to what evolves in a free market.
I noted that often catastrophic failure works out much better than we fear.
One reason is that restoring free and dynamic markets rapidly meets peoples needs – even when things have gone to h311.
But trying to make markets a little bit more free is actually harder. When you do things in tiny increments – there are inumerable 2nd and 3rd order impacts. While moving towards free markets USUALLY works better than moving towards more top down ones.
There is only a probability – not a certainty that incremental steps towards free markets will not have 2nd and 3rd order failures just as bad as the 2nd and 3rd order failures of more top down.
Top down managed markets that work better than free markets are impossible. And it is NOT inherently true that slightly less top down iwill be better than slightly more top down – though the odds favor that.
I am not trying to challenge your claim that there was a better approach than PPACA.,
Only that the only certain way to know what works best is in the freest possible market.
We need experts to find better ways to do things.
But it is free markets that ultimately determine whether they were right or not
We recently went through a mess with Covid.
The problem was not the advice provided to us by “experts”. it was implimenting that advice by force rather than allowing all the experts to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
There is actually logical reasons why the advice of “experts” proved to be wrong with covid – though being so nearly universally wrong was surprising. But the problem was not the advice of experts – but the supression of the views of differing experts or even ordinary people. Een free markets require short sellers to keep the best of us from sabatoging ourselves with self delusion.
it is not an accident that the financial markets total meltdown occured immediately after paulson limited short selling.
Alan greenspan was the best FED chair we ever had. He presided over the longest period of sustained prosperity in our history.
He was also the worst – because he ultimately came to beleive in his own press. Witht he result that he created the housing bubble and the disaster that followed.
By far the most dangerous error that we can make economically is to be just a tiny bit off – to be near perfect, and to continue in that near perfect direction uninterupted for a long time. Both the great depression and the great depression were cause by small monetary errors compounded over a decade. Truly free markets are dynamic – they do not go in the same direction for long periods of time.
# It’s so fun to watch really intelligent people think out of the box.
Anyway, the dems have resorted to violence. Predictable…
The IRS does not decide what the law is.
Congress writes the laws – they decide what is and is not taxed, The IRS enforces the law as written, and the courts determine if the law is constitutional and if it is being constitutional enforced and enforced as written.
There is no perfect means to tax. Every single form of taxation or tax law will cover somethings and not others.
We choose tax income – money paid in return for labor one way. While taxing profits – the money earned from the investment of capitol another.
Doing so is wise. All taxes are economically harmful, but all are not equally harmful.
Taxes on consumption are just about the least harmful. Taxes on investment are the most economically harmful.
The objective is to fund govenrment while doing the least possible harm to the economy.
Why don’t we wish to harm the economy – while that should be obvious, but because a weak economy means a declining standard of living and a strong economy means a rising standard of living.
This type of cognitive dissonance is what happens when politicians treat personal power as their god and the government as their personal vehicle to increasing power. The Constitution does not appear on their radar screen.
“The Constitution does not appear on their radar screen.”
Please do point out where in the Constitution it grants religious leaders immunity from civil law.
“You can dance with Satan, but he will always lead.”
Relevance please?
Illegal immigrant is drawn to sanctuary state. Seeks the further sanctuary of confessional. Then prosecuted for the confession. Then released on no cash bail. A day in the life of a George Soros justice Bedlam.
Just this morning the democrats paraded before the cameras touting their new push for a ‘Build The Wall’Act defining the ‘separation of church and state’ to counter President Trump’s push against religious bias. Democrats always want to have their way but it’s always hypocritical.
Um… we sure could use a holy war in America, purge the unbelievers.
I believe that there are a couple hundred 000’s American Muslims who would be glad to help out.
Except for Evangelicals, most people who attend church in America are not fanatical believers. Evangelicals would get their asses handed to them in a religious war in America. Catholics alone, who have been denigrated as Satanists by Evangelicals for the past 200 years, might join in on the beat down. Definitely worth popping some popcorn for.
To me the issue here is not so much freedom of religion, but compelled speech. The right to speak freely also implies the right to remain silent. Granted that the State can compel a witness to testify truthfully under oath, absent self-incrimination, but should it have the power to compel a witness to come forward and volunteer information by penalizing failure to do so? Not by me.
Then you are an idiot, an unthinking fool, a miserable pathetic excuse for a human being.
All children are innocent.
The law already requires health care professionals, teachers, child care, law enforcement, anyone in a position of responsibility with regard to child care to report such crimes
What is so special about priests.
Religion is the scourge of mankind.
Religion has been the greatest cause of human suffering and misery in history.
Priests have historically been a major source of child abuse.
If a priest fails to report child abuse, lock him up and throw away the key.
Anonymous8:50AM
I think Karl Marx’s statement was that religion was the opium of the masses.
Many people abuse children including parents (probably the most), physicians, priests, heterosexuals, homosexuals, Marxists, capitalists, men, women, and just about any other form of humanity. Why?Because children are innocent, unprotected to often and unable to defend themselves. Abuse of children is a disease of humanity, not necessarily religion.
What a stupid comment.
Who cares if child abuse is a disease of humanity or religion.
Child abuse is child abuse, period, no matter the cause.
In my opinion, ANYONE who is aware of child abuse and fails to report it is an accessory after the fact and deserves life in prison without parole.
And I mean ANYONE, not just statutory reporters.
This idea that priests should be exempt is utter insanity
GEB wrote: “Abuse of children is a disease of humanity, not necessarily religion.”
Wrong. While child abuse runs across the board, it is especially sinister in religion. A religious career is attractive to child molesters because it affords cover that other professions do not. Can you go to a supermarket to get laid? Sure. Those hook ups can happen there. But most people jonesing for sex go to the place essentially designed for it, a bar. If someone has a taste for children they are drawn to a profession where their private interactions with children are confidential and arbitrated no by humans but by God.
Taking em the chin today eh GEB?
Mind if I watch?
# Thus speaketh the physician…
Number 6 is correct. The level of objectivity required by most rules of evidence proceeds on the assumption that the evidence was lawfully acquired. When evidence is lawfully required for trial purposes it is assumed to be generally free from bias and scientifically obtained. To compel someone to speak under fear of punishment would work against the principle of objectivity. It’s not the conviction, it’s the evidence.
“To compel someone to speak under fear of punishment would work against the principle of objectivity.”
Huh?
That’s exactly what a witness subpoena does: It compels a person to be in court (criminal or civil). To testify truthfully. Or else bring your toothbrush and lots of money.
Ditto in the extreme for a material witness order.
“. . . work against the principle of objectivity.”
You’re equivocating between a person being compelled to testify, and the *content* of his testimony being compelled.
Speak for fear of punishment and speak for a release of punishment. Now we’re gettin somewhere.
Hmmm… compelled speech…
The priestly boundary should be placed at the crossing between bad behavior and crime.
Look up misprision of a felony
# “compelled speech” is compelled for positive or negative reward.
You’ve cleaned your room, Tommy. Tommy then receives a spanking and then a candy bar?
“18 U.S. Code § 4 stipulates that misprision of a felony has occurred when anyone “having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States.”
That appears to require every ordinary citizen to become acquainted with all the felony laws (and all the misdemeanor laws, as well, so as to know what infractions do not need to be reported). At least the way I read that I see no exception for anyone who knows of behavior that violates a felony statute but is unaware that it actually is a felony. All in all, it seems largely unenforceable, and to me, in general, that is a good thing. Is this one of the laws that prosecutors like to have around so that they can “throw the book” at someone accused of a crime, in hopes that if they fail to get a conviction for the primary charge, there is a chance that at least something will “stick”?
The penitent is speaking to the priest for a release of punishment. The catholic is steeped in the notion with fear and has been compelled to speak , to confess and released from punishment . Fear of punishment is the motivation.. it’s unconstitutional but a person under religion freely chosen can be compelled and has lost freedom of speech.
Lost it to God of course. It’s a compulsion. It’s an urge, an impulse to confess. It’s protected.
Ok done
# oooo great on the opening of your comment. The conclusion requires work.
It just seems obvious that religion is not a license to cover up a crime.
“. . . but should it have the power to compel a witness to come forward and volunteer information by penalizing failure to do so? Not by me.”
You’ve just gutted the entire concept of a “subpoena.” A witness subpoena (civil or criminal) is exactly what you described: Compel a person to come forward. Testify truthfully. Or else there will be a penalty.
If “no one is above the law,” then that includes clergy. If they won’t do the right thing voluntarily, then they should be compelled (by subpoena) to do so. Or by a material witness order.
It is shocking to think that there is actually a debate about whether *everyone* has a responsibility to protect *children* from sexual abuse.
# As a designated reporter? Designated reporters are a form of police? The advertisement— if you see something say something?
What about a hostile witness taking the stand. Compelled to do so. Must the witness speak and why? Or any witness called.
Freedom of speech is absolute. No punishment nor reward can be legally offered.
In law school, it was also suggested to us that the priest-penitent privilege was a concession to practicality. No matter how much the party seeking testimony litigates, the priest will always accept contempt anyway.
Interesting take on the Brown case. Did you also argue, or did you consider arguing, that a person with a 51 IQ lacked capacity to make any type of decision, such as agreeing to the exam in the first place or even understanding Miranda?
Definitely considered below the thrashing of being mentally retarded.
“We’re leftists, and we get what we want, laws be damned.”
Wow, nothing illegal about what trump is letting Musk do in our treasury.
You are right, nothing illegal.
Nothing legal about what Congress has done to the treasury that’s resulted in a $37 Trillion dollar debt for every US citizen and threatens to destroy the US dollar.
Chelsea Clinton’s org got $84M in USAID money. How is that even possible?
https://x.com/CubanOnlyTrump/status/1887315025808724317
A “special employee” status is a temporary contract of less than 130 days and does not require Senate consent. Wouldn’t you have to show that Musk’s team has does something outside of President Trump’s authority and approval to have a legitimate complaint?
Please say the exact statute that you are speaking of. Otherwise, STFU.
Hey, Anon, kiss my shiny metal A55
# Frustration enters at STFU.
This is a fun case. There are lawyers, attorneys, physicians, and clergy? Anything else or anyone else? The secret…