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.”
JT just posted and then removed a new topic about Elon Musk.
Elon Musk should grow eye balls in the back of his head.
Elon Musk messed with FBI, CIA and NSA pros, who can dispose of enemies, remove government officials and make people disappear.
I give Elon Musk about 9 more months.
“THIS IS WAR!”
– U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver (D, NJ)
________________________________________
Proclamation 80—Calling Forth the Militia and Convening an Extra Session of Congress
“On April 15, 1861,…President Abraham Lincoln issued a proclamation calling forth the state militias, to the sum of 75,000 troops, in order to suppress the rebellion. He appealed ‘to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union.’”
Proclamation 92—Warning to Rebel Sympathizers
“[On] July 17, 1862,…I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation of said sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, or abetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government of the United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the United States on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by said sixth section provided.”
_______________________________________________________________________________
Now President Donald J. Trump MUST pull a full “Lincoln” and close the border, impose martial law, prosecute a war against the communist rebellion without a formal declaration, shred the Communist Manifesto and irrevocably extirpate all principles of communism in America, implement the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights including absolute freedom, absolute free enterprise, absolute free markets, absolute private property, and a substantial diminution of taxation and regulation, eliminate the Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, Energy, HUD, and EPA, issue the “Deportation Proclamation” deporting all illegal aliens, past and present, including those who illegally pursued citizenship as criminal border crossers and “asylum” seekers who all made false and fraudulent claims of phantom, nonexistent persecution as foreign citizens with no U.S. rights, establish coherent voter qualifications by State legislatures per the Constitution, declare English the sole official language of the United States, suspend habeas corpus, smash opposition printing presses, networks, podcasts, social media platforms, etc., and throw anyone and everyone who opposes him in prison to Save the Union until America is placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Anonymous: I saw that and tried to respond, but was told it had gone away. As to how long President Muskrat lasts, I don’t know about that–there will be the clash of the egos that will ultimately come to blows–it’s a matter of time. They are both ignorant and arrogant, and opposition is growing, even among Republicans.
Yea, thanks for reminding us that some repubs are part of the swamp
I have no idea how long Elon will remain engaged – that is up to him.
“Elon Musk messed with FBI, CIA and NSA pros, who can dispose of enemies, remove government officials and make people disappear.”
That era is ending – and that is a part of what all the gnashing of teeth is about.
Trump survived the efforts to make him disappear.
“If you strike the king you must kill the king”
That is a part of what we are seeing.
The left talks about Trump seeking revenge.
This is about a return of the government of the United States to the people – not CIA, NSA, FBI.
The nonsense about Musk and line FBI agents and revenge is all a tangent.
This is about who controls the US govenrment – the Deep state or those we elect.
They struck at Trump and FAILED. Musk is an important part of assuring that they do not have the power to attempt regime change in the US again. What makes you think that those who tried and failed to take out Trump will do any better with Musk ?
Contrary to what the article implies, RFRA has no application to state law. City of Borne v. Flores, 521 US 507 (1997).
With that said, Article 1, Section 11 of the Washington State constitution provides similar protections. First Covenant Church of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 840 P2d 164, 187 (Wash. 1992). I predict the Washington courts will invalidate the statute under the state constitution, unless they issue a politically driven decision rather than one based on the law.
FWIW, I wonder how long before pedophilia is no longer considered abuse? There is the whole MAP thing percolating in the background, and now we have Drag Queen Story hours. An excerpt:
“Stigma is a negative attribute associated with a group which can lead to labeling, stereotyping, ostracizing, and physical and/or emotional harm toward the affected persons. Arguably the most stigmatized group in many societies is Minor Attracted Persons (MAPs), or individuals who are attracted to those under the age of 18 years old, including children. In A Long, Dark Shadow, Allyn Walker broaches this controversial topic to provide readers with a better understanding of this group, including misconceptions, identity formation, disclosure, coping strategies, resilience to sexual offending, experiences with help-seeking, and the need for the public to shift their attitudes toward MAPs if we hope to protect children.
https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/a-long-dark-shadow-minor-attracted-people-and-their-pursuit-of-dignity/
I think this is much ado about nothing.
God forgives sin; He does not forgive crime.
A religious (noun form)/confessor hears both sins and possible/maybe crimes. BUT only serves in a role as mediary/(intermediary) between penitent and God, -NOT between criminal and secular state.
Ergo,
A little religious “informed consent” goes a long way here, e.g., “Before you tell me anything, I must warn you. Upon hearing/witnessing your confidential admission and sincere request for forgiveness before God, I may reconcile your reunion with a forgiving God and redeem for you an accepting eternal life with Him, –but I cannot protect you from secular punishment for any crime you have committed, and I may be obligated to divulge information in furtherance of protection for your victim(s),”
(I just made this up off the top of my head to throw out as an example; -I’m sure more erudite minds may can throw around and ponder similar solutions to this conflict between religiosity and criminality in the arena of “duty to divulge.”
For more on the role of “confessor,” see, e.g., https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_24111998_pandc_en.html
(start at the lower portion of full paragraph 5, “Being present before the penitent who opens up to him with a mixture of trepidation and faith, the confessor is called to a great responsibility…
Prof Turley will be eviscerated by the identify politics crowd, who never recognize a bright line between that which is permitted versus that which is prohibited. They really don’t see that they advocate overturning the Constitution.
Requiring the violation of a religious practice is beyond the pale, whether the custom is female circumcision or confession confidentiality. Debates over the degree to which the religiously-required act is also a major crime might possibly be considered on other legal grounds. But the intrusion on fundamental 1st Amendment freedoms is forbidden. In this case, the attempt to compel denunciation of confessants is reminiscent of Trudeau’s de-banking of protesting truckers.
http://www.politico.com/dims4/default/bce6edc/2147483647/resize/1160x%3E/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.politico.com%2Fe2%2F9f%2F329c26ba4553b980ab865fd035ee%2F1-monte-wolverton-cagle-com.jpg
OT
USAID and Biden easily funded this insanity but couldn’t find a few bucks to help North Carolina. Disgusting:
https://x.com/WallStreetApes/status/1887722098212413522?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1887722098212413522%7Ctwgr%5Ef1ad0e8f5f87c5cf070255fe193b3b17d54c5d42%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Fnick-arama%2F2025%2F02%2F07%2Fsen-kennedy-remarks-about-usaid-and-elon-musk-n2185312&mx=2
We have a separation of church and state in this country – period, and I say this as a secular independent voter that LOATHES the Catholic church. I would not mind at ALL if they became a footnote, but this is not a government issue. I do not know how you reform that nonsense, but it ain’t like this. You want to talk about indoctrinated – the Catholic church invented the notion. There is unequivocal evidence that yes, there are many cases where these priests are abusive pieces of ****. We marginalize their idiocy and insanity the same way we do with the modern left – by exposing them. I too am a free speech absolutist, and the solution to darkness is to objectively shine a light, and then do the right thing. I do not like or agree with anything the Catholic church represents, but enough with the federal interference. That modern Catholics won’t speak up themselves tells you all you need to know about their faith. Why they ever thought their pope was anything but another bureaucrat is very confusing to people on the outside looking in.
James: Amen. (no pun intended). Many years ago, while “shepardizing” for an (unrelated) appellate brief I was writing, I learned details about Lloyd’s of London protesting (insurance) coverage for settlement in a class action suit involving victims of priest sexual abuse.
In my wildest dreams, never would I have realized how pervasive/recurrent this was. Totally shocked. (But I was aware of ONE case involving a fellow student and later friend of mine, who was an abused altar boy and later became gay. When he opened up to me, I was like, “oh yeah, in your wildest dreams” (it involved a very handsome priest) until I learned that it was true. For years I apologized to my friend for not believing him. I still suffer guilt for being so non-receptive.
Like many, I like to lead a spiritual and religion-inspired life, but I cannot forget, and can hardly forgive, the way the Vatican and local dioceses kept this quiet all those years.
Turley has completely lost his mind.
He characterizes a requirement for clergy to report child abuse as some kind of violation of freedom of religion.
Does anyone think that a priest should be required to report the murder of a child?
The obvious answer is yes.
You can’t therefore say that a priest doesn’t have to report abuse.
The difference between abuse and murder is simply a matter of degree of abuse.
If a religion involved child sacrifice, then by Turley’s logic it would be a violation of freedom of religion to report the murder of a child.
In Idaho you cannot have an abortion for any reason, but you can kill your child between birth and age 18.
Think this isn’t true? You are mistaken. There are many child deaths where kids got preventable and curable diseases but the parents did not seek medical help and the child died. No charges. And now, no need for a vaccines. Idaho has the lowest vaccination rate of any state in the country So don’t vaccinate your child, expose them to measles or whooping cough, do not seek medical help, watch your kid die. No problem.
Don’t you just love how Republicans love life?
I see your point but I don’t know. I mean the whole point of the 4th Amendment is to restrain the government from unreasonable searches. Your logic could just as easily be used to justify the use of non-mirandized custodial confessions. I don’t think we as a society are ready to go there lest the police be given power that is easily abused – and will certainly be abused if given. It’s always tough to figure out where the line should be between liberty from an overbearing state and effective law enforcement. Wherever it is drawn people will be able to come up with unpalatable hypotheticals, but it must be drawn. And drawn consistent with the Bill of Rights or we might as well not have a constitution.
Oldman
THERE IS NO LINE WHEN IT COMES TO CHILD ABUSE !!!!!!!
In a civilized society there should be absolutely no debate whatsoever about reporting child abuse.
Every single human being is absolutely under an obligation to report abuse.
This “debate” about whether reporting child abuse is a violation of religious freedom is completely and utterly insane.
What about the example I mentioned: an unmirandized custodial confession to a police investigator? I realize that’s an evidence issue rather than a reporting issue but I would be curious to know if you think the police should be able to use such a confession?
Oldman
ARE YOU INSANE !!!
Who the hell cares about unmirandized custodial confessions or any other absurd unrelated ideas.
That has absolutely no bearing on reporting child abuse.
Why are you lunatics engaging in this insane debate.
If a child has been abused then anyone who is aware of it has a moral responsibility to report the abuse, period.
I’m sorry you declined to answer my question. I really am curious what you think about the situation I mentioned. Have a great weekend.
@Anonymous
You are an idiot. And you prove it every dang day.
Did you read the column? It says, in part:
“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.'”
Preventing child sacrifice qualifies as a compelling governmental interest by any definition. Imagining absurd hypotheticals doesn’t help your argument. Society has to balance competing interests all the time. That’s why we have things like attorney-client privilege, marriage privilege, doctor-patient confidentiality, etc. Different relationships are afforded different levels of protection, but the idea that this issue is black and white is an affront to individual liberty. Society accepts some bad results to foster individual liberty and freedom. For example, evidence of a crime, even a heinous crime, may be excluded if it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner. We accept this as a society because of the importance of respecting constitutional limits.
If society deems that freedom of religion, as protected by the Constitution, allows privacy in communications between priest and congregant, then that protection applies to all communications. The hope is that the priest will encourage the person to confess their crime and/or change their behavior. However, in balancing societies interest in reporting crimes and protecting religious freedom, the Constitution and case history clearly protects the sanctity of the confessional just as it does the attorney-client privilege.
Why are you creeps engaging in this bizarre high minded “debate” about child abuse.
There absolutely no “balance” between child abuse and freedom of religion.
If you think reporting the abuse of a child has to “balanced” against ANYTHING, then you are a vile, reprehensible, sub-human monster.
Anonymous – if you have been the victim of child abuse, I am very sorry for what that cost you, which I’m sure is a great deal. Perhaps it wasn’t even reported, which might explain your strong feelings about this topic. You should realize, though, that this is a legal blog, which by definition involves debating issues impacting upon legal rights and obligations. This type of debate cannot be avoided on grounds it is merely “high minded” and the answers seem obvious to you. Furthermore, I believe many people who comment here are interested in this type of debate, which is essential if the law is to serve society’s needs – consistent with the Constitution, of course.
This latter point deserves mention: regardless of how horrific child abuse is, everyone, including child abusers, have constitutional rights. That must remain true unless we ditch the Constitution. So, the law must ask some questions and those questions must be debated. Further, sometimes legal issues have to be resolved in favor of a bad person so that good people are also protected by it.
To take an example: what should be the standard of proof for persons accused of child abuse? We all want them to go to jail if guilty, but are we willing to lower the standard so two innocent people end up going to jail for every guilty person, so long as that assures that all actual child abusers go to jail?
I realize the questions in the reporting arena are different, but they are analogous: do we want to strip away all First Amendment protections if that will make sure all child abuse is reported? You seem to answer “yes” but you should realize that other people may have valid reasons why they support an answer of “not completely.” I think you’d be better off engaging with those reasons than taking the mentally lazy path of merely screaming at them that they are “vile.”
This fvcking idiot anonymous misses the goddam point, as these libturds often do.
The laws arent designed to protect the pedophiles, ya dumb SOB, they are to protect the innocent and wrongly accused. That is what the debate is about.
Its your people who have tried to normalize the sexualization of children.
Get a grip.
“There absolutely no “balance” between child abuse and freedom of religion.” — signed, religious leaders of every religion.
For those who believe that JT is right on this issue:
What are you going to say to the next child who is sexually abused by that monster? Or to the parents?
“Too bad for you. Sanctity of the confessional.”
If anything, it is that sanctity that makes children “ripe for abuse.”
So you want a priest to violate his vows and report that he was told by a penitant that he whips his kid? You and I do not know that it qualifies as child abuse. If I were the priest and I actually knew the child, then I would try to see with my own
eyes if there seemed to be real child abuse. If that was the case then I would report that and not what I was told in the confessional. But the problem with this society is that too many people stick their nose in other people’s business and report things that never should have been reported. This happens with animal abuse, child abuse, and on and on. I do not ask anyone to ignore serious abuse, but be careful that you are not overreacting to what you personally think. Yes, there are some monster parents or guardians out there that should be called out, but there are a lot more liberal busy bodies that just wont mind their own business.
When Schumer explained that guacamole is made from avocados it was an aha moment. I don’t think a single American knew that. Suddenly the whole world made sense.
OMK
Now I get it, it’s another liberal logic brainstorm leap from Word Salad to World Salad? Fruit cups anyone?
OldManFromKS,
Right?
More crazy from leftists, Trump Derangement Syndrome: State Rep Sterilizes Herself To Protest President
https://dailycaller.com/2025/02/06/democrat-laurie-pohutsky-michigan-sterilization-donald-trump-protest/?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
UpstateFarmer-saw that story. Do you think we should ask her physician to break physician-patient confidentiality and certify she is crazy or should we just say that it is self evident and lock her up as a danger to herself.
No telling what she might do to herself next to show her disdain for Trump. I am breathless in anticipation.
GEB,
I would say it is self evident. Her and all woke leftists should be seeing a team of psychologists, heavily medicated, perhaps the occasional shock therapy, not allowed to operate heavy machinery, own real estate and vote. I would say her self sterilization is likely for the good of humanity.
@oldman
And never mind the fact that we can, and do, grow avocados in this country. I have a tree. The modern dem party is a joke beyond reckoning. How dare the current administrations show us openly how our tax dollars are being spent! It is ludicrous in the extreme, all of it, and they are aristocratic clowns (the real ‘oligarchs’) that deserve to reap every last thing hey have sown. I don;t have any sympathy, just a little (tiny) bit of sympathy for otherwise smart people that bought into the boosheet.
It can’t be said enough. Accept it already: the party of JFK is DEAD. The dems are now the party of Marx and Mussolini. Period. history repeats. a great many of us DID in fact learn the lessons of the past, and voted accordingly in November. Modern dem painic is a good sign, indeed. 👍🏼 We are definitely doing the right things. The Obama era is equally OVER, never to return in our lifetimes. Find a way to actually at least tolerate, if not actually like, people that disagree with you, modern left. We are all human.
James- yup, California alone produces over 200 million pounds of avocados per year.
And yes, the JFK party is over. This story is from yesterday:
https://nypost.com/2025/02/06/us-news/jfk-grandsons-foul-rants-destroying-the-image-of-dynasty/
Chucky cheese. The leader of the pact. These people lost last November and now they are doubling down on this BS that they ran on and lost.
Remember what Bill Clinton said, back when he introduced Poor Monica to the joys of cigars??? That it was her word against his – that what took place between two people was always just “he said-she said.”
Isn’t that the same thing in the Confessional Booth? Ain’t but two people there. How you gonna prove what was told to the priest? How you gonna enforce that law? Long as there ain’t a:
https://www.famous-trials.com/clinton/889-lewinsky
More Turley BS: regardless of the wisdom or religious conflicts presented by this law–it is NOT an attack on religion brought by Democrats–it is intended to protect children. Yes, there is case law and Rules of Evidence that have traditionally protected those making a confession to the priest–but HOW does that justify Turley’s overwrought proclamation that Democrats are attacking religion? In virtually every other context, if someone has credible information that a child is being or has been abused physically, sexually or otherwise, there is a duty to report. I am aware of a case in my home state where a judge, in a custody dispute, took 2 young boys into chambers to interview them about an alleged beating inflicted by one of their parents. The judge wanted the children to feel free to speak without either parent or their counsel present. Following the hearing, the judge called Child Protective Services. But, Turley isn’t paid to spin the facts that way–he’s paid to spin the facts as an attack by Democrats against religion. Turley should be ashamed. The issue could, and should have been discussed in a politically-neutral manner–but that’s not what Murdoch is paying Turley to write.
Gigi.
I know this is difficult but two (or more) things can be true at the same time.
This law is a clear violation of the first amendment.
The seal of confession is many times older than this country.
This law is intended to protect children – intentions are ALWAYS the stupid trope of the left.
Intentions are NOT results. The RESULTS of this law will be fewer people going to confession,
AND priests defying the law. Passing laws that are either unenforceable – how exactly are you going to compel a priest to
follow the law of man rather than that of god, when only two people know what was said in confession and NEITHER are going to reveal.
Do those of you on the left every think that it is NOT enough to INTEND to do good, When in Matthew 25: christ sits in judgement and separates the sheep from the goats, Christ does not ask when did you INTEND to feed the hungry – he asks when YOU actually fed the hungry.
Morality is not about good intentions.
” Yes, there is case law and Rules of Evidence that have traditionally protected those making a confession to the priest”
And again you trip over one of the massive failures of progressivism. Progressivism is about change. It is about moving away from an imperfect past to a more perfect future. That is what free markets do NATURALLY.
And from free markets we learn that nearly all change FAILS – that change alone is not enough, that change driven by good intentions and even by clear first order benefits – virtually always FAILS.
One of the problems with change – whether in the free market or through government is that what already is – even if imperfect actually works.
Case law is the process of getting it right by trial and error over centuries. The santify of confession is more than a milenia old.
You may think it is imperfect – but it has actually worked for over 1000 years. Perfectly – no, we do not live in utopia and never will. You wish to do better ? Fine. But you are NOT entitled to ignore 1000 years of successful if not perfect practice to make something new up and claim that good intentions alone justifies the change.
The problem with Progressivism is that change – while necescary to improving the human condition is actually extremely hard.
We fail at change far far far more often than we succeed. We make things worse more often than we make them better.
And you and Washington Democrats are oblivious to that.
This is a mistake. It will not be the end of the world, but it will make things slightly worse, not better.
It will mean that pedophiles are even less likely to seek help, and it will mean that priests will chose the law of god over the law of man. As you encourage people to violate the law you further undermine the rule of law.
As I have said before – the Rule of law is not the rule of any law you can get passed.
It is the strict adherence to legitimate law that serves the social contract purpose of govenrment – which is the protection of individual rights. All else undermines the rule of law.
If you do not want to be accused of attacking religion – do not attack religion.
The first amendment requires that when the practices and principles of religion conflict with the wishes of govenrment – that governemnt must yeild. This is true of ALL rights. Government can seek to accomplish its objectives by near infinite means.
It must chose those that infringe on rights only as asbsolutely necescary and only when no other option exists and only when the purpose of the infringment is core to the social contract.
Little Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby should not have had to go to the supreme court to get an exception from the dictates of PPACA – PPACA should have been struck down as infringing on religion.
Democrats attack religion constantly – usually subtley.
But the most trivial but HUGE example is that charity is the domain of religion – not government.
The social contract requires government to protect individual rights. It provides no power to aid those in need.
Charity is the duty of individuals – not government.
That should be obvious morally. Those on the left constantly protest all kinds of things. The protest for or against laws,
They speak out against things they see as wrong.
But as I noted – in Matthew 25 Christ does no judge people on their intentions, he does not judge people based on their protests, or their speeking out for the poor or homeless. He judges them on what they have done THEMSELVES.
You are not a moral person because you protested for some cause. You are not moral because you voted for laws that advanced some cause – even if that cause was of great merit.
The US is not a moral country – only people as individuals can act morally. You need not be christian to grasp that Matthew 25 speaks the truth. There is no personal moral merit because you are loosely support some collective action.
The left likes to say corporations are not people – which is false. But it is far more true that governments are not people.
Govenrment charity does no make you moral. It does not fullfill any moral duty.
Religion is about much more than the existance of god.
it is about the individual moral responsibility for their individual actions.
The left rejects the morality or immorality of the individual to wrap itself in faux morality for allegedly moral collective action
“In virtually every other context, if someone has credible information that a child is being or has been abused physically, sexually or otherwise, there is a duty to report. ”
That is FALSE. The specific law in question imposes a legal duty ONLY on specific occupations. So called manadatory reporters. Ordinary people not in those occupations are NOT legally obligated to report anything.
In western law there is NO legal duty to report crime.
“I am aware of a case in my home state where a judge, in a custody dispute, took 2 young boys into chambers to interview them about an alleged beating inflicted by one of their parents. The judge wanted the children to feel free to speak without either parent or their counsel present.”
That judge violated the law. And the judicial cannons of ethics and morality. A judges actions are confined to those inside the courtroom with both prosecutors and defense counsels present. Further the constitution guarantees a persom the right to confront their accuser.
Judges are exactly that – they are NOT prosecutors, they are NOT investigators, they are forbidden from conducting their own investigations.
” Following the hearing, the judge called Child Protective Services.”
Did he call the bar and report himself for unethical conduct ?
The ends do not justify the means.
Gigi of course democrats wage war against religion.
The reason that the domain of govenrment is limited is that government pushes everything out of any domain it enters.
Democrats constantly seek to have government do what is the domain of individuals of the free markets of religion of moral actors.
You talk about duty – duties belong to individuals. Moral duties belong to individuals. you are a moral person because you honor your moral duties.
You are not a moral person if you ignore those duties or you vote to have government steal from others to do them for you.
Of course democrats are at war with religion. They actively seek to replace religion with government.
You do so all the time.
John Say,
That was a great comment. And you are correct, Democrats seek to replace not just religion with government but free markets, free speech, individuality, self reliance and even parents. I am coming around to the idea there is a sect within the Democrat party that is in fact evil.
Jonathan: Twenty-eight states, including mine, have statutes that require clergy to report known or suspected instances of child abuse. So Washington state is not an out liar in wanting to close its loophole.
As a practicing Catholic I can understand your concern to preserve the “clergy-penitent privilege”. But let’s get real. The problem of child abuse is a huge problem in this country. In the early 2000s the Boston Globe published a series of articles exposing vast sexual abuse of minors by Catholic clergy in the Boston Dioceses. In subsequent investigations a pattern of sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy and cover ups around the country was revealed. Thousands of Catholic priests were investigated and many criminally prosecuted. It became a national and global scandal for the Church.
Given this history it makes no sense to give Catholic clergy a privilege from reporting child abuse. Here’s a simple Q. What happens at a local Catholic parish when a child tells Priest A that he has been sexually abused by Priest B? Should Priest A be prohibited from reporting that abuse to authorities? You seem to think so. Protecting a child from sexual abuse is not a big priority for you. You think the clergy-penitent privilege trumps the right of a child to be protected from sexual abuse. I doubt you will find many to endorse such a preposterous position.
This is why WS Sen. Noel Frame and Rep. Amy Walen have offered legislation to close the clergy-penitent privilege as relates to child abuse. Frame said about their legislation: “It’s been far too long that we’ve failed to close this loophole and provide the protections children need from abuse. I know this is a hard subject for many of my colleagues, especially those with deep religious views. I also know far too many children have been victims of abuse–the Legislature has a duty to act”. That statement expresses my sentiments on this subject.
Dennis,
if you are a practicing catholic then you KNOW that no priest is going to obey this law.
They will go to jail before they will break the seal of confession.
That is “being real”.
This is also typical of left wing nuts.
You seem to think it is a good idea to pass laws that criminalize legal conduct.
Going to confession is not a crime. Confession to child abuse is not a crime – though the actual child abuse is.
It is highly unlikely that any priest will grant absolution to someone who abused a child without requiring them to turn themselves in.
But it you make a law that requires priests to go to jail or turn in those who confess to child abuse – those people will not go to confession, and the priest will not be able to tell them to turn themselves in if they want absolution.
You will have made things WORSE not better.
Further you will have created a massive conflict between religion and the state – which you may not constitutionally do.
Lets be real – you are confusing YOUR idea of what constitutes the public good – YOUR good intentions, with something that is both actually good and works. A common left wing nut error – in another post I linked to basiats “the seen and the unseen, parable of the broken window”
some almost two century old wisdom having nothing to do with Trump or MAGA and written long before the first green haired nose ringed progressive decided they knew better than thousands of years of wisdom and trial and error.
I have no idea whether your claim regarding other states is true
In what world do you think you have enough credibility to be beleived.
I do know that cannon law is quite specific and elaborate.
In most instance violating the seal of confession is a sin that results in automatic excommunication.
The catholic church has been dealing with governments for 2000 years. Priests have been put to death
rather than break the seal of confession.
“Lets be real” the Catholic church does not give a schiff about the law in the that of Washington.
Client penitent priviledge is a legal doctrine – Confession is a catholic Sacrament.
Catholic priest are people. They commit crimes. We have been regaled by headlines of sexual abuse by scout masters and priests and most of those claims are real. But the FACT is that there isnothing unusual about sexual abuse in the catholic church except that we would like to beleive it was less common among preists than ordinary people – but that is false. various different predilections do not care about your religion or your status as a priest. Abuse knows no boundaries, and it is neither more nor less common among priests than elsewhere.
As to your hypothetical – the issue at hand is the sacrament of confession. If a priest about the misconduct of another preist or anyone else outside of confession – they do not need a law to compel them to report it. If a victim of ANY crime tells a priest in confession about that crime – the priest can urge them to report it or do so themselves with the permission of the penitent. If a priest learns of any crime from the perpetrator,
they may not disclose what they know to anyone – not even another priest, but they can and almost certainly do withold absolution until the person comes forward.
If as you say you are a practicing catholic – you should KNOW this.
From the Baltimore Catachism
“The priest may not speak about anything he has heard in confession even to the penitent who told it to him, unless the penitent himself willingly permits it.”
I would further note that the seal of confession extends outside the priesthood. Should a lay person overhear the confession of another – they too are bound not to reveal what they heard.
Clearly you were not paying attention during catachism.
“Given this history”
The catholic church has 2000 years of history – catholic catachism is not changing as a result of some misconduct in Boston.
“it makes no sense to give Catholic clergy a privilege from reporting child abuse.”
The state can give priests a legal priviledge or not – they are going to follow the law of the church.
It is unbeleiveably stupid for those in government to pass laws that will not be obey, do not punish actual bad acts, violate the first amendment and undermine trust in government.
BTW the law does not protect children from abuse – the abuse has already occured.
the law criminalizes conduct that is not itself a crime – hearing confession.
The law will not reduce child sexual abuse – it will likely increase it.
It will reduce the likelyhood that a priest can convince an abuser to turn themselves in.
While we are focused on priests here – the existing laws that require disclosure from other professionals are all equally likely to make things worse.
We should WANT people who have done bad things to seek help from psychologists.
While they are not bound by cannon law, we are still better off with an abusers psychologists trying to get the abuser to come forward than by making it unlikely that abusers will even seek help.
Even mandating doctors is not such a hot idea.
We should want people to seek medical attention for abused children.
By mandating doctors to report signs of abuse – you not only push abusers not to seek treatment for the child when they have been abused – but even to avoid treatment for ALL medical issues – because abuse might be uncovered.
It is one thing to expect that those who know of abuse come forward – it altogether different to create a legal duty to do so.
But then you left wing nuts NEVER consider the often predictable unintended consequences of your actions.
Or we would not be trying to clean up the mess democrats made of the past 4 years.
Pretty much every serious problem this country has today is the FORSEABLE consequence of the policies of democrats who delusionally beleived that laws and policies would magically work exactly as written.
BTW I do not care about your sentiments,
I do not care about your alleged good intentions
I do not care about your crocodile tears.
You claim to be a practicing catholic – then you KNOW that christ will not judge you on your allegedly good intentions.
That he will not judge you on your warm and fuzzy feelings.
He will not judge you on the left wing nut policies you voted for.
You will be judged based on what you have DONE and what you have NOT DONE.
YOU – not lawmakers hundreds of miles away.
From “Alternet”: “Delusion The Mental State That Drives Trump’s Hardcore Supporters”:
Donald Trump campaigned against consensual reality and won. Every plank of his platform – from the economy to immigration to abortion – was based on easily provable lies.
Despite Trump’s bombastic assertions to the contrary, inflation is down, growth is up, illegal border crossings are down, crime is down, and vaccines work great. Tariffs are taxes on imports and American companies say they’re planning to raise prices.
None of that mattered at the polls because Trump created a conspiracist permission structure to ignore the facts and focus on hate.
Delusion strongly predicted a vote for Trump. An Ipsos poll in the final weeks of the campaign found that voters who falsely believed that we are living through a record-breaking violent crime wave favored Trump by 26 points, while those who knew the truth broke for Harris by 65 points. Those who knew that the inflation rate is back to the historic average favored Harris by 53 points. Respondents who knew that illegal border crossings are down favored Harris by 59 points.
Part of the problem is the media. Certainly, the mainstream media is shy about stating the truth and the rightwing media-influencer complex is dedicated to disseminating lies. Social media barons use algorithms to maximize their profits at the expense of our edification.
But the problem goes deeper than that: You also have to look at the conspiracist mindset that says the mainstream media is the enemy of the people, the government is controlled by the Deep State, and scientists are on the take, because it’s what makes people turn away from consensual reality.
CBS correspondent Leslie Stahl once asked Donald Trump why he constantly attacked the press. “I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so when you write negative stories about me, no one will believe you,” Trump replied.
Trump also discredits the government as a source of information. When the latest statistics showed that crime was down, Trump accused the FBI of making them up. When the jobs report was revised, Trump accused Harris of faking it.
The conspiracist mindset allowed Trump’s followers to reinterpret his 34 felony convictions as evidence of the plot against him, rather than evidence of his terrible behavior.
Once you adopt a conspiracist mindset where you can dismiss any evidence that clashes with your prejudices as part of the conspiracy, you are free to create your own reality. Since it’s a worldview that scapegoats your fellow citizens as diabolical deceivers, that reality is bound to be ugly. Worse still, your willingness to discount mainstream sources of evidence in favor of the outlandish claims of demagogues becomes a badge of ideological purity. You welcome the lies.
This is why social scientists have been warning about the link between conspiracism and totalitarianism for a century. There was never any evidence that the Jews secretly controlled the world – but it didn’t matter because lack of evidence was proof that the Jews controlled the press, and the universities, and science and the arts. Jews in pre-war Germany didn’t control any of those things – but no evidence to the contrary could penetrate the conspiracy theory. And the complete absence of evidence for their hegemony was just proof of their total domination.
Another reason why conspiracism and totalitarianism are closely connected is that conspiracy theories take away our ability to have good-faith debates. If everything you don’t like becomes evidence of your opponent’s plot to destroy you, you can’t discuss anything rationally. Human-caused climate change is a fact. But conspiracism takes the debate out of the realm of evidence and into the realm of character assassination of scientists and their supporters. It paints us as hoaxers and saboteurs. Vaccines have saved hundreds of millions of lives, but instead of debating their merits based on evidence, anti-vaxers portray their opponents as agents of a nefarious coverup to kill children. And it’s completely irrefutable within their conceptual framework. When scientists or the government or journalists come forward with evidence that vaccines save millions of lives and prevent untold suffering, the conspiracist answer is: Well, that’s what conspirators to kill our children would say.
There’s a much-needed movement afoot to fix our media ecosystem, but we can’t do that until we address the conspiracist mindset that predisposes people to believe Trump’s lies.”
I couldn’t have said it better–which is why Turley should be ashamed.
TLDR
More like TSDR.
Girlfriend, you are one delusional chick! Criminy! Have you not just read where USAID (aka, the CIA) was funding like 6,000 journalists across the world. As one wag put it, “no wonder all the news looks alike!”
Let me ask you, did you believe the Russian Collusion story when it came out? Do you still believe it? Enquiring minds want to know.
As far as crime – where do you live? In what state.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter,
Delusional is right!
I thought they got rid of you for your outrageously racist tropes. How did you get back? The Alternet piece applies to you. If you read it and understood it, you’d understand that trying to discuss anything with you is a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
I don’t know? Maybe they gave me a second chance? But if you remember me, then who were you back then? She, whose name must not be mentione
As I have stated here many times before, I am not white. And what racist tropes have I said?
She was talking
@Upstate
None of us with two brain cells to rub together have forgotten, we know how you are. The previous sentence no longer applies to the modern left, in toto. At best, to them, you are ‘white adjacent’. This is what happens when you let children or their emotional and mental equivalent run the government. Between the old foges breaking their hips who have been in Congress for a gazillion years and people like Crockett who have never done their own laundry – wow. Just, wow. The people in the middle finally decided they had had enough. Let’s continue to do that, together. 👍🏼
James,
Well said!
She was talking about me. I am working on a Motion on another tab, and the darned thing keeps wanting to pop up and kicks me off this tab.
When I was here, I was extremely down on the whole social justice scam, and the black victimology thing. I gave people heck about Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown, and maybe even George Floyd. I do not recall for sure about George Floyd.
Anyway, GiGi was talking to me, I think, and not you.
Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter,
Ah! I see it now! My bust.
No problem! I read here almost every day, but I have not commented for years maybe. I had to log into my old wordpress blogs and my BFF, Penelope Deadful, and I had a lot of trouble getting back into the swing of things. But Fridays are usually slow around here, and the office is closing in a few minutes. I kept messing up my comments, and that did not help any.
“I thought they got rid of you for your outrageously racist tropes.”
– Gigenius
_____________
Americans enjoy the freedoms of speech, press, thought, opinion, discretion, perspective, distinction, choice, discrimination, etc.
It is DEI, affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, cash welfare, etc., that are absolutely unconstitutional.
Americans are free to hold all the opinions they desire on any and all subjects.
Free enterprises and industries are free to engage or eschew any and all individuals and groups they desire.
Why are you looking to get rid of people ?
No rational person in touch with reality has any interest in recommendations from someone claiming inflation is at historically normal rates.
The inflation rate in Dec 2020 was 1.2%, in Nov 2024 it was 2.9% Average inflation over Trump’s presidency was 1.4%.
You have been repeatedly caught making up data – you claimed that Biden inherited 9% inflation – inflation was 1.2%. in Dec 2020.
I can go on and on. Every claimed statictic you have ever offered has been at odds with reality and at odds with nearly every other credible source
You are the one suffering from delusions.
Voters did not get snookered by lies from Trump. They knew the truth – truth that you repeatedly deny.
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
“Donald Trump is not an idiot. Donald Trump, let me be very clear, Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all his critics. Do you know why we know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House, and the popular vote, he has a massive media ecosystem bigger than the mainstream built around him and for him, and a religious fervor in a political movement around him. And he is best buddies with the richest person in the history of the world. And the most relevant Kennedy is with him.
This dude is a phenomenon. He is the most powerful human on earth, and in our lifetime, and we’re supposed to be like, “Well how did this guy…?” We look like idiots.”
Van Jones.
The approval rate of democrats has cratered – 31% and dropping.
Why ? Because Trump picks issues that the public supports by 70-80% and runs with them.
That combined with the relentless attacks by the left the media , the press results in an approval rate in the 50’s.
Democrats then idiotically choose to pick the position with 20% public support – and with a fawning press manage to get approval numbers in the 30s.
Imagine where Trump would be and democrats would be if the press was honest ?
To the Person Who is Behind Gigi, if they are expressing genuine thoughts:
Crime stats are notoriously untrustworthy. Perhaps the murder numbers are close, because you have an actual dead body to count. But consider this – California has a large population, and for a number of years, they decriminalized theft for amounts under $900. What do you think that does to the crime stats? Then, you have people who simply don’t call the police anymore, because it is a waste of time. If their car gets broken into, they don’t waste their time calling the cops. Then, you have Soros prosecutors in other cities, failing to charge criminals, too.
What do you think that does to the crime stats???
If crime is down, why are stores closing up their locations, particularly in certain urban areas??? How come stores have much of their merch under lock and key?
Arizona border quiet, ‘like the faucet got turned off’
He cited Trump’s border plan for the change. “It just shows you what a true leader can accomplish. We’re talking about nine days,” he said since the bulk of Trump’s plan went into effect. “I mean, it is just like this precipitous drop. And the only thing that changed was the president.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/washington-secrets/3314016/arizona-border-quiet-like-the-faucet-got-turned-off/
GIGENIUS…
‘NUFF SAID.
INCIVILITY VIOLATION HERE BY INANE, BOORISH, INSOLENT IMPUDENCE.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Gigi – you are the one who is delusional.
The Feds target inflation rate for the past 40 years is about 1%.
Inflation in Nov. 2024 was 2.7% – almost 3 times the target – that is NOT normal.
In fact it is BAD. it is only barely lower than the inflation rates of the early to mid 70’s that were only dwarfed by those of the late carter years.
The NCVS – national crime victims survey had the lowest violent crime rate in 10 years in 2020 bu 2022 the rate of violent crim had almost doubled. There was a very small drop between 2022 and 2023.
While 2020 was the lowest rate of violent crime since 2012, 2022 was the highest rate of violent crime since 2012.
The difference between Trump supporters and left wing nuts like you is their perception of reality AND the statitics are in agreement.
I know this is difficult for you – but people KNOW when prices are rising and when they are still rising faster than normal.
They KNOW when violent crime is on the rise.
I have repeatedly refered to the dramatic in crease in mental health problems – particularly anxiety and depression that are strongly linked to the Woke generation coming of age.
I do not know whether high levesl of anxiety and depression cause crime, or whether crime causes high levels of anxiety and depression.
Probably it is a vicious circle and other factors are involved also.
But I do know that when anxiety and depression are high – violent crime is also high.
A significant portion of the problems the US has had over the past decade are the consequences of the Woke Tsunamia that crashed down on us starting in mid 2012 – years before Trump descended the elevator.
You still do not understand – Trumpis a reaction to YOUR nonsense. – not the other way around.
The MAGA Trump backlash will end when YOU have been dispatched to irrelevance and the damage you have done has been purged.
State of Washington – Confessional Miranda Rights –
The sign in the; parking lot, at the entrance door, and printed in the bulletin/service leaflet/program, Read:
! WARNING !
By entering the premises of the this Religious Facility you are under Video and Electronic Surveillance.
You hereby surrender your 4th Amendment Rights, You may bring an Attorney as per your 5th Amendment Rights with you.
All Confessionals are recorded by wire for the record.
You have a right to remain silent and pray in silence.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read/posted to you?
With these rights in mind, do you wish to enter the Confessional to speak with me or participate in Communion ceremony and Services on the premises of this facility
https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/mirandawarningfinal.pdf
However if we augment the Confessional Warning to add:
“You have all rights afforded by God.”
Then we have a legal parley.
That being are the Laws of Man above the Law of God?
Wherein the Confessional, Are you speaking to Man? or are you speaking to God?
Is a ‘Separation of Church and State’ maintained or denied?
“…
You have a right to remain silent and pray in silence.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have all rights afforded by God.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read/posted to you?
With these rights in mind, do you wish to enter the Confessional to speak with me or participate in Communion ceremony and Services on the premises of this facility.
…”
What?
Republican governors and state lawmakers are eager to embrace the Musk-driven cuts to Washington — and make sure some of that chaos doesn’t trickle down to their states.
Republican governors are admitting trump and musk are creating chaos?
Tell me it isn’t so donny boy.
Do Democrats even consult with a lawyer before crafting these laws? As the good professor points out, this law seems like it will be DOA noting the previous cases and judgments.
Upstate
They have their best legal minds working on them, Adam Watermelon head Schiff, Hillary Clinton, Jamie Ratskin, Nasty Nancy and more. George Soros provides back up where needed.
“Do Democrats even consult with a lawyer” Most legislators are attorneys not necessarily constitutional scholars.
How to anger your friends and make new enemies…
https://www.cnn.com/2025/02/07/world/video/india-protest-trump-effigy-burnt-ldn-digvid
This vile piece by Turley is a depraved obscenity.
It makes me want to vomit.
Anyone who thinks that religious leaders have some special protected status that allows them to avoid reporting child abuse is a sub-human piece of garbage.
This academic, legalistic, mumbo jumbo discussion about “privileged communications” is complete and utter insanity. It has no place in the real world inhabited by caring responsible human beings.
The law should not specify particular professional groups who are required to report abuse.
The law should simply say that anyone who is aware of child abuse is required to make a report, and failure to do so renders that person an accessory to the crime.
Religious leaders have a special relationship with an invisible man in the sky. How dare you question that! Oh, and they have a special relationship with your children.
But the law does not require anyone to report suspected child abuse – that BTW works horribly.
We do not want law enforcement flooded by nosy neighbors reporting others often merely to harrass them.
Pretty universally there is no compelled duty to report suspected crime – and such a legally compelled duty would likely be found unconstitutional.
We have unfortunately passed laws that compelled SPECIFIC professions to report only specific SUSPECTED crimes picking and chosing which professions.
You are correct the law should not pick specific groups, These laws should just not exist.
You are ranting about priests – but the FACT is that unless YOU are one of those select professions that is a mandated reporter – YOU are not obligated to report suspected abuse.
These laws are rife with problems.
We want troubled people to seek out doctors, lawyers, priests and psychiatrists for help.
Even with teachers – we want victims to seek help.
When the law mandates reporting – many stop seeking help.
Then there is the problem of determining what constitutites suspicion.
Active children bruise. Older people bruise easily.
Are these signs of some form of abuse ? Or are they signs of aging or physical activity.
We do not know whether child abuse was as rampant in the past as today – they we suspect it was possibly more so.
At the same time we have increasingly cloistered children to their detriment.
Autism has risen by several orders of magnitude – allergies among kids have exploded. Some of this is increased awareness but some of it is objectively measurable increases in the fragility of kids – and ultimately increases in the fragility of society.
We have seen an explosion of mental health problems – rates of anxiety and depression among 20 year olds are double what they were 50 years ago – in fact the doubling occured very rapidly between 2010 and 2015. Anxiety in the young is double those older, in women double that of men,
on the left double that of the right. A 20 year old single white progressive women has 76% self reported anxiety and depression.
After years of declining crime and violence – we are seeing crime and violence rise again – we shoudl not be surprised and epidemic of anxiety and depression is a driver for crime and violence.
Overall the world is much better today than 40 years ago – but most people do NOT feel that way. And while the overall improvement is real.
In very many ways things are WORSE than 40 years ago. Anxiety and depression is one of those.
It is probably not possible to tell if the rise in sexual abuse over the past 50 years is merely a reflection of more reporting,
or is a symptom of the societal changes that have taken place over that time.
John Say
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU !!!!!
The issue is simply whether clergy should be mandatory reporters of child abuse.
Why are you rambling incoherently about whether an obligation to report abuse would deter someone from going to a doctor for a medical problem ????
If that problem has nothing to do with child abuse why would anyone be deterred.
Why are you rambling incoherently about cloistered children, autism, anxiety and depression in 20 year olds.
You always drift off into tangential, incoherent, rambling about other things.
This inability to filter the random, tangential thoughts that flitter through your mind is a sign of significant mental impairment.
“The issue is simply whether clergy should be mandatory reporters of child abuse.”
That is ONE issue and it is not even close to simple.
“Why are you rambling incoherently about whether an obligation to report abuse would deter someone from going to a doctor for a medical problem ????”
Not ranting. Nor is my claim specific to doctors.
We WANT people – even bad people – or more relevantly disturbed people to seek help.
Mandating that those they seek help from must report them to law enforcement triggering a criminal investigation CLEARLY discourages people from seeking help.
But this gets WORSE – no one is concerned that some guy with a skin tumor would not seek a doctor because they are also a child molester.
We are concerned that they might no discuss their bad conduct with the doctor because of these laws.
But most importantly we should be concerned that abusive parents will not take their children to doctors in fear of having their abuse reported. They will not take them to doctors over the direct harms of abuse. They will also not take them to doctors over ordinary medical problems – because the unrelated abuse might be exposed.
Those of you on the left NEVER look at anything from more than the shallowest perspective.
You are completely unable to see the 2nd and 3rd order impacts of your good intentioned by stupid ideas.
Start with the parable of the broken window at the link below – but you should really read the whole book – it is not that long.
And learn some critical thinking.
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html#SECTION_G002
“If that problem has nothing to do with child abuse why would anyone be deterred.”
Really ? Are you honestly that dumb ?
“This inability to filter the random, tangential thoughts”
Not random or tangential – just using YOUR idiocy to explore related interests of my own.
This article is about child abuse and more narrowly child abuse reporting.
Obviously child abuse is a problem
It is not however obvious that child abuse reporting is a problem
Or more accurately than it is a bigger problem that the bad consequences of mandated reporting.
Regardless as is typical of those of you on the left. You fixate on intents – not results
Either because of that – or because of a complete inability to engage in critical thinking – you address all problems in the most shallow way possible that has nothing to do with the real world.
In the real world the actions of people have consequences going beyond the immediately obvious.
But that is substantially mitigated because the people who act often have the oportuntiy to react when the unforseen consequences bite them in the ass. And the result is LEARNING. The most painful form of learning, but also the most enduring.
But when the ACTS are not of individuals – but are the laws of govenrment, the opportunity to mitigate the unforeseen consequences is much harder – often impossible.
This is one of the reasons that morons incapable of critical thinking should never be allowed to make laws.
Far too many republicans fit in that catagory, but nearly all democrats and all progressives do.
One of the very interesting things about Trump is that he quite clearly sees not on the direct consequences – but those multiple levels deep of what he says and does to an excellent degree of accuracy.
In doing so – he rope-a-dopes you every time. While that is not directly on point for Turley’s article – Turley could post about the JWST and the age of the universe and the comments section would be mostly – filled with Trump is a stupid evil nazi remarks.
# when seeing a doc or shrink use an assumed name and pay cash. Same if meds are prescribed?
You did vomit. Your comment is sheer puke.
My, but the Troll Quality has really declined in the years I have been gone. And this piece of dribble- “It has no place in the real world inhabited by caring responsible human beings.”
You mean the caring responsible human beings who abort their babies because they were too lazy to take a birth control pill, and too degenerate to be choosy who they sleep with? The caring responsible people who mutilate their children because – trans.
The world needs a Christian Patriarchy, and it needs it badly.
^^^^ troll …squeaky fromm