We previously discussed the legislation passed by Washington State democrats that requires priests to violate the sanctity of the confessional to report child abuse. I described the law as “blatantly unconstitutional” in eviscerating the right to the free exercise of religion. The state is moving to create an effective system of sacramental snitches and the Catholic Church is declaring “enough.” It has announced that any priest who complies with the law will be promptly excommunicated.
We previously discussed the proposed legislation that would target priests who learn of any “reasonable” basis to believe that a child “has suffered abuse or neglect.” Despite objections from many of us that the law is unconstitutional and a denial of religious liberty, Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson signed it into law last week.
The legislation amended 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 was added to the list. The sponsors also exempted clergy from the exception afforded to lawyers and others who obtain information “solely as a result of a privileged communication.”
The law applies 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.”
The government and Democratic sponsors were told that canon law imposes a “sacramental seal” over the confessional. 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 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.
The Catholic Church announced that priests will be excommunicated if they follow a new law. They must choose between their faith and the risk of being criminally charged:
“Catholic clergy may not violate the seal of confession — or they will be excommunicated from the Church. All Catholics must know and be assured that their confessions remain sacred, secure, confidential and protected by the law of the Church.”
The Democrats effectively declared war on religion, and particularly the Catholic faith, with this abusive law. The matter is now set for a showdown in the federal courts and, hopefully, an expedited process for judicial review and appeals.
Washington has been one of the most aggressive states in litigating against religious rights, including its long litigation in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.
In Washington, the governor and the Democrats have added to the four stages of the confession. Examination, confession, absolution, and penance may now be followed by incarceration.
The bill will go into effect on July 26 and make Washington just one of a relatively small number states that do not offer exemptions on such reporting for the confessional.
John Paul II stated that “Confession is an act of honesty and courage – an act of entrusting ourselves, beyond sin, to the mercy of a loving and forgiving God.” It now appears that it will demand greater courage in Washington where both priest and penitent are expected to submit to the authority of the state.
In the synoptic gospels, Jesus declared “render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” This is not one of those things to be rendered to the modern demigods of Olympia.
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.”
It will not stop at child abuse. Priests will report that under the radar anyway and deny it.
However, the churches are big on volunteer work. The members of the churches will fight back by confessing to the political graft they witness from NGO’s, etc. they are involved in. Priests will be abhorred and testify to Grand Juries. Then we move on to voter fraud and paid and volunteer help during count. Most NGO’s and charities exist to pay off politicians and themselves.
It’s just another attack on Christianity the white man’s religion and anti homosexuality and abortion.
Don’t sweat it…
It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Do the priests, fathers, imams, etc. et al., sacrifice their robes to bring to light that which the populace deems unsavory and immoral (child abuse)? Or do they rest on their laurels, gain favor within their respective churches, and allow abuse to continue?
Similar situation in the Navy. If I see something, I am almost certainly obligated to report, especially if it could affect the mission.
There is no middle ground solution here that will make everyone happy. Made a few chiefs adversarial that way.
-Rabble
I think that the sanctity of the confessional is only for catholic priests. This wouldn’t, necessarily, affect pastors, rabbis or imams.
From above: “The law applies 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.””
but the other religious figures are not under the requirements of the catholic confessional – there is a subtle difference. If a pastor turns in a pedophile, there is no pope to excommunicate him. The same with Rabbis, there is only a counsel of Torah scholars etc that would decide each incident. What this secular state wants to do is impose the state into matters of religious beliefs and I find it rather tragically ironic that the horde always screaming separation of church and state when they want to include perversion into the classroom will now ignore that separation in order to implement their secular concepts on a religious institution. If it weren’t for hypocrisy the left would have only blatant lying as a moral compass.
It always starts with their biggest “enemy”, then it will slowly but surely move against all other religions until all are under the State. This is just another attempt at subversion, which I hope to any and all gods gets smacked down in Circuit, if not Supreme
“I think that the sanctity of the confessional is only for catholic priests. This wouldn’t, necessarily, affect pastors, rabbis or imams.”
The primary issue to me is that of compelled speech, which I firmly hold to be a violation of the First Amendment. Priests should not have a compulsion to volunteer what they were told under penalty of law for failure to do so. The second issue is whether there is an ethical and moral responsibility to report (or in some other manner effectively pursue) credible accounts of actual child abuse (I am excluding behaviors that fall within traditional parental discipline, many of which I suspect are included in the Washington reporting requirement) conveyed directly by the alleged abuser. In my opinion such responsibility exists, independent of the rituals of a particular religion.
“compelled speech”
Before anyone else points it out, I should have excepted speech compelled under power of subpoena, which presents different issues, including protection against compelled self-incrimination.
The Church ignored reports and tips of sexual abuse, and reassigned them to unsuspecting parishes. It was not the seal of the Confessional that caused the Scandal.
Covering for abusers, or ignoring reports, was unfortunately also at issue in the molestation scandals in the Boy Scouts, public schools, athletic coaches (Sandusky, for example, and also Olympic coaches), dance teachers, riding instructors, Hollywood (Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, the Casting Couch in general – Maureen O’Hara wrote a scathing open letter decades ago), the fashion industry (young and underage models are often sexually abused, see Alan Ritchson story), Imams, Rabbis, Protestant clergy (all without the Act of Reconciliation), Photographers, Big Brother Mentors, and even landlords.
Pedophiles are attracted to positions of authority that come in contact with children. This has been a problem throughout human history. Sparta was infamous for it, as was Rome. In Afghanistan, there’s bacha bazi, or the organized molestation of boys. The military required its officers to look the other way, and courtmartialed service members who punched pedophiles 17 times or so and rescued boys to return them to their mothers.
“. . . the law as “blatantly unconstitutional” in eviscerating the right to the free exercise of religion.” (JT)
In a nation of secular laws, there is no such thing as the “right” to flout the law. Nobody is above the law — not clergy, state DA’s, illegal immigrants, politicians.
“Washington [. . .] its long litigation in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case.” (JT)
That was a Colorado case.
. . . there is no such thing as the “right” to flout the law. Nobody is above the law . . .
True as long as the law is legitimate. Otherwise, the law is null and void, no law at all. This law is unconstitutional, thus, illegitimate.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Any legislation that violates it is not a law. It is a failed attempt at making a law.
“This law is unconstitutional, thus, illegitimate.”
So the Free Exercise Clause includes the “right” to protect criminals?! I must’ve missed that footnote.
I suppose it won’t budge you to point out the obvious: You’re rationalizing a safe haven for child abuse, which can include violence, neglect, rape.
Sam – the Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from singling out religion for inferior treatment. I suggest you read the case I referred to before: Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (9-0 decision).
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/508/520/
As for this law, I previously quoted the portion of the law that singles out clergy, as compared to other professionals who receive confidential communications, to be uniquely burdened with the obligation of breaking confidentiality in these terrible situations. It therefore violates the Free Exercise Clause under the Supreme Court’s unanimous Hialeah decision.
“. . . law that singles out clergy . . .”
You are, yet again, ignoring all of the other professionals covered by that law.
If nothing else, you are a consistent evader.
Sam, I mentioned my previous quotation of the law, but I’ll provide it again here:
Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication.
What am I evading?
Your “previous quotation of the law” is cherry-picked. Read the existing law — the *whole* law. It applies to numerous professionals.
Sam, the states write their own laws so there is no one “whole law.”
Masterpiece indeed arose in Colorado, but Washington had it’s own version (Arlene’s Flowers)
Religious freedom in America has always been subordinate to secular law. It would be a colossal mistake to retreat from this principle. Do you realize that this would open the floodgates to honor killings of teens being defended on the grounds of strict Islamist beliefs and practices? How about forced marriages? FGM?
If the people of WA state decide to place the welfare of children above the religious protections given to adults by the Catholic Church, so be it. Covering up pedophilia? The church still can’t shake it off.
IMO
Although confession given to a priest for the purpose of the salvation of a soul resides within that sphere, the confession of murder or an abuse of a child or other similar ‘unlawful’ acts against social/spiritual laws are subject, not only to priesthood authority in the best interest of the rest of the flock.
The responsible upholding of moral authority within society demands that mercy cannot rob justice by refusing to report it to the appropriate authority according to secular law.
Certain offenses can’t only be dealt within using sanctity as a reason and is therefore an incomplete resolution.
I see it slightly differently in the real world. If there is an internal [church] disclosure system comparable to a secular one (i.e., compelling disclosure to church officials), a priest would be excommunicated; that is public knowledge, although the reasons for such may remain internal (within the church). Notwithstanding, any victim of the priest’s conduct is now free to invite prosecution, naming the perpetrator and using the excommunication as circumstantial/tangential evidence, while the church is granted the authority, under secular law, to remain silent. ?
lin, with respect – I do not understand your comment.
This is NOT about the liability of the church for conduct of priests.
Churches have and can be found liable for the conduct of ministers.
The seal of the confessional does not relieve a chaurch of responsibility for the conduct or ministers.
Usually when there are large awards – there was knowledge of misconduct outside the confessional – that knowledge is NOT protected. A minister has no protection for what they witness. Only what they hear in confession.
They also have no protection for acts to coverup abuse.
One of the huge deals with the catholic church is that they were caught sending alleged pedo priests all to a few specific congregations where they had ready access to immigrant or indiginous children.
You as well as the state of WA presume the law will work as intended – it is OBVIOUS it will not. This is a common problem with many laws.
The effect of this law – if it was actually obeyed by preists and ministers would be for people who beleive they might have committed crimes to avoid confession of counseling.
That makes things worse not better.
This is not about balancing justice with mercy. It is neither about justice or mercy.
It is about the state of WA looking for an easy answer ignoring that it will not work, and virtue signalling that they are doing something about a difficult problem when they are doing nothing.
“Religious freedom in America has always been subordinate to secular law. ”
FALSE.
Please read the constitution as well as 250 years of supreme court caselaw.
When government seeks to infringe on religious freedom it must meet the near impossible to meet “strict scrutiny” standard.
“To pass strict scrutiny, the government must prove that the challenged action serves a compelling governmental interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
A compelling governmental interest is one that is necessary or crucial, such as national security, preserving the lives of a large number of individuals, or not violating explicit constitutional protections.
The government must also show that the law or policy is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest, meaning it must be the least restrictive means to achieve the compelling interest.
In cases requiring strict scrutiny, the burden of proof is on the government to demonstrate that its actions are constitutional.”
Justice OConner noted as one of her regrets after retiring that she voters in a 5:4 majority against native american use of Peyote in religious cerimonies. She ultimately decided the government did not meet strict scrutiny.
There is no chance that the WA law will survive a strict scrutiny test.
“It would be a colossal mistake to retreat from this principle. Do you realize that this would open the floodgates to honor killings of teens being defended on the grounds of strict Islamist beliefs and practices? How about forced marriages? FGM?”
non-sequitur. laws against murder, meet strict scrutiny.
Laws against the use of actual physical force against others – except for self defense or defense of others from serious bodily harm also pass strict scrutiny.
Conversely any effort to preclude people from using peer pressure to compel compliance – whether for religious or other means are constitutionally barred.
If Forced marraige means – the actual use of a shotgun – that is illegal.
If it means being shunned by your family – that is perfectly legal.
It does not matter whether the “force” is religious or secular.
“If the people of WA state decide to place the welfare of children above the religious protections given to adults by the Catholic Church, so be it. Covering up pedophilia? The church still can’t shake it off.”
The People of Washington do not get to use the FORCE that is government law, to infringe on constitutional rights – such as religious freedom without meeting the strict scrutiny test.
This law clearly does not – few if any other states have found this necescary. I am aware of no instance in which the law has previously allowed compelling a preist to testify about what is said in the confessional. This law does NOT meet the requirement of necescity – the world worked prior to passage of the law. Clearly the law is not NECESCARY. Further there are myriads of other ways for govenrment to deal with child sexual abuse. And finally – like so many left wing nut laws the law itself will not work.
There is a reason that the catholic church restated the prexisting doctrine that a priest who reveals information from a confession will be excommunicated, and that is the church needed to reassure people that it was safe for them to practice the sacrement of confession.
If this law survives and if priests were to actually follow it, then people would not confess to crimes in the confessional – certainly not child abuse. That would make things WORSE not better.
Common among left wing nuts is the beleif that passing a law will not have obvious unintended consequences.
The consequence of this law is NOT that pedophiles will be caught.
It is that people with problems that might offend government will not seek counselling.
The left likes to presume that passing a law will cause people to do good things or not do bad things.
Quite often it just drives people to do bad things in different ways.
I would further note that while catholic priests are the focus of this – because the catholic church is NOT going to back down, the “priest penantant privilege” applies to all ministers.
What is NOT true of SOME other religions is the willingness of the church to excommunicate those who violate it.
The Democrats are so anti-American. Pedopiles outing pedophiles is ironic, however, it is weren’t so unconstitutional.
This is not a trick question and I really don’t know the answer.
I agree with the holding in the 1813 New York case cited by the good professor (People v. Philips), and his stance on the free exercise of religion, separation of church and state, etc. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and Render to God what is God’s. I particularly am moved by the notion of trust between priest and sinner, and how that trust could be invoked to convince one to turn himself in.
But I am forced to consider whether, within the realm of God’s world, priests hearing the confessions of other priests who admit sexual abuse of children, should be compelled to report this to higher-ups WITHIN THE CHURCH.????
Lin: Another great comment! Yes, one must wonder if pedophile priests used the confession to enjoin other priests and their superiors within the Church from reporting their crimes and other unlawful behavior. The RC Church has been rocked for years by these scandals and has never been able to come up with a workable solution. Perhaps the problem is its own interpretations of its rules. Despite weaknesses in those rules, the Constitution respects them and what they stand for. The problem, as I see it, is not with the Constitution, but, instead, with the Church that has allowed priests to game the system. If Rome were serious about addressing its scandals, it would consider a scriptural form of the crime-fraud privilege exception. This says that the usual client-attorney privilege can be pierced and waived by a court upon a showing that the attorney and client were engaged as coconspirators in the commission of the crime. But even this becomes problematic because the priest hearing the confession of a criminal priest is NOT a participant in the confessor’s crime but simply is given knowledge of it in a cloistered setting and for a purpose of spiritual forgiveness. Wemay be working toward a solution but havn’t found it yet.
This is not about priests – except that it is the Roman catholic church that is taking the lead in opposing this. The priviledge in question applies to ALL ministers and most counsellors – such as psychiatrists.
The issue is NOT do you want to catch more Pedo’s – you wont. This law just means they will not seek help.
The issue is do you want to pass a law that will actually decrease the possibility of anyone helping.
With specific respect to pedo priests – these are NOT despite public perceptions more common than other professions that have access to children – such as teachers. or scout leaders and the number one place we find pedo’s is relatives.
My wife deals with criminal appeals – the largest volume of appeals is for “sex crimes” – because those have the most disproportionate punishment. Any conviction for a sex crime – even a minor one could be a death sentence in prison and will likely require you to register as a sex offender for life, over 80% of registered sex offenders are homeless.
So appeals from sex offenders is a huge deal. It is their ownly hope.
Nearly all my wifes clients are relatives. I do not think she has ever in decades had a minister as a client for a sex offense. A few teachers. But almost all family members.
Lin.
For me it’s a no-win.
They are not free to report to higher ups.
They ARE free to deny the penitent absolution or to condition it on turning themselves in – either to law enforcement or to their superiors in the church.
Regardless, all too many here presume this is about pedo preists confessing to other priests.
It is about ANYONE who thinks they MIGHT have committed a crime confessing to any priest.
If this law is upheld – people who might have committed a crime will not seek help from any counsellor.
The stupidity of this law is presuming it will result in more reporting, rather than less people seeking help.
This is a very perplexing question, and, as President Trump might rightfully say, there are good people on both sides of the issue. For those on the side of the priest, the First Amendment seems clear that no laws can be made to prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Washington proposed law would, therefore, be unconstitutional on its face.
On the other hand, there are laws and professional ethics requirements for physicians, for example, who must report patients having bullet wounds or knife wounds or children who present with injuries suffered from apparent child abuse, etc. Likewise, police officers learning, for example, that someone is targeted for a hit must try to prevent it.
The problem with citing these examples as analogous to the Washington proposal is that none of them is covered by the First Amendment. After a benefit/risk ratio analysis determined they would be good public policies, they were enacted. The Constitution protects numerous rights, some of which may be viewed at times as having downsides in selected situations. The confidentiality of the confessional in the Roman Catholic religion is one of those constitutional rights that must be upheld by the courts, despite what the proposed legislation is hoping to accomplish.
jjc: We were simultaneously considering other applications/scenarios as we each wrote, but I believe, at least to medical providers, there is clear guidance outlined in HIPAA (45 CFR § 164.501 et seq.). While this could be equally informative/directive in a religious setting, I still struggle with crossing the line into the secular world, –but would like to see something similarly implemented WITHIN the Church. The quintessential question is whether, -all clergy being apprised on this, it would serve in any was as a deterrent to confessing, or a deterrent to the commission/abuse?
Lin: Thank you for your comment. Yes, the HIPAA privacy rules and other laws and regulations that permit or require disclosure of otherwise confidential patient information are often used to argue that the same exceptions should apply to religious rituals such as the Roman Catholic confession. While there certainly is a similarity in the objectives in arguing that priests should be required to disclose otherwise confidential confessional information, the eight-hundred-pound gorilla here is the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. I don’t see how you can enact a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion if by free exercise you mean permitting religious rituals, such as confession, to be performed freely and without government intervention. Although some on this blog are using circular logic, that is, religious scripture to defend religious practice, I’m trying not to disrespect the Church’s view or that of the Atheist, while adhering to the requirements of the Constitution.
Lin.
As someone who works in medical. I so detest HIPAA.
It was and still is a poorly written law.
Dustoff: In 1984, the day that Bill Clinton was schooled to sign the HIPAA privacy rule into law, they had to call a time-out while the lawyers prepared a fix for someone’s concern that a nurse or attendant in a doctor’s office calling out the name of a waiting patient in front of other waiting patients would be a violation of the rule. Eventually, the White House wizards figured out how to bypass this obvious unlawful disclosure! 🙂
JJc
As a first responder, this law made our jobs a nightmare. Most of all dealing with someone who had AIDS.
jjc
There probably are good people on both sides.
What there is NOT is good logic.
The effect of laws like this is NOT to catch more pedophiles – it is to preclude pedophiles as well as others who MIGHT have sought help from doing so.
The right has their own version of this – Red Flag laws for gun owners or purchases.
There is no Religious freedom question in those cases – but the laws are still counter productive.
When you say that psychiatrists and other counselors must report those who seek help, and thee are consequences of that reporting – such as a criminal investigation as a pedo or the inability to buy a gun or to have your guns confiscated, the obvious but unintended consequences make the problem you seek to solve WORSE, not better.
I strongly support the first and second amendment.
But even if I did not – these types of laws are WRONG – there negative consequences are significant, and there positive benefits are nil.
A priest can not report a penitent, if the penitent no longer chooses to go to confession.
But worse still – they can not help.
Counsellers can not help people who are suicidal or have violent thoughts, if those people refuse to see counselors because they will be reported and lose their right to buy or posses firearms.
If you want people to seek help, you can not make laws that require that help to subject those who need help to unwanted attention – or they will not seek help.
Is your goal to catch peodphiles or to reduce confessions ?
The intent of this law may be the former, but the effect will be the latter.
I admit I am not the best Christian, and I am not a Catholic. That being said, I understand the Confessional rules and “laws”, however, I do believe there should be exceptions when dealing with serious issues involving crimes against children or murder or rape. I think it is a HUIMAN duty to want to punish those who harm children or the elderly, or who commit murder or rape. I think punishing those who commit heinous crimes takes precedence over any religious beliefs and teachings.
Would you say the same about communications with the person’s lawyer? That is, would you say that any lawyer that learns that his or her client committed a heinous crime, through privileged communications with his client, is obligated to violate the privilege and turn his own client in to the police?
And if you answer “yes” to that question, then ask yourself: how can our system, where lawyers are required to represent their client’s interests zealously and protect them from the power of the state, continue to function as such? Wouldn’t that just be a slippery slope to an all-powerful state with no buffers to protect the citizen?
NOTE: I’m not suggesting people who commit heinous crimes should get away with it. It’s just that the system we have depends on certain countervailing objectives being fulfilled, one of which is that communications are confidential, with very limited exceptions to prevent crimes from happening in the future – which this Washington State law is not about, it’s about catching someone who did something bad in the past.
Those are all good valid points I hadn’t thought of before.
Kitchen – I appreciate that response, it is rarely seen in these types of discussions.
I try to be fair and balanced. 🙂
“. . . is obligated to violate the privilege . . .”
As a lawyer, you should know that there are exceptions to that privilege, including: the crime-fraud and preventing harm exceptions.
Sam, that’s a good point. My comment was aimed at violating the privilege to punish past crimes, rather than preventing future ones (hence the past tense of the word “committed”). I agree with you that there are exceptions to the privilege for preventing future crimes.
Sam: But the crime-fraud exception posits that both the client and lawyer are criminals or co-conspirators in the commission of a crime. The pedophile priest or person who confesses being a pedophile to a priest in confession does not have the same relationship to the priest as the client and lawyer in the crime-fraud exception. The priest is not a coconspirator and therein lies the fly in your ointment.
“. . . the crime-fraud exception posits . . .”
Huh?
Cite the crime-fraud statute that *posits* the two as criminals or co-conspirators.
“. . . does not have the same relationship . . .”
It’s the *identical* relationship: Privilege and the grounds for breaking it.
There is no god.
Religion is nothing more than a security blanket for weak-minded people who are afraid of the dark.
Good luck with that.
So true.
As said by Anonymous the afraid!
People with any sense just need to move the hell out of Washington state (or DC for that matter).
The namesake (POTUS #1) is rolling over in his vault at this assault on the Constitution.
The law as amended states: Except for members of the clergy, no one shall be required to report under this section when he or she obtains the information solely as a result of a privileged communication.
That’s singling out religion for inferior treatment as compared to other areas of life. The bill is therefore clearly aimed at religion as such, and violates the Free Exercise Clause as explained in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (9-0 decision).
Religion is garbage. Can humanity grow up already. Mammals in costumes seek power, in this life, the only one that matters, by threatening the imagined next. Also, pay property taxes like everyone else, and then they can participate in influencing legislation. This is not a theocracy.
Unrelated to the article, and clearly just designed to stir the pot and get a reaction. I recommend not responding.
Says someone reacting and responding.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Yes, reacting in anticipation that others would take him/her seriously and lead to a chain of reactions, which I was trying to avoid. But then you came along . . .
Says someone CONTINUING to react and respond.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Where does a lawyer draw the line? Easy…. wherever it’s most convenient for whatever he’s arguing in favour of.
Turley is a personal friend and I assure you, he writes these himself.
Everyone
Having a bad day I see.
If your criteria is that Humans are just mammals – no other mammal pays property taxes or influences legislation.
I have no problem with athiests.
Stupidity however is irredeemable.
Think before you post.
This is not a theocracy.
That does NOT make stupidity justified.
This law is a mistake in exactly the same way as the red flag laws that the right likes for guns is also a mistake.
All it will accomblish is reducing those seeking help.
“exactly the same way as the red flag laws that the right likes for guns ”
I think you have a misconception there. I belong to a number of 2A advocacy organizations which would be categorized by most (imo including by you) as on “the right”. Nearly everyone I know who is a member of such organizations are opposed to red flag laws, as are (generally) the official policies of the organizations themselves. I will grant you that there is an occasional exception advocated for one or another narrow, specific type of violation, and I believe all, or nearly all, such exceptions are misguided, but for the most part, the opposition among the 2A “community” to red flag laws very much predominates.
Amen!!! Peace be with you.
The law is flawed, but a simple work around while litigated – set up a “hotline” Teams (or similar meeting tool) and provide Catholics in Washington state to do online confessions with a priest in another state without such laws.
Creative, but if someone is going to confess child abuse, they probably aren’t going to trust electronic communications to be secure.
Paul,
Priests are just going to ignore the law.
It is highly unlikely they will ever get caught.
And if they do, the case will go to the supreme court where the law will be invalidated.
The real question is why is Washington passing a law that will be counterproductive – even if it was constitutional, and will be tossed by the courts eventually.
What are Washington legislators being paid for – virtue signaling ?
It is time to use the laws Congress gave us to end tyrannical government from abridging the civil rights of the people.
18 USC 241 Conspiracy against rights.
18 USC 242 Deprivation of rights under color of law.
42 USC 1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights.
The only way to end Democrats constant assault on our civil rights is to make them pay for their crimes.
The DOJ Civil Rights Division must start immediately the process of indictment against Democrats as required by federal law.
Washington State Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government refuse to comply with Constitutional civil rights including;
> 1st Amendment religious rights.
> 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
> 5th and 14th Amendments Due Process clause that protect Parental Rights.
The citizens of Washington State should no longer be forced into second class citizenship, due to the state’s Malicious refusal to Comply With Constitutional Law.
Fundamentalist Islamists will move to this country in droves if your hairbrained expansion of religious freedom ever succeeds. Our only defense against religious fanaticism is the supremacy of secular law over religious practices. Wake up to reality.
Why is there always that faint stench of Inquisition wafting from everything left of center?
You are correct. Turley may have confused Masterpiece with the Washington florist case that was very similar to Masterpiece. But facts are important. I’ll cut him some slack, he’s usually dead on. Turley is a gem.
You assume that Turley writes these daily doses of MAGA garbage.
This site is nothing more than a small part of the Rupert Murdoch empire.
This stuff is coming from writers at Fox and/or the NY Post.
I can see why you posted that garbage anonymously.
An
Try a mirror, it might work.
@whimsicalmama
My thoughts, too, beat me to it. One could cut the irony here with a knife.
It’s also a bit of a non-sequitur when the same left has fought to keep pornography in school libraries, the ‘right’ to do drag queen story hour, the ‘right’ to intervene in s child’s life with no parental consent, etc.
Masterpiece Cake Shop was Colorado not Washington. Both states have a bad history on freedom of religion, but facts matter.
You are right, of course. Legally. Morally, any priest who does not do their utmost to stop child abuse is no better or worse than anyone else. There’s a “saying” about lawyers, Professor. I think I read it about Ralph Waldo Emerson, but probably others have said it. Something like – Don’t tell me you lie because it’s a requirement of being a lawyer. What business do you have being in such a profession? The same goes for priests. I understand why there needs to be a seal over the confession. But there are exceptions to everything in this world (except that statement). What business does a priest have being in a profession that would allow a child to be abused without trying to stop it. Now there may be more than one way to try and stop it – maybe going to the police would be the last way. I think I would give up my profession, which is also a lawyer, before I would remain quiet while someone was being raped, maimed, murdered or the like.
You might be a lawyer, but I suspect you aren’t a Christian – and I’ve often wondered if the two callings are even compatible. God is what you would refer to as a “higher” authority, just as SCOTUS is the highest authority in your calling – but still lower than God.
Like most lawyers, you presume…. in this case, you presume that a priest would not attempt to stop the abuse, which I contend with as little evidence as you other than my faith in humanity, that you’re wrong.
I won’t give you chapter and verse from the Bible that prove my point about authority, I doubt you’d give any credence to them since they can’t be found in Blacks.
Which could explain the low opinion that the general populace has of lawyers (I think Shakespeare might have noticed that also). Just where DOES a lawyer draw the line?
apparently the Democrats worship of evil isn’t consider a religion?
I seem to remember the Constitution had some to say about Freedom of Religion?
i’d prefer jailing local DA, government officials and AG…who release criminals who commit more crimes…as accomplices…and jailing anyone helping illegal with taxpayer money or government services or IDs