The freedom of religion to continue enabling child rapists.
Perhaps all religion should die along with the cunts in charge.
This tracks with the US electing a pedophile.
Even more evidence that it is far safer to leave your kids with a drag queen (or king) than the clergy.
deleted by creator
Freedom absolutism is great!
You can’t take away my freedom to rape kids!
Let’s get this straight.
Psychiatrist are required to break doctor patient confidentiality if patient is a threat, right and report it.
Lawyers must report crimes to law enforcement, breaking confidentiality too.
But priests are ‘sprcial’ in the magic, secret telling closets?
republicans have proven time and time again that they love children…in absolute most inappropriate way.
We wont be free of groomers until we lock up every single pastor, priest, and every other Christian clergy in this country.
I’m not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge’s order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.
Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?
The fact they would protect abusers just to comply with their faith speaks volumes about their priorities. I mean it’s no surprise when they already protect the predators within their ranks, so why not do the same with their followers?
Luigi Mangione’s religion requires that he sacrifice health care executives, but I don’t see any judges standing up for him.
I dont understand, Luigi is innocent, he was playing Mouse Trap board game with me at the alleged time.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
My bad, thanks for the correction. I get so confused about some of the Psalms.
Ig sexually abusing kids falls under religious freedoms now. What a shithole country
More specifically, Washington State (and most other states) have mandated reporter laws regarding child abuse. If your profession is on the list, you are a mandated reporter. Construction workers are an example of people not mandated reporters. If they suspect abuse they should say something but aren’t legally mandated. Teachers, nurses, and clergy are examples of mandated reporters. They have to say something. The carve out is if the priest learns the information during a sacramental confession. Outside of the confessional, he still reports. But because people stop going to confession when priests don’t have the seal of the confessional, churches maintain that requirement. Child abusers aren’t going to confess to someone who will report that confession to the government so it isn’t like this law was going to stop any abuse. In fact, more abuse might happen when perverts have no one to turn to when they need someone to deal with their messed up psychology.
Then we should fix the justice system’s punitive nature to reduce recidivism, not the mandate to report.
Teachers, nurses, and clergy are examples of mandated reporters.
Well, mandated, until they want to protect a rapist. Then they are protected from having to disclose they exchanged tips with a fellow child rapist.
I mean, so if my religion says I can diddle kids and kill republicans, is that legal now?
It’s seem that two classes of
peoplepedophiles protected in the country are priests & billionaires.A Texas cult tried that once. The answer is no. Or it was like 40 years ago idk
They just got a lot less obvious about it over the years. Fewer “compounds” and more “congregations” and “constituents”
deleted by creator
I’ve never heard that. Not that it isn’t true….
Dunno if it’s New York, but one of our Supreme Court justices is part of a very culty sub-sect of Catholicism. It’s Barrett.
It would seem so.
No
But Republicans get to do it…
Just because someone gets to do it doesn’t mean it’s legal. This mentality gives justification/defense to these acts.
Specifically, this is about forced reporting of sex abuse against children to authorities, not about the act itself.
Ohhh “rules for thee” got it.
Just because someone gets to do it doesn’t mean it’s legal.
Legal or illegal is immaterial. Who is punished for it, and who is protected from punishment is what matters.
In the like 40% chance you’re actually dumb enough to ask this unironically, no, what this means is if you work a confessional booth as part of your religion and somebody admits to diddling kids and killing republicans in the past tense then you not saying anything about it is legal.
Not only is it legal to keep quiet, you’ll face consequences from your religious institution if you report what you know.
I know what it means.
It the law only applies to some people.
It literally doesn’t, that’s kind of the point of the ruling.
The ruling allows churches to ignore child abuse. This ruling was BAD.
Okay sure, but why do you have to make false statements in response to the bad ruling? Why do you get upset when people correct you for that?
What false statements? I am not upset at all lol.
That its legal to rape and murder, you think thats a factual statement? That catholic priests are gaining special privileges by not facing charges for a law specifically targetting confessionals? You think these are all true?
It seems that protecting the children only works to weaken privacy and individual rights, not to actually protect children.
The legislation “places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law. The consequences for violating the law are serious and, as Plaintiffs assert, the implications of violating the Sacramental Seal are more serious still,” he wrote.
Attorney General Nick Brown’s office emphasized that the ruling only applies to “the Sacrament of Confession” and that, if clergy learn about abuse in any other setting, the injunction does not change that they will be mandated reporters. Brown did not provide any further comment.
Batshit insane first paragraph. The second is at least some small positive. I don’t know that this being overturned actually makes any meaningful difference in practice though though- if people can’t say they abused a child in confessional they won’t. I guess you might catch some people in the transmission, who didn’t learn about the change? That would be a positive. But I think long term people just wouldn’t confess to sexual abuses in the confessional anymore
I live in a place where clergy are legally required to report already. There’s still a regular stream of people who confess anyway and are then counseled to immediately report to the police as well, as clergy will be reporting within 24 hours.
Some people glaze over when told what the legal responsibilities are, and just go with what they were told from old movies, that confession is inviolate. Odd but true.
Huh… Thanks for sharing your perspective! it sounds like I was wrong
