Law The Trump administration is officially moving to overturn a law that requires clergy to report child sexual abuse, saying it violates priests' constit

[Rod1]

You pin a priest when he was informed of abuse, did not report it,

And how do you even become aware of it?

Say a child molester told his priest and he didn't told the cops, you grab the child molester later.

How do you become aware of the fact he told the priest?

 

[DoctorTaco]

No, the argument is whether a private citizen can be declared a "guilty bystander" by the State based on religious belief.

Mandatory reporters are already a thing. The state requires these private citizens to report abuse. Why should someone’s religion get in the way of being a mandatory reporter?

I’m happy to have a discussion. I’d love to know what else you are ok with them not reporting if learned in a lil wooden box- bombing plots? Mass casualty shootings? Kidnappings?

 

[DoctorTaco]

Cool, but if you establish precedent that the State can force religious people to act as State surveillance you are opening a big can of worms.

They’re already forcing teachers, coaches, doctors, therapists, and a litany of others. It’s not a problem

 

[joy2day]

And how do you even become aware of it?

Say a child molester told his priest and he didn't told the cops, you grab the child molester later.

How do you become aware of the fact he told the priest?

Pretty much like you would in any other legal case. Maybe the priest confided in another clergy that came forward after children were harmed. Or the ped0 went telling people that he had told the priest, and the priest was under suspicion in other cases (low credibility). The priest could also have been in a group counseling session where others heard. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt like any other court case, so basically, they would have to convince a jury that the priest had been told based on evidence and witness testimony.

 

[sickc0d3r]

No, you are definitively not involved in that case unless you support or encourage the person in anyway or form.

Support them like by not turning them in after they confessed to you? Encourage them like by letting them do it again because you turned the other way? Come on, bro.

 

[sickc0d3r]

We are talking about stupid laws, for once its completely unenforceable.

For once, how would you even know the criminal told the priest and the priest decided not to tell in the first fucking place?

That’s not the important part, though. The important part is that, if you can somehow prove it, they should be held accountable. It’s not like they should be accessories or whatever, but some culpability seems appropriate to me.

 

[sickc0d3r]

Well thanks for proving me right again, and showing that your only interest is your hostility towards the religion and "their stupid as all fuck practices".

No, you clown, you don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't, and YOU specifically sure as fuck don't because "we the people" already did decide, and you lost. But best of luck to you on your quest to ignore the rights of anybody you don't like. Not off to a great start when even a Biden judge just issued the injunction and said the law was unconstitutional, but best of luck dragging it up to the SCOTUS where the justices are 2/3 Catholic. I'm sure they'll be on your side and rule "yeah, our religion is stupid as fuck and we should totally give it up and let the karate forum decide what our rules should be".

And is it usually goes, their hypocrisy didn't do them any favors when even the state AG admitted that the law would be too hard to defend in federal court because they made it too obvious that it had more to do with targeting religion than protecting kids by adding all kinds of exemptions for secular professions like parents/guardians, counselors, lawyers, doctors, and ONLY specifically removing recognition of "confidential communication" from religious practices.

Thanks for playing, Bozo.


On Friday U.S. district judge David G. Estudillo ruled the priests were "likely to succeed" in their lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking that part of the law.

"There is no question that SB 5375 burdens plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion," Estudillo wrote. "In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law...

"Ultimately, Washington’s failure to demonstrate why it has an interest of the highest order in denying an exemption to clergy while making such exemptions available to other professionals who work with underserved children is likely fatal."

lol, so hostile! And yet, declaring yourself “a religion” doesn’t grant you a hall pass to anything goes. Try again, retard. Or don’t. It would be a better look for you.

 

[nostradumbass]

lol, so hostile! And yet, declaring yourself “a religion” doesn’t grant you a hall pass to anything goes. Try again, retard. Or don’t. It would be a better look for you.

Oof, that's some desperate sputtering after you just got wrecked.

They're not asking for "anything goes", stupid, they're asking for the same exemption for privileged communication that the same law grants to secular professions. Feel free to write a letter the democrat state AG and the Biden appointed judge who both said it's not defensible and wouldn't hold up in federal court.

 

[shockaholic12]

Imagine coming in here, again after YEARS of declaring that Trump is enemy #1 to every pdf file in the US, and arguing that this is somehow good. That someone's f*cking superstition should allow them to not tell Civil authorities about disgusting child predators. That, according to them, allowing people to face civic justice for their heinous acts towards children, is bad because their imaginary friend told them so. And this coming from an entity with vast amounts of political corruption who got outed for protecting child predators systemically BY cooperating with civic authorities in an effort to keep the fact that they knowingly put child predators in communities hidden. and prevented them from facing accountability.

And considering this tradition claims to bestow forgiveness of the highest order, it not only hides child abuse but goes on to tell the abusers that a simple statement to a preist that bears no tangible consequences to them absolves them.

So they can rape and confess and rape confess and still feel vindicated

 

[sickc0d3r]

Oof, that's some desperate sputtering after you just got wrecked.

They're not asking for "anything goes", stupid, they're asking for the same exemption for privileged communication that the same law grants to secular professions. Feel free to write a letter the democrat state AG and the Biden appointed judge who both said it's not defensible and wouldn't hold up in federal court.

Who gives a fuck what some democrat AG said?

I know it won’t matter to you, but let’s pull on this thread a little bit longer, in case anyone else is interested. Let’s say a serial child rapist likes to rape kids and then confess his sins to a priest. Maybe it gets him off, maybe he actually believes in God and redemption and all that shit, doesn’t matter. Is there any point at which you think that the priest who hears those confessions should be culpable?

 

[ShadowRun]

Just a question out of curiosity.

What other professions are under a sort of "Good Samaritan" onus, we'll call it, where they are incriminated for not reporting that someone confesses a sex crime (such as against children)? I believe Psychiatrists and other therapists are. What others?

Police? Teachers? Politicians?

Lawyers , prosecutors, detectives

 

[Yehudim]

Your team is boring as fuck.

sybau

 

[DoctorTaco]

No, you are definitively not involved in that case unless you support or encourage the person in anyway or form.

Unfortunately, that is not how it works with mandatory reporters.

We are talking about stupid laws, for once its completely unenforceable.

For once, how would you even know the criminal told the priest and the priest decided not to tell in the first fucking place?

Depositions.

In that case it makes sense as a social worker that sees obvious signs of abuse and a cop that derelicts its duty can at least be reasonable pinpointed out because it’s their fucking job in the first place.

How do you even pin a priest on that?

Somebody admitting to raping a child? I guess you just believe them and then tell the cops.

Well thanks for proving me right again, and showing that your only interest is your hostility towards the religion and "their stupid as all fuck practices".

No, you clown, you don't get to decide who gets rights and who doesn't, and YOU specifically sure as fuck don't because "we the people" already did decide, and you lost. But best of luck to you on your quest to ignore the rights of anybody you don't like. Not off to a great start when even a Biden judge just issued the injunction and said the law was unconstitutional, but best of luck dragging it up to the SCOTUS where the justices are 2/3 Catholic. I'm sure they'll be on your side and rule "yeah, our religion is stupid as fuck and we should totally give it up and let the karate forum decide what our rules should be".

And is it usually goes, their hypocrisy didn't do them any favors when even the state AG admitted that the law would be too hard to defend in federal court because they made it too obvious that it had more to do with targeting religion than protecting kids by adding all kinds of exemptions for secular professions like parents/guardians, counselors, lawyers, doctors, and ONLY specifically removing recognition of "confidential communication" from religious practices.

Thanks for playing, Bozo.


On Friday U.S. district judge David G. Estudillo ruled the priests were "likely to succeed" in their lawsuit and issued a preliminary injunction blocking that part of the law.

"There is no question that SB 5375 burdens plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion," Estudillo wrote. "In situations where Plaintiffs hear confessions related to child abuse or neglect, SB 5375 places them in the position of either complying with the requirements of their faith or violating the law...

"Ultimately, Washington’s failure to demonstrate why it has an interest of the highest order in denying an exemption to clergy while making such exemptions available to other professionals who work with underserved children is likely fatal."

Man, you reeeeeally don’t want priests to have to rat out child rapists. Wild.

It's insane that some of you are putting the church over children that are being harmed.

Only in the confines of the little wooden box

And considering this tradition claims to bestow forgiveness of the highest order, it not only hides child abuse but goes on to tell the abusers that a simple statement to a preist that bears no tangible consequences to them absolves them.

So they can rape and confess and rape confess and still feel vindicated

Don’t forget they gotta say the magic words and do the hand wiggles

 

[Natural Order]

Clown religion, clowning around.

Honk!

 

[nostradumbass]

Who gives a fuck what some democrat AG said?

I know it won’t matter to you, but let’s pull on this thread a little bit longer, in case anyone else is interested. Let’s say a serial child rapist likes to rape kids and then confess his sins to a priest. Maybe it gets him off, maybe he actually believes in God and redemption and all that shit, doesn’t matter. Is there any point at which you think that the priest who hears those confessions should be culpable?

It's the AG of the state the law is in, and that is whose office would be defending it in federal court, and he is the one saying it's not really defensible.

Not legally culpable, no, I think it should be treated the same as attorney client privilege that everyone accepts where a defense lawyer doesn't get prosecuted for not only not telling the court when they believe or know their client is guilty, but actively working to deceive the court or jury to avoid punishment for a client they know is guilty.

There are plenty of other examples where you don't believe this either. If a high school or middle student has sex with a teacher or anybody else over 18 and other students knew about it, should they be prosecuted for not reporting it? How about victims themselves? If you got molested at 12, and are now 25 and didn't report it and the guy went on to rape dozens more people over the subsequent 13 years, is that person culpable for all the subsequent rapes?

The priest would be culpable if he was taking part in the crimes, giving the guy advice on how to get away with it, or even being asked about it and directly lying. And again, you couldn't even conceivably arrest a priest until after the rapist is already arrested, tried and convicted, and then you would have to prove that they did know.

The Catholic belief is that they are confessing their sins to God through the priest and asking for forgiveness through the priest. He is not there as your buddy Frank listening to somebody brag about getting away with murdering someone or cheating on his wife or banging a kid, or some blackmail operation or an undercover cop collecting evidence on everyone in the church just to pop out wearing a wire. "Confess your sins so that you can be forgiven. Just kidding, I'm not even really Catholic and you're all in deep shit now".

 

[Source]

I belong to a church where parishioners do not pay state or federal taxers. Stop infringing on my freedom of religion.

 

[pinger]

Lol, now do the same for Muslim clerics

 

[Rod1]

They’re already forcing teachers, coaches, doctors, therapists, and a litany of others. It’s not a problem

Those are professions and a lot of them are government employees and in several of them its their job in the first place

 

[Rod1]

Pretty much like you would in any other legal case. Maybe the priest confided in another clergy that came forward after children were harmed. Or the ped0 went telling people that he had told the priest, and the priest was under suspicion in other cases (low credibility). The priest could also have been in a group counseling session where others heard. It's proof beyond a reasonable doubt like any other court case, so basically, they would have to convince a jury that the priest had been told based on evidence and witness testimony.

this is after you assert the fact that the guy told a priest in the first place.

 

[Rod1]

Unfortunately, that is not how it works with mandatory reporters.

Mandatory reporters usually work with victims and or meet victims as part of their work, there is usually a pretty gross negligence.

Depositions.

Depositions won't tell you if a rapist ever confessed to a priest in the first place

Somebody admitting to raping a child? I guess you just believe them and then tell the cops.

No i mean how do you even know if a rapist confessed to a priest in the first place