Suppose you got up every morning to prepare breakfast for your kids, you dressed them and you got them ready for school. You did this out of duty of being a father. Now, your wife turns Judas she takes you to Court and tells the judge you are not doing it. Maybe true may be a lie, but now the Court holds you legally responsible for getting up early, dressing your kids, etc. Now it is the law. The Court is telling you what to do in your own house. Sure you love your kids and will do it voluntarily, but that is not the point. Now you must do it by law. And if you don't or are accused of not doing it, you can be dragged to Court.
'Conti' Court decision secures Watchtower's Policy of confidentiality
by telemetry11 67 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
-
-
Vidiot
Fisherman - "...as a result of the verdict, the church was adversely affected. Before the verdict, their policy was voluntary, yes a spiritual duty, yes necessary, but the Court never ruled making it a legal duty. The verdict made their existing policy, the law."
Making a voluntary, necessary policy The Law was an adverse affect?
Seriously???
-
Fisherman
Making a voluntary, necessary policy The Law was an adverse affect?
Seriously???
To the Defendant, Vidiot. Vidiot, I am not being judgmental. Let me repeat Vidiot, besides the financial judgement against defendant vidiot, the Court, making church policy the law they must comply with vidiot, adversly affects church freedom vidiot for obvious reasons. You got it Einstein? Think about it VID
-
Boeing Stratofortress
"adversly affects church freedom..."
Well..."boo f-ing hoo." Poor churches. Poor catholic diocese getting sued and going bankrupt.
It's the same logic that the NRA uses in the US. After Justice Scalia all but obliterated the "well regulated militia" clause, they feel it as an attack against their 'freedoms' when gun control measures are proposed. What about MY freedom to be able to walk into a Wal-Mart, without running into bubba and his AR-15 slung over his shoulder?
Likewise, what about MY freedom to not have a PEDOPHILE come knocking at my door, when the elders who assigned him that territory know FULL WELL that he has a criminal history of pedophilia.
Deal with it "churches." No one's taking away your freedom of worship. In fact, you're getting quite the tax break. Think about THAT, "fisherboy."
-
Mephis
I'm not seeing the obvious reasons. There is no blanket immunity to torts even under the First Amendment. Any changes of policy will come as a result of doing math that continuing to allow children to be abused by pedophiles, not least because there aren't adequate child protection policies, will continue to result in millions being awarded in damages for that negligence. If you're held legally responsible for negligently allowing kids to be abused in your home, too darned right that you'll be held responsible for that and will be dragged to court. -
GLTirebiter
The church has no legal duty do do criminal checks.
From a criminal law standpoint, that's possibly true (if so, the law should be changed!) But failing to perform the background check could be considered negligence, even if there is no statute requiring it.
I am bothered that the appeals court used such a broad interpretation of the penitential privilege. A JC is an involuntary investigation, a judicial function (just as the name states). It is not a voluntary confession of wrongdoing. It involves third parties giving testimony; it is not a private matter known only to the penitent (accused) and confessor (board of elders). Its existence (though not the charges) can be made known to the congregation in general via a public announcement similar to "George leRoy Tirebiter is no longer one of Jehovah's Witnesses," and the congregation is familiar with that practice. Other religions claiming the penitential privilege keep even the existence of the meeting private; nobody else may even be told it ever happened.
Ironically, the point of the Conti case is that the BoE deviated from the usual practice by not making the normal announcement, and that failure contributed to Conti being harmed!
-
Vidiot
Fisherman - "To the Defendant, Vidiot. Vidiot, I am not being judgmental. Let me repeat Vidiot, besides the financial judgement against defendant vidiot, the Court, making church policy the law they must comply with vidiot, adversly affects church freedom vidiot for obvious reasons. You got it Einstein? Think about it VID"
Dude, are you high, or something?
-
Boeing Stratofortress
Dude, are you high, or something?
I think it's more a case of literal "if/then" type of self-analysis run amok. Sort of like Kirk vs Nomad: