Washing State Rep, purposes changes to clergy sex (page 2)

Princess

Princess & Mulan, please don't fall into the trap of thinking that since the proposed revision to existing law is incomplete it does not merit your support.

You're right, it's better than nothing...I guess. However the exception offends me as does your comment Nathan. Why does everyone have be so critical when I express my opinion? It's not only incomplete, it is majorly flawed and I don't have to support something that offends me only because it is a step in the right direction.

Possibly the reason so few are reading the thread is that it is regarding Washington State only. Possibly it is also that TH seems to be alienating members of the board by his constant name calling and obsenities when people disagree. He refuses to back his position and instead calls names. Too bad because it is a good thread and of interest to most members.

Rachel

Trauma_Hound

He refuses to back his position and instead calls names.

Oh really now? And what position do I fail to back? What thread did I start name calling in? The majority of the time, I'm defending my position, and being called names myself. Kind of like what your doing now.

mrs rocky2

Even if what you hear reported in the media isn't quite the way you would like the law to read it is important to contact your state rep. Something similar was discussed by Washington State Legislature, if I recall correctly, in 1998, but did not make it to law. It is my opinion that this issue was not given the public attention it deserves and of course, at that time, the clerical lobby was strong. So letting your politicians know what is on your mind is important. They will not support something they feel is not supported by their constituency!

Mental health professionals (counselors and therapists) have been mandatory reporters for years in Washington State. Washington has some of the strictest confidentiality laws governing mental health. These laws take backstage when there is suspicion of child abuse. As for protecting confidentiality, only those who need to know to investigate the allegations are included in the knowledge loop. It makes so much sense for clergy to be mandatory reporters as they often serve as first line counselors, especially in smaller and rural communities.

BTW, it has been a rare occurence in my little area of the world (time period-last 12 years) that children accuse falsely. There have been a few cases with little or no publicity where a child has falsely accused an adult of abuse. The adults were cleared and have not experienced damage to their reputation. So while the concern over false allegations is real, it is over rated, at least IMHO. But this is only my opinion....

Mrs Rocky

Princess

Charlie, I wasn't referring to this thread, I was referring to the thread to Prisca most recently and also on the other board.

I really don't want to fight with you. You asked why you weren't getting many responses to your thread. I suggested a reason. It seems you frequently are quite defensive and quickly resort to name calling if your position is not supported.

I like you Charlie and didn't mean to pick a fight or offend you. Just a suggestion to keep it calm and people will come around. You do good work supporting your cause and I admire that. I choose not to support the cause but feel very sympathetic toward the victims. This particular issue made me angry because it seemed so perfect until that little exception that put religion above the law...again.

Again, sorry to offend you Charlie. I was really more irritated with Nathan's response and took it out on you.

Rachel

outnfree

From what I understand, that little clause exempting the clergy from having to report suspicions of abuse if the information came in the confessional or during confidential talks is there because of U.S. constitutional law.

As many of you well know, there is separation of church and state in this country. The federal government has consistently maintained that information gained during a penitential rite does not have to be reported to secular authorities. For the law in Washington (or any of the other states -- mine, Michigan, is another one) to have a chance of passing and being upheld, the statute has to be carefully worded to make sure that it does not violate constitutional law (or precedent). At least that's what I'm learning.... <sigh>

I agree with Nathan that if you believe clergy reporting of child abuse should be mandatory, help the legislators get some kind of law on the books even if imperfect. It's a start.

And yes, the statute of limitations for prosecuting child abuse should be non-existant.

outnfree

Trauma_Hound

Well even if this law isn't perfect, it's better then what we have now, this would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. There really is no, good excuse for not supporting it. For ammending it, yes. But to completely rejecting it, no.

Edited by - Trauma_Hound on 19 November 2002 16:43:40

waiting

Thanks for the thread - and yes, I didn't read it immediately because I thought it'd be another fight. Sorry, Charlie - as the ol' saying goes.

As for the confessional? It's reigned supreme for over a century now. WT falls back on it when they feel like it.

Any change is going in the right direction.

Nathan Natas

I thought I'd share the email I sent:

To: "Rep. MARY LOU DICKERSON" <[email protected]>,
Senator PAT THIBAUDEAU <[email protected]>,
"Rep. FRANK CHOPP" <[email protected]>,
"Rep. EDWARD B. MURRAY" <[email protected]>

Subject: Tougher Child Abuse Laws? YES!!

Dear Legislators,

I am writing in support of Representative Mary Lou Dickerson's proposed change to our existing laws that would add clergy to a list of those required to report any suspicions of child abuse or neglect.

Further, I urge you to consider strengthening our existing laws by removing the statute of limitations on child abuse.

My interest in this issue arises from my past involvement with Jehovah's Witnesses and my personal knowledge that the charges against the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society leveled by the media (Dateline NBC, CNN - Connie Chung, BBC Panorama, Australian Channel 9 and WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas) are TRUE.

From about the age of seven I was raised as One of Jehovah's Witnesses, a follower of The Watchtower Bible & Tract Society. Before I ceased to be a follower of that religion in the late 1970's I had become an ordained "pioneer" minister of the WTB&TS (spending 100 hours a month knocking on doors) and had been appointed as a Ministerial Servant (deacon) in my local congregation. It was then that I learned from a personal friend who happened to be an "elder" in the congregation that there was a child molester in our own congregation. The congregation elders did NOTHING to stop this predator's behavior, even allowing him to marry a JW woman who had two young children from her first marriage without letting the woman know what sort of man she was getting involved with.

As I explained, I am not a JW today. I vote, and I believe that society is best served by ACTIVE participation of citizens in their secular government.

Best wishes to you all,

Nathan Natas

I thought I'd share this reply I received from Washington State Representative Mary Lou Dickerson:

From: "Arlow, Joanna" <[email protected]>
Subject: Tougher child abuse laws
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 14:48:11 -0800

Dear Mr. XXXXX,

Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson has asked me to respond to your email letter
regarding clergies' mandatory reporting of child abuse.
Rep. Dickerson greatly appreciates your support for the draft legislation.
She also appreciates your sharing your own personal experiences,
particularly as a former minister with the Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition,
she will take into consideration your concern about the statute of
limitations, one voiced by many others interested in protecting children
from abuse.

Please keep in touch during the session and feel free to write with any
questions or concerns. Again, thank you for taking the time to write about
an issue of such importance to the well-being of children.

Sincerely,

Joanna Arlow, J.D.
Legislative Assistant
Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
36th District
(360) 786-7860

Washing State Rep, purposes changes to clergy sex

Share this