Should laws be passed compelling the church to report crimes?

by Fisherman 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Smiles

  Fisherman, it seems you may tend to post your thoughts as they come to your mind rather than debate with yourself a bit before commenting, similar to a personal journal/diary. There is nothing wrong with that style of writing, just remember this a forum, where publishing ones thoughts is inviting questions, debate, and even attack.

  Over the years here I've been challenged and insulted. It can be stimulating, even helpful, intellectually and philosophically.

  Joao, above, (thank you) is discerning and correct. I do disgree with the immediate implications of your opening post; however, some of your subsequent remarks evolved to be bit more sensible. Continue processing your thoughts, and please allow the forum to cross-examine. It can be a good thing.

  It is like fishing... sometimes a fisher must adopt new tackle to improve success.
• 

  Fisherman

  Over the years here I've been challenged and insulted. It can be stimulating, even helpful, intellectually and philosophically.

  So, what? The issue here is law and my topic is about law. Don’t like it, kick rocks.
• 

  ThomasMore

  Being a WTC apologist either breaks you or makes you look broken. I did it for years and am still ashamed for not being intellectully honest. Maybe the better course is to let WTC apologize for its actions and policies - even if they never do that.
• 

  Smiles

  Fishy, you hardly understand what your own topic is actually about... your arguments are all over the map.

  You claim your topic "is about law", but then stray off into "nobody would confess their sins" and "some people don't like" which are religious, social and behavioral issues... not law.

  Since you have thus far been stubbornly unreceptive to questions, critique and debate, myself and others here will gladly "kick rocks" and kick them all over your weak untenable premises.

  Fish on, F'man.
• 

  Anony Mous

  Clergy-penitent privilege is pretty much like attorney-client privilege. There is a lot you can tell your pastor, but some things they legally and ethically have to reveal.

  We all know the WTBTS says they do one thing in public and then recommend other action in secret. So did the Catholic Church and other organizations, and now they are paying the price.

  I personally think that anyone hiding crimes against someone else’s natural rights from the victim or the community at large, should be held liable as an associate to the crimes. I however don’t think many things should be illegal though, if you didn’t violate someone’s natural rights then I don’t believe it is a strict crime and then attorney client privilege or clergy penitent privilege kicks in where you should be able to confess to “sins” in order to get those laws overturned, or get personal help (eg addiction) from the community.
• 

  Fisherman

  AM, I posted a very simple solution that Uncle Sam can implement . Have Scotus re-interpret Berger’s decision and the constitutionality of clergy privileges and do like the recent Roe v Wade decision leaving it up to the State to legislate statutory reporting laws. End of story. Then the church cannot use the defense that Federal law and the constitution protects confidential communications that conflict State mandatory reporting laws putting the church at risk for a Federal lawsuit.

  ( Decades ago, Scotus put a doctrine into effect called qualified immunity. Simply put, this decision protects the police nationwide from lawsuits and criminal prosecution. I can write an essay on this. But simply put the police are protected from lawsuits and prosecution in the course of their job, which pretty much gives police a lot of power to hit you, falsely accuse you, steal from you, violate your civil rights, etc. But because of a national outrage and bad publicity these past years due to rampant misconduct, some States on a State level have revoked police QI— to appease the public. But guess what, QI does not come from the State but from SCOTUS so even if a law enforcement officer is sued in a local court and QI applies, even if the State revoked QI, the SCOTUS doctrine applies. Likewise the clergy privilege could apply even if invalidated by a State with a reporting statute. —I may be wrong.

  But why only pick on the church? If you get rid of the constitution altogether criminals will have zero protection. No more guns and no more privacy inside people’s houses to commit crimes. Police can go inside anyone’s house and put an end of crime altogether. No more 5th Amendment to protect criminals either. Criminals will need to confess to crimes. No more attorney’s defending guilty people either. No more criminals. No legal defenses. Simple.
• 

  Fisherman

  The point is that in the US of A, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the US government is not going to discard it. The constitution also protects the rights and privacy of criminals.

  Relating to how the constitution applies to ecclesiastical privileges, here is what chief justice Berger said:

  "The ecclesiastical privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The... privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive consolations and guidance in return."

  A church elder or minister or priest or pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session.

  A church official who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation.