by OrphanCrow 161 Replies latest watchtower child-abuse
More bolony from you. JW "sacramental " confession is not about killing anyone to Aztec gods. It is confidentiality of the sins confessed to church elders.
How dare you impose your own opinion of what sacramental confession should be upon Jehovah's Witnesses! You imply it's confidential! And you imply that the purpose is to make a confession! Have some salami!
Did I do that right Fisherman?
Fisherman, the only reason the law exists in the first place is because of the law of the catholic church and similar bodies. But even if you broaden the definitions, the original purpose WAS the purpose. You let that go, and we could extend it to any conversation, with any group of people, with any crime, and allow people an expectation of confidentiality. The WTS doesn't have confidentiality in ANY part of that process. Not in this or any other case. The WT doesn't have to change the way it practices religion in order to qualify for 909, they have to recognize that the entire process of judicial committee meetings is in no way applicable to that law from its very foundation. If the WT wants to have a confessional system, no one is stopping them, but a JC isn't one and never will be. It is a court tribunal, not a confessional. There is no confidentiality, there is no privacy inherent in the process. Nothing about it relates.
If the WT (even without calling their elders "clergy" had a confidential system in the structure of the religion, we wouldn't even be discussing this. But they don't. They never will. Its not something we need to debate about whether it is a better or worse way, it is just so inherently DIFFERENT that it is not even related vaguely. Its like saying "you should call this blueberry muffin an omelet. It doesn't have vegetables or cheese or meat in it like an omelet, and its filled with flour and blueberries and sugar, but gosh darn it, it has an EGG in it, so it should get to be an omelet, by golly!" Its not logical and it isn't unfair to the blueberry muffin to say it is not an omelet. No one expects a blueberry muffin to be an omelet. Muffins are muffins. If you want to be an omelet, lose the flour, leavening, blueberries, milk and sugar. (If you start trying to argue that they are the same by your definition, I won't be polite)
Did I do that right Fisherman?
now we have both salami and boloni from you. 909 provides confidentiality between priest and penitent. That is it. Does Delaware want JW elders to wear costumes and perform rituals and set up kiosks for JWs to confess? I think that I have made my point. You have your view. "Good Luck!"
No, but I think sins confessed in confidentiality would be a good start. You're typing the words, not understanding them I suspect.
I don't need good luck. My country decided about 400 years ago that it's utterly retarded to allow religions to dictate to law in serious criminal matters. Unfortunately that meant you guys got the Puritans instead. Sorry!
fisherman: 909 provides confidentiality between priest and penitent. That is it. Does Delaware want JW elders to wear costumes and perform rituals and set up kiosks for JWs to confess? I think that I have made my point. You have your view. "Good Luck!"
Yes. You have made your point. You do not comprehend why the ruling was made the way it was.
The JW judical hearings DO NOT qualify as as clergy-penitent situation because the JCs are NOT in place to accomodate penitent repentance and absolution. The JCs are a disiplinary process which is NOT covered under the clergy-penitent clause.
For the JCs to qualiify, the purpose of the JC has to be such that the penitent comes to the elders(clergy) to confess and receive absolution because of the confession - not because the elders commence upon a system of discovery in order to disipline those concerned.
Comparing the JC process to the confession of other churches is like comparing apples to oranges - they are not the same thing. And the judge in this case make that clear.
The judge does not expect the JWs to "wear costumes and perform rituals and set up kiosks for JWs to confess", but it is expected that the JWs know the difference between confession/absolution that occurs in strict confidence between only two people and just a plain old disiplinary hearing that results in the victim being kicked out and countless others being involved in the process.
*to add - geez fisherman, your senseless arguing on this matter leads a person to think that you have a personal stake in this ruling...good luck.
OC and Mephis. You are very smart,. OC Thank you for your funny catholic remarks. You should have have been around when they wrote the US Constitute to the tell them that the purpose of the law is for religious purposes especially catholic and to remind them to put "absolution" in there. They forgot. But thank God for you now to tell Delaware Court and Assembly that JW should not be protect by the constitution and Delaware law because they do not meet catholic requirements set forth in 909 as you see it a. Get a pen and write this down: 909 will be taken down because it is unconstitutional or it will be interpreted to apply to religions in general including JW.
Write this down too: Any attempts to force JW to change their existing "penitent priest" setting to qualify for a religious confidentiality immunity provision will be overturned in the Higher Court. Sure, the law can mandate child abuse reporting for all religions including JW but the law CANNOT tell JW they do not qualify when confidentiallity is a legal provision to religion.
fisherman: but the law CANNOT tell JW they do not qualify when confidentiallity is a legal provision to religion.
The law CAN and the law DID.
The law in question has to do with the confession setting, not a judicial setting.
What the JW's did was Judicial. Hence, does not qualify under the provision of the law.
Fisherman: I'm curious to know what your opinion is of the 14 year old rape victim being disfellowshipped. How is that justice?
Section 909 states “No legally recognized privilege, except that between attorney and client and that between priest and penitent in a sacramental confession, shall apply to situations involving known or suspected child abuse, neglect, exploitation or abandonment and shall not constitute grounds for failure to report as required by 903 of this title or to give or accept evidence in any judicial proceeding relating to child abuse or neglect.”
Ultimately, the court ruled that since the congregation had called a meeting with the adult member to discuss the issue, the member could not be deemed a “penitent” and the meeting to investigate allegations not a “sacramental confession.”
Also, the court found the juvenile’s subsequent excommunication indicated he might not have willingly met with the elders, and did not consider the meeting as a form of repentance as part of absolution and a “sacramental confession.”
The law CAN and the law DID.
READ
Wrong, the basis of the denial is that the Court concluded that genuine issues of material fact exist in-spite of the constitutionality of 909.
READ
Any attempts to force JW to change their existing "penitent priest" setting to qualify for a religious confidentiality immunity provision will be overturned in the Higher Court.
