leave it to the deep south.. sad.. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/03/01/louisiana-judge-rules-that-priests-dont-have-to-report-abuse-if-they-hear-it-during-confession/?utm_source=silverpopmailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=friendlyatheist_030116utc050309_daily&utm_content=&spmailingid=50816439&spuserid=mty4mdi2oty3odkws0&spjobid=880120009&spreportid=odgwmtiwmda5s0.
It really depends on the specific laws Smiddy and where you're talking about.
General answer to your last question though is that (in common law democracies) any relevant law/s will be interpreted as applying to all religions. So a lack of a 'formal' clergy isn't a barrier to invoking the privilege where it is recognised. How it gets applied is another thing altogether and depends on precise wording of the law/s.
leave it to the deep south.. sad.. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/03/01/louisiana-judge-rules-that-priests-dont-have-to-report-abuse-if-they-hear-it-during-confession/?utm_source=silverpopmailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=friendlyatheist_030116utc050309_daily&utm_content=&spmailingid=50816439&spuserid=mty4mdi2oty3odkws0&spjobid=880120009&spreportid=odgwmtiwmda5s0.
This will bounce straight back up to a higher court (again). The priest has been granted freedom to testify on the conversation by the penitent herself, he shouldn't complain if he is found in contempt of court. (eg as happened to a Catholic priest who refused to testify when given permission by another penitent in this Massachusetts case from 30 years ago: http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/388/388mass128.html )
Feel for the survivor seeing the court case drag on so long.
i came across this blog - it is one of the evilest things i've ever read.. http://dismythed.blogspot.com/2016/02/flip-side-news-opposers-want-ex.html.
you might not want to click on it because a) you'll give it more traffic and b) it will make you mad.
in summary it states that since only 11-17% of molesters are repeat offenders, witnesses guilty of abuse should be dealt with inside the congregation as long as they confess.
The bible sure is inconvenient when arguing that pedophiles should be protected from secular authorities because 'religion'. 1 Peter 2 (NWT).
13 For the Lord’s sake subject yourselves to every human creation, whether to a king as being superior 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish wrongdoers but to praise those who do good.15 For it is the will of God that by doing good you may silence the ignorant talk of unreasonable men.
basically what the thread title says.. do you guys think the gb want the jw religion to fail?
of course failing in the ultimate sense is just not going to happen.
no matter how bankrupt they went, there is always going to be a percentage that holds on.. but downsizing the membership?
Think it's more the byproduct of delusion than a cunning plan. They currently seem to be in the process of trying to redo Rutherford's big ideas on how to apply bible prophesy. I wonder how many still inside and believing would even be aware of what the changes mean beyond 'new light' and swallowing everything whole. My money is on them declaring Armageddon as having started in some way. Book of Revelation is due a reinterpretation from all the Rutherford-era events.
"And the first trumpet was obviously the historic opening of JW.org website. And the second trumpet was the history making first television broadcast on it."
That kind of babbling buffoonery to keep everyone involved with thinking the end is even nigh-er than before again.
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
The majority of U.S. scientists either belive in a diety or in a higher power.
Or you can phrase it as nearly 6 in 10 scientists in the US don't believe in God.
however, i haven't found any evidence to support that belief.. have you?
if so please, show me the evidence that god exists, and i will believe along with you.. criteria:.
(1) you must specify which god you are talking about;.
Newton's 'evidence' against atheism is that mammals and birds have two eyes and two arms etc and so it's 'senseless' to not believe in a creator. The only time he mentions the sun is to say men have worshiped it in the past. Everything after 'atheism is so senseless' is not attributable to Newton.
It's still a terrible argument whether one is pointing to biology or cosmology.
theburstbubble: just as a translation is it as accurate as they say it is?
or have they played with some of the verses to suit the beliefs?
just curious... i don't know why but i find it quite sad if the nwt is so misleading to support their own beliefs.
Another observation to make has to do with a certain pattern manifested in the religious community at large, and seen frequently in this forum as well: The belittling of anyone who defends the NWT in the slightest: "If Benjamin Kedar says something positive of the NWT, it is because he is not a top scholar." If David BeDuhnn defends the NWT, it is because he doesn't have a Ph.D in linguistics." "If George Howard theorized that the divine name appeared in the original Greek copies, then there are dozens of other scholars who believe otherwise, so he, and the NWT, must be wrong." And so on!I think when someone appeals to authority on a subject, it's perfectly valid to question the value of that authority. George Howard flying a kite is a world away from him being able to prove the divine name was in Greek originals which we don't have, and really is curious grounds for some to fluff the NWT for having done so. BeDuhnn claiming the NWT is a very accurate translation of the NT because it (amongst other things) translates John 1:1 in the same way he chooses (and it is a choice - the irony of his using it as a criteria in a book about bias in translation) is as ridiculous as it sounds. It's also worth noting he still manages to identify problems with bias in the NWT. I wonder what Kedar would make of the latest revision to the NWT, because that very definitely does have translation to dogma in the OT (eg translating the David and the census 'contradiction' away). And etc etc etc.
i'm sorry if i'm covering old ground here.
but is the nwt bible a credible translation of the scriptures?
i'm not asking if you believe in the bible or not.
2 Samuel 24:1 is my personal favorite in their list of 'idiosyncratic' translations. No longer do you need wonder whether YHWH or Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1) incited David to take a census because the Governing Body have translated away the contradiction.
It's worthless to me as a translation. It just isn't worth the time needed to crosscheck it.
post photographic evidence of dubs' false prophecies.
i'll start:.
the preaching work will conclude in the 20th century.
"And there will be... fearful sights." - Luke 21:11
follow case it may change judicial comittees
The constitutional conflict in this case was that the wording of the exemption wasn't open to all religions without interpretation. Instead of allowing that to be a barrier, the judge (and the JW lawyer agreed) decided to apply JW practice to the wording.
States can individually decide whether or not to allow an exemption. eg West Virgina and New Hampshire specify they do not recognise a clergy privilege in these cases and require clergy to report, as does Guam. Four other states (including Texas) don't mention clergy specifically but do say there is no clergy penitent privilege when it comes to reporting child abuse. source: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/clergymandated.pdf
So the issue is whether JWs fit the exemption as worded in Delaware. If they don't, they report as they have to do in other states already. If they do, they get an exemption in Delaware as they have in other states already.
The lack of an exemption in other states hasn't changed how they operate a JC. I presume, however, they do report in those states - as they are legally required. The question is whether or not the Delaware case will undermine their claim to clergy/penitent privilege in those states where they claim it. I suspect that much will depend on the wording of legislation and the willingness of people to press a prosecution.
eg Illinois' definition of this privilege seems impossible to challenge on the same grounds as that of Delaware.
A member of the clergy or practitioner of any religious denomination accredited by the religious body to which he or she belongs shall not be compelled to disclose in any court, or to any administrative body or agency, or to any public officer, a confession or admission made to him or her in his or her professional character or as a spiritual advisor in the course of the discipline enjoined by the rules or practice of such religious body or of the religion that he or she professes, nor be compelled to divulge any information that has been obtained by him or her in such professional character or such spiritual advisor.
