I seem to remember it starting with not being able to charge for the mags any more too Freddo. Can anyone remember the phrase we were told to use? Something about 'without charge but not without cost', is that right?
Mephis
JoinedPosts by Mephis
-
28
2016-1-12-BOE--Mentioning Donation Arrangement to Householder!
by Atlantis in2016-1-12-boe.
"apply yourself to the field ministry," the "initial call" assignmentdirects the student to mention the donation arrangement..http://postimg.org/image/tayz8pawn/..atlantis!
-
-
-
28
2016-1-12-BOE--Mentioning Donation Arrangement to Householder!
by Atlantis in2016-1-12-boe.
"apply yourself to the field ministry," the "initial call" assignmentdirects the student to mention the donation arrangement..http://postimg.org/image/tayz8pawn/..atlantis!
-
-
Mephis
They can't do door to door begging for money in Britain. That would be doubleplus bad mojo from all sorts of things. Like needing to sign up to a code of conduct, being held accountable as an organisation for when it goes wrong, all those little things which would make Brooklyn sad. -
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
Well, yes and and no. Of course, judges can and should rule 'in the public interest'. I am not aware of any case in which a catholic priest (or a CofE priest) has ever been subpoenaed to give evidence of what occurred in a confession, and I would be interested to learn of the procedure which occassioned that. It would seem to me to be covered by PACE (excluded material).
I note your comments that 'Judges don't tend to press that hard'. I'm not sure what you mean by 'the discretion under PACE'. I can tell you that the judges with which I dealt pressed hard, demanded evidenced and reasoned legal arguments, and issued orders/warrants that were never - never -overturned by higher courts.
(This is a UK (E&W) perspective.) Judges don't try to 'persuade' people. They explain the options. You don't f@@k with the judge, ever.
And here is a true story. I had a case (related to my post above about judges ordering bank information). The judge had ordered that material held by the bank (a national) must be produced to us (the police) in 7 days. It wasn't. The local, area, regional managers appeared before the judge to explain the failure. The judge ordered the CEO to appear - and advised that he bring a toothbrush. The material was provided.Well, it's a simple 'yes'. The case law for this is very well established. To put it exceptionally bluntly, "Communications made to a priest in the confessional on matters perhaps considered by the penitent to be more important even than his life or his fortune, are not protected" (Wheeler v Le Marchant (1881)). There's a load more, but that's where the case law is. Old. But not 1603 old like the Church of England legislation. We don't recognise the seal of the confessional as being sacrosanct in English law. When push comes to shove, we have had Catholic priests sent down for contempt, although I can't recall anything recent getting quite that far.
By "press hard", we obviously don't see clergy being asked to reveal confessional secrets very often in Britain. You were under the impression that it couldn't happen, so it's clearly not a regular feature of British courts. And under PACE ( ss 76,78 & 82(3)) judges have discretion to exclude evidence if they so choose - hence discretion under PACE as I said. As the JWs found out in Newcastle, there's steel under the silk and discretion to exclude isn't always used.
Hope that's clear enough of an explanation.
-
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
The clause in the exemption is why it's not a general exemption. It specifies under which terms the state of Delaware recognises a clergy exemption to report. Eventually Fisherman will catch onto that. It may not be intentional, it may just be clumsy phrasing, but it puts WBTS into the awful position of reporting their child abusers in Delaware to the authorities and making sure children are protected from harm. What a wicked law.
-----
@Joe - interesting that from your perspective at the frontline, thank you. The legal background may interest you. It's a little obscure and case law dating back centuries... the ultimate endpoint in Britain is for a judge to rule that something is required for the public interest. Once that ruling is made, you can end up with Catholic priests in the dock expected to testify. (Although last properly tested back in late Victorian era!). CofE clergy are still in an odd place with the whole confession thing - legally obliged to remain silent (state church legacy) but also equally subject to a judge demanding testimony. Last I heard, they were trying to figure out how to fix that themselves.
Judges don't tend to press that hard though (the discretion under PACE) which is why it's only when dim JWs try to muck up major child abuse investigations that the stick comes out. Like it did in Newcastle not so long back. And then after months of the judge trying to persuade them to testify of their own accord. They chose to testify on the morning of the trial, rather than spend some time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
-
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
Juvenile is just to avoid naming the teen Fisherman. Adult gets the same. It means nothing more than that. Judge's reasoning for why she can't accept it is a sacrament of confession in either case should be pretty clear with that clarified for you. -
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
You know that the Supreme Court has ruled that legal limits on clergy privileges can be set (if it's incidental to something like, say, reporting child abuse) right Fisherman? Employment Division v Smith (1990), right? States can individually choose to accomodate, or they can restrict certain activities.
"It is a permissible reading of the [free exercise clause]...to say that if prohibiting the exercise of religion is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not been offended"
Is this why we're on totally different pages here?
-
21
Finding the value of God; Isn't it better to believe in a deity?
by Caupon inthe question as to what believing in this entity called god entails is a fairly important question that needs to be answered first.
to me, the key difference between a universe in which god exists versus one where god doesn't lies in the idea of teleology.
in my view, a universe with god entails some sort of process towards an end, an end which can be characterized with words such as bliss and unity and others.
-
-
Mephis
There's a good argument to be made that waiting for God to come sort out problems can be very harmful. Religion is a social force towards conservatism, which can be really helpful in rapidly changing times as it can provide cohesion in a society. But when a society needs to be making quick changes then that brake to progress may not be beneficial at all.
On an individual level that can also be true. Religions deal in myths and improvable and illogical happenings. Sometimes social cohesion comes at the cost of telling people not to worry too much about their current situation because God's going to cover it next time round. That's a kind of sucky thing to do to the enslaved or the impoverished.
I hope for the Christian believers that it doesn't turn out the Zoroastrians were right. That would be so close but so far for you guys as you walk down the Chinvat bridge. Not sure they do runners-up prizes. For the non-believers, I guess we're more conscious of how we can create and shape the meaning to our lives. Quite empowering to carry our own lights through the darkness (to borrow from Kubrick).
-
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
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!
-
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
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?
-
161
Court denies summary judgement for Laurel Jehovah's Witnesses congregation
by OrphanCrow incourt denies summary judgement for laurel jehovah's witnesses congregation.
a motion for summary judgement is denied in a case against the laurel congregation of jehovah's witnesses and some individuals over child abuse reporting issues.a lawyer for the congregation maintained that elders were exempted from reporting requirements under a state law because of clergy privilege and confidentiality.the case resulted from allegations that elders did not report an unlawful sexual relationship between a woman and a 14-year-old boy, both of whom were members of the jehovah's witnesses congregation.. download the court opinion here.
http://courts.delaware.gov/opinions/download.aspx?id=235880.
-
-
Mephis
You are standing where you ought not when you impose your standards on the church. That is church holy business.
Sorry, you seem to have confused an accurate description of what isn't a sacramental confession with an imposition of standards. Do you really want to play the ludicrous argument of Aztec holy business demands sacrfiices to the blood god? Because that's a really, really dumb argument already settled in the US by the Supreme Court