DD
You are a very funny dude ( I do not mean it sarcastically ) I enjoy your posts. I took no offense at your post directed at me. But you are not thinking, chum.
Just try to take off your wt bigotry eyeglasses that you view
the world with and look at this case just a little differently.
Any religious term such as clergy, penitence, priest,
absolution, etc. that legislation chooses to use must fit into a generic
equation that applies to all religions or the law is unconstitutional.
For example, although the JW do not use the term clergy or
churches same as Christendom, they still benefit from laws that use the term
clergy and church and confession and penance, etc. same as Jews and Moslems or
any other religion does.
The JW have their own version or understating of how
confession and Penance and Absolution should be applied, and to JW confidentiality
does not mean privacy in a confession booth between 2 people, more is involved
for them. My opinion is that it is
unconstitutional if the JW cannot enjoy the immunity from reporting to the
police laws solely because JW do not have a Catholic Church style confession
privacy setting between 2 people only. I
think that the immunity laws do apply to JW in their style of confession. The purpose of church immunity laws is not to
establish that church confessions must be in a private setting between 2 people, but to
guarantee the freedom of speech and communication to those seeking spiritual
help (whatever that help should be and however the church handles the sinner religiously)
from their church without fear of having to be turned over to the secular authorities
by the church.
