Trauma_Hound

Joined

• started 79 topics
• posted 1,611 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Trauma_Hound

• 
  7

  Washington Abuse Victims please read!

  by Trauma_Hound in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  > i am writing to inform you that rep. mary lou dickerson's bill, hb 1054.

  > adding clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse will be.

  > heard in the house children and family services committee next thursday,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Yes, her e-mail address is [email protected]

  Thanks

  Edited by - Trauma_Hound on 16 January 2003 18:18:4
• 
  7

  Washington Abuse Victims please read!

  by Trauma_Hound in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  > i am writing to inform you that rep. mary lou dickerson's bill, hb 1054.

  > adding clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse will be.

  > heard in the house children and family services committee next thursday,.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  > Hello!
  >
  > I am writing to inform you that Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson's bill, HB 1054
  > adding clergy to the list of mandatory reporters of child abuse will be
  > heard in the House Children and Family Services Committee next Thursday,
  > January 23rd. The hearing will be in House Hearing Room C, John L.
  > O'Brien building (the House Building). The Committee begins at 1:30,
  > though the bill is not the first item on the agenda.
  >
  > Rep. Dickerson would like interested people to come and provide testimony
  > at the hearing. She is especially concerned that victims offer their
  > testimony in support of the bill. Please let me know whether you would be
  > interested in attending or know of others who might me.
  >
  > Please feel free to contact me with any questions, and I hope to hear from
  > you.
  >
  > Best,
  >
  > Joanna Arlow, J.D.
  > Legislative Assistant
  > Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson
  > 36th District
  > (360) 786-7860

  Edited by - Trauma_Hound on 16 January 2003 18:5:24
• 
  280

  UN FINDS WMD...OK saddam lovers, what now?

  by dolphman in

  1. social
  2. current

  ok lets hear your pathetic excuses.

  c'mon now don't be shy.

  let's hear what you have to say.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  The US does what it can to minimize civilian casualties.

  Oh really, then why did it help arm Saddam, and put him in power?
• 
  82

  Ky. Bill to Repeal Clergy "Silent Right"

  by Kenneson in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  newsday.com carries an interesting story with that title.

  a few excerpts from the article will give you the gist.

  "but democratic rep. susan westrom, a former therapist who worked with abused children felt the law should go furher.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Trauma_Hound

  Why have military chaplain's Trauma? Easy answer, to ensure that SOLDIERS can exercise their right of freedom of religion. The whole military chaplaincy was challenged constitutionally back in the mid 80's. The Supreme Court smacked around the guys who brought the case. Military chaplains do NOT violate the "seperation" of church and state (a phrase never found in the constitution).

  Sorry, I guess we'll all continue to disagree on this issue, but this clergy penitent privelege has been challenged in the past. It's an erosion of the right to free exercise of religion. I should think that all our liberals would be in favor of that...Oh, wait, that's right, these rights they preach about are never extended to religion.

  James Madison considered the "Father of the constitution" and President of the United States between 1809-1817 disagrees with you:

  From Detached Memoranda, circa 1820:

  Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

• The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

  If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

• I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].

  There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).