We advocate putting children into loving, caring, supportive homes rather than abusive ones. Which is to say, WE ARE enemies to what they believe and do.
ANYONE whose job requires contact with children should be a mandatory reporter. With mandatory sentences for the deliberate failure that the churches are responsible for.
Ah, but there's the thing: abusing children *is* moral according to Christianity. God's chosen representatives on earth are entitled to take what they want, and children are just the property of their parents who are themselves the property of the church, so...
I mean, if the Arizona supreme court is as corrupt as the national one is, I think it's fair to say the people on it are either best friends with some of those pedophile priests or are pedophiles themselves. Or both.
Years ago as a licensed family therapist working with people who were addicted to alcohol and other drugs, I was a mandated reporter. I explained to every patient that their confidentiality was very carefully guarded WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS which I clearly described. Nevertheless, people told me their secrets, and so on a number of occasions, I had to report abuse, neglect, suicidal intention, and homicidal intention.
People are alive because I did that.
Religious privilege exempting clerics from this essential social and professional responsibility must be abolished.
Would that the requirements mandated by your position could be mapped onto the church, indeed ALL churches. I think a LOT MORE PEOPLE would be alive because of THAT.
Especially since the shamans have set themselves up as "counselors". If you're going to get the perks of the position you should have to deal with the responsibilities.
In their little fantasy world, pedophile doesn't confess because of fear of punishment on earth, pedophile goes to Hell. I'm not seeing a problem with this scenario.
I am so done with religious privilege overriding criminal law that words are simply not sufficient. It's as though the whole "suffer the little children" WERE the correct translation of the bible, and church leaders were utterly determined to take that dictum to heart. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN," they bray, again and again ... and again and again, the kids are the ones who take it on the chin, while the adults look for excuses to be blind to it.
Don't just tax the churches. Subject them ALL to SCRUTINY!!!
Living in Arizona as I do, I honestly wish I could say this decision surprises me. I'm not that far from "Little Salt Lake" better known as Mesa and the Mormon influence is powerful around here.
I've spent time considering under what circumstances I would find the deliberate withholding of child abuse to be any kind acceptable. I've considered this question carefully. Thus far, no situation comes to mind where I would honestly believe the ethical thing to do would be to hide child abuse for any reason; I can't even come up with a likely scenario where the child is being protected by the abuser to an extent where it would make sense not to report it. With that in mind, I find that the Mormon church (and yes, the RCC) at bare minimum have failed their obligations as leaders to the community repeatedly and we cannot afford to allow them to continue to do so. In short: These people must be stopped.
Paul Harvey did a piece years ago called "If I Were the Devil". Let me tell you something, Mr. Harvey, the devil isn't real, but he most assuredly lives at the church you praise so highly. No adult with the ability to make their own sensible choices would ever want to attend when they look at churches honestly.
I would not be so sure of that. The kids might survive, but not necessarily retain their sanity. This kind of torture might lead to Stockholm syndrome. I am unlucky enough to know some myself. And lucky enough that their predator never harmed me.
Let's not fault the court in this case. They were doing what courts are supposed to do, namely interpret the laws passed by the legislative branch. In this case, the blame should fall squarely on the Arizona legislature for NOT making this kind of abuse a subject of mandatory reporting. Unless and until they do, the court has no basis for making up its own standards of conduct.
"gets its act together". This is a legislature we're talking about. I respond with one of your favorite quotes; "That's a long wait for train don't come."
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but in the LDS bishop has a different definition than, say a Catholic bishop. Like, all men become priests at a certain age, then certain men get promoted to bishop as they are given certain responsibilities, but not necessarily training or degrees. The Mormons kind of did this intentionally, to create a way to protect all members as clergy by granting automatic priesthood. Or maybe it was just to ensure minor male children could outrank all the women they meet, including their mothers and grandmothers. Because how dare women think they’re fully capable adults who can run their own lives.
Sorry folks, I’m just coming out of a cluster migraine, I left work before lunch with one, and before I was even done with that I was hit by a second migraine. April really sucks for me, the barometric pressure fucks me up almost every year. So I’m a little crabby.
“A lower court judge ruled in their favor, saying his actions “demonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregard” for the Church’s beliefs, thereby giving up his right to have his confession remain a secret.“
Well, there’s yer problem right there.
Even though that type of logic makes sense to sensible people, the court doesn’t have the authority to say whether a person is religioning properly. This is why a certain county clerk got to claim religious freedom over her position in government. And countless other idiots who claim “sincerely held beliefs” to commit other crimes. I’m not happy about it, to be sure. However, the courts have never held anyone else’s religious sincerity, or lack thereof, against them. And there have been plenty of folks I would have liked to see held accountable who pulled the religion card to avoid it.
Not to say this guy should have had the protection of confession. Just that this particular ruling wasn’t going to stand, right or wrong.
Now, we absolutely need to put limitations on this penitent/clergy privilege, and remember it is a privilege. There has yet to be a religious institution that is granted this privilege that has not been irresponsible with it, to tragic results. Therefore it is clear that it should not be granted to them. If any other institution had this problem, they would have been shut down ages ago. Religious institutions need to lose this privilege of secrecy in the eyes of the court and be held to a minimum standard of decency.
Once again the confessional overrides the safety of children. If churches were the paragons of morality they claim to be, they'd put a stop to that. If our lawmakers cared about children they'd put a stop to this. (Instead they try to drive the "undesirable" children to suicide claiming they're "protecting" them from loving parents and predatory doctors). A court should prioritize the rights of the child over the rights of a church under the constitution. The right to freedom from grievous harm should trump privacy, especially in a world where the Patriot Act is allowed to stand and Google, et.al. are allowed to data-mine us all.
One of the sickest parts is that the LDS church has nothing like the RCC ‘sanctity of confession’ concept. There’s no religious reason for everyone in that church to not be mandatory reporters. I can’t say for sure but this seems like a ‘let’s not set precedent’ thing.
Seriously, FUCK these people! They demonstrate over and over and over again that all their claims to "protect the children" are just lip service. Empty phrases to excert more control over people.
But when push comes to shove... they sit back and do nothing. Or worse. They can always make it worse. Fuck them! Fuck them with a square cactus!
Some guy in NZ was recently arrested for failing to give the police an address. He told them he was homeless and living in his car, but they didn't seem to comprehend. I think he's suing them now – good for him. But I'm ashamed that none of our governments in the last God knows how many years have had the intestinal fortitude to make sure there are no such people.
Hey, careful, there's a lot of folks in power who are actively working to ensure there are no such people....and no LGBTQ+, no disabled, no unions, no.....
Here in NYC tickets for speeding and running a red light used to go against your license but since the city put up automatic cameras for both everywhere the tickets now go against the car's registration and are mailed to the address where the car is registered. If I were homeless and living in my car, my registration would technically be invalid since I would no longer live at the address where the car is registered. Does NZ use a similar system for their cars? Because then this put-upon homeless guy would have one more headache.
On one hand, I really want this to be appealed. On the other hand, the rabid fucking zealots on the supreme Court would absolutely side with the goddamn church and set precedent that would seriously fuck any attempt to fix things down the line.
If we manage to survive the ongoing Christian coup and wrench control of the country from their slimy, pedophilic claws, at absolute minimum we need to have a national stop smoking style ad campaign focused on helping people leave Christianity. Along with taxing the churches and amending the No Religious Test clause to implement a way to exclude fascist evangelicals.
Those poor kids. I hope they'll heal and get help. I'm happy Paul the rapist is dead, I hope his accomplice is suffering each jour of everyday of her life! The Mormon Church and the courts are repulsive!
The so-called "sexual revolution" of the 60s didn't actually change the amount of sex people were having, just brought it out into the open. And since it was all in the open, finding willing sex partners was easier than ever before. So I really don't see the point of forcing oneself on an unwilling *or illegal* partner; there are plenty of young, fit, attractive guys and women around who are eager, and *willing* to have sex...and, oh yes, LEGAL!!! [My last fling was with a 19 year old college freshman, and I was born before the Industrial Revolution, fer chrissake. And he came onto me, not vice versa. If I can happen onto willing adult sex partners at my age, most anyone can.] Going to all the trouble to actually groom children for sex, which is what these preachers and "youth ministers" do, has always seemed to me like a lot of weirdly unnecessary, avoidable work and trouble.
I mean, most of us understand that rape, even statutory rape, is more about power than sex. But even so, "grooming" seems like an awful lot of time, work and trouble for a few quick moments of pleasure and gratification. Not to mention the fact that a relationship with someone who doesn't have to get up in time for homeroom i.e. an adult, even a *young* adult, is so much nicer. On any level at all, a relationship with an adult is what it's all about. Sex with a child will never, never make sense to me in any way at all. A child simply can't interact with an adult on anything like the same level, nor should they have to. Force,power and manipulation must be the whole point for these fiends. I suppose I may be missing something about them and what they do, but I'm perfectly happy to keep missing it.
About a decade ago I suddenly realized that an exceedingly attractive woman about 25 years younger than me had been coming on to me for at least 10 minutes. Out of practice was I. We were at a business thing in a city neither of us lived in and were staying in the same hotel. Alas for me, I was (and continue to be ) in a monogamous relationship with my wife. I realized in the moment that I had said or done a couple of things that could have been interpreted as interest or even flirtation. I felt I needed to find a way to discourage her without causing her embarrassment. I mentioned some “fascinating” things my wife had said and some plans we had that I labored mightily to make seem relevant. Within a few minutes she excused herself and found some other guy to hit on.
DM looks way younger than her age. The assistant of another anthropologist asked her on a date since they were both in their forties (early for him, late for her). She had to show him her ID to prove him she was nearly 60. Turned out he actually was 36.
It could have been but no, DM found it more funny than annoying. They stayed friendly and lost contact only when he changed job (I think he went to another country).
ephebephilia I can almost understand. The reptile brain doesn't worry about niceties like conversation and if they're past puberty then physically they're old enough. So I can understand a physical attraction to a teenager, but as human beings we're much more than reptile brains and we know that such are not really old enough where it counts and like you said there are plenty of available potential partners who are old enough.
Personally, while I've seen the occasional 16-year old and thought if I were still 17..., but at this point in my life, I'm not sure I could relate to someone who never threw a Rubik's Cube across the room in frustration.
I would find it difficult to relate to someone who's never seen Steptoe and Son, the Likely Lads, or even Blackadder. Luckily my son remembers watching Blackadder with me when he was a kid. But to be honest, the thought of a 19-year-old coming on to me fills me with both fear and amusement. Rudolf Murdoch I'm not.
Dear Arizona SC, why are you encouraging them? How about you both go fuck yourselves. Fewer people in positions of authority who don’t have to report will encourage abusers to seek out those positions of authority.
Christians worry about LGBTQs and drag queens when the biggest threat to their children come from within their own ranks.
Thus has it ever been.
I don't know, their politicians are a pretty big threat to children, especially "undesirable" children.
Exactly.
We advocate putting children into loving, caring, supportive homes rather than abusive ones. Which is to say, WE ARE enemies to what they believe and do.
Fucking Christian privilege 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻.
ANYONE whose job requires contact with children should be a mandatory reporter. With mandatory sentences for the deliberate failure that the churches are responsible for.
They shouldn't need to be mandated. They're supposed to be paragons of morality. What is more moral than stopping the abuse of a child?
Ah, but there's the thing: abusing children *is* moral according to Christianity. God's chosen representatives on earth are entitled to take what they want, and children are just the property of their parents who are themselves the property of the church, so...
But what would Jesus do? *wills millstones to not exist *
I guess ASC didn't want to be seen as persecutors of Christians.
*vomits*
I mean, if the Arizona supreme court is as corrupt as the national one is, I think it's fair to say the people on it are either best friends with some of those pedophile priests or are pedophiles themselves. Or both.
“We are deeply saddened by the abuse these children suffered from their father. The church has no tolerance for abuse.”
Correct me if I m wrong but isn't the founder a pedophile himself ? I call bullshit on this statement since raping girls is traditional.
Not quite the same thing, but: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FqFDzLbuPXU
I don't understand and the Spanish captions can't follow.
Years ago as a licensed family therapist working with people who were addicted to alcohol and other drugs, I was a mandated reporter. I explained to every patient that their confidentiality was very carefully guarded WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS which I clearly described. Nevertheless, people told me their secrets, and so on a number of occasions, I had to report abuse, neglect, suicidal intention, and homicidal intention.
People are alive because I did that.
Religious privilege exempting clerics from this essential social and professional responsibility must be abolished.
Would that the requirements mandated by your position could be mapped onto the church, indeed ALL churches. I think a LOT MORE PEOPLE would be alive because of THAT.
Especially since the shamans have set themselves up as "counselors". If you're going to get the perks of the position you should have to deal with the responsibilities.
In their little fantasy world, pedophile doesn't confess because of fear of punishment on earth, pedophile goes to Hell. I'm not seeing a problem with this scenario.
"The church has no tolerance for abuse."
Seems like they tolerate it pretty well.
And for so very long.
That's "tolerance," spelled: "K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E"...
“Which church, where? I demand to see it!” 🧐
I am so done with religious privilege overriding criminal law that words are simply not sufficient. It's as though the whole "suffer the little children" WERE the correct translation of the bible, and church leaders were utterly determined to take that dictum to heart. "THINK OF THE CHILDREN," they bray, again and again ... and again and again, the kids are the ones who take it on the chin, while the adults look for excuses to be blind to it.
Don't just tax the churches. Subject them ALL to SCRUTINY!!!
They do think of the children--in every possible unhealthy way.
Living in Arizona as I do, I honestly wish I could say this decision surprises me. I'm not that far from "Little Salt Lake" better known as Mesa and the Mormon influence is powerful around here.
I've spent time considering under what circumstances I would find the deliberate withholding of child abuse to be any kind acceptable. I've considered this question carefully. Thus far, no situation comes to mind where I would honestly believe the ethical thing to do would be to hide child abuse for any reason; I can't even come up with a likely scenario where the child is being protected by the abuser to an extent where it would make sense not to report it. With that in mind, I find that the Mormon church (and yes, the RCC) at bare minimum have failed their obligations as leaders to the community repeatedly and we cannot afford to allow them to continue to do so. In short: These people must be stopped.
Paul Harvey did a piece years ago called "If I Were the Devil". Let me tell you something, Mr. Harvey, the devil isn't real, but he most assuredly lives at the church you praise so highly. No adult with the ability to make their own sensible choices would ever want to attend when they look at churches honestly.
Arizona Supreme Court just declared open season on children.
Well Mormon children anyway.
Bad enough.
With any luck, those kids will survive, retain their sanity and eventually dump their faith.
This.
I would not be so sure of that. The kids might survive, but not necessarily retain their sanity. This kind of torture might lead to Stockholm syndrome. I am unlucky enough to know some myself. And lucky enough that their predator never harmed me.
Let's not fault the court in this case. They were doing what courts are supposed to do, namely interpret the laws passed by the legislative branch. In this case, the blame should fall squarely on the Arizona legislature for NOT making this kind of abuse a subject of mandatory reporting. Unless and until they do, the court has no basis for making up its own standards of conduct.
I'd almost agree with you, but I don't think it's a legal stretch to say the Constitution protects the right of children to be free of grievous harm.
After all, SCOTUS found a right for corporations to have religious beliefs in there. It can't be more of stretch than that.
I can't help but think of how many children will ultimately pay the price for ASCs decision while the legislature gets its act together.
"gets its act together". This is a legislature we're talking about. I respond with one of your favorite quotes; "That's a long wait for train don't come."
They don't have the right/power to strike down a bad law?
Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but in the LDS bishop has a different definition than, say a Catholic bishop. Like, all men become priests at a certain age, then certain men get promoted to bishop as they are given certain responsibilities, but not necessarily training or degrees. The Mormons kind of did this intentionally, to create a way to protect all members as clergy by granting automatic priesthood. Or maybe it was just to ensure minor male children could outrank all the women they meet, including their mothers and grandmothers. Because how dare women think they’re fully capable adults who can run their own lives.
Sorry folks, I’m just coming out of a cluster migraine, I left work before lunch with one, and before I was even done with that I was hit by a second migraine. April really sucks for me, the barometric pressure fucks me up almost every year. So I’m a little crabby.
“A lower court judge ruled in their favor, saying his actions “demonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregard” for the Church’s beliefs, thereby giving up his right to have his confession remain a secret.“
Well, there’s yer problem right there.
Even though that type of logic makes sense to sensible people, the court doesn’t have the authority to say whether a person is religioning properly. This is why a certain county clerk got to claim religious freedom over her position in government. And countless other idiots who claim “sincerely held beliefs” to commit other crimes. I’m not happy about it, to be sure. However, the courts have never held anyone else’s religious sincerity, or lack thereof, against them. And there have been plenty of folks I would have liked to see held accountable who pulled the religion card to avoid it.
Not to say this guy should have had the protection of confession. Just that this particular ruling wasn’t going to stand, right or wrong.
Now, we absolutely need to put limitations on this penitent/clergy privilege, and remember it is a privilege. There has yet to be a religious institution that is granted this privilege that has not been irresponsible with it, to tragic results. Therefore it is clear that it should not be granted to them. If any other institution had this problem, they would have been shut down ages ago. Religious institutions need to lose this privilege of secrecy in the eyes of the court and be held to a minimum standard of decency.
Once again the confessional overrides the safety of children. If churches were the paragons of morality they claim to be, they'd put a stop to that. If our lawmakers cared about children they'd put a stop to this. (Instead they try to drive the "undesirable" children to suicide claiming they're "protecting" them from loving parents and predatory doctors). A court should prioritize the rights of the child over the rights of a church under the constitution. The right to freedom from grievous harm should trump privacy, especially in a world where the Patriot Act is allowed to stand and Google, et.al. are allowed to data-mine us all.
One of the sickest parts is that the LDS church has nothing like the RCC ‘sanctity of confession’ concept. There’s no religious reason for everyone in that church to not be mandatory reporters. I can’t say for sure but this seems like a ‘let’s not set precedent’ thing.
"We care! We really do!"
So, what do you do about it?
"Well... we care! That is enough, isn't it?"
Seriously, FUCK these people! They demonstrate over and over and over again that all their claims to "protect the children" are just lip service. Empty phrases to excert more control over people.
But when push comes to shove... they sit back and do nothing. Or worse. They can always make it worse. Fuck them! Fuck them with a square cactus!
Um, we have these warehouses chock full of Thoughts & Prayers™.....
Put in a dozen Porta-Pottys and some beds and give the homeless an address. The warehouses would finally be good for something.
Some guy in NZ was recently arrested for failing to give the police an address. He told them he was homeless and living in his car, but they didn't seem to comprehend. I think he's suing them now – good for him. But I'm ashamed that none of our governments in the last God knows how many years have had the intestinal fortitude to make sure there are no such people.
Hey, careful, there's a lot of folks in power who are actively working to ensure there are no such people....and no LGBTQ+, no disabled, no unions, no.....
This one?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/homeless-man-arrested-and-locked-up-for-failing-to-provide-police-with-address/2PW23WXRIBF6ZABSOGBKK57BTE/
Here in NYC tickets for speeding and running a red light used to go against your license but since the city put up automatic cameras for both everywhere the tickets now go against the car's registration and are mailed to the address where the car is registered. If I were homeless and living in my car, my registration would technically be invalid since I would no longer live at the address where the car is registered. Does NZ use a similar system for their cars? Because then this put-upon homeless guy would have one more headache.
Yeah ... interesting ta ... I hadn't got all the details as I heard it on the radio.
NZ cops never heard of a warning?
One of those "efficiency" processes that wasn't well thought out.
The pantless bit sounds more like cops getting their jollies than any real concern about self-harm.
Cops are still human beings in NZ, not robots yet, yes? A human being should be able to adapt when the rules don't make sense.
On one hand, I really want this to be appealed. On the other hand, the rabid fucking zealots on the supreme Court would absolutely side with the goddamn church and set precedent that would seriously fuck any attempt to fix things down the line.
If we manage to survive the ongoing Christian coup and wrench control of the country from their slimy, pedophilic claws, at absolute minimum we need to have a national stop smoking style ad campaign focused on helping people leave Christianity. Along with taxing the churches and amending the No Religious Test clause to implement a way to exclude fascist evangelicals.
Those poor kids. I hope they'll heal and get help. I'm happy Paul the rapist is dead, I hope his accomplice is suffering each jour of everyday of her life! The Mormon Church and the courts are repulsive!
The so-called "sexual revolution" of the 60s didn't actually change the amount of sex people were having, just brought it out into the open. And since it was all in the open, finding willing sex partners was easier than ever before. So I really don't see the point of forcing oneself on an unwilling *or illegal* partner; there are plenty of young, fit, attractive guys and women around who are eager, and *willing* to have sex...and, oh yes, LEGAL!!! [My last fling was with a 19 year old college freshman, and I was born before the Industrial Revolution, fer chrissake. And he came onto me, not vice versa. If I can happen onto willing adult sex partners at my age, most anyone can.] Going to all the trouble to actually groom children for sex, which is what these preachers and "youth ministers" do, has always seemed to me like a lot of weirdly unnecessary, avoidable work and trouble.
I mean, most of us understand that rape, even statutory rape, is more about power than sex. But even so, "grooming" seems like an awful lot of time, work and trouble for a few quick moments of pleasure and gratification. Not to mention the fact that a relationship with someone who doesn't have to get up in time for homeroom i.e. an adult, even a *young* adult, is so much nicer. On any level at all, a relationship with an adult is what it's all about. Sex with a child will never, never make sense to me in any way at all. A child simply can't interact with an adult on anything like the same level, nor should they have to. Force,power and manipulation must be the whole point for these fiends. I suppose I may be missing something about them and what they do, but I'm perfectly happy to keep missing it.
About a decade ago I suddenly realized that an exceedingly attractive woman about 25 years younger than me had been coming on to me for at least 10 minutes. Out of practice was I. We were at a business thing in a city neither of us lived in and were staying in the same hotel. Alas for me, I was (and continue to be ) in a monogamous relationship with my wife. I realized in the moment that I had said or done a couple of things that could have been interpreted as interest or even flirtation. I felt I needed to find a way to discourage her without causing her embarrassment. I mentioned some “fascinating” things my wife had said and some plans we had that I labored mightily to make seem relevant. Within a few minutes she excused herself and found some other guy to hit on.
DM looks way younger than her age. The assistant of another anthropologist asked her on a date since they were both in their forties (early for him, late for her). She had to show him her ID to prove him she was nearly 60. Turned out he actually was 36.
That must have been awkward...
It could have been but no, DM found it more funny than annoying. They stayed friendly and lost contact only when he changed job (I think he went to another country).
ephebephilia I can almost understand. The reptile brain doesn't worry about niceties like conversation and if they're past puberty then physically they're old enough. So I can understand a physical attraction to a teenager, but as human beings we're much more than reptile brains and we know that such are not really old enough where it counts and like you said there are plenty of available potential partners who are old enough.
Personally, while I've seen the occasional 16-year old and thought if I were still 17..., but at this point in my life, I'm not sure I could relate to someone who never threw a Rubik's Cube across the room in frustration.
I would find it difficult to relate to someone who's never seen Steptoe and Son, the Likely Lads, or even Blackadder. Luckily my son remembers watching Blackadder with me when he was a kid. But to be honest, the thought of a 19-year-old coming on to me fills me with both fear and amusement. Rudolf Murdoch I'm not.
Dear Arizona SC, why are you encouraging them? How about you both go fuck yourselves. Fewer people in positions of authority who don’t have to report will encourage abusers to seek out those positions of authority.