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.
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.
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.
Now, correct me if Iโm 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 theyโre fully capable adults who can run their own lives.
Sorry folks, Iโm 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 Iโm a little crabby.
โA lower court judge ruled in their favor, saying his actions โdemonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregardโ for the Churchโs beliefs, thereby giving up his right to have his confession remain a secret.โ
Well, thereโs yer problem right there.
Even though that type of logic makes sense to sensible people, the court doesnโt 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 โsincerely held beliefsโ to commit other crimes. Iโm not happy about it, to be sure. However, the courts have never held anyone elseโs 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 wasnโt 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.
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!
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.
Dear Arizona SC, why are you encouraging them? How about you both go fuck yourselves. Fewer people in positions of authority who donโt 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.
Fucking Christian privilege ๐ฎ๐ด๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป.
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.
โWe are deeply saddened by the abuse these children suffered from their father. The church has no tolerance for abuse.โ
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.
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.
"The church has no tolerance for abuse."
Seems like they tolerate it pretty well.
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.
Arizona Supreme Court just declared open season on children.
Now, correct me if Iโm 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 theyโre fully capable adults who can run their own lives.
Sorry folks, Iโm 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 Iโm a little crabby.
โA lower court judge ruled in their favor, saying his actions โdemonstrate a lack of repentance and a profound disregardโ for the Churchโs beliefs, thereby giving up his right to have his confession remain a secret.โ
Well, thereโs yer problem right there.
Even though that type of logic makes sense to sensible people, the court doesnโt 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 โsincerely held beliefsโ to commit other crimes. Iโm not happy about it, to be sure. However, the courts have never held anyone elseโs 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 wasnโt 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.
"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!
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.
Dear Arizona SC, why are you encouraging them? How about you both go fuck yourselves. Fewer people in positions of authority who donโt have to report will encourage abusers to seek out those positions of authority.