The ruling will let prosecutors use Mario Rodriguez-Ramirez’s recorded confession in his criminal trial because he was discussing damage control, not seeking absolution
He committed a felony against a child and yet is still looking for a pass because of his putrid religiosity. Religious people always try to take credit for all that's good in the world, while turning a blind-eye to the countless horrors perpetrated by religious people in the name of their religion.
Well, the clergy member he told this stuff to didn’t think it was a confidential confession, which should have made it clear that the defendant’s claim was absurd. But some people will always jump on any excuse to give right-wing Christians a free pass, even (perhaps especially) for the worst of crimes.
The whole confession structure is defunct. "I would have never discussed my rape if I thought my discussion could be used in my rape trial" is founded on the assumption that Catholic priests will listen to your account of rape and not do anything legal about it. Just think for a moment about how that reflects on them. It's a complete abrogation of simple human morality.
Catholics? Abrogate simple human morality? Not like they've being doing that for, oh, MILLENNIA. It's only VERY recently that they actually started doing something about all those pedophile priests and that was 100% due to public pressure, not simply human morality.
Because they don't actually know right from wrong or how to apply their own morals to figure it out. They have to go to outside sources such as their one book or a religious leader.
But, but, but, they have objective morality!!!! Us atheists have no morality and they know better because their capricious god tells them what’s right and wrong. Nevermind the Bible contradicts its own morality over and over and over again, or that we’ve decided multiple times that the laws in the bible aren’t moral at all, or even the church has decided specific biblical rules are not that important. Their god has changed his mind about things too, so really his morality is subjective, especially when he is allowed to do certain things but we are not, like murder people. He makes the morality, therefore he isn’t subject to the morality. Or something.
I got into that argument elsewhere, it starts with god being able to kill anyone since he created us, so that means killing is morally good. I extended that to god torturing people. They said god would never do that, but it would have to be justified somehow so he would but wouldn't like doing it.
The investigation went on for months, so there is definitely more evidence than just the confession. Whether or not the other evidence is sufficient to get past reasonable doubt is not clear. The confession definitely puts the prosecution's case over that line. First "Liberty" is showing their true colors here. Their goal is to protect religious privilege at the expense of victims. They don't care that this horrible human victimized children. They want him insulated from consequences 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳. When they say "think of the children", I have to worry exactly what thoughts of children they are thinking.
THIS is why Christian Fucking Privilege needs to end.
There should be no combination of magic spells or rituals that overrides secular law in any criminal matter. This ruling was correct; it advances the public interest, no matter what the whining snake oil salesmen say. But it could have gone farther, and should have. Priests, pastors, and all manner of other holy men should be mandatory reporters just like any other profession that might happen upon abuse already is- and if fewer criminals confess their crimes to their holy men as a result, remember that the secular authorities- the people responsible for delivering justice in the 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 world, the only world we actually live in- wouldn't know about those crimes if the confessions were hidden behind a veil of magical secrecy, either. To hell with their special protection. They've demonstrated for the entire history of religion that they'll only ever abuse it.
By itself, the RCC has been sexually abusing both adults and children for the vast majority of the religion’s existence. Especially a period when they weren’t held accountable by anyone.
I'm just curious if these Clergy- Penitent reporting obstructions cover other felonies? What if he's murdered the little girl? Would the other preacher have been obligated to report? Obviously, religion is being used as a get-out-of-jail-free card. A truly civilized society would make this nonsense illegal.
Why should that even matter? He confessed to horrible and illegal shit, he needs to be prosecuted. The fact that it was recorded makes the burden of proof for the prosecution easy.
The fact that the "fellow pastor" brother-in-law recorded the conversation in a one party consent state shows that said BIL had concerns about the child rape and wanted evidence to take to the authorities. Once he got that evidence, the wheels of justice started turning.
If a person is truly remorseful and ready to accept the burden of guilt for their crime, then the only person they should be confessing it to is the very next cop they see. Telling a holy man instead, who will fight tooth and nail to help them conceal their offense from the law, means they are not willing to accept responsibility in the here and now, and in fact intend to keep committing crimes. Confess before the law first. If you still feel the need for absolution from on high, you can always call your preferred brand of wizard from the 𝘫𝘢𝘪𝘭 where you belong.
Xtians will diligently try to cover up any crime, no matter how heinous, and impede justice all while claiming that people need 'god' to be moral and decent.
This is the correct decision, I was thinking that there was some wording that didn’t exist in this conversation that confirmed the confessional status of the confirmation. Without that language, every conversation with clergy is now privileged and inadmissible in court, no matter the circumstances. Which would be ridiculous. I agree that the privilege shouldn’t exist anyway, for safety reasons, as described in the article.
I feel like in this particular case, the ruling is moot as the conversation will be almost impossible to remove from the lawsuit simply because it has so much media coverage. He may not officially have admitted it for court, but the jurors would likely be aware of it.
I’m pleased that they overturned the awful “anything you say to a clergy member is confidential if you say it is“ ruling, but I’m not sure about the particulars of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling. The idea that “a communication must be for the purpose of absolution” in order to be privileged seems awfully Christian-specific, as other religions don’t have Christianity’s fixation on getting God to forgive you. As such, it seems to me that they are still granting a privilege exclusively to Christians.
Yes it's clear discrimination + establishment. The courts would never give a "but I was seeking absolution" defense to a person who was recorded admitting to a crime to an atheist or even a non-priest theist.
He committed a felony against a child and yet is still looking for a pass because of his putrid religiosity. Religious people always try to take credit for all that's good in the world, while turning a blind-eye to the countless horrors perpetrated by religious people in the name of their religion.
Well, the clergy member he told this stuff to didn’t think it was a confidential confession, which should have made it clear that the defendant’s claim was absurd. But some people will always jump on any excuse to give right-wing Christians a free pass, even (perhaps especially) for the worst of crimes.
The whole confession structure is defunct. "I would have never discussed my rape if I thought my discussion could be used in my rape trial" is founded on the assumption that Catholic priests will listen to your account of rape and not do anything legal about it. Just think for a moment about how that reflects on them. It's a complete abrogation of simple human morality.
Catholics? Abrogate simple human morality? Not like they've being doing that for, oh, MILLENNIA. It's only VERY recently that they actually started doing something about all those pedophile priests and that was 100% due to public pressure, not simply human morality.
Like all good churchmen, the point of joining is for that protection and the lack of accountability they will face.
Pedophiles go where the kids are.
Rev. Willie Sutton?
Why is it that the oh-so-moral religious are seemingly the only ones who have these issues? And daily, it appears.
Those immoral atheists sure don't.
Because they don't actually know right from wrong or how to apply their own morals to figure it out. They have to go to outside sources such as their one book or a religious leader.
But, but, but, they have objective morality!!!! Us atheists have no morality and they know better because their capricious god tells them what’s right and wrong. Nevermind the Bible contradicts its own morality over and over and over again, or that we’ve decided multiple times that the laws in the bible aren’t moral at all, or even the church has decided specific biblical rules are not that important. Their god has changed his mind about things too, so really his morality is subjective, especially when he is allowed to do certain things but we are not, like murder people. He makes the morality, therefore he isn’t subject to the morality. Or something.
I got into that argument elsewhere, it starts with god being able to kill anyone since he created us, so that means killing is morally good. I extended that to god torturing people. They said god would never do that, but it would have to be justified somehow so he would but wouldn't like doing it.
"God would never do that."
*𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘉𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘑𝘰𝘣*
It always comes down to special pleading. God’s ability to murder and still be considered good because he made us is special pleading.
Some thumper just cited the “your ways are not My ways” to me and I agreed. My ways are more moral than god’s ways. I don’t drown infants.
That's because you're not thinking right.
𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐁𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐉𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞
https://christoverall.com/article/longform/thinking-biblically-and-theologically-about-justice/
Someone used this to argue in favor of gawd's morality. It's a bit long at 3,800+ words.
"basically defined by biblical standards" Its difficult for one to believe one would believe the bullshit. 🤔🤪
Maybe it's me, but "objective morality" sounds like some weird magical fantasy disease that only exists in fictional stories.
I suppose there's probably a reason for that.
"probably a reason" Could be nothing more than entertainment for many. 👍
The investigation went on for months, so there is definitely more evidence than just the confession. Whether or not the other evidence is sufficient to get past reasonable doubt is not clear. The confession definitely puts the prosecution's case over that line. First "Liberty" is showing their true colors here. Their goal is to protect religious privilege at the expense of victims. They don't care that this horrible human victimized children. They want him insulated from consequences 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳. When they say "think of the children", I have to worry exactly what thoughts of children they are thinking.
THIS is why Christian Fucking Privilege needs to end.
Seriously. How is there no evidence? Did they not speak to the victim?
"Christian Fucking Privilege" Agreed, start by taxing the churches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLVUHknb-Is Frank Zappa-1980
🤪
There should be no combination of magic spells or rituals that overrides secular law in any criminal matter. This ruling was correct; it advances the public interest, no matter what the whining snake oil salesmen say. But it could have gone farther, and should have. Priests, pastors, and all manner of other holy men should be mandatory reporters just like any other profession that might happen upon abuse already is- and if fewer criminals confess their crimes to their holy men as a result, remember that the secular authorities- the people responsible for delivering justice in the 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 world, the only world we actually live in- wouldn't know about those crimes if the confessions were hidden behind a veil of magical secrecy, either. To hell with their special protection. They've demonstrated for the entire history of religion that they'll only ever abuse it.
The abuse is a feature, not a bug.
By itself, the RCC has been sexually abusing both adults and children for the vast majority of the religion’s existence. Especially a period when they weren’t held accountable by anyone.
I'm just curious if these Clergy- Penitent reporting obstructions cover other felonies? What if he's murdered the little girl? Would the other preacher have been obligated to report? Obviously, religion is being used as a get-out-of-jail-free card. A truly civilized society would make this nonsense illegal.
I’m pretty sure they do cover any felony you can think of — except stealing from the church.
Commandment XII: Thou Shalt Not Fück With The 𝘋𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘴.
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑢𝑒𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑖𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑏𝑒𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑤𝑎𝑠𝑛’𝑡 𝑎 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 “𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛.”
Why should that even matter? He confessed to horrible and illegal shit, he needs to be prosecuted. The fact that it was recorded makes the burden of proof for the prosecution easy.
The fact that the "fellow pastor" brother-in-law recorded the conversation in a one party consent state shows that said BIL had concerns about the child rape and wanted evidence to take to the authorities. Once he got that evidence, the wheels of justice started turning.
I live in a two-party consent state. Not that I would ever rely on that being honored.
If a person is truly remorseful and ready to accept the burden of guilt for their crime, then the only person they should be confessing it to is the very next cop they see. Telling a holy man instead, who will fight tooth and nail to help them conceal their offense from the law, means they are not willing to accept responsibility in the here and now, and in fact intend to keep committing crimes. Confess before the law first. If you still feel the need for absolution from on high, you can always call your preferred brand of wizard from the 𝘫𝘢𝘪𝘭 where you belong.
OMG! You are oppressing xtians.
🤣
We're not perfect, we're forgiven. 🤮
My point also up top.
https://preview.redd.it/5k6ouriakj7f1.jpeg?auto=webp&s=154e91bb9d09780750954e3e83abf10fc12abf57
Saved! Thanks!
Xtians will diligently try to cover up any crime, no matter how heinous, and impede justice all while claiming that people need 'god' to be moral and decent.
A position history does not begin to support.
This is the correct decision, I was thinking that there was some wording that didn’t exist in this conversation that confirmed the confessional status of the confirmation. Without that language, every conversation with clergy is now privileged and inadmissible in court, no matter the circumstances. Which would be ridiculous. I agree that the privilege shouldn’t exist anyway, for safety reasons, as described in the article.
I feel like in this particular case, the ruling is moot as the conversation will be almost impossible to remove from the lawsuit simply because it has so much media coverage. He may not officially have admitted it for court, but the jurors would likely be aware of it.
Indecent exposure at a Home Depot. Christians even make simply getting wood indecent.
It's some of the things they get wood over that are indecent.
I got wood at Home Depot, but it was all bent and twisted.
You have a warped sense of homer.
D'oh.
https://ibb.co/qM9K2cqS
🙄
Don't tell him, he's chosen to be taken out by natural selection. Hopefully he won't manage to reproduce first.
Someone's BS filter is clearly working in reverse or something.
The staggering stupidity of these folks...that's what will do us all in if the overdue meteor doesn't get us first.
I’m pleased that they overturned the awful “anything you say to a clergy member is confidential if you say it is“ ruling, but I’m not sure about the particulars of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling. The idea that “a communication must be for the purpose of absolution” in order to be privileged seems awfully Christian-specific, as other religions don’t have Christianity’s fixation on getting God to forgive you. As such, it seems to me that they are still granting a privilege exclusively to Christians.
Yes it's clear discrimination + establishment. The courts would never give a "but I was seeking absolution" defense to a person who was recorded admitting to a crime to an atheist or even a non-priest theist.
This has the funding to go up to the SCOTUS who will likely rule in favor of their fellow pervert.
Doesn’t look like a drag queen to me?
Aren’t pastors mandated reporters?
Nope. Washington passed a law making them mandatory reporters, but this administration is working with a Christian group to undo the law.
Not everywhere, but they should be.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b60937b951804993b109204ab653035d3317e57affd37d715aa0786e60ced2ee.jpg
I don't have a cousin named Penny.
Anymore.
How'd your wish turn out?
I never said I tossed her in a fountain...