- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHaving the legal right to do something does not make doing that thing moral.
I will ask the same question to you that FMF dodged.
Do the minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?
Covering up child abuse [failing to report it to the authorities] is never moral.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFYou don't know if,
I don't have an answer to your question about penitent confidentiality; maybe someone else will answer it for you. And besides, your question doesn't really have any bearing on my question to you, which is about the impact of secrecy and cover up on dealing with child abuse within an institution.
Minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?
really?
Originally posted by googlefudgeAgain i have not asked about the moral implications, is it legal or is it not legal?
Having the legal right to do something does not make doing that thing moral.
Covering up child abuse [failing to report it to the authorities] is never moral.
Does a minister of religion have the legal right to protect a penitent against self incrimination by keeping the matters that they discuss confidential? Once the legality is established then we can talk of other things, neither FMF or whitey can bring themselves to acknowledge the legality. Why I cannot say.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot being an expert in US law I don't know the answer to that either.
You don't know if,
Minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?
really?
I accept that it's entirely possible or even probable that the USA has laws
that stupid, but that doesn't make them, or following them, moral.
So a person is not legally obliged to report a heinous crime...
Whoopdy-f'ing-do... Give that person a balloon.
The question of import is "are they morally obliged to report it?"
To which the answer is YES they are.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't know if "penitent confidentiality" allows people to have sex with children and then have it covered up by people belonging to the institution they are members of, no. I don't know. I would hope not. But maybe the deeds of child abusers can be kept secret for religious reasons, you tell me. My question is not about that; it's about what effect secrecy and cover up, even if it is legal, has on tackling child abuse and fully knowing how widespread the problem is.
You don't know if,
Minsters of Jehovahs witnesses (as do the ministers of any other religion) have the legal right, as per the US constitution and legal precedents already set, to make use of the provision of penitent confidentiality?
really?
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIts legal, lets get this straight, penitent confidentiality is legal. Why none of you could bring yourselves to acknowledge this i do not know. I am not a legal expert either and yet by availing myself of resources in the public domain I can determine that its legal.
Not being an expert in US law I don't know the answer to that either.
I accept that it's entirely possible or even probable that the USA has laws
that stupid, but that doesn't make them, or following them, moral.
So a person is not legally obliged to report a heinous crime...
Whoopdy-f'ing-do... Give that person a balloon.
The question of import is "are they morally obliged to report it?"
To which the answer is YES they are.
Wow blood from a stone, man!
Now to the moral implications that you seem to have set your heart upon.
Let me ask you googlefudge, why is it moral to betray a trust? and do you think that taking away the legally set precedent of penitent confidentiality would make a child abuser more or less likely to make a confession of guilt.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHaving sex with children is a betrayal of trust too. I am not sure it should be trumped by some sort of religion-based trust between adults that results in the cover up of one of those two adults having sex with a child.
Let me ask you googlefudge, why is it moral to betray a trust?
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFYou were merely asked if the provision was legally established. You could not even bring yourself to do that. Why i do not not, possibly out of fear of making some kind of concession. It really is rather childish, ill leave you to your crayons.
I don't know if "penitent confidentiality" allows people to have sex with children and then have it covered up by people belonging to the institution they are members of, no. I don't know. I would hope not. But maybe the deeds of child abusers can be kept secret for religious reasons, you tell me. My question is not about that; it's about what effect secrecy and ...[text shortened]... en if it is legal, has on tackling child abuse and fully knowing how widespread the problem is.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobie"It really is rather childish, ill leave you to your crayons"?
You were merely asked if the provision was legally established. You could not even bring yourself to do that. Why i do not not, possibly out of fear of making some kind of concession. It really is rather childish, ill leave you to your crayons.
Your reaction to my question about secrecy has been rather odd.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFno one is saying that abuse of children is not a betrayal, you will answer the question. Why is it moral to betray a trust and do you think that by doing so a child abuser is more or less likely to make a confession of guilt if he knows that his or her trust will be betrayed.
Having sex with children is a betrayal of trust too. I am not sure it should be trumped by some sort of religion-based trust between adults that results in the cover up of one of those two adults having sex with a child.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by FMFActually i find your refusal to answer any of the question that are put to you rather odd. Are you hiding something FMF?
"It really is rather childish, ill leave you to your crayons"?
Your reaction to my question about secrecy has been rather odd.
18 Feb 15
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFand yet you are rather defensive when being asked question, in fact you have refused to answer every single one. Oh well, ill leave that with you. If anyone wants an adult discussion on the moral, legal or religious implications of penitent confidentiality they can let me know.
In all my years as a Christian, I did not once, not ever, feel defensive or feel the need to rally to the defence of the Catholic Church over its dreadful record on child abuse.
So far we have established that
1. its legal.
what we have failed to establish is,
1. Is it moral to betray a trust
2. Is a child abuser more or less likely to make a confession if they know that they will be betrayed.
18 Feb 15
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhat proportion of child abuse in your organisation results from people making "a confession of guilt"? What proportion are uncovered in other ways? How many child abusers has your organisation persuaded to turn themselves in to the authorities as in the wake of them making "a confession of guilt"? Some information about this might help decide whether the institutional secrecy is more important than tackling adults who have sex with children.
no one is saying that abuse of children is not a betrayal, you will answer the question. Why is it moral to betray a trust and do you think that by doing so a child abuser is more or less likely to make a confession of guilt if he knows that his or her trust will be betrayed.