541
And the same is likely true with virtually every other large denomination and probably a lot of small ones too, because those who preach morality the loudest are often the most hypocritical.
The point of any church is to centralize wealth and power. Otherwise why bother with the bureaucracy, the buildings, and the mandatory meetings?
The problem with centralizing wealth and power is that it attracts people who prioritize wealth and power. The problem compounds itself by making it ridiculously easy for basically any man (men, usually and specifically) to become leaders with basically no qualifications necessary other than claims of faith and a little bit of charisma.
People who wish to abuse power (e.g. for personal sexual satisfaction) will seek institutions that already have power that readily and easily allow it to be abused. Churches have always been their perfect home, always ready and willing to accept new abusers into their flock.
Religion and piety are the easiest things to lie about. No qualifications necessary! In fact, you can work your way all the way to the top of any religion and count on it to protect your abuse at every step of the way because publicly acknowledging that abuse happens is really bad for any religion or religious institution.
Once you get higher into the organization you'll learn about other bad things the church and its people have done and be able to use that knowledge to blackmail others and maybe even hold the entire institution hostage! It's how big, rich church leaders are made!
I don't know what the solution is but I can say that so far the best defense against sexual abuse in general is to avoid church and religious institutions.
Although framed as if religion (and a certain one in particular) were a central part of this case, the perpetrator abused his own daughter. Being at one point a bishop in the Church offered no additional power or opportunities that being a parent didn't already afford him. The problem is the state of Idaho has a clergy-penitent privilege law. If that law didn't exist, there would have been no problem with a Latter-day Saint bishop testifying against the abuser.
Go ride supply side Jesus a little harder, and evaporate your critical thinking skills in favor of authoritarian fairtales. Talk about being an idiot, as if those same religious institutions did not lobby for the privilege to not disclose, but sure this isn't because of religions being able to lobby for laws and buy politicians, sure bud.
Reason failed you, and so you resorted to more bigotry and ad hominem attacks?
Sure, bud.
Do you really think that church and religion is the primary source of child abuse? You sweet summer child.
You gotta be pretty evil to need a law that protects you from having to divulge child sexual abuse (or any serious crime).
Re-read the report. Bishop Miller would have testified if the law permitted him to do so. The problem is the abuser had to give permission first, which he obviously wasn't willing to do.
I stand by my statement. If your institution has such a law to protect it, it is gotta be pretty evil.
In my country and in my profession (teacher), it is stated in law that I am required to report (and testify if needed) any suspicion of child abuse. It is absolutely abhorrent to me that someone wouldn't be required to. Never mind be protected from it.
Regardless of Bishop Miller's opinion, that law is exists and is evil. And it taints all those who it protects.
Your view is extremist and bigoted, but you're entitled to it. Assuming you're a United States citizen, your logic makes everyone evil because there are laws that have the effect of protecting people who commit heinous acts, including about half the Bill of Rights. Labeling religious people evil because there are laws that protect them is bigotry.
Those laws exist because they were lobbied for. It is not bigoted to hate laws that exist to protect abusers or those who are happy to use them. And I am not American, fortunately no such evil protections have been allowed in my country.
Also thinking it is extremist and bigoted to be against laws that exist to protect abusers and those that support them is certainly a take...
I also assume you have taken it as bigoted because you are American and assume that this applies to all clergy. But there are in fact clergy in the world that don't support such thing. And shockingly many other countries where such disgusting laws don't exist.
It's worth pointing out that the only person actually protected here is the accused. The clergy-penitent privilege law doesn't actually protect the Church at all in this case.
It is also worth pointing out that, that changes nothing about what I said. It all still applies.
It's worth pointing our again to you that it's a granted exemption from reporting, it does not bar that clergy from reporting it mearly gives them a legal excuse not to report. But go on about how it's not protecting the clergy or church from disclosure.
Wrong. The Bishop cannot divulge the contents of the confession without permission from the penitent.
So let me get this straight. You're saying that a member of clergy should be allowed to hear an adult say, "I molested that child last week" and not have to report it?
Is that what you are saying? I want to hear it from you straight.
That is not what I'm saying. I have no qualms with mandatory reporting when it comes to child abuse. I am simply explaining the law in Idaho, which states that a clergy members must have permission from a penitent in order to divulge the contents of a confession. I'm not saying it should be that way, I'm saying it is that way. That's how it works right now, and that's why Bishop Miller could not testify against John Goodrich.
Also, this is not a case of "I molested a child last week." This is a case of "I molested a child a decade ago." I'm not saying it's less bad, I'm just saying it's different. The urgency of removing a child from that situation doesn't exist when the victim is no longer a child and no longer a subject of abuse.
Okay, and if it happened years ago but the victim is now 14 instead of 6 and they're still in the same environment as their abuser?
"Giving (potential) victimizers a line of support via organized religion to try to help them not commit sex crimes against children (in the future, or again)" is not a good argument because it has been shown time and time again that religious institutions cannot be trusted to reliably take the correct course of action and be accountable. That is the role of the government and law enforcement. It is unacceptable to put the feelings of adults over the safety of children and other victims, and organized religions have a tendency to protect those with power and influence over protecting the vulnerable.
Still not the same thing. We're not talking about a 14 year old still living in the same environment as their abuser, we're talking about a 31 year old not living in the same environment as their abuser.
Yeah I don't care. I'm not here to make exceptions for pedophiles and abusers.
You realize that ALL criminals are protected, right? That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means.
What are you on about? Duty to report laws make perfect sense to people who are dealing with the vulnerable. I want teachers, doctors, daycare staff to report child abuse. I don't care if the abuser is the biggest atheist whoever atheisted or the fucking Pope.
@Jonny stated that all religious people are evil because clergy-penitent privilege laws exist. I'm not arguing against mandatory reporting laws here (although I have reservations because of the First Amendment implications). Making a blanket statement that religious people are evil is bigotry.
I did not state that. Your country is not the only country in the world. Not every religious person is part of the clergy.
I stated, and will state again. Those laws are evil and it taints all those who they protect.
The law protects penitents. That is its purpose. It protects them from having their private confessions revealed by trusted clergy members.
It's the same sort of law as client-attorney privilege or doctor-patient privilege. You're barking up the wrong tree (and your veiled claim of Americentrism is hilariously off-base here).
The only way you could think I said all religious people is if you assumed all of them had this law. Which would mean American centrism. You can't have got to that without it.
Those privileges should not protect (and in my country do not protect) suspicion of serious harm to others. You tell a member of your legal team or doctor that you abused a child, there is a duty to report.
[I'm not going to respond anymore. Partly because it's late and I have work. Partly because I think you are arguing in bad faith, as your conclusions repeatedly do not correlate with what I said]
You should probably brush up on your reading comprehension before engaging in debates online. You should also educate yourself on context before arguing about laws and their implications in a country with as different political paradigms from your own as the United States has. For example, there is no meaningful "freedom of speech" in the UK, while here it is largely held sacred on both sides of the political spectrum.
The law in question applies only to people in the US state of Idaho. It does not apply to people in California, Canada, or the UK. It applies to anyone, whether religious or not, who make confessions to members of the clergy in Idaho. It is assumed that one would only make such a confession because one is religious, but I suppose that isn't necessarily always the case. However, saying that all people who are protected by this law are evil is saying that all people who confess to their clergy are evil. Which is a small-minded, ignorant, bigoted thing to say.
Note again that the law really only exists to protect penitents, not the members of the clergy.
At this point I don't think you even know what your trying to say. None of that has any effect on anything I have said. In fact almost none of it even hardly applies to what I have said.
I am going to put it as simple as possible. If you are told about child abuse and do not report it, and therefore allow it to continue, you are evil. However that affects or upsets your worldview is not something I could care any less about.
Irrelevant. That's not what happened. No child abuse could have continued to occur because the confession was made over a decade later. This isn't a case of protecting a child who is currently being abused. It's about prosecuting a past instance of abuse.
Like I said, reading comprehension. It's like peoples brains melt when they see the word "Mormon" and they forget how to read.
Downvotes don't make you less right. Basic comprehension is a vanishing skill. And people don't have the ability to think beyond their own narrow circumstance. There are reasons laws protecting criminals exist. People who fail to understand those reasons really don't have valid opinions.
I don't see where they said that. Show me the exact quote that says "all religious people are evil".
For the record I would never say that. I don't think religion makes you a bad person, I think it makes it harder to be a good one.
Do you find it bigoted because you're christian or because you're a paedophile?
You're getting dragged but you're right. Clergy is legally allowed to report whatever they want unless the confession is considered by the state to be "protected religious conversation owned by the confessor". That's what is happening here. The first article links a second that covers it in greater detail. It's super fucked up.
If clergy shared their confessions regardless, they'd likely lose their position with the church and could be sued by the confessor, having violated clergy-penitent privilege, but I'd willingly sacrifice my job to keep someone from raping children. These assholes, though, are indoctrinated from the beginning to believe that the confession process is a magical "get out of jail free" card that just puts people on the path of recovery because they showed penitence. How? Native American Jesus, Joseph Smith, and magical hats. Fucking magic.
The last half of your response is bigoted, but I appreciate the words of logic about the issue at hand. I'm not aware of any situations where a bishop has been censured for reporting crimes that they became aware of through a confession, and from my own service in the Church I find such a thing unlikely.
So really, the risk to Bishop Miller in this case has very little, if anything to do with the Church and everything to do with the fact that it would be illegal for him to testify against John Goodrich, and even if he did, his testimony would be inadmissible.
How about you re-read the law, it gives him an exemption from reporting it does not bar him from reporting, its mearly a lobbied excuse from religious institutions. That POS decided not to report instead using his exemption and blaming it on the abuser for his lack of action. Relgions constantly demonstrate they enable abuse in multiple forms, stop apologizing about institutions eroding basic human rights by decrie of myths and fairytales.
Incorrect. The law protects the penitent by requiring their consent before the clergy member can divulge the contents of a private confession.
The Mormon church is not setup into separate regional entities like that catholics have done. Their billions are all vulnerable to lawsuits. Instead they have a pet lawfirm that often recommends illegal and unethical practices to squash lawsuits. If the case looks to be going badly they toss higher and higher settlement numbers to get out of it. They do not want to go through discovery and have to disclose exactly how much money they have (est. several hundred billion)It's been an extremely effective solution so far.
For example: At one point they made up more than 50% of the boyscouts. They had less checks and protocols for keeping pedophile's out. They completely dodged all the large lawsuits because they were much better at hiding the horrendous amount of abuse.
The Mormon owned universities have rampant sexual assault issues. You rarely see them reported because the victims are punished for coming forward. The university police force is used to suppress these reports as well.
Every structure that is based on authority will have abuse on various levels of it's structure. Be it church, police, politicians, secret societies, etc. This is because some people trust others, some people have power over others. This relationship will always be abused.
Yes, all of those things need to be either demolished or significantly overhauled. Especially, organized religions, and mostly in the former category.
this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
541 points (100.0% liked)
News
23281 readers
3403 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS