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.
I don't think it's appropriate to put a "but" after "people should feel safe in prison". It implies that there are people who do not deserve safety while incarcerated.
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).
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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 don't see the world quite as nihilistically. I believe the majority of people aren't violent or monstrous, but I do believe that the current structure of our society encourages people to be that way. Look at the state of our politics: We are told that if we aren't outraged by one thing or another, we must be ignorant or apathetic at best, evil and complicit at worst.
"Unleaded" gasoline is a misnomer. Although it is no longer added to gasoline, enough remains to have a cumulative effect in places with a lot of traffic. Additionally, aviation fuel still has lead added to it.
I'd argue that there could still be a lead poisoning issue going on.
Yeah, a lot of conservatives seem to see some weird amalgamation of the 19th century and the world order of the the 1950s as the pinnacle of human society.
Meanwhile, when has “protecting yourself from a tyrannical government” ever come to pass? (Don’t say the Civil War, which was about owning slaves, not tyrrany).
That's precisely why tyrannical governments disarm their citizens first. If people willingly give up their arms, they are more easily subjugated.
I’m for gun ownership, with common-sense regulations.
Gun control advocates have proven that they are unable to write common-sense regulations. If they hadn't broken trust with all the talk of "assault weapons" and inaccurate or false descriptions of firearms to exaggerate how dangerous they are, there would be more "common-sense" regulations in place today.
What mechanism do you propose that is better than regulation and restriction that would better prevent this senseless loss of life?
Use modern physical security practices at schools. If the government is going to make it illegal to carry weapons there, then it has a greater responsibility to protect the defenseless children who are forced to be there. And don't give me that "oh, that shouldn't be necessary" crap. If you're going to force kids to attend school, you have a responsibility to protect them. Period.
Improve access to healthcare of all sorts and fix the affordability crisis.
Get rid of Fifth-Amendment-violating red flag laws. If it doesn't have due process, it's illegal and tyrannical and shouldn't be a law. If you want to disarm someone, you should have to prove that their rights need to be taken away first. Additionally, damage to one's confiscated property should be reimbursed. Confiscating someone's arms after proper due process does not infringe upon the Second Amendment.
BaldProphet @ BaldProphet @kbin.social Posts 0Comments 413Joined 2 yr. ago
Oh, I see. My guess is poor moderation.