Cethin

The desire for clergy not to be mandated reporters goes in the opposite direction from what you suggest. The slippery slope here doesn’t lead to breaking freedom of religion, it leads to a religious organization hiding crimes whenever they want.

It is not the opposite direction. It’s the same direction in a different system. Their religious system fails if confession isn’t only between you and the clergy.

I don’t think we want to be in a position where someone confesses that they aided with an illegal abortion, like they’re required to by their religion, and is arrested for it. Not all laws are good or just. If mandatory reporting for one crime is made, there’s no reason it shouldn’t expand to more/all crimes.

Leaving an exception in for the confessional when it comes to mandatory reporting would allow any religious group that had a mandate for secrecy to say, ‘We don’t have to report anything.’”

No, they only don’t have to report confessions. They’d still be legally required to report if they discover crimes happening, like other clergy committing crimes. It’d only be things said in the confession box that are safe.

I don’t like religion, and I really dislike organized religion, but I also hate giving the state power over people’s lives. We bend over backwards to get revenge in our society, to a massive detriment to ourselves. We give up so much just so we can get back at someone else. We need to stop this. Freedom is important. Yes, security is nice too, but how much security does this buy for the amount of freedom it could lose?

Wow, I didn’t even write much and you lost the thread that quickly. I was agreeing with the premise.

I know you said rhetoric, not actual 2A, but I will continue to say this every time I see it, this is not what 2A is for. It’s clearly for militias defending the state against an enemy army. It’s been mutilated into self defence stuff, but there’s nothing even approaching that there.

However, 9A does protect this right, since it has long been held by the people. Regardless, the reasoning doesn’t matter. People should be armed and train in operation and safe handling/storage/maintenance of their weapon, just in case it’s needed.

Yes. Will the court decide in your favor? Who knows, but I’d wager probably not. It’s better to try it and find out then let this happen though, or probably a better idea would be to get out ASAP and try to become a ghost if possible. Eventually this won’t be tolerated, but people need to see others stand up before they will usually.

Even better, have your police force enforce the damn law. Arrest these men when they try to kidnap people without a warrant.

How can you create an account with that name and also say you must comply with any authority even when they’re infringing on your rights? There’s no legal requirement to identify themselves (and even then, only to police, not to security) unless they’re suspected of commiting a crime. Being trespassed is not a crime. Trespassing is. They were told they had to leave, and on attempting to leave they were prevented from doing so, so they had not committed a crime and were being prevented from complying with the trespass order.

“FreedomAdvocate” the bootlicker. The definition of irony, if anyone needed it.

Maybe just create a law that establishes a fair algorithm that can’t be gamed, then we can stop all of this once of for all. Wouldn’t that be nice…

Confession is for stuff you’ve done, not are going to do. Presumably they recognize it was wrong or they wouldn’t go to confession about it.

I agree it sucks, but I also agree with the comment above yours. Yes, this crime is bad and the people deserve to be caught. I don’t trust the state to always do the right thing though. If we agree with this, we should also agree when they do the same for petty theft, assisting with an illegal abortion, or whatever other crimes they want. This is a slippery slope (not the fallacy) to the state removing protections of any confession, and these people believe if they don’t confess they’ll go to hell, regardless of if they’ll never do it again or if it wasn’t that significant.

To be fair, lawyers get to avoid this (I assume). This isn’t the same obviously, but if you view it from their frame of reference it is even more important. They must confess if they want to be “saved from God”, and similarly you should be honest with your lawyer to be saved from the court.

I don’t know where I stand on this issue. I obviously want them to be caught, and the religion is bogus, and the organization causes tremendous harm. However, if someone believes it’s true then this is pretty significant overreach and directly interferes with religious practice. They start with the crime most people will agree with, and then it sets a precident to go after other crimes in the same fashion. I’m too skeptical of the state to trust it’ll always be a good thing.

Yeah, sure. The issue is this won’t decrease funding. If anything, it’ll increase it. They have a certain number of troops they want to maintain. If they don’t have them, they’ll spend more on advertising. I wouldn’t be that upset if some of the funding went to increased pay, but that’s likely not going to happen, at least not significantly.

I saw some documentaries where they followed recruits and most of them failed because they lacked dedication, a decent understanding of French, or were physically or mentally unfit.

Well, you’re describing a large part of the US military. Many enlisted soldiers just joined to escape a bad situation, so they aren’t that dedicated. They certainly don’t know French, if they even know English that well.

From what I’ve read, he does hold some progressive opinions, such as on immigration. He also holds some conservative opinions, like homosexuality being bad. I don’t think it’s fair to call him either. However, from what I’ve heard he is about as “progressive” as we could have hoped for from this process this time. I think hoping for anything good from something like Catholicism is foolish. The best you can normally hope for is that they just don’t get in the way.

Also, I think he has no concept of what rich is anymore. There’s no way in hell he isn’t, at minimum, rich in assets when he dies. His house, assuming he dies and only owns one, will probably be worth more than most people make in a lifetime. Unless he takes out insane mortgages against it and donates them, he’ll still be rich. Even then, it’s still call living a life where you have access to a house like that rich, even if he effectively doesn’t own it anymore.