You've not understood the sentence Fisherman. Clearly. Enjoy your evening. It's fairly clear that your arguments are based on basic misunderstandings such as you've attempted on a simple sentence like that.
News Flash: New Reveal Article
- Please explain so that I can understand what you mean.
My only point is that in the US, as any other church does (good or bad), the WT is entitled to church/ penitent privilege based on present SC interpretation of the 1st Amendment.
....above quote from Fisherman.
Can you please cite a US Supreme Court decision, or interpretation which holds that the Jehovah's Witnesses system of judicial committees actually qualifies as clergy/penitent privilege? Or, have the JWs recently adopted a Catholic-styled, one-on-one clergy/penitent system?
i was under the impression that the SC had previously interpreted clergy/penitent privilege as being an act of confession, held privately between two individuals: the penitent, and clergyman. Also, I believe that similar language exists in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Furthermore, I had always thought that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not consider themselves to even HAVE a clergy-class to begin with! I'm not a JW, but this non-clergy distinction has been made to me before on many occasions, by JWs with whom I've met.
I'm only asking, not attacking. Thanks.
i was under the impression that the SC had previously interpreted clergy/penitent privilege as being an act of confession, held privately between two individuals: the penitent, and clergyman.
"You are not reading." -Marvin Shilmer
Federal Rules of Evidence 506 - Communications to Clergy
(Federal recommended guidelines for State laws)
(a) Definitions. As used in this rule:(1) A "clergyman" is a minister, priest, rabbi, or other similar functionary of a religious organization, or an individual reasonably believed so to be by the person consulting him
Please explain so that I can understand what you mean.
I'll try rephrasing my whole post there (in context and including the part you didn't quote).
"What you've described would pass most legal tests for a clergy/penitent exemption, if that's what you mean by 'should'.
If you mean my own personal view, a better way to preserve a clergy/penitent exemption would be something similar to the Anglican idea where absolution is refused unless the penitent reports himself/herself to the police. Which means the priest knows that the report has been made."
What you've described would pass most legal tests for a clergy/penitent exemption
What in the world are you talking about!!! What legal test are you referring to? You said most,name them all or at least a couple.
absolution is refused unless the penitent reports himself/herself to the police. Which means the priest knows that the report has been made."
How in the world would the priest know that the report was made.
If the penitent refuses to report child abuse to the Police and absolution is withheld does UK law mandate the priest to report the allegation of child abuse he heard in the confession to the stuatory authorities?
If you mean my own personal view
You think that I mean that I was asking you for someone else's personal view!!
(Please don't get me on spelling Mephis. That ain't fair)
You realise that exemptions for clergy/penitent privilege don't come free with a box of cheerios right? That what counts and what doesn't is written in the legislation? That some states even in the US don't even recognise it?: Others recognise it only in some circumstances? That it doesn't even exist in some jurisdictions as a concept?
As for the second part to your increasingly bizarre post. The idea is that the priest would not be able to grant absolution until they did know it had been done. If only there were a communication device the priest could use and hand to the abuser...
UK law has few professions legally required to report. Priests aren't currently among them. But the priest is also free to report himself/herself in the case you describe.
Odd few posts Fisherman. Sorry but I've more interesting things to do now. Take care. Remember to read carefully! Not sure anything can help the understanding deficit you're displaying though :)
Priests aren't currently among them
But JW should.
Thank you Mephis.
I'd say you're welcome Fisherman, but you're randomly generating your own facts without any regard to reality so nothing to do with me :)
Now you've edited that post, it makes no sense whatsoever btw Fisherman. Just sayin'. But yes, I'd agree JWs should, the Anglicans should, the Catholics should... do I need to list every religious group in Britain or can we just skip to "if you have a duty of care or are in a position of trust, you should report abuse to appropriate agencies". It's really simple. In fact, adequate child safeguarding policies are part of the deal for receiving tax payer subsidy here.
But yes, I'd agree JWs should, the Anglicans should, the Catholics should.
Were JW also "not currently among them"?
It seems to me that UK clergy of the Anglican church are not mandated by UK law to report child abuse to stuatory authorities. Is that true?