Audio recordings of the meetings over the next four months, obtained by The Associated Press, show how [Utah attorney and head of the church’s Risk Management Division] Rytting, despite expressing concern for what he called John [Goodrich]’s “significant sexual transgression,” would employ the risk management playbook that has helped the church keep child sexual abuse cases secret. In particular, the church would discourage [Bishop Michael] Miller from testifying, citing a law that exempts clergy from having to divulge information about child sex abuse that is gleaned in a confession. Without Miller’s testimony, prosecutors dropped the charges, telling Lorraine that her impending divorce and the years that had passed since Chelsea {Goodrich}'s alleged abuse might prejudice jurors.
What constituency would not?
The state mandating church administration is no better than the church dictating matters of state.
I’m not in favor of a carve out that allows a rapist or murderer to confess their crimes to a religious person and that religious person is not bound by any law to divulge it specifically because they are a religious person. What or whose purpose does that serve?
Is this a free speech issue for you? Must we have the speaking right to confess rape and murder without consequence? Is this a religious freedom issue? Must a child rapist be permitted to talk about their rape freely with their religious establishment? Is their right to do that more important than a raped child’s right to justice?
The church needs to be a safe space for rapists and murderers or else our rights have been infringed?
I honestly don’t know where you were going there.
What purpose does it serve to deny confession? Does the removal of the religious practice deter or prevent crimes? Catch criminals?
The ability to confess isn’t enabling criminals. Your logic, if we accept it as valid (and frankly, im not gonna say I don’t…) would suggest that the concept that God forgives sinners is the actual enabling mechanism, and that any church suggesting such is complicit simply by existing.
If the state is responsible for ensuring religion doesn’t enable crime, then why not simply make religion illegal? Because reasons? Whatever those reasons are, is exactly why church and state need not be given any reign over one another.
So let’s say confession (which is not in the Christian bible in any way, shape, or form) didn’t exist previously and we were coming up with it now. You and I had decided that this was an important right for religious people. We tell the state that we no longer want our members to be bound by mandatory reporting laws because God forgives sinners and confessing your crimes to a religious member isn’t enabling crime anyway.
And at some point, someone would ask if we also meant no mandatory reporting for child sex abuse crimes and we’d be like hell yea man. This is our religious and this is religious freedom and it’s important.
And then we would be laughed out of the room and every other room on this planet. We would be personas non-grata, because seriously who the hell would argue for something like that?
Traditionalism doesn’t do anything for me, and the state having a muscular, aggressive response to mandatory reporting laws (of which I am also bound as a sports coach for middle schoolers) is A-OK with me.
I’d argue it’s actually much better that the state mandates church administration than the church dictating matters of the state.