I suspect it will be soon, though.

It's a simple argument, and one that any competent attorney would think of in such a case. There are precedents for overriding a religious doctrine if there is a conflict between it and the rights of an individual.

Freedom of worship is not an absolute freedom. Not at all. It is a powerful freedom, but has limitations. If a doctrine causes serious harm to an individual, the rights of the individual take precedence. That's why human sacrifice would not be protected, nor would cutting of the hand of a thief by church authorities.

The Constitution is not a document of absolutes. Every right has its limitations, and harm to others is one of the areas where those limitations come into play.

Baghwan Shree Rajneesh found out in the 1970s that a religious organization can't just do whatever it wants to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajneesh

Good post.

The problem is two fold. First, you have to establish in court that the confessional priest (not the predator) actually was told of the abuse. If you were successful, it wouldn't change much because the priest STILL isn't going to break his vows. So you'll never get testimony out of him.

The real problem is that the priest is following what he considers to be a "higher law". The courts have generally allowed them their protection, but I suspect after all of this stuff, they may be willing to reconsider. Although it is a problem considering how many Catholics are on the Supreme Court.

If there is that one get's broken on pretty much a daily basis.

As far as priests not breaking their vows go, put them in front of a Grand Jury and let them decide for themselves if their vows are worth going to jail instead of those they are protecting.

As far as the SCOTUS goes, I seriously doubt if any case even remotely approaches it. Can you imagine the PR failure of the RCC trying to argue they have the right to keep covering up child rape?

Actually, the sanctity of the confessional HAS been articulated, debated and defended by the RCC MANY times. I agree completely that religious rights and 1st amendment rights are not without limits. But I'm also somewhat surprised that "confession" and the rationale behind it seems to be poorly understood, at least in this string. Perhaps it is the wrath (much of it richly deserved I might add) that has built up against the Catholic Church .. and people simple don't care about the church's argument or position.

The "argument" boils down to protecting the same system of secrecy that has allowed the RCC to cover up an epidemic of child rape spanning at least several decades, and almost certainly thousands of years.

Meanwhile nobody gets the exemptions the RCC gets when it comes to mandatory reporting of child abuse. Not lawyers, not teachers, not mental health professionals, not doctors or anyone else. Yet somehow the very organization which is the most egregious and notorious about fostering a culture of child rape just needs to have their position explained?

and I'm not. In fact, have little truck with ANY religion. But I think the fury of your response illustrates my point. In your world the church HAS no position. even though it has been articulated. And that is just fine by me. Cheers.

(by the way, lawyers, teachers, doctors and other health professionals are all secular positions. oh wait .. perhaps I spoke too soon!)

We do have a resident apologist who also claims others just don’t understand the RCCs position and everyone else here is just intolerant of the RCC. Also likes to make underhanded and unfounded allegations about the tone and motivations of other posters.

Meanwhile your continued assumption that others are ignorant of the RCCs argument is a pretty piss poor one. Believe it or not there are posters here who are not only well informed of that position, but also those of prosecutors and child welfare organizations which are fighting the problem. Now unlike you I’m not going to allege your ignorance of those positions, but your failure to even mention them suggests either ignorance or apathy. It also makes me wonder what you think of all the lawmakers, prosecutors, and child welfare organizations advocating for clergy mandatory reporting. Perhaps you also think they are angry, ignorant and bigoted.

Sound familiar?

Sound familiar?

But that law has no force within US law, and their method of enforcement is rather lame, and to some extent relies upon perceived consequences after death.

When they can’t enforce religious law through the power of the state, about all that’s left is the conveniently unverifiable promise of reward and punishment.

And many of them incorporate the concept behind "karma", that somehow your reward will come in some unforeseen and unexpected earthly reward in the future.

But at least with Christianity I don't have to worry about coming back as a dung beetle.

The concept of Quid pro quo finds its way into many religious theologies.

Oopsie. I almost forgot our father of the perpetually offended here in the religion group says I can't use the grammatically correct word "delusion" in association with religion because someone has deluded themselves into thinking that word only is defined as a clinical pathology. To be fair, I suppose there is at least some identifiable associations between the two. Perhaps it's better to use the word "faith".

When someone tells you to give them $10 and you'll get back $100, it takes a higher level of "faith" not to realize you are being scammed.

It is a particular way of thinking, that finds itself rooted in alot of GOP positions. Not that some liberals can't also be guilty of it. There is a way of thinking in which one determines how things "should" work, and therefore that must be how the "do " work. It is especially problematic in the area of human behavior. I always cringe when someone starts a though about cause and effect in human behavior with "but no one would CHOOSE to...".

"Serious" theologians/philosophers generally get to a place where they admit and understand that there is rarely if ever a direct connection between moral behavior and worldly outcomes. The usual expression is "bad things happen to good people". Mostly they take a position that more approximates Las Vegas. Doing the right thing may not result in good things happening, but that's the way to bet.

It's just generally a half-fast philosophy that isn't subject to empirical study, reason, or arbitration.

There are exceptions of course, but an awful lot of belief systems, not just religious ones, quickly get to the "you're not supposed to be able to prove it" kind of place. An awful lot of "woo" that gets pushed in various venues about healing powers of triangles, pyramids, blue light, special stones, etc. often involve the assertion that one basically must accept or believe in the power of these things in order for them to work. If they don't work, you belief wasn't "strong" enough.

Which is the epitome of a strawman rhetoric which claims one must offer a competing position to call bullshit, and assumes extraordinary claims are somehow equal to ordinary ones.

So yes, it's not unheard of to find similar departures from critical thinking beyond religion. It's just religion makes it a lot more efficient.

Asserting there is no "god" or after life or "other worldly" consequence isn't provable. There literally is "no way of knowing", at least for most of the larger faiths out there. But as you suggest, the faithful should recognize that this condition is intentional on their part for the strict purpose of avoiding having any other basis for the belief than faith. Disbelievers on the other hand are just making a deductive conclusion, understanding that someday they could be proven wrong. Of course disbelievers on the other hand should recognize that there is a certain circularity to their deduction. It can't be proven because it's not suppose to be provable so the lack of evidence is evidence that it doesn't exist, even though there isn't supposed to be evidence.

I don’t feel much obligation to disprove assertions which no proof was offered to begin with.

Even if one deluded themselves into believing anyone must take a position on the god/no god question, that’s actually just the realm of deism. Theism at a minimum goes much farther, by not only asserting there is one or more gods, but said god(s) intervene in the existence of humans, and they know what said god expects from humans. All three are extraordinary claims each built upon the non-existent foundation of the other. Once one accepts that bag of tricks, add a heaping helping of unbelievable mythology just for good measure.

Then you have those who will continue to insist the theist position is no less valid than the positive atheist position which isn’t extraordinary at all and requires no day trip from reality to accept.

Mostly as a thought experiment, but I think it illustrates the real difference in the thought of the theist and the atheist.

If one day, God showed up and proved his existence, the atheist would accept that they were wrong.

If any aspect of the existence of God, or the related beliefs is falsified, the theist will just alter their beliefs or understanding to ensure the continuation of the existence of God.

been identified who encountered such a thing and made a contemporaneous account of it, it's not a possibility that I have ever considered.

So only a subset would have to accept they were wrong, but that just shows they were subject to reason which got them there in the first place. Taking your thought experiment one step farther, if Allah showed up it's unlikely most Christians would admit they were wrong.

There are a few kind of atheists. Among them are people who just don't really spend much time thinking about it, there are those that are basically waiting for something "tangible" before bothering to think much about it, and those that have an adamant position. That third kind is probably a small subset, but it includes my spouse so I hear about it alot.

And I agree, I suspect if Allah showed up, some would declare it a trick of evil or the devil or something so as to hang on to their original beliefs.

"Fire" in a crowded theater and all that. We routinely recognize that there are reasonable limits on all our rights.

It's interesting to me that the two groups who insist their rights ARE supreme and inviolable are extreme gun rights advocates, and the rigidly religious.

Good connection there.