Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[WestRedMaple]

The confessional seal is part of the practice of that religion. The Constitution prevent any law from preventing the practice of religion.

What part of that is not clear to you?

By that logic, ritual human sacrifice has to be allowed.

Nope. We already brought up the difference between a person following their own religion and someone being forced into the demands of someone else's religion

[Camicon]

The part where it allows people to do illegal things, while claiming that their religion protects them. Because it doesn't, constitution or no, and the Louisiana Supreme Court agrees with me.

You see, that might hold more weight if the Constitution actually backed you (it's unclear whether it does. For the umpteenth time, the SCOTUS has yet on rule on the matter). Even then, it would be difficult to take seriously when the alternative needlessly protects a child-raping pedophile.

You're using a circular argument 'it's illegal because there is no exemption for doing illegal things'

The priest breaks no law by not talking.

Why don't you quit avoiding the question?

It's illegal, because people are legally required to testify in a court of law when asked to. There are very specific exemptions to this, and the confessional seal is not one of them. So, yeah, the priest is breaking the law by not doing so.

And what question is it that you think I'm avoiding?

[WestRedMaple]

You're using a circular argument 'it's illegal because there is no exemption for doing illegal things'

The priest breaks no law by not talking.

Why don't you quit avoiding the question?

It's illegal, because people are legally required to testify in a court of law when asked to. There are very specific exemptions to this, and the confessional seal is not one of them. So, yeah, the priest is breaking the law by not doing so.

And what question is it that you think I'm avoiding?

People cannot be legally required to violate their religious beliefs. The applicable constitutions define the law.

What confuses you about the question? It ends in a ? and you quoted it, so you cannot pretend to have not seen it.

[Camicon]

It's illegal, because people are legally required to testify in a court of law when asked to. There are very specific exemptions to this, and the confessional seal is not one of them. So, yeah, the priest is breaking the law by not doing so.

And what question is it that you think I'm avoiding?

People cannot be legally required to violate their religious beliefs. The applicable Constitutions define the law.

What confuses you about the question? It ends in a ? and you quoted it, so you cannot pretend to have not seen it.

Legally, people can be, and they are. You are not interpreting the Constitution properly. The Louisiana Supreme Court does not agree with you.

You haven't asked me any questions for a few pages now, so how about you re-post it, instead of pointlessly snarking.

[WestRedMaple]

People cannot be legally required to violate their religious beliefs. The applicable Constitutions define the law.

What confuses you about the question? It ends in a ? and you quoted it, so you cannot pretend to have not seen it.

Legally, people can be, and they are. You are not interpreting the Constitution properly. The Louisiana Supreme Court does not agree with you.

You haven't asked me any questions for a few pages now, so how about you re-post it, instead of pointlessly snarking.

Nothing which violates the Constitution can be legal.

The Constitution expressly prohibits them from creating such a law.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No protection of rights here is being thrown out; scope of freedom of religion is being redefined such that greater harm is prevented. Just like we do not apply freedom of religion to polygamy even though several religion incorporates it, or we would not allow human sacrifice if Aztec religion was revived tomorrow.


No, otherwise obstruction charge wouldn't exist.


Interpretation of freedom of religion as meaning "you can do everything your religion tells you to without interference from any other laws or state" is plain absurd; else my religion tells me that I dont have to pay taxes and can use all means to gain wealth.


And people still can. They just can't use it as get out of jail free card for obstruction charge.

Obviously the protection of rights has been thrown out. They want to remove someone's freedom to practice their faith. That's the entire topic

You say it isn't neutral regarding the investigation. Okay, then I challenge you to explain what about the investigation has been set back by not knowing what the priest knows versus a priest not knowing anything to begin with.

How can you be considered free to do something if you've been ordered by a court otherwise, and threatened with prosecution if you do?

The problem here is that you're conflating the issue.

The issue is NOT that the priest knows vs. a priest not knowing anything to begin with. The problem is that the girl has said that the priest told her to not say anything about the sexual abuse she was getting from a fellow parishioner; and now the police wants to know if this is true or not. To which the priest and the Church are going "lol no, see, freedom of religion". Besides, they were already required to report child abuse reports due to Louisiana law. The church wasn't exempt from it.

The investigation has been set back because the priest is a material witness to the investigation. Unless, of course, you're also of the mind that priests who rape children should not go to jail either because "the Church".

How can you be free to do something? Simple, the confessional seal is not being deteriorated because of the court order. It is merely being asked to comply on certain instances. His being a material witness is important, and prosecution if they do not comply is the result. Otherwise the confessions keep on being confidential.

[Camicon]

Legally, people can be, and they are. You are not interpreting the Constitution properly. The Louisiana Supreme Court does not agree with you.

You haven't asked me any questions for a few pages now, so how about you re-post it, instead of pointlessly snarking.

Nothing which violates the Constitution can be legal.

The Constitution expressly prohibits them from creating such a law.

So, clearly, making a priest testify in this case doesn't violate the Constitution. Otherwise the Louisiana Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled as it did. And until the SCOTUS addresses the issue, this is how it will stay.

[WestRedMaple]

Obviously the protection of rights has been thrown out. They want to remove someone's freedom to practice their faith. That's the entire topic

You say it isn't neutral regarding the investigation. Okay, then I challenge you to explain what about the investigation has been set back by not knowing what the priest knows versus a priest not knowing anything to begin with.

How can you be considered free to do something if you've been ordered by a court otherwise, and threatened with prosecution if you do?

The problem here is that you're conflating the issue.

The issue is NOT that the priest knows vs. a priest not knowing anything to begin with. The problem is that the girl has said that the priest told her to not say anything about the sexual abuse she was getting from a fellow parishioner; and now the police wants to know if this is true or not. To which the priest and the Church are going "lol no, see, freedom of religion". Besides, they were already required to report child abuse reports due to Louisiana law. The church wasn't exempt from it.

The investigation has been set back because the priest is a material witness to the investigation. Unless, of course, you're also of the mind that priests who rape children should not go to jail either because "the Church".

How can you be free to do something? Simple, the confessional seal is not being deteriorated because of the court order. It is merely being asked to comply on certain instances. His being a material witness is important, and prosecution if they do not comply is the result. Otherwise the confessions keep on being confidential.

So you're still unable to explain how the priest not talking is anything other than a neutral to the investigation.

How can being forced to abandon something not deteriorate it?

[WestRedMaple]

Nothing which violates the Constitution can be legal.

The Constitution expressly prohibits them from creating such a law.

So, clearly, making a priest testify in this case doesn't violate the Constitution. Otherwise the Louisiana Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled as it did. And until the SCOTUS addresses the issue, this is how it will stay.

Obviously it does, because the facts are that
A) this is part of the religious belief
and
B) the constitutions of the US and Louisiana prevent the government from legally being able to require someone violate those beliefs.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So you're still unable to explain how the priest not talking is anything other than a neutral to the investigation.

How can being forced to abandon something not deteriorate it?

Because if he wasn't a material witness you could say that.

Clearly the case isn't that he's "neutral", it is that he specifically is being alleged to have said "oh this is going to cause too much trouble. Don't bother" to a 12 year old.

[WestRedMaple]

So you're still unable to explain how the priest not talking is anything other than a neutral to the investigation.

How can being forced to abandon something not deteriorate it?

Because if he wasn't a material witness you could say that.

Clearly the case isn't that he's "neutral", it is that he specifically is being alleged to have said "oh this is going to cause too much trouble. Don't bother" to a 12 year old.

You're getting confused. The neutrality is in reference to the investigation. He isn't setting it back or moving it forward, he's leaving it right where it was

[Americanada]

Legally, people can be, and they are. You are not interpreting the Constitution properly. The Louisiana Supreme Court does not agree with you.

You haven't asked me any questions for a few pages now, so how about you re-post it, instead of pointlessly snarking.

Nothing which violates the Constitution can be legal.

The Constitution expressly prohibits them from creating such a law.

... You don't seem to understand what "expressly" means, right? It means that they expressed it, not implied it if you dabble some lemon juice on the back and hit it with a blow dryer to reveal the secret amendments that Catholic priests must not be required to break their confessional seal and that religious practice is an acceptable defense in a court of law.

What I do see expressly stated is Section One of Article Three, which directly vests interpretation and application of laws with the judicial branch. Acting upon that, the Supreme Court used the powers vested in it by the United States Constitution and used its Constitutionally-give powers 136 years ago in Reynolds v. United States and set the legal precedence that, no, courts may not accept "But my religion obligates me to break the law in this instance." as a defense for a crime.

Funnily enough, I've only ever heard complaints now that it has been applied to a religion that is reasonably popular, almost as though there is an undercurrent of anger at the application of legal egalitarianism that might be surmised as, "When you speed, you are some asshole that is going to kill someone; when I speed, I was just in a hurry."

[WestRedMaple]

Nothing which violates the Constitution can be legal.

The Constitution expressly prohibits them from creating such a law.

... You don't seem to understand what "expressly" means, right? It means that they expressed it, not implied it if you dabble some lemon juice on the back and hit it with a blow dryer to reveal the secret amendments that Catholic priests must not be required to break their confessional seal and that religious practice is an acceptable defense in a court of law.

What I do see expressly stated is Section One of Article Three, which directly vests interpretation and application of laws with the judicial branch. Acting upon that, the Supreme Court did just that 136 years ago and set the legal precedence that, no, courts may not accept "But my religion obligates me to break the law in this instance." as a defense for a crime.

Funnily enough, I've only ever heard complaints now that it has been applied to a religion that is popular, almost as though there is an undercurrent of anger at the idea of legal egalitarianism that might be surmised as, "How dare you treat we popular kids like you do everyone else; we deserve better than the plebeians!"

Funnily enough, what you hear is based on what you've been paying attention to, not what has actually been said. I stand up for the freedom of and from religion of all people.

Why should Catholicism be any different than any of the other religions which I do not believe or follow?

You don't seem to understand what expressly means if you honestly think that it means 'well, actually, there is a hidden meaning and exemptions from what was actually written'

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because if he wasn't a material witness you could say that.

Clearly the case isn't that he's "neutral", it is that he specifically is being alleged to have said "oh this is going to cause too much trouble. Don't bother" to a 12 year old.

You're getting confused. The neutrality is in reference to the investigation. He isn't setting it back or moving it forward, he's leaving it right where it was

Which the prosecution has already said they have a right to know, therefore the priest was obstructing justice.

[WestRedMaple]

You're getting confused. The neutrality is in reference to the investigation. He isn't setting it back or moving it forward, he's leaving it right where it was

Which the prosecution has already said they have a right to know, therefore the priest was obstructing justice.

The prosecution does not alter the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

[Americanada]

... You don't seem to understand what "expressly" means, right? It means that they expressed it, not implied it if you dabble some lemon juice on the back and hit it with a blow dryer to reveal the secret amendments that Catholic priests must not be required to break their confessional seal and that religious practice is an acceptable defense in a court of law.

What I do see expressly stated is Section One of Article Three, which directly vests interpretation and application of laws with the judicial branch. Acting upon that, the Supreme Court did just that 136 years ago and set the legal precedence that, no, courts may not accept "But my religion obligates me to break the law in this instance." as a defense for a crime.

Funnily enough, I've only ever heard complaints now that it has been applied to a religion that is popular, almost as though there is an undercurrent of anger at the idea of legal egalitarianism that might be surmised as, "How dare you treat we popular kids like you do everyone else; we deserve better than the plebeians!"

Funnily enough, what you hear is based on what you've been paying attention to, not what has actually been said. I stand up for the freedom of and from religion of all people.

Why should Catholicism be any different than any of the other religions which I do not believe or follow?

You don't seem to understand what expressly means if you honestly think that it means 'well, actually, there is a hidden meaning and exemptions from what was actually written'

Then please show me where you have expressed outrage at the application of this legal principle before this case. This legal principle has been standing for 136 years now and has been applied to everything from Mormons in the 1800's to Scientologists in the 1950's, yet I have only noticed complaints about it now that it is being applied to one of the most popular religions in the United States.

[Camicon]

So, clearly, making a priest testify in this case doesn't violate the Constitution. Otherwise the Louisiana Supreme Court wouldn't have ruled as it did. And until the SCOTUS addresses the issue, this is how it will stay.

Obviously it does, because the facts are that
A) this is part of the religious belief
and
B) the constitutions of the US and Louisiana prevent the government from legally being able to require someone violate those beliefs.

Killing non-believers is part of my religious belief.
The constitution of the US and Louisiana prevent them from legally requiring me to violate those beliefs (by not killing non-believers).

Totes makes sense bro.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Which the prosecution has already said they have a right to know, therefore the priest was obstructing justice.

The prosecution does not alter the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

The Supreme Court of Louisiana can interpret the Constitution and now the Supreme Court of the U.S. will look at it and determine the ruling.

The Constitution is broad enough to where SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution as it sees fit. There's no "unlimited expression of religion" in the U.S.; and if you think so just go look at the laws of your state.

[WestRedMaple]

Funnily enough, what you hear is based on what you've been paying attention to, not what has actually been said. I stand up for the freedom of and from religion of all people.

Why should Catholicism be any different than any of the other religions which I do not believe or follow?

You don't seem to understand what expressly means if you honestly think that it means 'well, actually, there is a hidden meaning and exemptions from what was actually written'

Then please show me where you have expressed outrage at the application of this legal principle before this case. This legal principle has been standing for 136 years now and has been applied to everything from Mormons in the 1800's to Scientologists in the 1950's, yet I have only noticed complaints about it now that it is being applied to one of the most popular religions in the United States.

In every discussion of protection of your right of freedom to and from religion, you'll find that I post in support of those rights regardless of religion.

Hmmm, so why were you unable to answer the question? It seems pretty easy

[Dyakovo]

By that logic, ritual human sacrifice has to be allowed.

Nope. We already brought up the difference between a person following their own religion and someone being forced into the demands of someone else's religion

You're assuming that the people to be sacrificed are not members of the religion that practices it. Historically that was quite often not the case. So, no, there is no inherent difference.

[Dyakovo]

Which the prosecution has already said they have a right to know, therefore the priest was obstructing justice.

The prosecution does not alter the Constitution. Only an amendment can do that.

No-one said they could. They don't have to.

[Dyakovo]

Then please show me where you have expressed outrage at the application of this legal principle before this case. This legal principle has been standing for 136 years now and has been applied to everything from Mormons in the 1800's to Scientologists in the 1950's, yet I have only noticed complaints about it now that it is being applied to one of the most popular religions in the United States.

In every discussion of protection of your right of freedom to and from religion, you'll find that I post in support of those rights regardless of religion.

Hmmm, so why were you unable to answer the question? It seems pretty easy

What question do you think hasn't been answered?

[Pantokrator (Ancient)]

This is form of racism as it is targeted against minorities (mainly Latinos).

[Olerand]

Hm, this is a difficult one. I am not usually one for the whole "religious exemptions" thing, but this is a big part of Catholicism's shtick, sooo...

I'd say yes. The security of the public comes before one's vows to God. But that's my opinion, and in no way a possible prediction of what the US Supreme Court will rule.
Actually I think they'll rule the opposite of that.

[Jayesbee]

Anyone with knowledge of an ongoing crime, especially one as heinous as child abuse, who does not report said crime to the police should be charged as an accomplice if and when their the police discover the individual's knowledge.