Catholic Confessional Seal Part 2 - Supreme Court

[WestRedMaple]

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.

No, I'm not. Unless they are voluntary sacrifices, then they are being forced.

If they ARE voluntary sacrifices, then the government should respect their right to make that decision

[WestRedMaple]

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

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

They have to if they want to be able to force a violation of his religion LEGALLY.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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

As a Latino I have to ask: how the heck is it racism against us?!

[Dyakovo]

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

They have to if they want to be able to force a violation of his religion LEGALLY.

No, they don't..

[WestRedMaple]

They have to if they want to be able to force a violation of his religion LEGALLY.

No, they don't..

Yes, they do. The Constitution prevents La. Child Code art. 603(15) from actually entering into law due to the fact that it violates the religious protection of the priest.

The case still boils down to the same issues:
A) the confessional seal is part of Catholicism
B) the Constitution protects the right of people to maintain the confessional seal
C) the Constitution is higher law and takes primacy over any 'law' trying to contradict it

[Threlizdun]

No, they don't..

Yes, they do. The Constitution prevents La. Child Code art. 603(15) from actually entering into law due to the fact that it violates the religious protection of the priest.

The case still boils down to the same issues:
A) the confessional seal is part of Catholicism
B) the Constitution protects the right of people to maintain the confessional seal
C) the Constitution is higher law and takes primacy over any 'law' trying to contradict it

When a religious practice infringes upon the liberties of others and endangers the public, then it is not permitted. This isn't anything new, but a long held precedent. Preventing the apprehension of a child milestone absolutely endangers the public.

[Mereon]

It depends on the crime. For example, this case, child molestation is pretty serious, so yes. I think he should.

[4years]

Forcing a priest to break the confessional seal is against the first amendment.

On the contrary, allowing priests to refuse to testify when any other citizen (lawyers, etc. aside) would be forced to testify is against the first amendment.

[WestRedMaple]

Yes, they do. The Constitution prevents La. Child Code art. 603(15) from actually entering into law due to the fact that it violates the religious protection of the priest.

The case still boils down to the same issues:
A) the confessional seal is part of Catholicism
B) the Constitution protects the right of people to maintain the confessional seal
C) the Constitution is higher law and takes primacy over any 'law' trying to contradict it

When a religious practice infringes upon the liberties of others and endangers the public, then it is not permitted. This isn't anything new, but a long held precedent. Preventing the apprehension of a child milestone absolutely endangers the public.

A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights, so that's a moot point.

[Baxten]

We should just get rid of the Catholic Church and follow the wisdom of Calvin and other protestant reformers or atleast the Church of Idolatry should stop worshipping Mary.

Of course, a Protestant that doesn't understand much about the Catholic Church has to come judge.

[Camicon]

When a religious practice infringes upon the liberties of others and endangers the public, then it is not permitted. This isn't anything new, but a long held precedent. Preventing the apprehension of a child milestone absolutely endangers the public.

A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights, so that's a moot point.

People are not free from reprimand if they remain silent when they have been called to testify in a court of law.

[WestRedMaple]

A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights, so that's a moot point.

People are not free from reprimand if they remain silent when they have been called to testify in a court of law.

That's unrelated to the post to which you're replying.

[Dyakovo]

People are not free from reprimand if they remain silent when they have been called to testify in a court of law.

That's unrelated to the post to which you're replying.

How is it unrelated? Do you even know what this case is about?

[WestRedMaple]

That's unrelated to the post to which you're replying.

How is it unrelated? Do you even know what this case is about?

Since it bears no relation to what I said. Pretty simple concept, what's confusing you about that?

See how you were unable in your post to actually connect it to my post? That's the reason

[Dyakovo]

How is it unrelated? Do you even know what this case is about?

Since it bears no relation to what I said. Pretty simple concept, what's confusing you about that?

See how you were unable in your post to actually connect it to my post? That's the reason

I'll take that as a "no, I don't have a single fucking clue as to what this case is about and this am completely incapable of determining what is or is not related."

[WestRedMaple]

Since it bears no relation to what I said. Pretty simple concept, what's confusing you about that?

See how you were unable in your post to actually connect it to my post? That's the reason

I'll take that as a "no, I don't have a single fucking clue as to what this case is about and this am completely incapable of determining what is or is not related."

Ah, so you also enjoy making nonsensical assumptions.

I notice the fact that you still cannot actually find any connection between your post and mine.

[Dyakovo]

I'll take that as a "no, I don't have a single fucking clue as to what this case is about and this am completely incapable of determining what is or is not related."

Ah, so you also enjoy making nonsensical assumptions.

I notice the fact that you still cannot actually find any connection between your post and mine.

Read the Louisiana Supreme Court decision. That will explain the connection.

[WestRedMaple]

Ah, so you also enjoy making nonsensical assumptions.

I notice the fact that you still cannot actually find any connection between your post and mine.

Read the Louisiana Supreme Court decision. That will explain the connection.

I have read it, and it certainly does not. I notice that you are still utterly incapable of making any connection

[Dyakovo]

Read the Louisiana Supreme Court decision. That will explain the connection.

I have read it, and it certainly does not. I notice that you are still utterly incapable of making any connection

Obviously not.

[WestRedMaple]

I have read it, and it certainly does not. I notice that you are still utterly incapable of making any connection

Obviously not.

You're projecting. It seems like you're embarrassed by your inability to actually make any connection

[Camicon]

People are not free from reprimand if they remain silent when they have been called to testify in a court of law.

That's unrelated to the post to which you're replying.

WRM: "A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights..."
Cam: "That doesn't mean that people who refuse to speak, when they are legally required to, get off scot-free."

In what universe are those two sentences unrelated, especially considering the case in question? This priest is legally required to testify, but refuses to because of his profession. It's been determined by the Louisiana Supreme Court that his profession is not valid reason to not testify. If he refuses to testify, then he faces punishment. His dioceses is appealing the decision of the LSC, so that he won't face punishment for not testifying.

Obviously not.

You're projecting. It seems like you're embarrassed by your inability to actually make any connection

Ad homs. Lovely. Is it possible for you to have a conversation without insulting people?

[WestRedMaple]

That's unrelated to the post to which you're replying.

WRM: "A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights..."
Cam: "That doesn't mean that people who refuse to speak, when they are legally required to, get off scot-free."

In what universe are those two sentences unrelated, especially considering the case in question? This priest is legally required to testify, but refuses to because of his profession. It's been determined by the Louisiana Supreme Court that his profession is not valid reason to not testify. If he refuses to testify, then he faces punishment. His dioceses is appealing the decision of the LSC, so that he won't face punishment for not testifying.

You're projecting. It seems like you're embarrassed by your inability to actually make any connection

Ad homs. Lovely. Is it possible for you to have a conversation without insulting people?

I pointed out a mistake in claiming that exercising his rights somehow infringes on those of someone else.

turned around by completely ignoring what we were talking about, and the point made to talk about punishment instead. Whether or not you get punished for something is unrelated to what we were discussing. You've failed to relate the statement to the point I made.

Even though you quote me, you refuse to address my point

There was no ad hom. When someone intensely avoids something THEY brought up, that looks a lot like embarrassment to me. I didn't say it is fact, only how it appears

[Camicon]

WRM: "A person exercising their right to not speak infringes on no rights..."
Cam: "That doesn't mean that people who refuse to speak, when they are legally required to, get off scot-free."

In what universe are those two sentences unrelated, especially considering the case in question? This priest is legally required to testify, but refuses to because of his profession. It's been determined by the Louisiana Supreme Court that his profession is not valid reason to not testify. If he refuses to testify, then he faces punishment. His dioceses is appealing the decision of the LSC, so that he won't face punishment for not testifying.


Ad homs. Lovely. Is it possible for you to have a conversation without insulting people?

*snip*
turned around by completely ignoring what we were talking about, and the point made to talk about punishment instead. Whether or not you get punished for something is unrelated to what we were discussing. You've failed to relate the statement to the point I made.
*snip*

I was pointing out that your position is logically inconsistent. No, I wasn't responding to the point you made, I was making one of my own, something I thought was amply clear. That doesn't make it unrelated.

[WestRedMaple]

*snip*
turned around by completely ignoring what we were talking about, and the point made to talk about punishment instead. Whether or not you get punished for something is unrelated to what we were discussing. You've failed to relate the statement to the point I made.
*snip*

I was pointing out that your position is logically inconsistent. No, I wasn't responding to the point you made, I was making one of my own, something I thought was amply clear. That doesn't make it unrelated.

Too bad you never actually got around to making your point then

[The Flood]

This thread just reinforces why I'm anti-atheism.

All the poll section respondents are in favour of the 'no' option, except for the atheist options.