What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
Vive la "nasty!"
Could you mean Newton's laws of motion, or his notes on alchemy
A very good point, arch. his laws of motion (and calculus!) are still useful as they have been verified repeatedly. His ideas on alchemy (and God), not so much so.
Once in awhile, I catch a break --
I'm still scratching my head over a comment you made in another post, it began: "Quite so" - somehow, I just can't equate a dude in a cowboy hat with saying, "Quite so." You're a dichotomy, Dave - or a schizophrenic --
Hmm, I had him with a Scottish accent.
If only my accent was that cool.
@Dave - are you one of those who turns 1-syllable words into two: yea-yus, Ji-yum, etc?
Thankfully, no. My accent is mostly non-existent, due to being a blend of multiple places. Ohio, Georgia, Kansas, Panama, multiple Army bases, and now Hawaii. I do say y'all now and then, however. A souvenir from my time in Georgia.
In your comment to Strega: "If only my accent was that cool," I took it to mean that it was something abysmal.
y'all is a very useful term and there is no other which does the job. I picked it up in Raleigh NC. My speech is a strange mish-mash of all kinds of influences.
In England - Liverpool - they say you's which I don't like as much.
Well, the photo was taken at Adventure World in Disney. Which is also where I got the hat.
BUT - you got the hat --
@Gallup, all this is just chasing your tail. The fact is that Bernard Law was not a mandatory reporter, because under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that were in force at the time, (1) child abuse could only be committed by a guardian, and (2) only professionals in child care as defined by the statute were mandatory reporters. Besides, failure to report is typically a misdemeanor.
What it all does is falsify your statement: "Even today, child abuse and neglect in most states can only be committed by a parent or other legal custodian, and only child abuse is subject to reporting requirements. Citizens, supervisors, employees are not, in U.S. law, required to report crimes more generally."
And likewise it falsifies your statement: "A priest, being non-custodial, cannot commit child abuse, and therefore none of the mandatory reporters are obligated by law to report."
Failure to report is a felony or misdemeanor in 46 states and a punishable offense in all 50 states.
In two-thirds of US states, anyone may be charged with child abuse-- not just caregivers-- and that includes priests. In those states all of the mandatory reporters are obligated to report.
So we are done here. You are wrong.
I didn't say it is a conspiracy. I said it is corruption resulting from the influence of religion.
So there wasn't a legal case to be made, and the reason had nothing to do with some vast imagined conspiracy. It had to do with how child abuse was treated historically under the law everywhere.
There's no question, though, that the trend is toward increased mandated reporting, and both statutes and case law are in flux many places.
No, they are the results of the influence of religion on lawmakers and on the religious voters who put them into office. Clergy are every bit as prominent in their communities as the teachers, doctors, and lawyers who must report, but only the clergy are granted privileged exceptions from reporting. That is no accident. That is no failure.
That is corruption and it is real. You have ignored this aspect since the beginning of our exchange. As I said: reporting exceptions are still granted to clergy even in Massachusetts today, even in the wake of what Cardinal Law and his predecessors did, even after they got away with it for over sixty years, even after the law was changed specifically because of what they did. But the law wasn't changed enough to prevent a similar cover-up of child sexual abuse from ever happening again and from such a cover-up still being perfectly legal.
Would you call that quite intentional loophole another "failure" of the state? Or do you think the Church would support a law that makes confessions and "similar religious communications" subject to mandated reporting?
Gallup: read this summary of mandatory reporting requirements for child abuse
Robert: Which you conveniently neglect to admit goes on for 5 paragraphs about exceptions and limitations.
Take it from the top, Pinocchio! "I've got no strings..."
It says in two-thirds of the states, the statutes specify circumstances under which child abuse is a reportable offense irrespective of the defendant’s relationship to the victim.
None of the five paragraphs of exceptions and limitations describe priests as being granted an exception from being child abusers the way you claim they are, so you're falsely accusing me of omitting information as though I am being misleading.
The information amounts to exactly what I said it does: priests can commit child abuse in those states. Falsely attacking my honesty does not reverse our positions and make your statement true and me the liar, although it does entertainingly reinforce your now self-associated satirical nickname.
Priests can commit sexual battery, gross sexual imposition, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc. We are talking legal definitions here, and "child abuse" has a different legal meaning than colloquial meaning in many jurisdictions.
Yes and in two-thirds of US states priests can commit child abuse, based on the legal meanings of child abuse statutes in those states.
Gallup: The reports may be made public (unless a judge says otherwise) but the information in the reports may be provided to police and child welfare agencies confidentially. The employee may figure it out, but then it's up to the employee to prove the employer went to the police or child protection agency.
Robert: No, that's not the way it works. The childrens' services agency only has jurisdiction as defined by law, and only childrens' service agencies have legally mandated protections for reporters. For any crime outside the jurisdiction of childrens' service agencies, like rape, law enforcement agencies have sole responsibility, and in the ordinary criminal justice system those are public records because defendants have a right to confront their accusers.
Yes, that's exactly the way it works. Anyone except a mandated reporter can report child abuse anonymously (see #11) and mandated reporters have legal protections against liability suits. A defendant has the right to confront his accusers and the evidence against him if he is brought to trial, not if he is under investigation by the police.
Example 1: A man tells his psychiatrist during a therapy session that he raped a child, the psychiatrist does not report it, and the child is raped again. The psychiatrist is partly responsible for the rape of that child. Under the law in Massachusetts right now this a crime.
What Bernard Law did was horrendous, but according to the chief law enforcement official of the state it was not provably illegal. So if you're mad that he's not in jail, blame the state. If you're mad that he's an ass, blame him.
What is truly irrational is to blame a worldwide church community who happened to share his religious philosophy. That worldwide church community is what "Catholic Church" means.
Example 2: A man tells his priest (or rabbi, or minister) during a confession (or religious counselling session) that he raped a child, the clergyman does not report it, and the child is raped again. The clergyman is partly responsible for the rape of that child. Under the law in Massachusetts right now this is NOT a crime.
Why do think that is, Robert? I'll tell you why. If they made confession and religious counselling reportable, then legions of religious crackpots like you would raise no end of outrage about the intrusion of the state into the realm of their imaginary God. Therapy of mind? Reportable. Therapy of magic? Secret. That's why the clergy has still got its loopholes. And what's a little thing like child rape compared to the value of your hocus-pocus?
What is truly irrational Robert is that you wilfully ignore these obscene double standards in the law, which have existed for decades, and have applied (and still apply) to clergy alone. Instead you vomit the utter falsehood that the privileged legal status of clergy are the result of failures of the secular state, rather than desired products of the enormous influence that your worldwide religions intentionally have upon that state.