Although much of what you suggest might be able to be accomplished by treating them as "just another" non-profit organization, ultimately you'll have some troubles because of religious freedom concepts of the 1st amendment. Where I've always thought they crossed over into "just another nonprofit" territory is when they try to go into various endeavors like running schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc. Once they go there, that activity isn't "religious" anymore and they are subject to all the same regulations as anyone else. A confessional is a religious act. Being an accredited elementary school is not.

By providing such benefits, the government is endorsing religious organizations. If the same benefits are not also given to non-religious organizations that have similar functions, it is essentially an establishment of religion.

Freedom of worship does not include freedom to violate the law. Nor should it. The Church is no more important than any other organization. It must operate within the law.

The First Amendment includes two provisions relating to religion: the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The complexity is that sometimes there is no way to accommodate one of those clauses without violating the other.

Here's a simple example. When Social Security was expanded to include agricultural workers, some Amish farmers refused to pay FICA taxes, on religious grounds. (I think the theological point was that Social Security is a form of insurance, which is true, and that insurance is contrary to God's will because it seeks to counter the divinely ordained consequences of whatever happened.) At least one Amish defendant was convicted and imprisoned.

Congress responded by amending the law to carve out an exemption tailored to the Amish.

Without the exemption, hard-working Amish farmers go to jail because they followed their religious beliefs, which would violate the Free Exercise Clause. With the exemption now in place, the Amish have a privilege that's not extended to libertarians and others who, on purely secular grounds, don't like Social Security; that privileged status for a religion violates the Establishment Clause.

On the other hand, the concern for the Free Exercise Clause wouldn't extend to allowing, for example, human sacrifice, if a group claiming to be reincarnated Aztecs were to say it's required by their religion.

In short, sometimes we violate one clause and sometimes we violate the other, depending on the circumstances. That's why it gets complicated.

If you want a nice, simple solution, you can get it by always prioritizing one Constitutional provision over the other. Just explain which of the above results you would change.

How about flaying the skins from still-living children in service to Xipe Totec?

But religious sacraments are. And strangely, "faith healing" is fairly tolerated by the courts, although there are limits. You can actually get "married" to more than one person in any church that will conduct the ceremony. The government just won't recognize more than one at a time. Religions are always going to be able to "discriminate" about hiring practices for their religious positions. It gets a touch dicier when it comes to schools and hospitals.

"Sacraments" are a Christian term, and are specific to certain Christian denominations. They don't—or rather shouldn't—receive any special consideration under the law.

The fact of the matter is religious practices like matrimony, circumcision, or human sacrifice to a temperamental blood god are all religious rites. Yet despite religious rites being broadly protected under the First Amendment, some of these are legal and others are not. The rationale is, and always has been, that freedom to practice religion can curtailed if the greater public interest demands it.

The same applies to every other freedom protected in the Bill of Rights. I have to assume that by virtue of your presence here that you support gun control, yes? It's the same principal.

It may not be decisive, but it will garner alot of attention from courts if the government tries to regulate/legislate a practice out of existence. The "greater public interest" better be just more than "we don't like it".

...that "we don't like it"?

It is not all that different from the spouse exemption that most states have. Truth be known, the spousal exception is less well based than the confessional. In reality, it is about on par with the legal counsel protections.

Your ability to ignore reality and substitute your own is truly inspiring.

I'm curious what factual reality I am ignoring?

The one where our objections are slightly more nuanced than "we just don't like it".

but the comparison to spousal privilege is a fair point. Do you also object to that privilege? What about the privilege we give to those who seek out social workers/counselors? For example, if someone is claiming they are a victim of sex assault, recent legislation makes their discussions with a counselor about it pretty strongly protected. Even in a scenario (rare though it may be) where the alleged victim admits the accusation is untrue.

Point being, if the privilege went away or were modified, the world won't end (for any of them except I think Attorney Client) but I've not seen any real argument as to why the priest-penitent privilege should go away or be modified in this thread yet except an argument that it violates the 1st Amendment (which isn't a great argument IMO).

As I've said, and will say again, "I haven't seen any real arguments" as to why to get rid of the privilege.

So saying "it's a religious practice" isn't actually saying why that means anything or is a "compelling public interest" to get rid of it.

No analysis, no consideration of why we have it, what it does, what would happen if we didn't have it...


So seems to me, right now, it's C: A and B

You haven't heard any convincing arguments, therefore the opposition is lying about their rationale? I haven't found any arguments for the existence of god I find particularly compelling, but I don't doubt it when people say they believe, nor do I hit up the furthest regions of my imagination to put forward possible motivations for why they'd profess said belief.

You can debate the arguments all you want. That's fine. But don't stand there and tell me I object to confessional confidentiality because "I don't like it."

I object to it because I care about the safety of children.

was "lying about their rationale."

I explicitly said I didn't know what your rationale was and I wouldn't pretend that I did. I then noted that, as of this point, and still, right now, there's been no rationale given.

I STILL don't know why you object to confessional confidentiality. The safety of children? Then make them mandatory reporters. Of course, what will happen is no one will ever confess to them about sexual assaults anymore. So that solves what problem exactly?

I can't actually debate anything with you because it would be like debating a formless void.

yeah you are pointless to engage with. I don't know what's worse in this forum, the hardcore religious nuts, or the hardcore anti-religion nuts, either way, I'm allergic to nuts.

We extend various forms of privilege. Strangely, many here would recognize a journalists right to protect sources as a feature of the 1st (as limited as it may or may not be) even though many courts have said there is no actual such right. We extend it to a great degree to various medical professionals, again often with limits. Probably the most stringent version is for lawyers. But the argument for lawyers is going to be much like that for the clergy. Lawyers will claim the inability to represent their clients. Clergy will claim in ability to engage spiritually with a person.

In the end I think it is a perfectly reasonable discussion to have. But one should not ignore the courts potential to rest arguments extensively upon first amendment protection to the free practice of ones religion.

I presume that the objection here has to do with clergy being exempt from mandatory reporting requirements that teachers and other professionals are exposed. I suspect that one would have to look at what lawyers were required to do under similar circumstances.

priests not being able to engage spiritually. It's about giving someone an outlet to tell someone. It's why we also extend similar privileges in many jurisdictions to counselors or psychiatrists. We know this also because in some states, only the penitent holds the privilege, not the priest.

If one wants to argue there should be more limitations on the priest-penitent privilege, that's fine. Of course, it's not a universal privilege, you can get around it in military jurisprudence for example, and some states have exceptions for sex assault cases like LA.

But that's a different argument from getting rid of it entirely...are folks prepared to also get rid of the psychotherapist-patient privilege? The spousal privilege?

It's pretty much a direct violation of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

That applies to all 501c(3) entities, not simply religious ones.

So it is consistent.

We have privileges for very specific reasons. Attorney client is one of the strongest but it's not the only one. I would continue excluding a confession to a priest/religious figure. The reason we have it is ostensibly the religious figure will convince the wrongdoer to turn themselves in. You remove the privilege, then folks will be much less likely to confess to a religious figure.

I'm not sure why 3 is a big deal.

Not sure what you mean by 4, you'd need to expand for me to have an opinion.

We don't tax non-profits. So if a church operates as a non-profit, why would we tax it? If a church is operating as a for-profit enterprise, reasonable minds can disagree, but as another poster said, it's complicated...there's two parts to the 1st Amendment, and they directly conflict, and fidelity to one can often mean violation of the other.

In the case of attorney-client privilege, it's because your attorney's job is to represent you. They are paid to advocate for YOU in court. That's understandable.

In the case of physician-patient privilege (where it is valid), it is to ensure the patient is treated properly.

These are understandable and reasonable exceptions.

Please explain why confessions to clergy should be a reasonable exception. You claim they will be "less likely to confess to a religious figure." OK, so right now, they can confess all they like and we can't know about ANYONE. That's better than a world where some people still confess, and we are able to prosecute them?

1. Yes, it is better. One assumes that most of those priests/rabbis/etc will counsel the confessor to turn themselves in. One further assumes at least some of those folks will in fact do so, in part because they felt enough guilt to come in and confess. The alternative is that they do not come in and confess and do not get such counsel. Those who are going to "confess anyway" aren't avoiding confessing because the priest-penitent privilege exists. Those who might not confess, at least some of that do it after confession and counseling/influence to turn themselves in.

2. I didn't say physician-patient privilege, I said psychotherapist-patient privilege. The latter extends to licensed social workers, so it isn't simply restricted to doctors treating patients, it's a lot broader than that. The military for example allows chaplains to operate both as religious figures and secularly as counselors. I'm agnostic and I could go to the Chaplain right now and discuss a problem from a counseling POV. There's more overlap between the two privileges and the purposes involved than you want to admit.

3. Removing the privilege in what way solves any problem? It leads to more police confessions how? It results in more convictions in what way? It might work for about five minutes, then once everyone knows you can't admit that to the priest without knowing it's going to be reported, then those folks are simply going to stop going to the priest, and that's one less person with influence over that person who can convince them to do the right thing.

The guilty person can go to the priest, confess, and receive absolution. For some, that relieves the guilt - until the next time. What about the victim? The victim gets nothing at all from this. The priest is forbidden to discuss the admission of guilt, or even to admit that he knows anything happened.

The guilty person has received absolution, and feels no need to go and report the crime. Jesus has forgiven him, through the offices of the priest. Soon enough, the guilty person will offend again, harming the victim even further. That's how it goes in such crimes.

The one person who receives nothing is the victim. The victim just continues to suffer, because nobody knows what is going on expect the guilty person and the priest. In cases of child sexual abuse, the victim is usually frightened into remaining silent due to threats against family or others.

Nobody seems to ever mention the victim in these discussions. How does the sanctity of the confessional benefit the victim? It doesn't have any benefit whatsoever for the victim, who will likely be subject to further abuse.

Consider the victim.

more likely they will be told that to truly receive absolution they need to confess and (to the police not the priest), turn themselves in and do what's right.

You're applying the worst case scenario (priest/rabbi/etc simply absolves confessor and gives no guidance on the moral thing to do) and ignoring the most likely scenario (priest/rabbi/etc tells confessor how to "get right with God.&quot . You also seem to be focused only on the Catholic faith, as the other faiths don't generally have confession/absolution in the same way. But I feel fairly confident your average Catholic priest is going to try and encourage that person to do the right thing and turn themselves in.

Do you disagree with that? If so, based on what?

Your scenario requires someone to have enough guilt to go to a priest, but not enough guilt to do anything else, that somehow that guilt will be relieved and they will then feel free to do it again and again. That's not necessarily reality. The repeat offenders are, generally, the folks who haven't reached the guilt stage yet...whether because they are incapable/too selfish to feel it, or because they don't have the emotional maturity to see the wrongness of their acts (particularly in "date rape" cases). It's only after someone calls them out (usually through the trial process, but also could be because someone they trust (family, friend, or yes priest) calls them out and encourages them to do the right thing).

How does it benefit the victim? Pretty easily, some percentage of confessors will be convinced to turn themselves in. The alternative, there is no confessor, who simply keeps quiet and thus receives no ethical or moral counsel. Your position seems to be that somehow, that scenario will result in more confessions and fewer victims, and sorry I'm not seeing how that is.

to identify them as potential victims by other priests. Given the number of priests in that area who are named as offenders, one has to wonder if they were confessing to each other and perpetuating the entire thing via that channel.

I consider child sexual molesters to be sociopaths, by definition. So, I'm not sure I attribute to them the same sort of guilt process felt by non-sociopaths. How many are convinced to turn themselves in to authorities? I would guess none in the case of priests who sexually abuse children. What's your guess?

rate for sex molesters isn't really any higher overall than for other crimes.
(Granted, there are competing studies, and the range of found recidivism rates is pretty wide, but generally speaking still at least a little to a lot lower than for general crimes). I don't think most child molesters are "sociopaths." I think they have an unnatural and extraordinarily harmful predilection, but that doesn't make them sociopaths. It certainly makes them someone we should separate from society for a long time, study to figure out why they are as they are, and keep away from kids at all costs. but I've prosecuted and defended child molesters, and I've seen everything from full-on remorse to full-on lack of remorse (although the latter was usually tied with protestations of innocence).

Yeah, the Catholic Church has a problem. It's not the only religion in the world. So citing that it has a problem isn't really citing why the privilege should go away.

My guess is almost never "none" when dealing with humans. We are too complex and varied for "none" or "all" the vast majority of the time. So, I think the correct answer is "some." How big that some is, I don't know, but it's bigger than the none we'd have with no privilege. How do I know for sure it's not "none" because I have seen it firsthand where a confession to a priest (not Catholic) led to a conviction. Now, the defense counsel later tried to argue it

So, if I understand you correctly though, you are ok with keeping the privilege for non child offenses but not for child offenses because you think child molesters are sociopaths and thus would never confess?

exist at all. The foundational principal is that nobody is above the law, and we are all responsible for a safe society.

I would give religions no privileges other than those held by everyone else. Period. None.

Frankly, when it comes to crimes against children and other people who cannot defend themselves, I would take it even a step further. If you are an accessory after the fact in a sex crime against a child, then your punishment should be the same as for the perpetrator. So, a priest who shielded a child sexual molester would receive the same sentence as the molester. How about that?

I would give religious organizations no benefits not available to others. I see no value in such organizations to the society in general. They have value to their congregations, but not beyond that. In many cases, churches are a negative influence on society, as is the case with every last right-wing evangelical church.

Fair is fair.

So you'd also get rid social worker and spousal privileges?

Yeah, sorry your view is extreme IMO and the fact that you see no value at all is pretty extreme.
It's one thing to say that religious organizations bring pros and cons, it's another to say "no value" to the community at all.
Religious organizations feed and clothe the poor, house the homeless, bring in youth in protected environments in unsafe neighborhoods. Some of them are also responsible for bad things too, it's definitely a mixed bag.

But to say zero value, I'm sorry that's not objective.

I'm agnostic, but if I go homeless tomorrow, a church is possibly one place where I could get food, assistance, etc.

If you want to argue you think they are all idiots for believing, or that there are real harms they bring too, that's fine, but no value at all to society. Come on man.

it is not the reality in every case...but that's rarely the standard in dealing with human beings.

I would disagree it isn't "often" the case, but it doesn't logically have to be "often" the case, it just has to be more the case than the alternative.

I see no reason why removing the priest-penitent privilege will result in more convictions, more people turning themselves in, and more victims getting justice. Not one person in this thread has even attempted to explain the mechanism for how that would work.

the confession would probably not occur.

In my view, these sexual predators are looking at confession as a spiritual form of "wiping the slate" of their crimes.


While Jesus counseled forgiveness, He also said to the sinner "go, and sin no more". And the "sin no more" part is ignored by these sex predators.


The giant obstacle is identifying actual and potential sexual predators before they begin their assaults.

that's the whole point.

If you can point to ONE INSTANCE of this happening in any of the multiple thousands of child rapes in the Catholic Church, I'll concede the point.

Go ahead.

Try again.

And you can't provide even ONE INSTANCE of it happening.

You lose again, gil.

all religious business should be private, with no tax exemptions for any religious activity.

#2 is a legal matter.
#3 is also a legal matter.
#4 might conflict with the idea that Confession is a private matter, with nothing being discussed outside of the Confession.

Would the concept of TIFs also be abolished? WalMart and Amazon make much use of TIFs.

I have stated my opinion of what I believe should be the case. Whether or not you agree on all points is immaterial.

What does Tax Increment Financing have to do with this? That's the most common expansion of that acronym. Did you mean something else?

So they are tax giveaways to for-profit corporations. Often corporations like WalMart and Amazon. So it sounds to me as if you are in favor of taxing 501c(3) entities while ignoring for-profit entities.

Somewhat illogical, as another here has already pointed out, but as you note, it is your opinion.

Goodbye.

Have a nice day.

You do avoid a lot of posts and questions

for their acorns to mature. White oak acorns, on the other hand, are ready to germinate within a few months after pollination of the female flowers. Many species prefer to eat white oak acorns, as they tend to be less bitter than the acorns from red oak trees.

Classic example

Pointing out actual facts is not whataboutism. Good luck.

Posting facts is not whataboutism, but when the topic is church tax exempt status, and you are posting about Walmart and stuff then it is. Context is key.

Posting facts to show a broad pattern of behavior common to many institutions is not done to excuse criminal behavior, nor is it done to minimize it. But it does show that certain patterns of institutional behavior are present.

In this case, of the topic is exemption from property taxes, talking about TIFs is indeed relevant and in context of the discussion.

What does Walmart have to do with Church specific exemptions?

that are exempt from paying property taxes.

And if the poster makes the argument that such exemptions shift the burden to taxpayers, it is relevant to ask the poster's opinion on TIFs that are granted to corporations.

The effect of these TIFs is also to shift the burden to taxpayers.

So these exemptions are one example of the class of exemptions generally.

And many times, WalMart applies for and is granted an exemption, a WalMart specific exemption, so that a hugely profitable corporation can avoid paying taxes to the effect that other taxpayers must pay more to compensate.

then dedicate all your energy into walmart and suddenly churches aren't even near the discussion.

So if you want to bring facts that relate to church tax exemption, then please do so. If you want to talk about walmart tax exemption, there's proper groups for that, this isn't it.

And as others in this thread have noted, using similar language to mine, the commonality is tax exemptions that shift the tax burden. So your argument, such as it is, is with me and the others here who responded similarly.