Rev. Jeffress Is On The Case: Romney'S A Cultist

[ERayR]

What is the difference between Muslims wanting shiria law and lds leaders not reporting child abuse?

Is it within the tenants of the lds faith that child abuse should be permitted or that a child should continue to be abused?

Or a religious organizaTion punishing members who seek redress at law rather than seeking redress only within the confines of the organization

Is that question for real. Surely you are not as ignorant of the facts as you pretend to be. First it is not LDS policy that child abuse be permitted or continued. If it happened it happened against LDS policy, but you knew that didn't you? By now you are as predictable as the sun shining in the morning. Perhaps you should get a new script writer.

[ERayR]

And both were treated according to US law, not sharia.

There are plenty of aspects of sharia law that are legal according to US law. Do you want to make those illegal?

Your links demonstrated that a fringe group in England wanted to impose sharia law on the greater community, not only did they fail, but plenty of Muslims publicly rejected the attempt so even there you did not establish that this is the goal of the Islamic community.

Yes they were but there is a big push to get sharia integrated into state and federal laws.

[frankenstein]

daddyg, erayr,

read up on Susan and Rachel Brock from Az - LDS mother and daughter who both molested the same 14yr old boy. At least one LDS Bishop knew of molestation from a non-confession situation and did not report it. And here is the Church spokes person statement.

"Arizona law is clear that no priest can disclose any confession even when it concerns child abuse," Kim Farrah, church spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Kim Farrah did not state the truth concerning Arizona law, Az law states clergy "may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, ... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."

So two bishops withheld information, the Church Spokes person claims they obeyed the law, thus, it can only be assumed that withholding information of child abuse is reasonable and necessary withing the concepts of the CoJCoLDS.

as for a religious organization punishing a member for seeking redress at law, please read up on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC (the LDS Church has filed a Friend of the Court brief in favor of the Lutheran Church)

[KevinG]

daddyg, erayr,

read up on Susan and Rachel Brock from Az - LDS mother and daughter who both molested the same 14yr old boy. At least one LDS Bishop knew of molestation from a non-confession situation and did not report it. And here is the Church spokes person statement.

"Arizona law is clear that no priest can disclose any confession even when it concerns child abuse," Kim Farrah, church spokeswoman, said in a statement.

Kim Farrah did not state the truth concerning Arizona law, Az law states clergy "may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, ... determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion."

So two bishops withheld information, the Church Spokes person claims they obey the law, thus, it can only assumed that withholding information of child abuse is reasonable and necessary withing the concepts of the CoJCoLDS.

as for a religious organization punishing a member for seeking redress at law, please read up on Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC

We already had this discussion. The flaw is with the Arizona law which is ambiguous about the requirements of the LDS leaders when it comes to reporting. Everywhere in the world where the law encourages or requires reporting of child abuse to legal authority the LDS Church supports that practice. Of course a church spokesperson addressing this case will not say something to put those leaders in legal jeapardy. These are volunteer leaders without much training- the church requires them to call the abuse hot line and find out what their recourse should be.

Even in the worst possible case the practice of the Church is to protect children and victims from predators- not excuse the behavior.

The policy of the LDS Church is to excommunicate child predators even without the venue of a Church counsel. There are few other things a Mormon can do to get excommunicated with no church trial.

Your attempt to portray the LDS Church practices as remotely similar to the victimization of children and women under certain interpretations of Islamic law is transparent and wrong.

[frankenstein]

.

Your attempt to portray the LDS Church practices as remotely similar to the victimization of children and women under certain interpretations of Islamic law is transparent and wrong.

I have done no such thing. I merely asked what the difference is between Muslims wanting to deal with their own and not be bound to secular law, and LDS Bishops wanting to deal with their own and not be bound to secular law.

And there is not ambiguity in AZ law, "may withhold ... if reasonable and necessary within the tenants of the religion" if a Bishop withholds that bishops is stating by his actions that withholding information about child abuse is reasonable and necessary within the tenants of the LDS faith.

[KevinG]

And there is not ambiguity in AZ law, "may withhold ... if reasonable and necessary within the tenants of the religion" if a Bishop withholds that bishops is stating by his actions that withholding information about child abuse is reasonable and necessary within the tenants of the LDS faith.

You make a generalization about LDS doctrine and practice based on one case in one state that does not apply across the board.

I have already made it quite clear that there are distinct differences between LDS policy and practice and sharia law when it comes to children and women.

[Ares]

This has gotten off topic.