PA Stake President Charged with Felony Under Mandatory Reporting Law

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  I was speaking more broadly….

But studies aren’t going to be able to be as broad as you were speaking, at least not in the beginning.  There is too much variation of policy overtime at this point (definition of abuse has changed, states use different methods, etc).  I think the only way to document causation is to keep the research limited to a pretty controlled homogenous group.  Show abuse rates prior to being exposed to moral voices and then a good chunk of years later, with some relatively objective measure, perhaps children’s deaths from violence.

I was looking for a way to measure effect that then could be then tested in larger communities,

Edited February 5, 2024 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 2/4/2024 at 2:42 AM, smac97 said:

Mandatory reporting laws have already been expanded, and he is defending them in their expanded state.

No, I am not. I think that we could make them work in their expanded state if we wanted to dump resources into it. But, without those resources, continued expansion will not help at all. In fact, I would suggest that in the early 1990s, we started expanding them too far - and these debates over resources start showing up in the late 1980s.

The challenge is that some participants here want to throw out mandated reporting completely. I think that is a very bad decision.

On 2/4/2024 at 2:42 AM, smac97 said:

I am not sure what you are saying here.  My position, noted above, is that there are "voices having moral authority that advocate moral frameworks and seek to influence members of society to voluntarily choose to abstain from harmful behaviors," and that these voices provide the best "proactive" measures to reduce instances of child abuse.

And since those voices having moral authority are only accepted as such by minorities of the population, this isn't ever going to be the best "proactive" measure (and they aren't working incredibly well in our current context). Real proactive measures will involve education (in a range of contexts) and efforts to reduce factors with a high relationship to abuse. Most of these factors are helpful to address for other reasons. The age group that is most susceptible to abuse are children aged 4 and under. Poverty is a high risk factor. Increased public funding for early childhood education. My granddaughter started preschool at a Montessori public school at 24 months old. Making that sort of opportunity available to everyone would help in lots of different ways - including providing quality day care for impoverished families. Here in Michigan, we dismantled most of our public mental health infrastructure in the late 1990s. This has had a negative impact on child welfare in the state. I think that we need to start looking for ways to encourage marriage - being in stable families lowers risk. Yes, we are strapped for resources - but, as Barbara Bergmann wrote in 1994:

Quote

The $150-500 billion savings and loan crisis has illuminated the lack of seriousness of the "can't afford" argument against child welfare programs. The public money to make the S&L depositors whole was forthcoming with no debate at all. ... Until we change our notions of how desirable adequate child welfare programs are, the public purse, which opens so easily and lavishly for other purposes, will not be available to them.

I note in passing that the final figure there for public contribution to the S&L crisis was 132.1 billion. In any case, the expansion of the programs that we have in unfunded and undirected mandates hasn't improved anything - and it hasn't come with increased spending. So would they work? There isn't any reason to suggest that we should have that expectation under the current circumstances.

Now - the reason why we are all up-in-arms here starts with the case that you mention in the OP. I didn't find anything that I really disagreed with in your comments. I am certainly not interested in passing judgment on the individuals. I think that making religious leaders mandatory reporters is problematic for a couple of reasons. First, I think that the vast majority of abuse isn't revealed in the confessional. Our efforts to make religious leaders mandatory reporters seems aimed at finding additional ways to punish religious leaders who either engaged in abuse or who protected abusers (some of whom were incredibly prolific in their abuse). I am not terribly opposed to making religious leaders mandatory reporters. I have seen zero evidence that making them mandatory reporters will have any significant impact on whether or not perpetrators confess. I think that the real goal of making them reporters is not about what is heard in the confessional but about making them report what they hear from victims. And there, I can see a legitimate concern over their role in counseling victims (they need to be seen as trustworthy confidants for victims to come to them for help). All in all, I think that mandatory reporting for religious leaders isn't going to be very productive - it isn't going to provide the bang for the buck. And with all of the other issues that are more pressing, I don't see it as that important.

I am much more interested in keeping as mandatory reporters those who engage our vulnerable populations regularly and routinely: educators, healthcare workers, counselors/psychologists, and so on. I am perfectly happy with expanding early childhood education to expand the number of children those professionals interact with. I think that there should be some interactions that occur for children that are home-schooled - to prevent them from getting lost. But lets not forget the other end of mandatory reporting. Nursing home workers should be mandatory reporters. Workers in AFC's should be mandatory reporters. Mental health professionals should be as well. And while it might be nice to have well done religion contribute to a lack of abuse in our society, that seems to me to be a fantasy - there's nothing that I see in any near future which makes that happen. Efforts to help alleviate poverty, on the other hand, I think can at least be envisioned.

[helix]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that some participants here want to throw out mandated reporting completely

I have not advocated for any such thing.

I strongly insist that it's fundamentally wrong to rope in religious leaders, adults, and anyone living their day-to-day lives into mandatory reporters. I have asked where in the Constitution the government has the right to imprison a Catholic Priest who takes a vow of silence to listen to confessions. And nobody can point to where the Constitution allows such a thing. This concept of "every person is a mandatory reporter" flips the entire role of government on its head. The government has no Constitutional or civil right to imperil a stake president with a felony and 7 years in jail.

As for employed reporters, the government can manage this as the government can regulate employment at most levels. The Supreme Court has routinely held that governments still can't make employees say what they would not have said, and you may get constitutional challenges here, but largely mandatory reporting is very legal and constitutional.

The problem is that so many academic researchers keep finding that mandatory reporting isn't working, or is becoming harmful. I'm inclined to think this academic consensus is very real, and we need to be much more judicious about how mandatory reporting works, rather than just increasing its scope.

I have heard other mandatory reporters mention they wish there was a better process for them to have legal backing when they must report. Something like decision trees. So that instead of blanket reporting, a mandatory reporter can follow a government sponsored flow chart to help rule out certain situations that need not be reported.  I want social workers to be able to go into homes of families in deep poverty, and I want families to willingly accept these social workers on in. Right now, families are terrified about letting these social workers in, as issues of poverty can be very easily interpreted as child abuse. Likewise, social workers shouldn't be disproportionately targeting the poor with mandatory reports. The system needs cleaning up before we just throw more money at more workers.

Quote

I think that making religious leaders mandatory reporters is problematic for a couple of reasons.

But in the past you were comfortable and advocated for it:

Several months ago you said the First Amendment "is always something of a red-herring. We almost universally believe that there are limitations to the first amendment". That the text of the First Amendment doesn't draw free speech lines, but rather "Society draws the lines". This makes the First Amendment subject to the whims of the mob. When society bands together in rage, they can pass laws to state what speech is no longer protected, and what speech must be compelled. Judges also are part of society and agree with these trends of the society.

Also, when I said the government "especially shouldn't be a privileged third party to a Catholic sacrament of confession under the justification of merely gathering facts. ", you replied "I disagree with you. My disagreement runs much deeper than the simple disagreement though. " And later "Catholic priests aren't an uninvolved third party - especially when their role in the confessional is to absolve guilt."

And then when I asked "What do you propose be done about Catholic clergy?  Should they be thrown in jail? Should America put pressure on them hoping they change their 800 year old doctrine?" You responded "Yes, we throw them in jail if they break the law"

To summarize, unless you have changed your position somewhat, you recently advocated:

• Catholics priests are partners to child abuse if someone confesses to them
• Society can pass laws against Catholic priests holding a vow of silence for confessions
• The First Amendment can be re-interpreted when society deems fit
• Catholic priests should be jailed when they break laws by holding a vow of silence

Edited February 5, 2024 by helix

[Benjamin McGuire]

14 hours ago, helix said:

I strongly insist that it's fundamentally wrong to rope in religious leaders, adults, and anyone living their day-to-day lives into mandatory reporters. I have asked where in the Constitution the government has the right to imprison a Catholic Priest who takes a vow of silence to listen to confessions. And nobody can point to where the Constitution allows such a thing. This concept of "every person is a mandatory reporter" flips the entire role of government on its head. The government has no Constitutional or civil right to imperil a stake president with a felony and 7 years in jail.

So what you are suggesting is that all we need to do is to pass a constitutional amendment that would allow such a thing, right?

Let's go for the low hanging fruit. The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed that mandatory reporting laws are constitutional.

Now lets start in on the not so low hanging fruit. Freedom to practice religion has clear limitations. The freedom to practice religion has often been regulated. We do not believe, for example, that human sacrifice in the name of religion should be allowed. So we have boundaries (even if they aren't always clear). You ask where the Constitution grants the government the right to imprison a Catholic priest for breaking the law? It is in the same mechanism that our society grants the government the right to imprison anyone for breaking a law. The details are irrelevant in the issue of whether or not the Government has the right to imprison the Catholic priest for breaking the law - they are only relevant when asking whether or not the priest broke the law in the first place.

Clearly, as a society, we are conflicted over the issue of clergy-penitent privilege in certain cases. We aren't conflicted at all in most cases. We really don't care if a penitent confesses to theft, or to fraud (which I suppose is theft), or infidelity (which is, I note, still a legal crime in 17 states), or any number of other circumstances. Where it becomes complicated is when we are pitting that religious context against violations of human rights (not civil rights). And there we have this mix, since some states don't make clergy mandatory reporters, some make them mandatory reporters except in the case of clergy-penitent confidences, and some make them mandatory reporters with no exceptions. Which is the right way to go?

For those who want to include clergy in the mix, part of it is almost certainly a gut response to the abuse that was perpetrated by the Catholic Church (and not a response to any sort of evidence about how often the Catholic clergy hear confessions of abuse). There is clear evidence that hundreds of Catholic priests have committed sexual abuse towards thousands of children in the U.S. And there it is a reasonable question for society to ask - should the religious context provide some degree of shielding of these men. I am not too interested in digging too deeply into that question - but - we have this problem here that the Church (speaking of all our organized religions collectively) have lost a lot of trust the view of the larger public over their lack of response to these issues - their unwillingness to engage in the other part of this equation: their need to protect children from abuse. Taking confession is not an act that prevents abuse.

So which right is stronger? The right for children to not be forced to experience abuse or the right of religion to do whatever they want under that right to practice religion as they choose to. Clearly our society has already created some limits. We do not consider it a right for a religion, as part of their deeply held religious principles, to conduct human sacrifices. Nor do we allow (more broadly) for religions to invalidate the rights of others.

So, we have these problems with your statement.

1: I don't believe that it is fundamentally wrong to rope in everyone as mandatory reporters. I am not sure you can even articulate what it is that makes it fundamentally wrong - other than to take a position so extreme that most members of our society would not agree with you. Most people believe that there is something ethically or morally wrong with the idea of knowing that there is child abuse going on and not doing something to prevent it. It is part of the reason why we see these reactive impulses following news of some horrific set of circumstances.

2: I have pointed out that the Constitution does allow the government to punish individuals who break the law. This includes Catholic priests who believe that what they are doing is covered by the shroud of the right to practice their religion as they see fit. If you want, I can spell out the actual parts of this (due process, limits on actual punishments, and so on). But this is not a contested issue. If the government could not prosecute when people broke the law, there would be no real basis for having laws.

3: The government is more than capable of requiring speech when it believes that it is necessary. In the case of mandatory reporting, at least for the core principle, that has been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States as Constitutional.

4: In the specifics of this case, if the individual is found guilty of breaking the law, and the law is found to be constitutional, then the state has every right to do this. Now, as smac97 points out, there are reasons we might have (at least in the absence of a full set of details at this time) to question the outcome - because a trial hasn't occurred yet. More on this at the very end.

Now a couple of other points here.

Mormonism does not have a particularly strong defense for the clergy-penitent privilege. Why? Because they don't themselves keep these things private (as we see with Catholicism). Consider what happens when there is a confession of abuse. Finding that a member has committed child abuse triggers an automatic church court. So do we include the High Council in that privilege (even when the member did not, in telling their Bishop, indicate that they were okay with the sharing of that privileged information? So the Church court finds that there is guilt in the case, then an annotation is added to their membership record. Every ecclesiastical leader (bishop/branch president or above) that finds that person as part of the membership of the Church under their responsibility, is now able to see that information - regardless of whether that information was shared with the expectation that it would continue to be shared with others. This is pretty common knowledge (Church Handbook 32.14.5 deals with it).

But this isn't actually the full breadth of the LDS Church's position on the issue of child abuse. Consider this from the Church Handbook of Instruction (Section 38.6.2), emphasis added:

Quote

 

Abuse is the mistreatment or neglect of others in a way that causes physical, sexual, emotional, or financial harm. The Church’s position is that abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. Those who abuse their spouses, children, other family members, or anyone else violate the laws of God and man.

All members, especially parents and leaders, are encouraged to be alert and diligent and do all they can to protect children and others against abuse. If members become aware of instances of abuse, they report it to civil authorities and counsel with the bishop. Church leaders should take reports of abuse seriously and never disregard them.

All adults who work with children or youth are to complete children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained (see ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). They are to repeat the training every three years.

When abuse occurs, the first and immediate responsibility of Church leaders is to help those who have been abused and to protect vulnerable persons from future abuse. Leaders should not encourage a person to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe.

 

So, this is, in essence, a requirement from the Church for every member to be a mandatory reporter. It just doesn't come with the teeth of the legal system.

So, there is certainly the sense that LDS Church doesn't agree with you in principle over the idea of mandatory reporting.

And then we have Section 32.4.5 of the LDS Church's Handbook of Instruction, which tells leaders that when the local laws require reporting, they are to follow those laws. There is nothing in LDS policy or theology which prevents a leader of the LDS Church from reporting certain serious confessions to local law enforcement. And in Section 32.8.6.7 we get this instruction:

Quote

Church leaders and members should fulfill all legal obligations to report abuse to civil authorities. In some locations, leaders and teachers who work with children and youth are considered “mandated reporters” and must report abuse to legal authorities. Similarly, in many locations, any person who learns of abuse is required to report it to legal authorities. Bishops and stake presidents should call the help line for details about mandated reporters and other legal requirements for reporting abuse. The Church’s policy is to obey the law.

So you can argue all you want to about how you feel that this is wrong - but the LDS Church is more than happy to encourage its members to report as needed. They are very different from Catholicism in this way - they do not view confession as a sacrament, but rather as the first step in the sometimes lengthy process of repentance.

15 hours ago, helix said:

The problem is that so many academic researchers keep finding that mandatory reporting isn't working, or is becoming harmful. I'm inclined to think this academic consensus is very real, and we need to be much more judicious about how mandatory reporting works, rather than just increasing its scope.

And this isn't true. It is a mischaracterization of the research. The research suggests that the expansion of mandatory reporting beyond the scope of professional reporters is causing problems.

And they point out that the problem isn't necessarily caused by the expansion of mandatory reporting itself but by the lack of resources devoted to dealing with more reports, and the lack of training of those reporters.

I agree with all of this. We have lots of avenues to correct the issues being caused by the changes to mandatory reporting laws. But we have to be cognizant that it isn't simply the expansion of these laws by themselves that causes the problem. If we were willing to put the resources into the system, it wouldn't have the same sorts of negative impact that we see. Until this sort of experiment happens (and I am not advocating that it should), we can't even tell where our point of diminishing returns begins. There is no meaningful baseline. What you aren't being totally open about is that while there is an academic consensus that more is not better, there isn't an academic consensus over the appropriate way to move forward. Do we cut back on mandatory reporting? Do we increase resources? Do we work for better education? What are the steps that we could take that would be more meaningful?

15 hours ago, helix said:

I have heard other mandatory reporters mention they wish there was a better process for them to have legal backing when they must report. Something like decision trees. So that instead of blanket reporting, a mandatory reporter can follow a government sponsored flow chart to help rule out certain situations that need not be reported.  I want social workers to be able to go into homes of families in deep poverty, and I want families to willingly accept these social workers on in. Right now, families are terrified about letting these social workers in, as issues of poverty can be very easily interpreted as child abuse. Likewise, social workers shouldn't be disproportionately targeting the poor with mandatory reports. The system needs cleaning up before we just throw more money at more workers.

Again, my experience AS A MANDATORY REPORTER FOR THE ENTIRETY OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER is very different from the anecdotes that you provide. What you provide presents a very different sort of process from what I have seen. Perhaps the problem is that you are highlighting a small minority here instead of what really goes on in these situations.

16 hours ago, helix said:

But in the past you were comfortable and advocated for it:

I am comfortable with having religious leaders be mandatory reporters (and whether the LDS Church likes it or not, they are certainly willing to comply). I think that they are in a unique position to help people. I think that the problem I see in what you write is that you are dead set on protecting the rights of perpetrators while ignoring the rights of victims. I think that in a perfect world, there would be no abuse. In a less perfect world, those not engaging in abuse would be doing everything in their power to stop and prevent it. What we see from history is that this simply doesn't happen. And when we started mandating reporters - and we started training them on what to look for and how to ask about abuse, suddenly we found that real abuse (and not the sorts of things you mention in the paragraph above) was far more prevalent in our society than we believed that it was. And the numbers started coming down. I think that the situations in which clergy (like Mormon leadership) discover abuse are not particularly common. So to make clergy mandatory reporters wouldn't put a huge burden on them. At the same time, it might create some extra impetus to be more careful with the youth of the Church in terms of protecting them by vetting those they put in close proximity to the youth.

One of the things about the Child Protective Services in the area where I live is that they often encounter situations that are on the fringes of being problems - bad, but not bad enough for corrective action. We provide free educational tools. We get people to enroll in helpful services that are available. We work to prevent future problems. This is a part of what should be happening. We (as a society) should be working on those issues I listed last night - eliminating poverty, increasing education, encouraging marriage - all moving towards reducing risk factors associated with abuse. But, as a society (and reflected in your comments here) we just aren't particularly motivated at trying to protect children (who aren't, after all, wage earners or voters) at the expense of everyone else.

16 hours ago, helix said:

To summarize, unless you have changed your position somewhat, you recently advocated:

• Catholics priests are partners to child abuse if someone confesses to them
• Society can pass laws against Catholic priests holding a vow of silence for confessions
• The First Amendment can be re-interpreted when society deems fit
• Catholic priests should be jailed when they break laws by holding a vow of silence

I want to make it clear that my positions are not particularly controversial or incorrect.

I believe that Catholic priests who become aware of ongoing abuse through the confessional and who refuse to do something about it for fear of breaking their vows are simply choosing the lesser of two evils. When you choose the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing an evil. Do you think that this is an easy decision for those priests, or that they don't experience a sense of guilt over it? I believe that they generally do (and this fits what I have read about it).

Can society pass laws against a Catholic priest holding a vow of confidentiality for confessions? Clearly not only can we do so, but we have states in the United States that have already done so.

Can the First Amendment be re-interpreted when society seems fit? It should be obvious to everyone in today's context that the Supreme Court of the United States has no problems with overturning established precedent. And this means that this is a matter of fact, not a matter of suggestion. Further, your statement seems to forget that the First Amendment is *gasp* and amendment to the constitution. We have a process (in the courts) of changing interpretation, and we have a process (through amendments) of actually changing the constitution. This is not subject to question.

On the last point, I will repeat what I said. Catholic priests should be jailed when they break the law (and the punishment requires it). This is true for every law, and not just some selective few laws. For us to have a society built on law, then the laws need to be such that they apply equally to everyone.

A final thought - getting back to the LDS Church - given our set of directives, when our leaders (and members) encounter abuse or suspected abuse, our response should be the most expressive in terms of protecting victims. We shouldn't be trying to be the least responsive that we can be, we should be trying to prevent ongoing and continuing abuse. In other words, our efforts should be aimed at protecting children with less of a focus on protecting the organization or the perpetrators. That is the moral thing to do.

[Benjamin McGuire]

On 2/4/2024 at 9:10 AM, awyatt said:

Having read through all of this tread, it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter. From this old fart's perspective, there is more abuse today because (1) we have redefined what constitutes abuse and (2) our general societal moral "bulwarks" are no longer in place.

I think that this is not a particularly valid understanding. Why? It is certainly clear that we have redefined what constitutes abuse. But it is equally clear that some of this redefinition is necessary. This is not to say that there isn't a problem with going to far - but, at the same time, the fact that we defined abuse in the 1960s when we first started producing child protective services was a step forward - and an important one. We need to be careful how we want to discuss these differences - because without putting some sort of endpoints on our change, we find ourselves right back in a place where there are no real definitions, and there is no cultural understanding that abuse is bad. Corporeal punishment is a classic example of this sort of problem. Spanking? Among those who study it, the general view is that it isn't an effective disciplinary tool. And in general, it's use has been declining in the US for quite a while now. On the other hand, Ruby Franke ... that sort of punishment is far less questionable. So let's not use the grayest of areas to challenge the changes that have been good for child welfare. Second, (and these go together), moral bulwarks of the past were enabling of child abuse (of the sort that we likely would not disagree over today). Just consider child marriage. Or, more to the point with recent news, how do we understand the abuse of indigenous children by Catholics in Canada? Part of the issue is this really backwards sort of nostalgia for a past that never really existed. That your parents may have spanked you in a non-abusive fashion doesn't mean that this was representative of what all children faced in that time frame.

On 2/4/2024 at 9:10 AM, awyatt said:

Think, for a moment, about smac's quoting of John Adams, earlier: “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (In my remembrance, though, I thought this was a quote from Franklin and not Adams.) Regardless of the author of the quote, does anyone believe that the definition of "a moral and religious people" in 1787/88 was different than the society in which we live today? Would Adams (or Franklin) view our Constitution as sustainable in today's moral environment? So Jennifer's suggestions may not work, simply because of the society at large. And trying to legislate morality seems an exercise doomed to ultimate failure. Such legislation may win battles, but the war will, at length, be lost.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing that we return to those "good old days of yore." We live in a societal milieu in which we are comfortable. I will say, however, that societal pendulums swing, and if we ever return to a society in which the moral bulwarks more closely resemble those of 75, 150, 0r 200 years ago, then we will see less instances of abuse because society, as a whole, will have an interest in teaching people not to engage in such behavior and will punish offenders of those bulwarks.

And yet we elected Donald Trump as a President of the United States.

Would the founding fathers believe that the constitution would be sustainable in today's moral environment? Sure. I think that the founding fathers would have far more concern over our shift towards tyrants or oligarchies in the vast inequalities that we have allowed to come into existence. And had they been raised the way that we have, they would view their own acceptance of slavery and other terrible historical realities and injustice with unforgiving eyes. If our society returns to the moral bulwarks of 200 years ago, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And yet we elected Donald Trump as a President of the United States.

And then we elected Joe Biden.

Boy, what a Sophie's Choice November's gonna be.  

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Would the founding fathers believe that the constitution would be sustainable in today's moral environment? Sure. I think that the founding fathers would have far more concern over our shift towards tyrants or oligarchies in the vast inequalities that we have allowed to come into existence. And had they been raised the way that we have, they would view their own acceptance of slavery and other terrible historical realities and injustice with unforgiving eyes. If our society returns to the moral bulwarks of 200 years ago, we are all in deep, deep trouble.

I think the "moral bulwarks of 200 years ago" refined and improved upon by incorporating the best of what we have learned in the ensuing years would really be worthwhile.

Thanks,

-Smac

[helix]

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed that mandatory reporting laws are constitutional.

You continue to assert without citations. The Supreme Court has ruled on religious mandatory reporting? No, not at all.

Show the court case where the the Supreme Court said the government can throw a Catholic priest in jail for a holding to a vow of silence.

Quote

2: I have pointed out that the Constitution does allow the government to punish individuals who break the law

Legislative bodies can pass whatever crazy laws they want. But courts verify if these laws match the Constitution.

Quote

Mormonism does not have a particularly strong defense for the clergy-penitent privilege

This is civil rights 101. It's a religion. The government wants to compel speech and make itself a third party by regulating religious confessions and jailing those who don't comply. This is a crystal clear First Amendment violation. Untested in court, but when it finally does, it's easily not allowed.

Quote

Again, my experience AS A MANDATORY REPORTER FOR THE ENTIRETY OF MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER is very different from the anecdotes that you provide. What you provide presents a very different sort of process from what I have seen

You are one anecdotal experience in a sea of many. I've heard others say very different things than you. Here's one that's very different from your experiences:

20 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Further, your statement seems to forget that the First Amendment is *gasp* and amendment to the constitution.

Yes. But so far the country hasn't dared to fully pass an amendment to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of religion. For good reason. These are two of cornerstones of civil rights and how this country functions. (Perhaps the two closest examples are a proposed amendment to overturn Citizens United which essentially said all who want to be news media are, and a proposed prohibition saying flag burning isn't legal speech). Until then, we need to follow the Constitution, and not just argue that these cornerstones are merely wobbly guidelines that society can re-interpret as the winds of anger blow.

More importantly, I keep hearing you dance around this topic. I see repeated justification of numerous reasons why restricting the 1st Amendment is a good idea,  without explicitly stating it. Also, your disdain for religious clergy in this area, especially Catholics. And that you think a religious vow of silence should land someone in jail.

I haven't heard a peep from you declaring it a bad idea for the government to regulate religious confessions and jail those who don't comply with compelled speech. You've avoided saying it's a bad idea. I think you secretly want it.

Quote

when our leaders (and members) encounter abuse or suspected abuse, our response should be the most expressive in terms of protecting victims.

I'm in complete agreement here. But I don't think mandatory reporting is always the right answer, bishops and stake presidents hear some awfully tricky gray areas. And the government most certainly shouldn't be threatening clergy with 7 years in jail for unfulfilled compelled speech regarding who confessed what.

I'm particularly interested in the timeline in this Pennsylvania case to see how this situation progressed to know more.

Edited February 7, 2024 by helix

[Calm]

1 hour ago, helix said:

More importantly, I keep hearing you dance around this topic. It's as though you justify all the reasons why you think it's a good idea without explicitly stating it.  You mention multiple times how society can and should restrict the First Amendment. Also, your disdain for religious clergy in this position, especially Catholics.  And that you think a religious vow of silence should land someone in jail.

I am getting a very different view if you are specifically referring to the topic of clergy mandatory reporting (he has stated professional reporting has been demonstrated to lower abuse as well).  

This is what I get from him…hopefully he will correct me if I wrong, but this doesn’t seem at all like dancing around the subject 

1) he sees no evidence that protecting the confessional leads to lower abuse or helping perpetrators to control themselves, seek help, or turn themselves in (which in my view is the purpose of protected confession, to help people recognize what they are doing wrong, repent, and change their ways)

2) because Catholic priests (and others in other faiths) who confessed or accused were often just moved around rather than at least removed from contact of potential victims or turned over to law enforcement resulting in thousands more abuse victims than there would have been if more proactive in removing perpetrators from where they could harm others, it is not surprising that the public and justice system want to remove the privilege because this forces the Church (all of them) to be accountable.  If the Church leadership continues to hide any clergy who confess to abusing children, they will get punished…one can assumed leadership will be much more active in controlling their own people because of this, because if they don’t, it will get harder and harder for their churches to function due to lawsuits and criminal investigations and jail time for priests and those who protected them and possibly even those who had no specific knowledge, but protect the right to silence in church leadership positions 

3) the same goes for all churches.  If they are the least inclined to protect the adults of the community who abuse instead of focusing on protecting the vulnerable children and adults, legal consequences (and social ones as the cases get publicized) will most likely dampen the inclination, if not remove the focus from on the perpetrators and place it on the needs of victims.

3)  protecting a principle of confessional silence because it is a religious right is not as important as protecting children and others from being hurt, which is a human right

4) therefore it is better to require trained mandatory reporting (well funded) than to allow for a confessional privilege 

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[JustAnAustralian]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

because Catholic priests (and others in other faiths) who confessed or accused were often just moved

Having a look at the wikipedia article I'm both glad and horrified that it wasn't just an Australian Catholic thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_transfers_of_abusive_Catholic_priests

Edited February 7, 2024 by JustAnAustralian

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said:

Having a look at the wikipedia article I'm both glad and horrified that it wasn't just an Australian Catholic thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parish_transfers_of_abusive_Catholic_priests

I don’t know if moving the accused around applies to other faiths besides the Anglican Church (do SBC pastors, for example, find their own congregations or as leadership to place them?), but doing nothing has not been an unusual response from church leadership unfortunately.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/southern-baptist-leaders-release-secret-list-accused-abusers-rcna30807

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4808590

This is partially understandable as it is very difficult to get clear info from kids and they will pull back if uncomfortable, which makes it looks they didn’t mean it, etc. while victims when adults may be messed up by the abuse, which makes them less reliable in many people’s eyes.  Training and general education is very important here (Jennifer’s video is very good in this area, I believe).

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Ben, the video has a couple of interesting points that I would be interested in your response to on her discussion of the nurses study at 4 minutes (nurses doing something dangerous).

I have asked Jennifer (I know her through FAIR) for clarification on a few things too and hopefully she will be able to get back with me, specifically if being careful translated into less signs, but the same amount of problems with patients or if being more careful also translated to less cases.  I can see in abuse cases being worried about being reported while driving determined abusers underground could stop impulsive abuse in some cases as worry over being reported could heighten thinking before acting….though it would seem the increase in child deaths in NY report mentioned in the video indicates worry about being reported does not translate into less abusive behaviour.

[helix]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I am getting a very different view if you are specifically referring to the topic of clergy mandatory reporting

Given that this entire thread is about clergy mandatory reporting, I've stayed on topic to that point. Professional mandatory reporting is apples vs oranges compared to religious mandatory reporting. Professionals can be expected to be trained as part of their licensing, and the government can regulate licensing and training. Citizens who don't want to be involved can avoid those professions. The government can't compel religious speech, regulate who gets to be a clergy, or make certain religious non-speech illegal. I'm not *that* far off from Benjamin McGuire in terms of how we view professional mandatory reporting (I don't believe it works very well, and harms often, but I'm not ready to give up on mandatory reporting just yet, even though some academics are calling for its abolishment). I'm not calling for cessation. We both want it reformed, just in different ways.

But this is about religions and freedom from compelled speech. Society doesn't get a Constitutional trump card by invoking an outrage-of-the-month. I'm prying because in the past answers were evasive, it took repeated questions to fish out clarity. Here I've seen numerous justifications for rejecting some parts of the Constitution, but I haven't quite seen it declared as a good idea. (But almost always the former implies the latter.) So I'm curious we should make our government a third party to overhear religious confessions, that it's a desirable idea and a good idea. Said another way, should the government pass an amendment to declare the following to be illegal in this country:

From the Catholic Catechism:

Quote

1467: Given the delicacy and greatness of this ministry and the respect due to persons, the Church declares that every priest who hears confessions is bound under very severe penalties to keep absolute secrecy regarding the sins that his penitents have confessed to him. He can make no use of knowledge that confession gives him about penitents' lives. This secret, which admits of no exceptions, is called the "sacramental seal", because what the penitent has made known to the priest remains "sealed" by the Sacrament.

From the Catholic Code of Canon Law:

Quote

983. §1: The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore, it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in words or in any manner and for any reason.

If we want to discuss professional mandatory reporting further, it should be in a thread about that topic. I'm upset that a stake president is facing a felony and 7 years in prison for religious non-speech.

Edited February 7, 2024 by helix

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, helix said:

You continue to assert without citations. The Supreme Court has ruled on religious mandatory reporting? No, not at all.

You keep trying to conflate these issues.

Making religious people mandatory reporters is constitutional under the general rule. The only question that might come up is if we should make exceptions for certain very narrow contexts in which that reporting might conflict with the practice of religion. This is not the same as what you are suggesting. Catholicism has more room here to argue for conflict - because of the nature of their sacrament of confession. The LDS Church, not so much. But in any case, religious leaders who are doing work that isn't covered in these very narrow areas, can still be mandatory reporters without any constitutional conflict.

8 hours ago, helix said:

Legislative bodies can pass whatever crazy laws they want. But courts verify if these laws match the Constitution.

This is an irrelevancy. The constitution is very clear that it gives government (federal and state/local) the power to enforce laws and to enact punishments for those that break laws. You want to try and connect the question of whether they have the right to enforce laws to the question of whether those laws are constitutional. These are separate issues - stop trying to conflate them.

8 hours ago, helix said:

This is civil rights 101. It's a religion. The government wants to compel speech and make itself a third party by regulating religious confessions and jailing those who don't comply. This is a crystal clear First Amendment violation. Untested in court, but when it finally does, it's easily not allowed.

This isn't that simple. The courts have consistently agreed that the government is allowed to compel speech when that compelled speech is allowable in certain contexts. This is one of the reasons why we wouldn't allow religion (as I noted earlier) to argue that their religious rights allow them to practice human sacrifice. Yes, I am using an extreme to make a point. Whether or not the government has a compelling enough interest to break the clergy-penitent privilege is a question that courts have to weigh in on. But it doesn't change the fact that they could agree that it is allowable (this isn't about whether or not you personally would agree with that conclusion - to be frank, your personal opinion on something like that doesn't have a lot of meaning in the context of these issues).

At the same time, in the case at the beginning of this thread, if the LDS leader learned of the abuse outside of the context of the clergy-penitent privilege, then he would be obligated to report in a way that isn't a violation of religious rights or freedom of speech (as per the courts). So it isn't as broad as you would like to argue. For your arguments to make sense in the context of this particular case, you have to assume (without information - since I don't think the details of the case have been made public yet) that the information only came through that clergy-penitent context. If it didn't, then there is a strong possibly for a conviction or some sort of plea deal.

8 hours ago, helix said:

I've heard others say very different things than you.

*shrug*

That's the beauty of this. The anecdotes are meaningless. But you still continue to try and use them. This is part of that pattern of argumentation. When I try to include anecdotal evidence, you dismiss it. I feel that I am entitled to do the same when you do.

8 hours ago, helix said:

Yes. But so far the country hasn't dared to fully pass an amendment to restrict freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

What does this even mean? Are you arguing that the government does not have the right to restrict the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion at all? That hasn't been an issue since at least 1879, when the courts held that freedom of religion wasn't absolute, and that Mormonism had to end polygamy ...

8 hours ago, helix said:

More importantly, I keep hearing you dance around this topic. I see repeated justification of numerous reasons why restricting the 1st Amendment is a good idea,  without explicitly stating it. Also, your disdain for religious clergy in this area, especially Catholics. And that you think a religious vow of silence should land someone in jail.

I don't have any disdain for clergy. Nor do I think that a religious vow of silence should land someone in jail. You keep making this switch. I think that breaking the law should land someone in jail. These clergy are not being prosecuted because they refuse to break their vow of silence, but because they are ostensibly breaking the law. The purpose of the law isn't to force clergy to break their vow of silence - if that was the purpose of these laws, they would all rightfully get tossed out. The purpose of the law is to protect victims of abuse - the breaking of the vow of silence is not the goal, it is simply part of the means. And this forms the basis for the tests that we often use to determine whether a right to free speech is worth being over-ridden. You aren't allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater - unless of course there really is a fire. That is an abridgment of free speech - but it is a necessary one. The law isn't there because it's main purpose is to abridge free speech (which would be unconstitutional). It is there because it's purpose it to protect the safety of people in certain contexts. Mandatory reporting laws applied to clergymen (where there isn't a clergy-penitent exception) don't require the vow of silence to be broken whenever there is a confession of something illegal - it is limited only to abuse. Our society in general puts human rights (the right to life, the right to not be forced to experience abuse, etc.) above civil rights (like the right to free speech). We generally consider the right to practice religion as a human right (not a civil right) and so it becomes more complicated when we are trying to pit one human right against another. The religious context is problematic because not everyone holds these same issues to have the same weight or value. Catholicism holds certain things to be of much higher consequence than Mormonism. Another example might be abortion. Mormonism believes that abortion is wrong - but permissible in certain cases (rape, incest, health risks for the mother, and fetal defects that make the fetus nonviable). Mormonism also doesn't have a belief that life begins at conception - but at some point further in the pregnancy. Catholicism, on the other hand, believe that life begins at conception and that protecting that life outweighs all other considerations (including those exceptions carved out in Mormonism). These kinds of differences make it challenging because different parts of society can weigh different human rights in different ways.

So, we have two questions here. The first is whether or not the LDS leader actually broke the law. The second issue is the question of whether or not this is constitutional. In Pennsylvania, generally speaking, the mandatory reporting excludes clergy-penitent communications from that requirement. So as long as the information only came to the LDS leader in a privileged pentinent-clergy communication, the LDS leader hasn't broken the law. If it came from some other context (and those are reasonably well spelled out), then he is required to report it - and there isn't some sort of religious context that shields it. If it was learned in a non-privileged context, then there isn't any religious basis for not complying with the law. And as you noted earlier, there isn't anything unconstitutional (according to the courts) with the idea of mandated reporters. So there isn't much of a constitutional question here. The only way that there might be a constitutional context is if the LDS leader and the prosecutors have a difference of opinion over what is covered in that clergy-penitent exception. And I think, in the context of the current court, that if the case were to make it to SCOTUS, they would generally offer deference to the religious rights (but it's hard to say, as I have been suggesting, in these cases with competing rights).

9 hours ago, helix said:

I haven't heard a peep from you declaring it a bad idea for the government to regulate religious confessions and jail those who don't comply with compelled speech. You've avoided saying it's a bad idea. I think you secretly want it.

Ok. Let me say for the record that if the government wanted to regulate religious confessions for the purpose of regulating religious confessions, that would be bad.

But that isn't what is going on here. To get to the point more broadly, where clergy-penitent privilege isn't protected, the government wants to regulate (prevent) child abuse. They believe that it is important enough that other rights can be abridged for that narrow purpose. So religious confessions aren't being regulated except where that confession involves an admission or report of abuse. And that is a very different thing than what you want me to declare. I believe that it is reasonable for the government to want to regulate abuse. I believe that the rights of abuse victims are a stronger claim for the government's interests than are the claims for free speech and freedom of religion. And so I have absolutely no problem with the abridgement of these other rights in narrow contexts.

Further, while I empathize with Catholicism over the extra problems this creates for their religious views, I also recognize the very real fact that if they had put in place real steps to help stop abuse rather than protecting abusers and effectively allowing this abuse to spread (by moving abusers from one place to another), there wouldn't have been such a strong public outcry that this sort of preference of one right over the other was necessary. This is not disdain - this is me simply pointing out the obvious. As I have noted repeatedly, I don't think that we get a lot of confessions from abusers when that confession comes unexpectedly out of nowhere.

9 hours ago, helix said:

I'm in complete agreement here. But I don't think mandatory reporting is always the right answer, bishops and stake presidents hear some awfully tricky gray areas. And the government most certainly shouldn't be threatening clergy with 7 years in jail for unfulfilled compelled speech regarding who confessed what.

I don't think that this is actually happening here. We don't have the details of the case. We don't really know what is the evidence in the case against Hintze. And if it is about confession, then I think it's unlikely to result in a conviction. Either you didn't really take the time to read the OP, or you didn't understand it, and are just shooting at the whole idea of mandatory reporting more generally (which is what I think is actually going on for you). As Smac97 noted in the OP:

Quote

Taken together, these statutes would seem to apply to a stake president to exempt him from mandatory reporting requirements if he receives information about abuse from a "confidential communication," but not if he received information from some other source. 

The working assumption (until we are told otherwise) should be that Hintze is not being charged for information he received during a confession, but for information received in another context, which he then did not report. And if this is the case, then it isn't about the confessional at all.

[Benjamin McGuire]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Ben, the video has a couple of interesting points that I would be interested in your response to on her discussion of the nurses study at 4 minutes (nurses doing something dangerous).

I have asked Jennifer (I know her through FAIR) for clarification on a few things too and hopefully she will be able to get back with me, specifically if being careful translated into less signs, but the same amount of problems with patients or if being more careful also translated to less cases.  I can see in abuse cases being worried about being reported while driving determined abusers underground could stop impulsive abuse in some cases as worry over being reported could heighten thinking before acting….though it would seem the increase in child deaths in NY report mentioned in the video indicates worry about being reported does not translate into less abusive behaviour.

I have two comments for you.

First, I can't argue without information. Nurse on Nurse reporting represents a relatively small component of reported cases. In general, the studies that deal with this problem do so in the context of nursing homes (which is not child abuse). I have a lot of experience with nurses in Nursing Homes, and there is little doubt that when there are significant failures, they are completely vertical in an organization. But, using nurse on nurse reporting in a context like that does very little to help us deal with the issue of child abuse reporting by nurses - which is in many ways an entirely different animal. The failure in one area is not representative of symptomatic of failure in another area. Without the studies to respond to, I can't even start to discuss whether or not they represent real risks in present day contexts.

My second point is less directly related to the video. Helix, back on Thursday, provided this link. It is important to understand what that link represents. The study was made up entirely of abuse survivors. That is, we are not talking about situations where abuse was not happening and a report was made based on a problematic assessment made by a mandatory reporter. These were all people who were being abused. The report was made. And the outcomes were poor. We look at the outcomes of that study where people claimed that the report made things worse, and the link provides six examples. I am going to quote 4 of them:

Quote

 

Police and CPS did nothing and abuser went on a rampage against us.

Every time cops got involved they never arrested him, so now he keeps coming after me knowing he gets away with it.

He is more abusive but he just makes sure no one is listening to us, so they will not go and report us again.

[The report] made the stalking more active and gave more information to the perpetrator which helped him to violate the restraining order.

 

If the 6 examples they offer are representative (and I won't say that they are - I haven't tried to get the original data), then in 2 out of every 3 cases, the problem is made worse because of the failure of interventions. This is a study highlighting the problems of what comes after the reports - not problems with the reports themselves (which were accurate and appropriate). People do bad things. Being a nurse gives you some power. We have all seen the accounts of people who are serial killers in health care contexts. Are they hiding their activities from their coworkers because they are afraid their coworkers will report them? To make that suggestion seems kind of silly on the surface. Serial killers don't just hide what they are doing from law enforcement - they hide it from everyone. The US only created federal laws criminalizing abuse in the late 1970s. For a century prior to that it was more illegal to abuse your dog than to abuse your child. Since then we have gotten better (overall) at recognizing abuse and teaching people that it is not acceptable. And it is this recognition that tends to make it more and more secretive. I used Ruby Franke earlier as an example - and it was deliberate. There was definitely an attempt being made to hide that abuse.

To steal from another context, there are really only two reasons for anyone today to deny that they are engaging in child abuse. First, because they aren't, and second, because they are. To suggest that we stop mandatory reporting because it makes abusers less likely to accidentally give themselves up seems to me to be a ridiculous argument - especially if the people who they out themselves aren't themselves knowledgeable about the process (and so unlikely to report). If most of our reports are provided by mandatory reporters, who will actually report if there aren't any. Whether we like it or not, mandatory reporting is what we have. And if it goes away, what will we be left with?

 

[webbles]

I came across a "Mandatory Child Abuse FAQ" from both Swarthmore and Penn State that say that, per Pennsylvania law, if a mandatory reporter learns of abuse from a victim who is now an adult, it is not required to report.  See #7 at https://policy.psu.edu/ad72-attachment-reporting-suspected-child-abuse-faqs and the 9th question at https://www.swarthmore.edu/office-general-counsel/mandatory-child-abuse-reporting-faqs.  I think the reasoning behind that is because the child abuse statutes says "if a person has reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a victim of child abuse" and since "is" is a present tense word, the victim must be a child at the time of suspicion.

So, the victim talking to the Stake President doesn't require reporting because the victim was an adult at the time (unless the prosecutor is going to argue over the definition of "is").  The only case, then, is if the abuser told the Stake President in a non clergy confidential manner.

[Benjamin McGuire]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

though it would seem the increase in child deaths in NY report mentioned in the video indicates worry about being reported does not translate into less abusive behaviour.

I wanted to separate this out for a bit of a response.

Mandatory reporting has helped reduce abuse related child deaths. But statistics can be complicated. The US didn't make child abuse illegal until 1974 (in yours and my lifetimes, right?). I think that there was something of an immediate decline in abuse (and in deaths related to that abuse). That short term success plateaued. The problem with child abuse is that laws like these (while important) and programs like CPS (while also important) are reactive. They are never going to get ahead of abuse when they are responding to reports of abuse. For us to really work towards reducing abuse, we need to look at the factors that are closely linked to that abuse and try to address them in meaningful ways: Poverty. Drug abuse (including alcoholism). Untreated mental health. Larger family sizes. Violence already in the household. If we could make serious efforts to reduce the stress factors that are linked to child abuse, we would start to reduce abuse before it happens - and perhaps to do so sustainably.

Finally, there is something else I wanted to say with all of this. There are recognized factors in what makes better reporters. One of them is simply experience. Those professional reporters with more than 5 years of experience in their field are far more reliable. Even those who have reported before (those for whom this is not a new experience) do better. Those who get consistent ongoing training do better. I think that these issues all come to a head in these expansions - more reporters who have less training and no experience. If I find something fundamentally wrong with the Pennsylvania laws that expand mandatory reporting it is that they force an expectation for which their targets have no experience. These laws are meant to incentivize vertical responses in organizations. The Sandusky case should have had a far different outcome if those up the authority chart had taken the first reports seriously. Most organizations where these kinds of reports occur regularly have evolved to become responsive and professional in those responses. They have policies. They follow them. And this helps limit abuse (especially in those contexts). But in a general population there isn't either sustained education or regular experience to make it work. And the laws end up working only as punitive measures in these populations - they often end up targeting individuals who became vulnerable as much through that lack of experience and education as anything else.

[Calm]

 

22 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we could make serious efforts to reduce the stress factors that are linked to child abuse, we would start to reduce abuse before it happens - and perhaps to do so sustainably.

This is what makes no sense to me in our society, such a big emphasis on aspects that in the end do not have a great impact on preventing what they are trying to control rather than just trying to stop behaviour through punishment, such as massive amount of time and money invested in pushing abortion laws that would be better spent on known factors that lower the perceived need of a woman for abortion and making laws that are unfinished, as in requiring reporting, but not providing funding for CPS to follow up on reports.  This is so illogical to me.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

For us to really work towards reducing abuse, we need to look at the factors that are closely linked to that abuse and try to address them in meaningful ways: Poverty.

By "we" I assume you mean the State.  Would that be correct?

"We" have been in a "War on Poverty" since January 8, 1964.  Nearly 60 years ago to the day.  The State solution has been to massively expand the Dole and the Welfare State, persuade untold millions and generations to become too dependent on the State, encourage broken families and fatherlessness, and to create a host of other societal problems.  From this 2019 article by Michael Tanner:

Quote

This year the federal, state, and local governments will spend close to a combined $1 trillion to fund more than 100 separate anti‐poverty programs. In fact, since Lyndon Johnson declared “war on poverty” in 1965, government efforts to fight poverty have cost more than $23 trillion.

60 years and 23+ trillion dollars, and we still have a massive problem.  Tanner goes on to offer some proposed changes to how "we" approach poverty:

Quote

In proposing a better way to fight poverty, we should not blindly support cutting programs for the sake of cutting. Nor should we assume that what we are doing now is working just fine and we should simply do more of it. Rather we should ask whether it is possible to continue to ameliorate the suffering of those living in poverty, while also creating the conditions that would enable people to live a fulfilled and actualized life.

In my new book, The Inclusive Economy: How to Bring Wealth to America’s Poor, I lay out what I believe to be an effective approach to fighting poverty based firmly on libertarian principles. It suggests that before we discuss whether or how much redistribution is needed, we should attack the underlying barriers that can prevent poor people from prospering.

"{F}ighting poverty based firmly on libertarian principles."  This would, I suspect, create resistance from organs of the State, from political parties and private political groups, from NGOs, and others who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo of the last 60 years, as this allows for political gamesmanship, affecting elections, benefitting from the indirect perks of the Dole, and so on.

Quote

We can start with reforming the criminal justice system and curtailing the War on Drugs. Large numbers of people in poverty are burdened with a criminal record that makes it far more difficult for them to find jobs. Moreover, dragging poor and minority youth into the criminal justice system severely limits the pool of marriageable men, and a wave of fatherlessness afflicts poor communities.

I'd like to see his proposals for this sort of reform.  I'm open to considering it.

Quote

As for education, we must reform the system to give more control and choice to parents. Despite our spending more and more money, our public schools are failing many poor and minority students. The type of innovation necessary to turn this around is unlikely to occur under a system dominated by a government‐run monopoly. Instead, our education system needs to be opened up to greater competition and choice.

School choice is anathema to quite a few entrenched individuals and groups who hold a lot of political clout, and have alternative/ulterior motives for keeping poor people away from school choice.

Quote

Rather than chase rising housing costs with ever higher subsidies, we should focus on lowering the cost of housing and rent. Restrictive housing regulations primarily benefit the wealthy who own homes, while driving up rents for the poor.

I really like this idea.  And this is one area where I would like states, or even the Federal Government, to reign in local housing regulations.

Quote

One other key ingredient for a more inclusive economy is to make it easier for the poor to bank, save, borrow, and invest. Too many poor people find it difficult to access the banking system. We should review banking regulations that primarily harm the poor. and review welfare eligibility requirements to ensure that they do not unnecessarily discourage the poor from accumulating savings.

Economic growth does more to reduce poverty over time than any government intervention. But that growth must be inclusive. We should also make it easier for the poor to find work today by eliminating regulations, licensure, zoning, and other laws that make it harder for the poor to find jobs or start a business.

"Economic growth does more to reduce poverty over time than any government intervention."  That's a bold proposal.  And one that will get heavily opposed.

"{E}liminating regulations, licensure, zoning, and other laws" sounds great.

Quote

Rather than create new programs and spend more money, there is a real need to start undoing the harmful legacy of past and current government policies. Reforming criminal justice, education, and housing policy, while encouraging job creation, economic growth, and individual savings will do more to help reduce poverty than anything we are doing today. Taken as a whole, these reforms would give far more poor people the opportunity to partake in the prosperity that they seek.

Good points, these.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Drug abuse (including alcoholism).

I have a hard time envisioning proactive, rather than reactive, steps that the State could take to meaningfully address this problem (and its incestuous cousin, mass incarceration issues).  

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Untreated mental health.

I quite agree with you here.  Increased state and federal funding for hospitals and mental health resources could be very beneficial.  I'm generally loathe to go along with proposals that expand the power of the State, but improving our cumulative approach to mental health would be a wonderful use of tax dollars.

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Larger family sizes.

What could the State do, in a "proactive" sense, on this issue?

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Violence already in the household.

Same here.  What can the State do to proactively reduce violence in the home?

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

If we could make serious efforts to reduce the stress factors that are linked to child abuse, we would start to reduce abuse before it happens - and perhaps to do so sustainably.

I sure hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

By "we" I assume you mean the State.  Would that be correct?

"We" have been in a "War on Poverty" since January 8, 1964.  Nearly 60 years ago to the day.  The State solution has been to massively expand the Dole and the Welfare State, persuade untold millions and generations to become too dependent on the State, encourage broken families and fatherlessness, and to create a host of other societal problems.  From this 2019 article by Michael Tanner:

60 years and 23+ trillion dollars, and we still have a massive problem.  Tanner goes on to offer some proposed changes to how "we" approach poverty:

"{F}ighting poverty based firmly on libertarian principles."  This would, I suspect, create resistance from organs of the State, from political parties and private political groups, from NGOs, and others who have a vested interest in preserving the status quo of the last 60 years, as this allows for political gamesmanship, affecting elections, benefitting from the indirect perks of the Dole, and so on.

I'd like to see his proposals for this sort of reform.  I'm open to considering it.

School choice is anathema to quite a few entrenched individuals and groups who hold a lot of political clout, and have alternative/ulterior motives for keeping poor people away from school choice.

I really like this idea.  And this is one area where I would like states, or even the Federal Government, to reign in local housing regulations.

"Economic growth does more to reduce poverty over time than any government intervention."  That's a bold proposal.  And one that will get heavily opposed.

"{E}liminating regulations, licensure, zoning, and other laws" sounds great.

Good points, these.

I have a hard time envisioning proactive, rather than reactive, steps that the State could take to meaningfully address this problem (and its incestuous cousin, mass incarceration issues).  

I quite agree with you here.  Increased state and federal funding for hospitals and mental health resources could be very beneficial.  I'm generally loathe to go along with proposals that expand the power of the State, but improving our cumulative approach to mental health would be a wonderful use of tax dollars.

What could the State do, in a "proactive" sense, on this issue?

Same here.  What can the State do to proactively reduce violence in the home?

I sure hope so.

Thanks,

-Smac

You could have just said “Libertarianism will solve everything!” and saved readers some time.

[Stargazer]

On 2/6/2024 at 1:44 PM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Further, your statement seems to forget that the First Amendment is *gasp* and amendment to the constitution.

Well, I "gasped" at this sentence.

Are you saying that because the First Amendment is merely an amendment that it doesn't have the same status as the original body of the Constitution, which is Articles 1 thru 7?

Well, that's the implication and I want to address this because it is essential for you to understand that an amendment does have the same status as the body of the Constitution. MOST especially, the first ten amendments, which are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. In my humble opinion, the BoR can be said to be MUCH MORE IMPORTANT to the people than Articles 1 thru 7. Those articles describe the US federal government and the relationship between it and the states, as well as between the states. Except tangentially, Articles 1 thru 7 do not deal with the rights of the people, only the duties and responsibilities of the three branches of government, or in other words, what they are permitted to do. The BoR deal with the rights of the people, or, more to the point, where the federal government is not welcome to interfere. 

So, there is no such thing as a mere amendment. Even for the amendments subsequent to the Bill of Rights.

If amendments were less important than Articles 1 thru 7, then what of the abolition of slavery? What of the prohibition of torture? What about search and seizure? We can just disregard them as glittering generalities then? Forbid it Almighty God!

An interesting thing about the Bill of Rights is that some states would not ratify the Constitution without the promise of a Bill of Rights to be added later.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states:

"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Another interesting thing about it is that there was some very serious opposition to adding a Bill or Rights because of the fear that the federal government would later take the Bill of Rights as an enumeration of the only rights that were guaranteed, and use that enumeration to start enacting unwarranted restrictions in order to increase its power. Which is why the 9th Amendment states:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And in order to make sure that the federal government did not overstep the bounds of the Constitution, the 10th Amendment states:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

These mere amendments are, in the opinion of many, sacred. And some hold that abrogating any of them by the federal government is a very, very serious matter.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You could have just said “Libertarianism will solve everything!” and saved readers some time.

It's impossible to solve everything. However, it's possible that what is being done, despite demonstrably not working worth a darn, needs to be changed instead of just being done harder.

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

These mere amendments are, in the opinion of many, sacred. And some hold that abrogating any of them by the federal government is a very, very serious matter.

A secular political document is sacred?

That is kind of creepy.

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A secular political document is sacred?

That is kind of creepy.

Ha ha.

But sacred to me, at least. In both a secular and a spiritual sense.

You know why, I'm sure.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

you saying that because the First Amendment is merely an amendment that it doesn't have the same status as the original body of the Constitution, which is Articles 1 thru 7?

I got the impression he meant it being an amendment meant the constitution wasn’t meant to be a permanent, unchanging document, that flexibility was built in.

The First amendment could therefore be amended itself someday like the 18th amendment was as could anything in the Constitution.

Edited February 7, 2024 by Calm

[helix]

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Making religious people mandatory reporters is constitutional under the general rule.

First I asked where the Constitution allowed this. That request was ignored. Then I brought it up again. You said the Supreme Court ruled on it. Then I asked for the ruling. You ignored that, and are now gesturing broadly at some "general rule", which you don't define or cite.

You said earlier "The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed that mandatory reporting laws are constitutional. ". Which case? Where did the Supreme Court rule that Catholics cannot follow their religion and must be compelled to speak against their core beliefs? Can you provide the exact paragraph stating this clearly?

I'm being persistent only because this is the cornerstone of this discussion. Can the government compel clergies to speak as the government demands, and jail them if they don't speak? The First Amendment overwhelmingly says no, you can't do that. Vague suggestions are floated about exemptions to the First Amendment, but none of them are remotely close to applying here.

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The courts have consistently agreed that the government is allowed to compel speech when that compelled speech is allowable in certain contexts. This is one of the reasons why we wouldn't allow religion (as I noted earlier) to argue that their religious rights allow them to practice human sacrifice.

Sacrificing people is speech? Huh? And telling others they can't sacrifice people is compelled speech?  What!?

We need to define speech. Speech isn't taxes, driving, employment disclosures, arson, theft, murder, or human sacrifice. Speech is what someone says, writes, reads, prays, protests, or refuses to say. This speech is fiercely protected by the First Amendment and is a bedrock principle of both human rights and civil rights. The First Amendment has a handful of very careful and narrow exceptions, specifically: obscene public sexual deviancy, defamation, spoken fraud, incitement to imminent lawless action, solicitations for help in committing crimes, and child pornography. In all of those cases the individual is the one actively involved in directly harming another or causing great offense. None of these exceptions allow compelled speech for a third party.

The Supreme Court has defined compelled speech for us:

From Justice Roberts in Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006). "Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say."

From  Wooley v. Maynard (1977), Justice Burger wrote "The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ "

From West Virginia State Board of Education et al, vs Barnette et al. (1943)  "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein,"

Illegal coerced speech is defined as backed "by force of law and threat of penalty", Lee v. Weisman (1992). That means Pennsylvania law is coerced speech.

Also relevant is Kennedy v Bremerton School District (2002) "Respect for religious expressions is indispensable to life in a free and diverse Republic—whether those expressions take place in a sanctuary or on a field, and whether they manifest through the spoken word or a bowed head. Here, a government entity sought to punish an individual for engaging in a brief, quiet, personal religious observance doubly protected by the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment.

Human sacrifice is not communication. Preventing human sacrifice of another is not government compelled speech. I also can't believe I just typed that out.

The Kennedy v Bremerton School District case demonstrates how broad this protection is. A football coach, employed by the government, is allowed to walk onto the 50 yard line, outside of the game, surrounded by players, parents, lights, and cameras, and kneel to say a prayer. The Supreme Court explicitly said he cannot be punished for engaging in brief, quiet, personal religious observance. A Catholic priest sitting in his church listening to a confession is a brief, quiet, personal religious observance. The Catholic priest holding a vow of silence, because it's one of his faith's sacraments, also cannot be punished and is doubly protected under the First Amendment. A Latter-day Saint stake president facing 7 years in prison for a felony for non-speech is by definition coerced speech as it's backed by penalty.

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And as you noted earlier, there isn't anything unconstitutional (according to the courts) with the idea of mandated reporters.

I said the exact opposite in regards to religion.

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So religious confessions aren't being regulated except where that confession involves an admission or report of abuse.

That is regulation, by definition.

Quote

I believe that it is reasonable for the government to want to regulate abuse. I believe that the rights of abuse victims are a stronger claim for the government's interests than are the claims for free speech and freedom of religion.

This sounds like support for the idea. If you were a legislator, and a bill came before you for a vote to make religious clergy mandatory reporters, inside and outside confessionals, knowing full well this would make an 800 year core Catholic belief and sacrament illegal, it sounds like you would vote yes.

16 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Either you didn't really take the time to read the OP, or you didn't understand it, and are just shooting at the whole idea of mandatory reporting more generally (which is what I think is actually going on for you).

I've been clear that mandatory reporting for employees is constitutional (government can regulate commerce and people can choose not to participate in such employement). But mandatory reporting for average citizens, the man on the street, and religious clergy, is blatantly unconstitutional, as people can't choose to not participate in society. The Constitution allows for a very narrow set exceptions, such as certain court testimony and and census. The government cannot declare a list of crimes they demand any average citizen report to them.

I do not know the exact details why this stake president was charged. Sometimes the law takes a while to sort things out and sometimes human beings enforcing the law get it wrong. In the recent Arizona case, priest-penitent privilege was rejected by the first judge, and then upheld by later judges upon appeal. I don't even know if the DA's charge was political and/or bad. I'm as curious as many others here as to when and how the stake president learned of abuse from 20 years prior. But given that the Constitution doesn't grant the government the right to compel average citizens to report any crime we witness, I would love to see this case go to the Supreme Court. Just so we can finally get common sense written in stone, that these kinds of laws are grossly incompatible with civil rights and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Edited February 8, 2024 by helix