ubergeek

joined 8 months ago
[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it’s nature hersay

Testifying that someone confessed to a crime is not hearsay. Hearsay is "Person X told me that Person Y did Z".

Testifying to someone confessing to you is exactly what cops do on the stand, when they testify about a confession a perp provided in an interrogation.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The main issue at hand here is the Catholic seal of confession, which has an extremely long history in US law (and in the law in many other countries) as being protected under freedom of religion

We had a long history in law for the ownership of humans, and how humans can be treated by their owners...

Doesn't make it right, or even constitutional.

If my "strongly held religious beliefs" mean I must kill every fascist I see, am I protected by the first amendment? It's my exercise, and I must be able to exercise it, right?

Or, does the first amendment say the government cannot make laws that target religious folk, either for benefits or persecution?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago

Just because someone gets to do it doesn’t mean it’s legal.

Legal or illegal is immaterial. Who is punished for it, and who is protected from punishment is what matters.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago

Teachers, nurses, and clergy are examples of mandated reporters.

Well, mandated, until they want to protect a rapist. Then they are protected from having to disclose they exchanged tips with a fellow child rapist.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago

Only indigenous folk, and that's based on the fact that they are a sovereign nation. Rastas will still go right to jail for cannabis use.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 3 points 1 week ago

To protect child rapists.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Name one that isn't. Don't worry, I'll wait.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It’s a slippery slope and I guarantee same-sex attraction would be next.

How is that even in the same ballpark?

It's like saying it's a slippery slope form killing nazis to killing socialists...

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 0 points 1 week ago

Since they really don’t have anyone to talk to ever, maybe a priest could curb their behavior and act as a counselor to stop further abuse of children

I think that's rather naive... A priest is far more likely to just get some tips on how to rape kids.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Convicted of state charges, but because he ran for office, he was immune from any consequences.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 1 month ago

Your response provides very little substance

The substance is "Judges aren't checking him, and have stated they cannot"

I hope you’re a teenager because then it’s understandable. Either way unless you engage more than a “lol ok” I’ll save my toilet time for something else.

Nah, pushing 50, and have seen this dog and pony show get worse since the 80's, with people saying, "Don't worry! Our system will keep things in check!" as all of the checks are discarded.

Let me guess, just vote bloo no matter hoo, right?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 month ago

I feel like anyone working in concert with a fascist state is a part of the fascist state. I feel like a lot of people miss this point.

 

Its ok. We just need to build more luxury housing units, with tax payer dollars. I'm sure the affordable units will eventually trickle down to us all.

view more: ‹ prev next ›