Jonny

Which is why I don’t agree with the analogy. Because that is not the solution when it comes to political ideologies.

History is full of terrible ideologies. Things like women’s right to vote, and segregation. If people who disagreed and who had the means to leave all did, these likely would still be laws in the US.

Yes, that would be the part that doesn’t work. Ideologies do not remained contained, they spread. And countries and states regularly change, all the time.

I don’t really agree with the abusive relationship analogy. Things only change if there are people there who want it to change. While I understand and sympathise with the desire to leave, I have the utmost respect for those who choose to stay and try to make/ be the change needed.

At this point I don’t think you even know what your trying to say. None of that has any effect on anything I have said. In fact almost none of it even hardly applies to what I have said.

I am going to put it as simple as possible. If you are told about child abuse and do not report it, and therefore allow it to continue, you are evil. However that affects or upsets your worldview is not something I could care any less about.

The only way you could think I said all religious people is if you assumed all of them had this law. Which would mean American centrism. You can’t have got to that without it.

Those privileges should not protect (and in my country do not protect) suspicion of serious harm to others. You tell a member of your legal team or doctor that you abused a child, there is a duty to report.

[I’m not going to respond anymore. Partly because it’s late and I have work. Partly because I think you are arguing in bad faith, as your conclusions repeatedly do not correlate with what I said]

I did not state that. Your country is not the only country in the world. Not every religious person is part of the clergy.
I stated, and will state again. Those laws are evil and it taints all those who they protect.

It is also worth pointing out that, that changes nothing about what I said. It all still applies.

Those laws exist because they were lobbied for. It is not bigoted to hate laws that exist to protect abusers or those who are happy to use them. And I am not American, fortunately no such evil protections have been allowed in my country.

Also thinking it is extremist and bigoted to be against laws that exist to protect abusers and those that support them is certainly a take…

I also assume you have taken it as bigoted because you are American and assume that this applies to all clergy. But there are in fact clergy in the world that don’t support such thing. And shockingly many other countries where such disgusting laws don’t exist.

I stand by my statement. If your institution has such a law to protect it, it is gotta be pretty evil.
In my country and in my profession (teacher), it is stated in law that I am required to report (and testify if needed) any suspicion of child abuse. It is absolutely abhorrent to me that someone wouldn’t be required to. Never mind be protected from it.
Regardless of Bishop Miller’s opinion, that law is exists and is evil. And it taints all those who it protects.

You gotta be pretty evil to need a law that protects you from having to divulge child sexual abuse (or any serious crime).

I’m not Jewish, but I had to stop putting on a pin I often wear because it somewhat resembles the star of david. Took it off after being told I was Jewish scum and threatened while out for a walk in town.
I agree that there is a massive effort to categorise any criticism of Israel as antisemitic. And that it is an idea that should be challenged. But that doesn’t mean antisemitism isn’t also actually on the rise.

At a guess, I’d imagine it would be the no “false idol” thing.

I do wonder how much is the breed and how much is shitty owners being attracted to perceived scary breeds. My guess would be a bit of both.

I mean, yeah…