So they just need to classify Epstein as a religious leader?
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
631 points (98.3% liked)
News
31170 readers
3300 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
kind of similar on how Christian conservatives push for child/adult marriage, because they believe the only damage of pedophilia is that it is out of wedlock, and it would be better for the child they are sent to live with a rapist and become their servant.
republicans have proven time and time again that they love children....in absolute most inappropriate way.
We wont be free of groomers until we lock up every single pastor, priest, and every other Christian clergy in this country.
I'm not a legal professional (merely an ill-informed amateur), and especially not an American one, but it seems to me like the judge's order makes a pretty convincing argument that the injunction is legally warranted.
Maybe we might consider that federal law might be the problem before we rush to accuse the judge personally of being a nonce?
By that logic, I can live sacrifice MAGATs to a idol of Teddy Roosevelt and be in the clear. This law is fucking stupid.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Estudillo ruled that requiring disclosure of information priests hear in the confessional infringes on their First Amendment right to practice religion and will force them to violate their sacred vows or face punishment by the state.
The church’s recorded propensity for rampant pedophilia legally demonstrates that they hold noting sacred other than pedophilia and other forms of abuse, making the judge’s ruling (among many other things) invalid. Ignore that idiot, Washington.
A bit of a clickbait title (but only a bit) - the WA law moved to make priests required reporters, professions who are legally required by law to report child abuse. The injunction sought to exempt catholic priests from being required to report child abuse which was reported to them under the 'seal of the confessional' (the special super secret group chat that only exists between you, your priest and god) and after this injunction they are still required reporters in all other instances.
This is... at least a consistent ruling? For example religious leaders can't be held as accomplices if they don't report crimes that were told to them in a ritual setting (oversimplification) or be held liable if they don't forewarn about someone planning suicide or some other crime and then said person goes thru with it. Predictably canon law is rife with examples of breaking the seal of the confession to prevent a suicide, of course, but lets just ignore that.
The rationalization for this is twofold: First freedom of religion from civil regulation. Second and more credibly that it would be allowing unfair weight into criminal proceedings because of the perceived sanctity of the confession and the upstanding character of priests (lol). The argument goes that testimony brought of things revealed in confession is by it's nature hersay, but hersay that would be presented as being devout reporting of an unimpeachable confession, and that could unduly sway juries and in general get really messy so the law just doesn't want to deal with it.
I strongly disagree with this ruling, the catholics get enough special treatment what with not being prosecuted for raping all those children, that's just the background to the arguments being made about it.
load more comments
(4 replies)