Posted on 11/28/2001 3:42:21 AM PST by Brytani
It all depends on the circumstances of the woman telling the clergyman. If it was in a circumstance where she was being ministered to, the minister committed a grave act. If in a casual way, then it is a different story.
I'm offended you presume I do not have one.
Now, if I may offend you - what side of the river are you on ?
I'm offended you wouldn't know.
The West side. Beautiful Missouri.
Wole lot of offendin' goin on around here.
I'm offended.
We have right to do anything in nature. We surrender some of these rights to the community so that we can have order. By order I mean that me prevent someone from exercising their right to punch you or me in the face. The rights the government borrows are those we have agreed to allow them to have through the constitution. Our constitution (minus the bill of rights) specifies the government rights, not the people's rights. Its not neccessary to believe in a creator, simply think of them as natural rights.
Simply put some people view rights as being given by government and others as rights given by the people to government. The founders of this country believed in the second option. I suggest reading a comparison of the writings of Rousseau and Locke. Rousseau believed in government devolving power while Locke was the philosopher behind the thinking of the founders. He coined the phrase "Life, liberty and the pursuit of property."
The constitution does NOT intend to secure rights of citizens. It describes what rights government may usurp. As a matter of fact Madison was reluctant to add a bill of rights because he felt that people would come to the conclusion that you (and in fact many modern Supreme Court Justices) have, namely that the rights in the bill of rights are the ONLY ones expressly protected. Madison included the 9th and 10th amendments for exactly this reason.
[Amendment IX]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
[Amendment X]
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.
It is not my job, and I would not even think to make a judgement based on the scanty facts you provided about the case. It's clear that you however,do think it's your job, and you have decided based on the same lack of information that it is ok for a cleryman to violate the confidentiality of a person who seeks his spiritual guidance.
I don't know if that is how this occurred and I stated that in my post. If it did however, then I'm confident that he acted against his own church's policy and certainly against every known precedent on the confidentiality that is assumed and rightfully expected in such cases. He could be defrocked in many denominations. The money that the judge found in compensation was from the church, not the people who belonged. They have no ownership of those funds after they give them away. The church certainly would be liable for damages if one of it's employees committed malpractice while performing duties related to his job.
I know none of this will change your mind, but Oh well.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men... which was then followed by We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish. The comment stands.
BTW, as I recall it was Hamilton who criticized the BOR on the grounds of its propensity to limit rights, and we all know what a straw man that was coming from him.
The founders were good, but they weren't perfect. There are a number of things in the Constitution that should be changed.
What we commonly refer to as our Constitutional rights are not Constitutional at all, but supercede and limit the authority of the Constitution.
I'm pleased you have read on the subject. It is much more than most Americans do.
From that same Declaration you cite only selectively:
Did you expect me to reproduce it in its entirety?
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men... which was then followed by We the People of the United States... do ordain and establish. The comment stands.
Now who is citing selectively? The previous sentence is: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The rights are not given to us by the constitution but by the creator. Are Americans the only ones the creator decided to give these rights to?
BTW, as I recall it was Hamilton who criticized the BOR on the grounds of its propensity to limit rights, and we all know what a straw man that was coming from him.
Hamilton did oppose the BoR but Madison did as well. See here for an analysis.
The founders were good, but they weren't perfect. There are a number of things in the Constitution that should be changed.
Um, ok. I'll just leave that one alone.
My main point, that I hope you can see, is if our rights are the rights of Americans only, then they are not natural rights. Thus the become merely a priviledge which are guaranteed only by the constitution, not by natural law. Therefore there is not a thing wrong with government deciding that these priviledges should be repealed, simply by altering the constitution. I believe our rights are an absolute.
I never disputed that. You should read my original post more carefully. I was pointing out the NECESSARY limits to the scope of enforcement and procedure intended to secure those rights. These must be carried out by government and the correct scope of enforcement is national citizenship.
Everyone on the planet has natural rights, but not everyone has natural rights secured by the Constitution. The point is, where is the boundary? The Constitution confines its application (securing our rights and enforcing our responsibilities as citizens under our justice system and laws) to the people of the United States.
That does not include aliens. If it did, the guarantees of the Constitution would be global and violate the national sovereignty of other nations over their citizens.
I'm offended by your being offended by my being offended by your * offensiveness*.
And if we keep this up-I'm going to offend myself for answering your offensive posts. : )
How do we determine who that is offended gets listened to? I am offended when I cannot pray because others were offended and prayer is banned. I am offended when I cannot hang a flag, yet others were listened to when they complained? What about my rights?
How come the ACLU only helps those who are making Americans quit something because it offends them - yet, when I am offended by their goal of making me give up something, I am ignored.
Where are my constitutional rights of freedom to enjoy what I currently have even though someone in this country does not like that I have it.
What happens when someone is offended by my house, my car, my job, my income?
Guess I'll just have to find another country where I can be free to enjoy what I have.
dont get so defensive
dont get so defensive
LOL!!!!!
I'm offended you made me laugh. : (
I'm offended that you are offended by the word offended!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.