• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Melbourne May Put Signs Near Lawbreaking Churches Warning Kids of Danger Inside"

Skwim

Veteran Member
.

"The Australian state of Victoria recently passed the Children Legislation Amendment Bill 2019.

Before that, the law required teachers and social workers and others who work with children to report allegations of child abuse to local authorities. Because of course they should do that. However, religious leaders were exempt from that law, in part because they claimed secrets told to them in the confession booth were sacred and, therefore, private.

The Amendment Bill fixed that problem by telling church leaders their beliefs didn’t grant them immunity. If, for example, someone confesses to a local priest that he abused a child, the priest will now be legally obligated to report the confession. Failure to do so could lead to a three-year prison sentence. (A similar bill in California was proposed but scrapped after religious opposition.)

Now a Melbourne City Council member wants to take the law a step further.

Nic Frances Gilley has proposed a motion that would directly ask churches if they plan to abide by the new law, since some have publicly threatened refusal.

If they say no, Gilley says the city could put up signs in front of those churches saying the safety of children cannot be guaranteed inside.


NSFWChurchAustralia-1024x568.png


Given all the damage churches have done to kids throughout history, you could say this is long overdue… But if churches don’t like the idea, they could always just promise to report abuse. It’s not that complicated.

Gilley, by the way, has good reason to go after religious institutions. After spending more than two decades as an Anglican priest, Gilley left the Church in 2008, with an admission that he had personally been a victim of abuse.

The council will vote on the motion Tuesday. [Oct 15, 2019]
source


I think everybody should pray the motion passes. Not that it will do any good, but it might set people thinking about just how reprehensible religious institutions can be, and need to be watched.


.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I knew us Aussies were blunt, but damn! That’s straight to the point even for us.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
One possible side effect is that churches that might be inclined to go along quietly with the city's policy will not.

Because if they don't have a sign everyone will know that they're more beholden to human authority than religious conviction.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I think everybody should pray the motion passes. Not that it will do any good,
Sometimes simple people coming up with simplistic solutions to complex problems make things worse instead of better. This is due to the "unintended consequences".
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Nic Frances Gilley has proposed a motion that would directly ask churches if they plan to abide by the new law, since some have publicly threatened refusal.

If they say no, Gilley says the city could put up signs in front of those churches saying the safety of children cannot be guaranteed inside.
I'm still looking for a reason to believe that this motion will improve safety. It looks to me like ridiculous virtue signaling with no real improvements.
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: Moz

Skwim

Veteran Member
I'm still looking for a reason to believe that this motion will improve safety. It looks to me like ridiculous virtue signaling with no real improvements.
Tom
It would at least warn parents there was no deterrent in place for potential child abuse: the threat of exposure and criminal consequences should anyone in the church dare abuse a child.


.

.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm still looking for a reason to believe that this motion will improve safety. It looks to me like ridiculous virtue signaling with no real improvements.
Tom

I'm not sure what it's like in the States, but there is a fair bit of anger here over some of the Churches operations over a long period of time, and the seeming reluctance (even currently) to really own their problems. I'm paraphrasing here, so sorry on the over-simplification.

This, then, looks reactionary to me more than virtue-signalling. The Church (or more accurately, individuals/some churches) have indicated they might passively resist the new laws around disclosure of abuse and instead put the sanctity of confession first. Honestly, I get it, but with all the cover-ups and failure to act on so many incidences of abuse throughout the churches history here, having a special rule allowing secrecy in the church beyond that allowed in places like schools and hospitals simply appears to be 'more of the same', and the church not understanding the negative impact of their past actions.

Melbourne in particular has a sensitivity to this, with the recent conviction of Cardinal George Pell fresh in our mind. Our highest ranked Catholic, who at one stage we thought might...just might...end up as Pope. And who setup the Melbourne Response diocesan protocol to investigate and deal with complaints around abuse within the church, convincing the government an independent enquiry wasn't needed.

I don't say all this to pot the church (although I happily would) but merely to provide context. Personally I don't think this will be approved, and there is a personal aspect at play with the Councillor. I understand his sentiment, but that doesn't make this good legislation.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I'm not sure what it's like in the States, but there is a fair bit of anger here over some of the Churches operations over a long period of time, and the seeming reluctance (even currently) to really own their problems. I'm paraphrasing here, so sorry on the over-simplification.
I do realize that Melbourne is NOT southern Indiana, where I live.

But I don't see any of the deterrent that Skwim refers to. Not in the legislation, that will only deter confessions. Nor in the signs.

You Aussies might not have an equivalent. But several years back, our government passed a law requiring a label on unusually violent or sex charged media, like music CDs and video games. "PARENTAL ADVISORY WARNING", or something like that. Of course, what that did was hugely boost the sales of sexy and violent media because the kids all wanted the forbidden stuff. I don't think that the legislature intended that result, rather they got the unintended consequences result.

Which happens all too often when simple measures are applied to complex problems.
Tom
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
If I were going to play hardball with churches here's something I would consider.

Let all the members know that if a church where a staff member knew about an abusive situation, and didn't report it, every member who has made a donation is on the hook for any damages awarded by a court. The more you gave the church, the bigger your liability if a court awards damages.
Let the members decide how to deal with their staff.
Tom
 
Top