Unless a counselor believes, and I mean truly believes, that a single session is going to suddenly stop someone from molesting their own child whom they come in contact with daily, priests should, in my opinion, be covered by the Tarasoff decision. There are similar exceptions in states other than California.
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. The court’s decision mandates that mental health professionals use “reasonable care” in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the “duty to warn,” or by using whatever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party.
Unless a counselor believes, and I mean truly believes, that a single session is going to suddenly stop someone from molesting their own child whom they come in contact with daily, priests should, in my opinion, be covered by the Tarasoff decision. There are similar exceptions in states other than California.
In Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), the California Supreme Court held that mental health providers have an obligation to protect persons who could be harmed by a patient. The court’s decision mandates that mental health professionals use “reasonable care” in informing authorities or warning potential victims, initially referred to as the “duty to warn,” or by using whatever means deemed necessary, should they determine that a patient poses a threat to a third party.
This has been a fascinating case to watch. Glad that Saint George got smacked down for trying to manipulate procedure. I also imagine they'll try to pass something to block drag shows in the future, whether explicitly or through some legalese.
"Adults can tell the difference between a religious text from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Book of Mormon even though they depict historic or evidence of various acts, relative to pornography, that which is sexually explicit," argued Bramble.
Can they, though? Sure, maybe most people can tell the difference, but misunderstanding of religious texts is a pretty common source of terrorism and terrorist acts. I think the thing they're overlooking is that it's easy for someone to read these books, take them literally, and come away with a very misguided sense of religious purpose. This is one of the reasons churches exist: to help people understand the foundational texts of their religions. Unfortunately, churches have also been used to foster arguably extremist viewpoints! Still, I don't think a teacher or librarian should be helping a student understand his/her/their religion. That's what parents, religious leaders, and Sunday school are for.
We've known for a long time that banning books is a slippery slope. For sure, certain books are (in)appropriate for certain ages. That's where librarians and school boards can play a part. Right now, they're talking about banning what they've defined as "offensive" and "pornographic." What about something like Das Kapital? That could easily be argued as anti-American - probably enough reason for many local school boards to ban it as "offensive" or "subversive". I would argue it points out potential pitfalls of capitalism that should be analyzed and discussed. Once a line is drawn, you can count on politicians and/or vocal minorities to move it at their whim.
Religion is a sensitive material as long as one is not yet of age. I’m generally against making children who don’t know which religion (or even: if any!) they themselves believe in a part of a religious community. Personal opinion.
The Japanese government just decided that forcing children to participate in any religious ceremony or practice is to be considered child abuse. I can’t but help to agree.
fox13now.com
Hot