So maybe it shouldn't be required by law. But it still should be done.

The Mormon church is so stupid. They are acting like typical corporate types who think they own the world. Fine. But think of the PR advantages that would accrue if they just made the decision on their own to do background checks. They would look like heroes. I simply cannot understand the mind set that does not see this.

But running background checks

a) costs money

b) will cause people who might not pass to stop attending and/or stop paying tithing.

Can't be having that.

Yeah, my guess is TSCC has crunched the numbers on this.

The last church we attended, about ten years ago, required background checks of anyone who dealt with children. The church administrator said that you’d be surprised how many people refuse to do it, and how many try to sneak around it.

The church is a corporation so of course they are going to act like corporation types.

The church's response: it ‘didn’t have anything to offer’ when asked to comment on the proposed legislation.

That is telling. They haven't learned a darn thing. That sounds like they do not want to make any efforts to require background checks to me.

You can always count on them to put church first and child protection last.

This will teach kids what it means not to have money to give to the church!

Lousy little cheapskates!!

Just Exactly who would be 'offended' by having a check (screening) done on them ?

Oh

The article states: "The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making laws “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

I note that one objection to the idea of a background check is that it goes against the Constitutional provision of the free exercise of one's religion.

Surely the founders did not intend that phrase/concept to mean that transgressing secular, religious and moral laws is a right that is guaranteed under the US Constitution.

But that is how today's objectors seem to be interpreting it - that we can't ensure the safety of minors by expecting adults to undergo basic checks (that align with established law as well as moral imperatives).

How is establishing a basic standard to protect minors preventing the free exercise of religion?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2022 05:52PM by Nightingale.

If they don’t want to do background checks then stop having probing interviews where privacy is needed. Stop that crap.

MoronicPriesthood, inc will frame this as a Faith issue. Faith in the inspiration of Church Leaders trumps any misguided attempt to force background checks. God & the Spook are more reliable than any man made background check - right...

It's getting to the point (or past) when it is imperative to protect the flock from any risk of harm, especially the defenceless children, including/especially at the hands of their pastor/leader.

I read an article this morning about a married pastor who had to step down (only temporarily at this point) because of inappropriate texting exchanges with another woman.

First, you have to ask how they can be so stupid.

Second, why is inappropriate (or worse) behaviour so prevalent with religious leaders.

But. I couldn't find a link to post because:

- there are SO MANY stories about inappropriate behaviour of religious leaders I don't even have time to check through them all searching for the most recent article I saw today.

The chorus "there's something in the water" is floating through my head but I wouldn't post the words as that thought is far too flippant for this situation.

But really. You just have to shake your head. I am particularly allergic to hypocrisy. It's especially magnified when it has to do with religion. I know we're all "only human" but just don't be a hypocrite. Is that too much to ask?

Don't. Be. A. Hypocrite.

Oh yes. Thanks. That is the one.

My post above should have made clear that this pastor's issue occurred with a consenting adult woman. Plus, he is the one who brought the matter to the attention of his peers.

I was intending to say that many organizations routinely require background checks now before hiring someone. Why should church leaders and other workers be exempt? In fact, due to the sensitive emotional and other personal issues preachers et al within religion can be called on to deal with, it should be an imperative to ensure they will be therapeutic, or at least not non-therapeutic for members of their church, especially children and other vulnerable congregants.

The pastor in this instance informed church elders himself about the issue, after a friend of the woman involved had confronted him. What amazes me is it sounds like the pastor was surprised that the woman who confronted him about his messages to her friend, a woman who is not his wife, had a problem with what they were doing. He said something about being "disoriented" after their interaction, which I took to mean he was shocked or surprised that someone would have a problem with it. Like he couldn't see it himself. That is concerning when it comes to a leader who lacks such basic insight. Although I guess it can happen to the best of us. He said that his wife was aware of his exchanges with another woman. That also surprises me, that his wife apparently didn't have a problem with it. Not just that he was corresponding with someone else but the apparent nature of the messages.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2022 08:00PM by Nightingale.

>My post above should have made clear that this pastor's issue occurred with a consenting adult woman

But there is this from the same church

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2022/august/village-church-matt-chandler-baptist-abuse-settlement.html

"The Village Church, a large Southern Baptist church in Texas pastored by Matt Chandler, has announced it reached a settlement with a woman who had reported one of the church’s pastors sexually assaulted her when she was 11 years old."

Different pastor, same church.

Yes, I saw that too. :(

Nightingale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> - there are SO MANY stories about inappropriate
> behaviour of religious leaders . . .

Along with politicians, investment bankers, attorneys, and gangsters, religious leaders are among the groups most highly populated by narcissists and sociopaths.

Why? Because all of those professions bring power, status, money, and control over others. It should therefore not be surprising that unethical behavior and crimes of aggression at their hands are constantly in the news.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightingale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > - there are SO MANY stories about inappropriate
> > behaviour of religious leaders . . .
>
> Along with politicians, investment bankers,
> attorneys, and gangsters, religious leaders are
> among the groups most highly populated by
> narcissists and sociopaths.
>
> Why? Because all of those professions bring
> power, status, money, and control over others. It
> should therefore not be surprising that unethical
> behavior and crimes of aggression at their hands
> are constantly in the news.



So by this standard, we should turns the reins of governance over to Wal-Mart cart pushers?  Sounds good to me!!

That sounds reasonable, Jesus-not-to-be-confused-with-Jesus!

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightingale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > - there are SO MANY stories about inappropriate
> > behaviour of religious leaders . . .
>
> Along with politicians, investment bankers,
> attorneys, and gangsters, religious leaders are
> among the groups most highly populated by
> narcissists and sociopaths.
>
> Why? Because all of those professions bring
> power, status, money, and control over others. It
> should therefore not be surprising that unethical
> behavior and crimes of aggression at their hands
> are constantly in the news.

And it should also be no surprise why these people would not want to have background checks run on themselves.

blindguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And it should also be no surprise why these people
> would not want to have background checks run on
> themselves.

Unfortunately, in many cases a background check will be negative because when these things are done in secret, often it takes a long time for them to come to light, if they ever do.

But I get your point, blindguy.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It should therefore not be surprising that unethical
> behavior and crimes of aggression at their hands
> are constantly in the news.

I *am* surprised though. I never seem to learn.

Perhaps because I take it literally - all that stuff about following the principles and not being a jerk. At the very, very least, don't be a jerk.

Power corrupts indeed. From now on, I vow to not get surprised. Disappointed, disillusioned - that will likely continue. That's good though - we shouldn't get so accustomed to corruption that it ceases to dismay.

"Power corrupts" has always seemed imprecise to me.

"Power attracts the corrupt" is what we are dealing with here.

Oh, good point. Precision works.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/30/2022 08:57PM by Nightingale.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nightingale Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > - there are SO MANY stories about inappropriate
> > behaviour of religious leaders . . .
>
> Along with politicians, investment bankers,
> attorneys, and gangsters, religious leaders are
> among the groups most highly populated by
> narcissists and sociopaths.
>
> Why? Because all of those professions bring
> power, status, money, and control over others. It
> should therefore not be surprising that unethical
> behavior and crimes of aggression at their hands
> are constantly in the news.

Yet people want to keep handing them more power. Beware! The man with the silver tongue often has an iron heart.

This already happens in the UK.

I’m an adult volunteer for a youth group, on the adult side of things. Everyone I deal with is a legal adult, BUT I still had to pass a background check because I could end up somewhere the kids are. Also had to take an eight hour training and am now a mandatory reporter. This is how all youth organizations should function. Church be damned, these are kids.

100%, but the abusive sex CULT will refuse, because it's founders couldn't pass a background check.

^^^ this ^^^

That’s why their powers of discernment fail on sex related stuff: Joseph’s Myth could pass a background check either.