[marktwain]

You are aware that nobody gets a pass, right?
No. Here you are, denying that very principle.

---

You are incorrect, and making a false comparison.

We do not require wives to testify about their husbands crimes.

We do not require attorneys to testify about crimes committed by their clients.

We do not require priests to act as informers for the police.

All long standing principles.

[MrEdd]

Well, if you ever bothered to examine the statutes for spousal privilege and your other examples (and you have made it perfectly clear to everyone on this thread that your actual acquaintance with those statutes is drawn from Hollywood) then you would be aware that said privileges do not extend to crimes involving minor children.

This simply reinforces that the principle is similarly limited regarding the clergy.

Now, you wouldn't have made your ill formed assertion if children mattered much at all to you (and it saddens me that they do not) so appealing to your ethics, morality, and human kindness of necessity will fall on deaf ears. Nonetheless please stop trying to defend the indefensible because it is unbecoming on a conservative forum.

Adults have a responsibility (even though you not only personally shirk this responsibility, you demand others shirk it) to protect children which supersedes their responsibilities to one another.

[Lurker]

“We do not require attorneys to testify about crimes committed by their clients.”

Actually, we do. Is called “ethics”. Your Church might want to look into the concept sometime.

L