I never said they had it legally.
But forumosa really turned into a cult lately. No wonder fewer and fewer foreigners want to use it.
You said “so they have diplomatic immunity”.
What’s diplomatic immunity but not legally then? It sounds like not having diplomatic immunity to me.
There’s no cult. Just trying to minimize the amount of misinformation and number of nonsense posts, such as that one of yours above. It’s your choice to keep posting false stuff. 
I think @Taiwan_Luthiers is right again. Catholic priests have diplomatic immunity.
EDIT: No, we’re wrong. Priests don’t necessarily have diplomatic immunity. My mistake!
Source? Do you mean legal diplomatic immunity or the fictional kind?
Example:
That’s for a diplomatic envoy, not priests. No?
I’m not questioning whether diplomats can have diplomatic immunity.
Good point. I don’t know who has jurisdiction over the Vatican.
I would have thought that any priest responds to the Holy See.
Bunch of nuncios.
1 Like
There’s a famous writer on Quora who wrote on the subject of bullying. Bullying is about the person, not the reason the bully says. If a bully beats you up because your glasses, it’s not the glasses, it’s because the bully is specifically picking on you because you are a target. If you stop wearing glasses he will find another reason because it was never about the glasses.
If I stop posting misinformation, real or perceived, there will always be another reason.
Let’s try it then. I’m open to testing your theory if you are.
Simply stop posting misinformation, and we can see whether people including me stop complaining at you for posting misinformation or if we continue. Deal?
It doesn’t even need to be absolute – even an effort to post less misinformation would be commendable progress, IMO.
I disagree. My two issues with you are your incorrect quoting of posters (strangely inconsistent in that you generally don’t quote but then sometimes selectively quote) and your posts that are clearly incorrect.
If you think you are getting bullied, and to be fair I think you are right to an extent about this, stop posting the way you do.
Quote people correctly when responding to them, and check facts before stating them.
2 Likes
They will likely report that annonymously. Reporting child molestation and someone being a pick pocket is not the same thing.
It’s pretty discriminatory to accuse a whole church of being pro child molestors although I’m guilty of calling anyone who pays their BBC TV license pro child molestation.
Anyway I don’t care much I’m not catholic I just don’t like sweeping generalisations of such horrific nature. It happens in most huge organizations in regular contact with kids secular or Christian.
Are all English teachers CHOMOs?
1 Like
Guess they chose the wrong cult then. Time for them to evolve and be less evil.
There is no ethical reason to hide and protect, say, rapists. If they do, they are working for the devil they claim so much to hate. Hard to have feelings for anyone doing that. The ones that get fired for being true and ethical, spreading love and peace should be rewarded nit punished. Kinda tells one all they need to know about that cult.
Then which crimes should be reported to the state ? All? Or just sex crimes ? If all then why would anyone confess. Should they put a sign on the confession box , "All criminal confessions will be reported "?
That’s a good question worth discussion. I feel violent/physical body harm type crimes for sure. Theft, almost for sure. Crimes that shouldn’t be crimes like not paying parking tickets for a while or weed, there are arguments for them not to confess because the crimes themselves aren’t a real threat to anyone or anything.
I don’t think it’s debatable in situations of say murder, rape, kidnapping etc that if they hold back information like this, they are complicit in the crime. Any other person would be, they don’t deserve the immunity I suppose is the key point.
The church isn’t a legal body, and really shouldn’t be treated as a legal entity in this regard. If anything, more like a therapist. Even then, probably need to license certain priests with proper education and make sure they aren’t going full gospel. Which isn’t happening. Given their obvious motives, bias and misinformation stylings they really ought not be treated with any form of legal authority. Let them play with their secrets, risk getting kicked out of their club. But when it comes to reality and real crimes that are really harming people, no immunity seems more logical than letting this type of entity having control over certain rights and laws.
Attorney client privilege exists for a reason. Yes, defense attorney who hears his client say he did it and all that, cannot repeat that to anyone. He can withdraw from the case but if he repeats it, he will get disbarred.
Because your lawyer can’t do his job if you don’t tell him the truth. His job is actually to make sure the prosecutor proves his case. If they can’t, the defendant go free. It’s how it’s supposed to work.
Yes. Lawyer. Not cult member. They are different. Religion has no place in politics nor justice departments. That’s kind of the main point. The church has an agenda, which really shouldn’t be allowed in our official government systems. If people want to go do that stuff themselves, of course. But not when it directly causes crime and death. Pretty hard to justify that.
One would thunk any priest that practices what they preach wouldn’t need to thunk hard about turning in a murderer and getting fired. But I’m sure many are more selfish than ethical, like any company. Good ones and bad ones. Just don’t legally protect the bad ones… .
You cannot require someone to testify against anyone, or even themselves. They are free to testify if they want to, though if their church (say the Catholic church) will throw them out of the church for doing so, that is their freedom. That’s 5th amendment protection.
To require someone to testify is authoritarian.
A subpoena (/səˈpiː.nə/;[1] also subpœna, supenna or subpena[2]) or witness summons is a writ issued by a government agency, most often a court, to compel testimony by a witness or production of evidence under a penalty for failure.
2 Likes
Maybe we can give out cookies 
1 Like