• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

"Religous Freedom" = Right to Abuse Kids

joG said:
That is an interesting question there. Are parents allowed to use corporal punishment?
Click to expand...

Absolutely! If a child isn't showing marks after you hit them then you didn't do a good enough job. And we certainly need to make sure young kids know showing any sort of curiosity about their genitals or those of the opposite sex makes them a terrible child. Can you imagine a behavior more worthy of a good, Godly beating?
 
joG said:
You don't impart the feeling that you understand the Constitution. That people would begin not to understand what the Constitution is about was always a danger of the liberals precedents of circumvention. And: Voilà! There you are and prove it. ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you! How do people not understand that beating children in the name of God is a Constitutionally protected right!
 
joG said:
Actually the history of not punishing children physically is relatively new and it is societal instrument that takes at least two and probably three to tell, what the consequences will be. This is especially exciting, as the change this means to traditional upbringing is fundamental and can be expected to modify almost every level of behavior.
Click to expand...

Exactly! How can children be expected to experience a good development if we do not beat them to the point of physical injury? Can you imagine the types of adults they might grow into? They might become people who don't beat their own kids! Why on earth would anyone want to raise people who won't grow up to beat children? Disgusting!
 
faithful_servant said:
So one person who came from a culture (not Christianity) where this is considered acceptable takes advantage of a badly written law and a crap understanding of the Bible and suddenly this about religious freedom??
Click to expand...

How dare you! Please demonstrate incontrovertibly that this is not her sincerely held religious belief! It is like you are suggesting that there is some sort of subjective standard within Indiana’s law that people could circumvent to justify whatever behavior they want in the name of religous freedom. But that is ridiculous! Clearly this is a perfect law and you all just want to violate this poor woman's religious freedom out of your bigotry and hatred for her religion.
 
faithful_servant said:
While she might be trying to use an out of context passage from the Bible to justify her actions, I can pretty much guarantee you that this has far more to do with culture than religion. The family is from Burma, where this kind of punishment is the norm.
Click to expand...

Absurd! The idea that culture could be conflated with religion in a broadly written law aimed at protecting sincerely held religous beliefs.
 
faithful_servant said:
He's a bigot because he lumps all supporters of religious freedom together and then uses a SINGLE case to back up his claims. If he was a white supremacist who posted a picture of a black man with his shoes on the wrong feet, eating watermelon, while sitting on a curb in a poverty stricken neighborhood as justification for calling all blacks poor, ignorant, watermelon-eating slackers, you'd eat his lunch for it and rightfully so. But make it one lady doing something wrong and trying to justify it using an out of context verse from the Bible and suddenly he's just trying to make a point...
Click to expand...

No the point of using religious beliefs to justify stuff that is against the law otherwise is there is no stop point. If a real Satanist was to use the religious exception clause to justify sacrificing a child then you would consider it wrong just because it was not the Christian using the same law.
 
faithful_servant said:
He's a bigot because he lumps all supporters of religious freedom together and then uses a SINGLE case to back up his claims. If he was a white supremacist who posted a picture of a black man with his shoes on the wrong feet, eating watermelon, while sitting on a curb in a poverty stricken neighborhood as justification for calling all blacks poor, ignorant, watermelon-eating slackers, you'd eat his lunch for it and rightfully so. But make it one lady doing something wrong and trying to justify it using an out of context verse from the Bible and suddenly he's just trying to make a point...
Click to expand...

But that baker in Colorado and that photographer in Arizona! Think of those few people across the country who were, as a result of public accommodation laws, asked to provide services to same sex couples for their ceremonies! Clearly those are examples of ALL supporters of gay rights trying to attack our religous freedoms! Those certainly were not isolated cases that were used to justify a law that is now being used to justify physical abuse of children. Can you imagine how absurd that would be?
 
CriticalThought said:
Exactly! How can children be expected to experience a good development if we do not beat them to the point of physical injury? Can you imagine the types of adults they might grow into? They might become people who don't beat their own kids! Why on earth would anyone want to raise people who won't grow up to beat children? Disgusting!
Click to expand...

My parents didn't beat me and look how bad and awful I turned out to be.
A rich successful businessman with a hot wife.
I didn't beat my kids and look how bad and horible they turned out.
A lawyer, a master chef,and a med student.

Imagine what they would have turned out if I had just beaten them growing up.
 
joG said:
That is an interesting question there. Are parents allowed to use corporal punishment?
Click to expand...

And, if they are, at what point does corporal punishment get into child abuse?
 
Verthaine said:
How is he being a bigot?
He never stated that all Christians abuse their kids.
Are you saying that no one has the right to criticize Christians when they do wrong?
Click to expand...

The implication is that all Christians want this. And no, I'm not saying criticism is wrong. This criticism is though.
 
Tim the plumber said:
He is pointing out how you (the religious) deal with such stuff in geneeral. It's your(the religious) normal manner she is copying.

It's sometimes called satire.
Click to expand...

He's not being satirical.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am pretty decent at arithmetic.

Number of people forced to participate in same sex ceremonies in Indiana = 0

Number of children in Indiana beaten in the name of "religous freedom" = 2
Click to expand...

You still don't want to admit that the law doesn't allow for this? The judge didn't buy the defense. It didn't work. So the law didn't allow anything to happen. She did it of her own fruition and she tried to make a lame excuse that didn't work. Kind of like you pathetic attempt at correlating the law with her actions.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The implication is that all Christians want this. And no, I'm not saying criticism is wrong. This criticism is though.
Click to expand...

Here is criticathought's first post:
CriticalThought said:
She beat her son with a hanger — and said Indiana’s religious freedom law gave her the right



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/

But...but...that law is so we can discriminate against the gays...why are child abusers using it to justify their physical abuse against children?
Click to expand...

Exactly where is he implying that all Christians want this?
Seems to me he's just making fun of the Religious Freedom Warriors.
His criticism is well justified.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You still don't want to admit that the law doesn't allow for this? The judge didn't buy the defense. It didn't work. So the law didn't allow anything to happen. She did it of her own fruition and she tried to make a lame excuse that didn't work. Kind of like you pathetic attempt at correlating the law with her actions.
Click to expand...

Actually, because the law did not exempt criminal codes, it very well could allow it and worse. That is the amazing part. You are defending a law that you do not entirely understand. Also, her trial is not until October and the religous freedom law is part of her current defense so I am not sure why you are posting as if the matter was somehow settled by a judge.

She beat her son and daughter because they were showing each other their private parts, and I see nothing but religous motivations in her decision to discipline her children for what they were doing. I do honestly think she was acting in accordance of HER faith. Not the entire Christian faith, but her particular interpretation of it. Part of the problem with this law is that sincerely held religous beliefs can be pretty extreme in some cases. Take for example parents who, on the basis of their religous beliefs, would refuse life saving medical treatment for their child. This law will play out in court many, many times before we actually know what it will and will not do. An unfortunate situation given this law was always a solution in search of a problem.
 
ksu_aviator said:
He's not being satirical.
Click to expand...

I actually have a lot of love for the Christian religion and a history of defending it.

CriticalThought said:
[h=1]Matthew 5:44[/h] 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.

I had a coworker the other day tell me she got into a little bit of hot water for making a joke that nonbelievers are fools. She then defended it by citing Psalm 14:1 and saying, "I didn't call them a fool, the Bible did."

This is the nature of this way of thinking. If you do not believe as I do then you are a fool, sinner, evildoer, wicked, deviant, fornicator, sodomite, etc., not because I said so but because the Scriptures say so. That is the essence. To the practitioner it is seen as guidance but to the observer it is seen as intolerance.

But I think there is an inherent wisdom in Mathew 5. It is best to meet intolerance with humility. It is best to meet judgement and scorn with love and graciousness.

I have seen a number of my friends on the left and in the gay rights movement meeting intolerance with intolerance. It does nothing but entrench those who have already hardened their hearts to their neighbors who are nonbelievers, gay, or liberal. It also provides evidence that as we seek a more equal and open society we may begin to practice intolerance towards those of traditional views and seek to silence them. That is unfortunate and exhibits a hypocrisy quite worthy of criticism. I have certainly been guilty of this and despite my best efforts to be mindful of it, I will likely be guilty of it in the future.
Click to expand...

What I do not have a lot of love for is stupidity. particularly when it leads to poorly crafted laws which create infinitely more problems than they solve and are blindly defended even when someone can legitimately use it as a defense for harming the most vulnerable of people.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
He's a bigot because he lumps all supporters of religious freedom together and then uses a SINGLE case to back up his claims. If he was a white supremacist who posted a picture of a black man with his shoes on the wrong feet, eating watermelon, while sitting on a curb in a poverty stricken neighborhood as justification for calling all blacks poor, ignorant, watermelon-eating slackers, you'd eat his lunch for it and rightfully so. But make it one lady doing something wrong and trying to justify it using an out of context verse from the Bible and suddenly he's just trying to make a point...
Click to expand...

You have used the phrase "crap understanding of the bible" once, and "out of context verse" twice. Please enlighten us as to how she got it wrong, and how it's out of context. Please be specific.
 
joG said:
That is an interesting question there. Are parents allowed to use corporal punishment?
Click to expand...

There's corporal punishment and then there is child abuse. I think this falls into the category of child abuse.
 
CriticalThought said:
She beat her son with a hanger — and said Indiana’s religious freedom law gave her the right



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/09/01/she-beat-her-son-with-a-hanger-and-said-indianas-religious-freedom-law-gives-her-the-right/

But...but...that law is so we can discriminate against the gays...why are child abusers using it to justify their physical abuse against children?
Click to expand...

LMAO
well even honest religious people pointed out from the start that "religious freedom" laws had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with what INDIVIDUALS wanted to try and get away with. Their whole premise is based on trying to gain special treatment to be above the law and violate the rights of others.

Has there been ONE valid reason for these failed "religious freedom laws" . .nope

and we all know way, my religion is ALREADY PROTECTED LMAO and theres nothing that is infringing on my religious rights.
 
ksu_aviator said:
You choose a username like criticalthought and can't see the difference between not participating in a ceremony that violates one's religious beliefs and child abuse? Clearly the law was never intended to allow people to physically harm others in the name of their deity or religion. For you to ignore this obvious fact implies you have a partisan agenda that you are trying to promote.
Click to expand...

or that the OP is not fooled by the mental retardation of false claims of any invented religious persecution and wants of special treatment to ignore the rights or others and violate laws ;) LMAO
 
joG said:
You don't impart the feeling that you understand the Constitution. That people would begin not to understand what the Constitution is about was always a danger of the liberals precedents of circumvention. And: Voilà! There you are and prove it. ;)
Click to expand...

Here's how the Constitution has been interpreted with respect to this topic.

First, the Constitution protects religious belief. That is, you can believe anything you want. However, the government can burden the practice of religion if the burden meets the following balancing test:

1. The government action must have a secular purpose
2. The primary or principal effect of the action must not be the advancement of religion; and
3. The government action must not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion

So in a case such as this, the government prevention of the abuse of a child clearly meets the standard of having a secular purpose because 1) Child abuse is illegal 2) children are afforded special protection due to their physical and psychological vulnerability. On the other hand, one could argue that it is an interference with one's religious belief in that the given religion may mandate beating a child for certain offenses. However, given the weight of each argument, along with government's and public's great interest in protecting the health and welfare of children, the second argument doesn't carry much weight.

Second, allowing the beating of children could be said to be an advancement of religion, or at least a permissive maintaining of it. Either way, the second prong of the test is easily met if the government bans the excessive beating of a child.
Third is where a lawyer might make some hay with a very sympathetic lower court because the government, by stepping into the situation does entangle itself in a religious issue. However, the operative word here is "excessive." So the question becomes whether prevention of excessive physical beating of a child constitutes excessive entanglement. I will now cut it short and use the conclusory statement, "This is not excessive entanglement." But it is the most interest portion of the analysis and could take up several paragraphs.

That's how the Constitution works in this situation. Again, much of what I wrote here is conclusory--it's a short peek at how this issue would be analyzed. A serious and thoroughly researched appellate argument could consume a good 25 pages (or more).
 
Last edited:
Opopanax said:
Here's how the Constitution has been interpreted with respect to this topic.

First, the Constitution protects religious belief. That is, you can believe anything you want. However, the government can burden the practice of religion if the burden meets the following balancing test:

1. The government action must have a secular purpose
2. The primary or principal effect of the action must not be the advancement of religion; and
3. The government action must not foster excessive governmental entanglement with religion

So in a case such as this, the government prevention of the abuse of a child clearly meets the standard of having a secular purpose because 1) Child abuse is illegal 2) children are afforded special protection due to their physical and psychological vulnerability. On the other hand, one could argue that it is an interference with one's religious belief in that the given religion may mandate beating a child for certain offenses. However, given the weight of each argument, along with government's and public's great interest in protecting the health and welfare of children, the second argument doesn't carry much weight.

Second, allowing the beating of children could be said to be an advancement of religion, or at least a permissive maintaining of it. Either way, the second prong of the test is easily met if the government bans the excessive beating of a child.
Third is where a lawyer might make some hay with a very sympathetic lower court because the government, by stepping into the situation does entangle itself in a religious issue. However, the operative word here is "excessive." So the question becomes whether prevention of excessive physical beating of a child constitutes excessive entanglement. I will now cut it short and use the conclusory statement, "This is not excessive entanglement." But it is the most interest portion of the analysis and could take up several paragraphs.

That's how the Constitution works in this situation. Again, much of what I wrote here is conclusory--it's a short peek at how this issue would be analyzed. A serious and thoroughly researched appellate argument could consume a good 25 pages (or more).
Click to expand...

So if the primary purpose of my action is the furthering of my religion all is allowed????

An action such as burning the unbelievers? See IS.
 
Tim the plumber said:

So if the primary purpose of my action is the furthering of my religion all is allowed????

An action such as burning the unbelievers? See IS.
Click to expand...

No, it's talking about the government's action. For example, say if the Roman Catholic Church filed suit demanding that the Apocryphal texts of its Bible be included in all new printed Bibles because Whatever. The Court would have to dismiss that claim because to even hear the case (totally ignoring standing for these purposes) would be to advance the cause of the Roman Catholic Church.

The government really does want to stay out of religion as much as possible. By keeping the grounds secular, by not getting entangled in it, and by not advancing any religious belief as preferable to that of another, it actually maintains freedom of (and from) religion.

Again, the government can burden the practice of religion, so of course, burning non-adherents to a faith is unlawful no matter how much that given faith believes it to be divine.
 
Verthaine said:
I'm not a Liberal.
I am very pro family.
I am very pro business
I am a gun owner.
I make a lot of money and I give back to the community.
Do you?

The 1st Amendment more than adequately protects the Religious.
There is nothing wrong with existing laws and no pressing need to create new ones.
Being discriminated against is painful and humiliating.That's not religious freedom,that's sadism.
There is a right to assembly,but not a right discriminate.
Religious Freedoms laws infringes on my right as an employer to fire an employee for insubordination and deriction of duties
Religous Freedom lawsare not about religious freedom.It is not just about prevent the government from punishing them.
It's about preventing lawsuits,critcism and boycotts.
Religious Freedom Laws puts and is an unfair advantage against me because I am an Atheist (though I fail to see how turning away good paying cutomers is a smart business strategy).
The Free Market and Social Media is doing a fine job of handling the situation better than the government would.
That's why you don't here any more stories about bakers or photographers being fine by the government.
In the culinary field,word of mouth is just as important as paid advertising.
Getting the reputation of discrimination loses customers.
Click to expand...

The 1st Amendment more than adequately protects the Religious, but it does nothing to do so as it is being ignored by people that say things like you just did.
 
joG said:
The 1st Amendment more than adequately protects the Religious, but it does nothing to do so as it is being ignored by people that say things like you just did.
Click to expand...

If you could write that in English that would be great.
Your sentence structure makes it hard to understand what you are getting at.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom