• 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

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...

If you and others don't know the difference in a swat on the butt and beating a kid then no one can help you.
 
ludin said:
If you and others don't know the difference in a swat on the butt and beating a kid then no one can help you.
Click to expand...

Ever been hit with a wire hanger?
I would imagine it would hurt a lot worse than just a spank on the behind.
 
Verthaine said:
Ever been hit with a wire hanger?
I would imagine it would hurt a lot worse than just a spank on the behind.
Click to expand...

Did you not read my post?
 
ludin said:
Did you not read my post?
Click to expand...
Did you?
You mean the one I just quoted at Post #52?
One sentence.
ludin said:
If you and others don't know the difference in a swat on the butt and beating a kid then no one can help you.
Click to expand...
Yeah,I read it.
Nothing has changed.
The OP stated that the kid was beaten with a hanger.
If you think that is ok then maybe you should stay away from small animals and little children.
 
Verthaine said:
Did you?
You mean the one I just quoted at Post #52?
One sentence.

Yeah,I read it.
Nothing has changed.
The OP stated that the kid was beaten with a hanger.
If you think that is ok then maybe you should stay away from small animals and little children.
Click to expand...

So you didn't read my post as I thought.
Go back read it then try again.
 
ludin said:
So you didn't read my post as I thought.
Go back read it then try again.
Click to expand...

Again I did.It was just one damn sentance.Even a busy man like me can find time to read one sentace.
You just have difficulty getting your point across.
 
Verthaine said:
Again I did.It was just one damn sentance.Even a busy man like me can find time to read one sentace.
You just have difficulty getting your point across.
Click to expand...

As I said if you don't or can't tell the difference between the two then that is on you and
No one can help you. My point is perfectly fine.
 
CriticalThought said:
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?
Click to expand...

Sounds like the beginning of an orgy of lust and pain.
 
CriticalThought said:
Thank you! How do people not understand that beating children in the name of God is a Constitutionally protected right!
Click to expand...

Well, probably it is, though, I have no real evidence. But on the other hand, physical punishment of children is legal in the US unlike in some countries, where upbringing is more complicated and in some cases risky for parents.
 
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...

We really do not know. We do know that the spectacular success of our societies was possible in a culture that used much harsher methods of socialization, rigor of life and straightness than we have introduced to the masses in the last couple of decades. We will probably not live long enough to really be able to tell, but the experiment will be very interesting for sociologists and cultural anthropologists in 50 or 100 years.
 
joG said:
Well, probably it is, though, I have no real evidence. But on the other hand, physical punishment of children is legal in the US unlike in some countries, where upbringing is more complicated and in some cases risky for parents.
Click to expand...

May be legal,but doesn't necessarily make it right.
I and my daughters never were spanked and we all turned out just fine.
 
RAMOSS said:
And, if they are, at what point does corporal punishment get into child abuse?
Click to expand...

This is the slippery slope two job working single parent households under stress must be careful about.
 
Hari Seldon said:
There's corporal punishment and then there is child abuse. I think this falls into the category of child abuse.
Click to expand...

It is a slippery slope that is. Punishment that would have been normal for working households in 1900 might easily be torture now.
 
ludin said:
As I said if you don't or can't tell the difference between the two then that is on you and
No one can help you. My point is perfectly fine.
Click to expand...

See, that wasn't so hard.
 
stevecanuck said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because that's part of the "curse" of the Old Covenant that was completed by Christ and the New Covenant states that parents are not frustrate their children.

Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

All your children shall be taught by the Lord, and great shall be the peace of your children. (as part of the prophesy concerning the New Covenant).

also, the kind of punishment that woman was using was never intended to be used on small children, but rather only on older ones.
“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
This was about people old enough to "drunkards and gluttons" and to be a problem not only to his family, but the community as a whole. He had become a burden to a society where everyone needed to work or the community wouldn't function.
 
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...

First off, thank you. That was a neat brief.

The rub is the slippery slope, however. The three points you state are certainly helpful, but it is always a problem as soon as one allows the Amendment to be infracted upon. Sure, you cannot have religious practice harming persons. On the other hand, almost everything we do can harm people or their possessions. So the real test is where the cur-off will be and how it will be defined so as to be clear and understandable as well as legitimate to the citizenry. In this case, we are talking about intruding in the closest vicinity to the individual protected by the Constitution. We are also using a shifting and not legitimized yardstick to measure things like excessive harshness. Again, excessive entanglement of the state is certain, when it can lead to years of litigation, hash penalties and possibly the state taking over socialization and education of the child. These intrusions are very deep cuts into the individuals' Constitutional rights to practice their religion, teach their kids, what the religion means ect.

Sure, one can always argue, as soon as the trade-off is accepted and precedent has been established that a further but so very small additional cut in the rights of the religious and a bit more involvement of government is permissible and even necessary for the greater good. This is what we have been seeing happen over the last decades. All three powers have been involved in differing ways and at different times on different issues and sometimes the same topics. That is why the softening up process of constitutional protections should be held back. It just goes on and on, if there is no stop. And it seems in a number of topics we have gone further than large potions of the population are willing to accept and in issues that are very dear to them.
 
The bitch is crazy and I hope she'll rot in hell, but I think it's a pathetic stretch to pin this on religion. I'm not overly familiar with the law being cited in defense of her indefensible conduct, but this is hardly the first time a law has been absurdly invoked in order to escape punishment of some sort.
 
Verthaine said:
May be legal,but doesn't necessarily make it right.
I and my daughters never were spanked and we all turned out just fine.
Click to expand...

It is hard to say what is right and wrong in these things. There are piles of literature on both sides of the argument. I liked being brought up without ever seeing punishment, but I am not sure that made me more successful. Maybe, but I doubt it.

As a society we know that in past generations we were successful and built a vivacious culture by generations of citizens that were socialized in mach harsher ways and educated much more rigorously than has been the case in the last few decades. During this time the sensitive approach has spread through most of society. These things take at least two generations to show where the changes are leading the culture and economy, but even now there are weaknesses showing that could easily lead us away from our position at the trough. We will not really be able to tell, what it will all mean for at least another generation.
 
joG said:
It is hard to say what is right and wrong in these things. There are piles of literature on both sides of the argument. I liked being brought up without ever seeing punishment, but I am not sure that made me more successful. Maybe, but I doubt it.

As a society we know that in past generations we were successful and built a vivacious culture by generations of citizens that were socialized in mach harsher ways and educated much more rigorously than has been the case in the last few decades. During this time the sensitive approach has spread through most of society. These things take at least two generations to show where the changes are leading the culture and economy, but even now there are weaknesses showing that could easily lead us away from our position at the trough. We will not really be able to tell, what it will all mean for at least another generation.
Click to expand...

I fully agree that there are some kids who need a swift spank on the bottom.
I am thankful that I nor my daughters needed it (though to be honest,the middle daughter came close during her rebellious teens).
But then again,she's just like me.
Personally,I believe if you raise your kids right,the need for spanking lessens or is unnecessary.
 
joG said:
It is a slippery slope that is. Punishment that would have been normal for working households in 1900 might easily be torture now.
Click to expand...
That's why we use today's standards. Some grey area as to what is child abuse but I don't see it as a slippery slope. A whack on the fanny with an open hand is corporal punishment. Beating a child 30 some odd times with an object causing damage that last a week or more is child abuse. Cases in between will just have to be decided on an individual basis.
 
It is one thing to spank a child and it is another to throw a child under a bus.
 
Verthaine said:
May be legal,but doesn't necessarily make it right.
I and my daughters never were spanked and we all turned out just fine.
Click to expand...

I was spanked. Glad I was. Just because you turned out ok doesn't mean that spanking is wrong. It worked out well for me. I'm a tax paying productive member of society with no criminal record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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...

Perhaps they see where murdering innocent babies in their mother's wombs is legal so they don't think what they're doing is all that wrong.

Do you support the extermination of the innocent unborn, but beating a child is really bad?
 
blackjack50 said:
I was spanked. Glad I was. Just because you turned out ok doesn't mean that spanking is wrong. It worked out well for me. I'm a tax paying productive member of society with no criminal record.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you think adults hitting children is okay?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom