$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 56.66

4,121 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
26% of Goal | 29 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
35 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Mother Claims Religious Freedom Law Allows Her to Beat Son rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: MUSLIMS! [+] [View All]
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I wonder if we have to respect her culture and beliefs on this. On one hand, we want to protect women and children from harm, on the other hand we can not judge.

Quote:
A Burmese refugee living in Indiana was arrested for felony battery and neglect, after a teacher noticed red welts on her 7-year-old son’s back. Kin Park Thaing is accused of beating the child with a coat hanger, but she claims that her method is in line with her religious beliefs, and should thus be protected by the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“I was worried for my son’s salvation with God after he dies,” Thaing said, according to court documents obtained by IndyStar. She quoted scripture, saying, “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.”

In addition to the RFRA, Thaing’s attorney, Greg Bowes, is using legal precedent to argue that the punishment was allowed. Bowes cited a 2008 Indiana Supreme Court decision where the court overturned a mother’s conviction for beating her son with what she said was a belt and the child said was an electrical cord. The court ruled it didn’t matter what it was, and that parents have a right to discipline their children with reasonable force, if they believe it is necessary to prevent misconduct. Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Matt Savage argued in a court filing that the force Thaing used against her son was beyond reasonable, and “beyond these religious instructions she cites from the Bible.”

The alleged abuse took place in February, when, according to court documents, Thaing said she was trying to keep her son from hurting her 3-year-old daughter. Thaing said she hit both kids with a plastic hanger and then instructed them to pray. Two days later, a teacher noticed that the boy reacted when she patted him on the back, and that’s when she saw bruises. The teacher notified police and child welfare.

The child was taken to a hospital, where a doctor discovered 36 marks on his back, thigh, and arm. Both children were taken by child welfare officials and Thaing was arrested.

Thaing claimed that cultural differences were also an issue, and that this method of discipline was more common in Burma. However, she said in an affidavit, “I now know that there are effective ways to teach my children good behavior without using physical punishment.”


http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/mother-claims-religious-free...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Yeah, that ain't gonna fly. Most states still allow physical disciplining of children (spanking) but you can't your kid with a steel rod. If she's smart, she'll plead out, agree to attend parenting classes, and stop flogging her child with wire.

And while God wants us not to judge each other, in the US the Constitution says we can't judge BELIEFS or THOUGHTS, but the people (society or government) can judge ACTIONS.
9 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I wonder if we have to respect her culture and beliefs on this. On one hand, we want to protect women and children from harm, on the other hand we can not judge.


Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.

EDIT: Just cleaning up and clarifying some of my phrasing.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Wesley
Nepal
Aberdeen
Washington
flag msg tools
designer
mb
Re: Mother Claims Hollywood Allows Her to Beat whomever deserved this
/angry\ ~"DO NOT WANT 'wire hangers'!" shake
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Carl Parsons
United States
Carrollton
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I never would have expected anything like this from the RFRA.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
GROGnads wrote:
/angry\ ~"DO NOT WANT 'wire hangers'!" shake

Actually, the quoted report said that she used a "plastic hanger". So, maybe a plastic coat hanger. But not wire coat hanger.

The report says that she now knows or thinks she knows better not violent ways to discipline children. If that is so drop the changes and keep an eye on the kid's backs and butts for the next few years.

........................................................................
Batman [Carl] said 'ironically' that he would never have expected this from RFPA laws.

I would have.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J.D. Hall
msg tools
Exactly. That's what these types of law are for -- to give people justification for doing something shitty to someone else.
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area / Currently I sponsor gaming groups in Monroe & Alexandria, LA.
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb


batman wrote:
I never would have expected anything like this from the RFRA.

Nobody expected Dominionists to convert it into a latter-day Spanish Inquisition, either.


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


batman wrote:
I never would have expected anything like this from the RFRA.

Nobody expected Dominionists to convert it into a latter-day Spanish Inquisition, either.




Did... did shreve just make a joke?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Fitt
Thailand
Chang Mai
flag msg tools
Shadrach wrote:
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:


batman wrote:
I never would have expected anything like this from the RFRA.

Nobody expected Dominionists to convert it into a latter-day Spanish Inquisition, either.




Did... did shreve just make a joke?

Or, maybe it was a prediction. (Or, a warning.)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
AndrewRogue wrote:
Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.



So you would say that if the secular law forbids Burkinis at the city beach, then the Muslim men who force their wives into submission will need to back off and as they say "while in rome" ?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Bitter and Acerbic Harridan
jeremycobert wrote:
AndrewRogue wrote:
Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.



So you would say that if the secular law forbids Burkinis at the city beach, then the Muslim men who force their wives into submission will need to back off and as they say "while in rome" ?


Laws against child abuse are laws of general applicability. They are laws affecting everyone equally. That's why they have been around a very long time. You abuse your child, you go to jail. You don't get to hide behind religion, in much the same way that you don't get to hide behind religion to avoid murder laws for using your child as a human sacrifice in a religious ceremony. Obviously, there are boundaries where the laws of general applicability unduly burden religion, but most reasonable people (even you maybe) find child abuse and murder to be compelling enough overcome any such argument.

On the other hand, when you pass a law targeting one religious sect of your population and no one else, then we are not talking about a law of general applicability anymore. They are laws against religion specifically.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Bartosh

Sunnyvale
California
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
AndrewRogue wrote:
Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.



So you would say that if the secular law forbids Burkinis at the city beach, then the Muslim men who force their wives into submission will need to back off and as they say "while in rome" ?


Sure.

That said, see Sue's post here. There's a fair argument that such a law is "unjust" and doesn't actually do anything to serve the public interest. Also it gets into that really complicated territory of how to best handle opening up female rights in a culture that is generally against them or hugely restrictive (since the whole burka thing is a clusterfuck of determination - by banning it, you ironically also force the women to dress a specific way rather than allowing them to choose their method of dress. You can argue its a lesser evil, but it is generally awkward all around. You're probably best off redressing women's rights in other ways).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
AndrewRogue wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
I wonder if we have to respect her culture and beliefs on this. On one hand, we want to protect women and children from harm, on the other hand we can not judge.


Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.

EDIT: Just cleaning up and clarifying some of my phrasing.
Pretty much, no confusion no contradiction.

The child's safety comes first.

And let me add

Beating a child and wearing a style of clothing is not the same thing. This is about degree of harm, and the need for protection (ignoring the fact that one law affects all one law targets one group)

I would like to add BLOODY MUSLIMS!!!!!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
remorseless1 wrote:
Exactly. That's what these types of law are for -- to give people justification for doing something shitty to someone else.
Sadly yes, and it's why I am against them.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Robert Stuart
United States
Los Alamos
New Mexico
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
I wonder if we have to respect her culture and beliefs on this. On one hand, we want to protect women and children from harm, on the other hand we can not judge.

Quote:
A Burmese refugee living in Indiana was arrested for felony battery and neglect, after a teacher noticed red welts on her 7-year-old son’s back. Kin Park Thaing is accused of beating the child with a coat hanger, but she claims that her method is in line with her religious beliefs, and should thus be protected by the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

“I was worried for my son’s salvation with God after he dies,” Thaing said, according to court documents obtained by IndyStar. She quoted scripture, saying, “Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. If you strike him with the rod, you will save his soul from Sheol.”

In addition to the RFRA, Thaing’s attorney, Greg Bowes, is using legal precedent to argue that the punishment was allowed. Bowes cited a 2008 Indiana Supreme Court decision where the court overturned a mother’s conviction for beating her son with what she said was a belt and the child said was an electrical cord. The court ruled it didn’t matter what it was, and that parents have a right to discipline their children with reasonable force, if they believe it is necessary to prevent misconduct. Marion County Deputy Prosecutor Matt Savage argued in a court filing that the force Thaing used against her son was beyond reasonable, and “beyond these religious instructions she cites from the Bible.”

The alleged abuse took place in February, when, according to court documents, Thaing said she was trying to keep her son from hurting her 3-year-old daughter. Thaing said she hit both kids with a plastic hanger and then instructed them to pray. Two days later, a teacher noticed that the boy reacted when she patted him on the back, and that’s when she saw bruises. The teacher notified police and child welfare.

The child was taken to a hospital, where a doctor discovered 36 marks on his back, thigh, and arm. Both children were taken by child welfare officials and Thaing was arrested.

Thaing claimed that cultural differences were also an issue, and that this method of discipline was more common in Burma. However, she said in an affidavit, “I now know that there are effective ways to teach my children good behavior without using physical punishment.”


http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/mother-claims-religious-free...


We are a nation of laws and standards. Freedom of religion does not mean freedom of interpretation in violation of our laws and standards.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
AndrewRogue wrote:
Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.



So you would say that if the secular law forbids Burkinis at the city beach, then the Muslim men who force their wives into submission will need to back off and as they say "while in rome" ?

Such a law is only pseudo-secular.

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1631634/individualist-a...

This thread I just created is relevant too. France's entire approach to so-called secularism treats cultural Christianity as if it were a secular default. It's not.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Edwards
United Kingdom
London
Unspecified
flag msg tools
So ...... this was supposed to be a gotcha thread?

Maybe when people argue consistently for separation of religion and secular laws without unnecessarily impeding freedom of religion they mean just that.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
AndrewRogue wrote:
jeremycobert wrote:
AndrewRogue wrote:
Nope. Religious freedom stops where secular law begins. If the tenets of your religion require you violate the law of the land, I advise you create a schism and excise those beliefs from your religion.

Simple as that.



So you would say that if the secular law forbids Burkinis at the city beach, then the Muslim men who force their wives into submission will need to back off and as they say "while in rome" ?


Sure.

That said, see Sue's post here. There's a fair argument that such a law is "unjust" and doesn't actually do anything to serve the public interest. Also it gets into that really complicated territory of how to best handle opening up female rights in a culture that is generally against them or hugely restrictive (since the whole burka thing is a clusterfuck of determination - by banning it, you ironically also force the women to dress a specific way rather than allowing them to choose their method of dress. You can argue its a lesser evil, but it is generally awkward all around. You're probably best off redressing women's rights in other ways).


Fun fact:we have a healthy muslim population where I live. I see Hijab daily and have seen full burkhas a few times. I never had the intuitive 'repression' reaction though because in the context of the US it is a right to choos3, and they can choose that if they like.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
she2 wrote:
On the other hand, when you pass a law targeting one religious sect of your population and no one else, then we are not talking about a law of general applicability anymore. They are laws against religion specifically.


Again, the Burkini law is not targeting anyone as it applies to everyone and it is intended to prevent abuse of women who are forced into a dangerous situation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jeremycobert wrote:
she2 wrote:
On the other hand, when you pass a law targeting one religious sect of your population and no one else, then we are not talking about a law of general applicability anymore. They are laws against religion specifically.


Again, the Burkini law is not targeting anyone as it applies to everyone and it is intended to prevent abuse of women who are forced into a dangerous situation.
It targets a specific form of religious observance. Thus, yes it does target the group that performs that observance.

By the way, how the hell does it prevent women from being forced into dangerous situations?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
fightcitymayor
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Proprietor and Chairman Emeritus of The Naughty Palace
mb
jeremycobert wrote:
Again, the Burkini law is not targeting anyone as it applies to everyone and it is intended to prevent abuse of women who are forced into a dangerous situation.




2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes she can beat her child under the same "religious freedom" philosophy that condones cake discrimination. "spare the rod"
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
G Rowls
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
"We have a healthy muslim population where I live" How do you know they are healthy - you cant tell under all those clothes. whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jeremy cobert
United States
cedar rapids
Iowa
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
It targets a specific form of religious observance. Thus, yes it does target the group that performs that observance.


The Koran makes no mention of Burkinis, so that's not true.And there are plenty of thins the bible and koran mention that are not allowed into our secular society.


slatersteven wrote:
By the way, how the hell does it prevent women from being forced into dangerous situations?


1. terrorism.
2. Islamic husbands who force females into wearing full clothing are no longer going to get beaten if the secular law applies to everyone.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.