Mom Beats Son 36 Times with a Coat Hanger, Mike Pence’s Religious Freedom Law Will Probably Get Her Off

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 01, 2016 11:07 PM GMT
    I think the Joan Crawford story line would have changed a bit if her daughter claimed Joan was deeply religious, im all for spanking but there is a line not to cross between punishment and abuse. Religious fundamentalism, whether its physical abuse in Islam or verbal abuse in Christianity, its religion that has abused its own power in order to control or corrupt others icon_idea.gif



    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/indiana-religious-freedom-child-abuse_us_57c724e7e4b0a22de093b67c
    [url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/01/mom-beats-son-36-times-with-a-coat-hanger-mike-pence-s-religious-freedom-law-will-probably-get-her-off.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29&yptr=yahoo[/url]

    Mike Pence’s signature law, Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, is now being used to defend child abusers. And the abusers—one in particular—will probably win.

    On Feb. 3, 2016, Khin Park Thaing, a 30-year-old asylee from Burma, beat her son 36 times with a coat hanger. She was arrested for felony abuse and neglect after a teacher noticed the boy’s dark purple welts and bruises.

    As reported in the Indianapolis Star, Thaing’s lawyers cited the Bible (“If you strike him with a rod, you will save his soul”) in her defense, and said that her abuse is a legally protected form of religious practice.

    Thanks to the RFRA, she is probably right.

    As we have reported many times, RFRAs make it very hard for the government to do anything when someone claims a religious belief. Legally speaking, it requires laws to have a “compelling state interest” and be “narrowly tailored” to achieve it. This standard is quite different from ordinary ones, and stacks the deck in favor of religious defendants.

    At first, RFRA was a shield that guarded against government persecution of minorities. It was first passed after Native Americans were found to have violated drug laws by ingesting peyote as part of a religious ritual.

    In the last 10 years, however, RFRA has become a sword allowing religious people (and corporations) to harm others: specifically, Christians who want to discriminate against women and LGBT people. Under state and federal RFRAs, corporations may withhold insurance coverage for contraception, businesses (including doctors and pharmacists) may decline to serve LGBT people, and companies can fire transgender people and gays.

    But the law of unintended consequences means RFRA has also been used for other means. In Indiana, for example, one man started a “church of pot” to extol the virtues of marijuana as part of his religion. Muslim cab drivers have argued that they shouldn’t have to transport drunk passengers.

    And now, just as liberal activists have warned, child abuse.

    s4hc9Di.gif?noredirect
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2016 1:22 PM GMT
    I've always thought the best way to fight the law would be to have people *intentionally* doing things that require it as their defense, using some specific little bit of religion to explain why it's their right. However, not just anything, *specifically* things designed to piss off the type of people who support the law.

    Denying service to divorcees, for example. Not acknowledging the authority of female police officers. Any other ridiculous "Well, my religion says this" ideas they can think of.

    Actually, the use of the law for the "church of pot" I support - it's a nice end run around regulations that only exist because of nut-job with their fake "reefer madness", after all, since all kinds of much more dangerous things are perfectly legal.

    Doctor9
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2016 2:28 PM GMT
    BRILLIANT IDEA, Doctor9

    "Denying service to divorcees, for example. Not acknowledging the authority of female police officers. Any other ridiculous "Well, my religion says this" ideas they can think of."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 02, 2016 4:52 PM GMT
    Doctor9 saidI've always thought the best way to fight the law would be to have people *intentionally* doing things that require it as their defense, using some specific little bit of religion to explain why it's their right. However, not just anything, *specifically* things designed to piss off the type of people who support the law.

    Denying service to divorcees, for example. Not acknowledging the authority of female police officers. Any other ridiculous "Well, my religion says this" ideas they can think of.

    Actually, the use of the law for the "church of pot" I support - it's a nice end run around regulations that only exist because of nut-job with their fake "reefer madness", after all, since all kinds of much more dangerous things are perfectly legal.

    Doctor9






    There is a legal term for intentional, if one knows that their religion will keep them out of prison, that just says the person is well aware of what they are doing and the crime they are about to commit, not only aware, but because of the intentional-ness (such as emotional distress), pre-arranged to harm someone.

    This is WHY those who use (brainwashing) religion to justify crimes against others are really just sic sociopaths with def control issues. As far as secular law goes, their isn't ANY other that can circumvent prison time other than ones religion. (much like pleading the 5th). Cause and effect, therefore religion should be classified as a "special" circumstance when litigating in a secular court of law.

    This is the problem with Bible, Koran thumpers, the only "law" they answer to is that of a "higher power", this is what our founding fathers knew and therefore made sure this nut job church was separate from rational secular state.

    Its tragic what they get away with in America, "in the name of", that is why religion is the truest of evil, mind control program icon_twisted.gif


    pre·med·i·tate
    /priˈmedəˌtāt,prē-/

    verb

    past tense: premeditated; past participle: premeditated

    think out or plan (an action, especially a crime) beforehand.
    "premeditated murder"

    synonyms: planned, intentional, deliberate, preplanned, calculated, cold-blooded, conscious, prearranged

  • Brandon_Dale

    Posts: 16

    Sep 02, 2016 5:58 PM GMT
    My mom would do that to me at least 5 to 6 times a year,cps never did anything about it. My mom had four kids and treated us all like dirt al for her tax check. I live in Indiana and it's a mom state when it comes to cps cases. She physically, mentality, and emotionally abuse us since we can remember, now my siblings have drug and alcohol problems just like our mother had. She spanked me bare ass till I was 16 then kicked me out when I tried to call the cops on her. I don't talk to my mom now, she's even got breast cancer and I'm not sure how to feel. I mean I feel sorry for her, but she didn't care when I was being molested and she was getting free drugs, she had me put on different medications as a kid, so she could take my pills. She's probably the reason I don't trust women, but it's my life and I can do whatever makes happy as long as I harm no one else, or myself for that matter. But I feel sorry for these kids, they're not really going to get any help and it will just make the mother worse, I've seen this story play out multiple times. The courts and the school's can only do so much icon_sad.gif
  • jeepguySD

    Posts: 651

    Sep 03, 2016 1:41 AM GMT
    History is laden with atrocities committed with religious justifications. Of course, this is not limited to either Christianity or Islam, but spans all of the major world religions. Religious freedom laws, such as the one in Indiana, are profoundly clumsy, and transparently biased. I wonder how long evangelicals will continue to support such laws when people start using them to defend unpopular religious beliefs such as Sharia, for example? This woman who beat her son with a wire hanger might find support among Bible literalists, but how much support would she have if she did not cite the Christian bible, but rather some other tradition that is not derived from the favored religion in Indiana?