Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.

Note that is already the case in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1973, which formerly required states to enact religious exemptions to child abuse and medical treatment laws in order to receive a portion of their federal funding. The act was amended in 1996 to no longer require this, but most of the states retain their exemptions, which to my knowledge are still valid as a defense in a court of law.

Thank fucking god (pun intended) that NC isn't on that list, somehow.

[Sirus]

*spittake*
CALIFORNIA?! Aw man, my state usually seems so much better than that! D:

[penguinofhonor]

.

[RedKing]

■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.

Note that is already the case in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. See the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1973, which formerly required states to enact religious exemptions to child abuse and medical treatment laws in order to receive a portion of their federal funding. The act was amended in 1996 to no longer require this, but most of the states retain their exemptions, which to my knowledge are still valid as a defense in a court of law.

Thank fucking god (pun intended) that NC isn't on that list, somehow.

Yeah, well....child abuse enforcement and prosecution in NC essentially followed that line of thinking for a LONG time. The gist of it was "Oh, he broke the kid's nose? Well....we can't be a-tellin' a man how to run his house, but we can't have that either. Give him a couple of weeks' probation to show we mean business. Oh, and get that kid a Kleenex, he's bleeding all over the place and making a mess."

[scriver]

Ah hell. Truean, I almost missed that because you edited it in, but that is absolutely horrible. I can't believe it hasn't been brought up in the news over here... Maybe they're waiting to see if it passes. But yeah... I don't understand what goes through their mind. You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.

"Your honor, the spirit of this law is clearly intended only to protect the expression of nonviolent religious freedom under religions that fit within American cultural history, not violent cults."

Not saying that would work out in court, but that's my prediction for an anti-sharia argument if this law were to pass. Not to say that actually applying sharia is a good thing either, but in theory this law would legitimize it. Kind of a surprising hole in the law they have there, but there's no way they say that the law only applies to Christians without it being immediately struck down by the courts as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, as much as I'm sure they'd love to.

[Truean]

■ A man could claim domestic violence laws don’t apply to him because his religion teaches that a husband has the right to discipline his family, including his wife and children as he sees fit.
■ A parent who believes in faith healing could to deny critical medical treatment to a seriously ill child.

Note that is already the case in ... Ohio, ....

It used to but lately they've taken a much harder stance on this. Somebody will report your ass to child protective services or call the cops and stuff will go down. Gives a whole new meaning to "battered wives' syndrome" though doesn't it?

Ah hell. Truean, I almost missed that because you edited it in, but that is absolutely horrible. I can't believe it hasn't been brought up in the news over here... Maybe they're waiting to see if it passes. But yeah... I don't understand what goes through their mind. You think it goes for Muslims too? I want to see how they react the first time somebody claims innocence because of sharia.

O didn't you hear? "Religious freedom" in the US is pretty much just thought to be the right to spread Christianity.... All other religions aren't actually called lesser religions most of the time, but the implication is there.... It's lovely huh? The anti defamation league (the Jews) are against this stuff for that very reason. Oklahoma actually passed some law or other banning Sharia Law, because people know basically nothing about law. Jews make contracts under Jewish Law between themselves all the time, have for years. They have an arbitrator who is a rabbi. 

It's a brave frightened new world....

If it is upheld, then quite frankly I think there should be protestors quoting Leviticus and threatening to kill anyone who wears mixed threads, eats pork/shellfish, or works on Sunday.  Also adulterers should also be stoned by that book's teachings, so you know, good bye politicians....

You know who I like? The Jews. It's against their religion to eat pork and shellfish, but do you see them trying to make laws forbidding that? Nope.
_________

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/the-reward-for-donating-a-kidney-no-insurance/
No good deed goes unpunished....

[scriver]

So, when is the voting through? I'm anxious to hear the results.

[Nadaka]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/top-conservative-says-read-lips-don-t-sign-101721355.html

An endangered species, almost completely extinct. A republican that realizes that cutting taxes does not reduce the deficit.

Edit:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/gun-toting-olympians-leave-london-early-banned-social-172959543--oly.html

Olympic athletes being censored and forced to leave the London games early for posting a picture on facebook. There is something deeply wrong with the IOC and Australia. Its a picture, free expression, or does that mean nothing anymore?

[kaijyuu]

@swimmers thing

While what the boys did was not illegal, posting the photos on social networks encourages public debate, and that debate can be seen to have a negative impact on the image of the sport and their own image.

Okay, what the fuck. I'm one of those crazy anti gun hippies, and I'm totally on their side. Since when is "encouraging public debate" a bad thing?!

Alcohol and topless bars are legal, too. Should athletes post photos of themselves doing shots at a strip club?

Fuck yes they should. First off, it'd be hilarious. Secondly, I'm not one for censoring sexual things.


Excuse my profanity, but that's just mind blowingly stupid.

[GlyphGryph]

The Olympics have never believed in free expression.

This is the organization that drives people from there homes and forces companies out of business because they might conceivably be competition. The company that send out hired policemen to insure that noone is displaying "innappropriate" signage or creating a condition where the Olympics might get any sort of negative publicity. It wrecks homes, lives and families for nothing but pursuit of the almighty dollar.

It is, quite simply, run by people who are both thoroughly evil and value their image above all else.

This is pretty much exactly in keeping with standard Olympic practice.

[RedKing]

It's an image thing. A country's Olympic team is the face of their nation during the Olympics, and more than a few Australians might not be thrilled with the image of Australia being "a couple of young guys thuggin' it".

Pro athletes get censured pretty frequently now for making asinine tweets and FB postings, if it's deemed detrimental to the "team image" (i.e. brand). Wouldn't expect different for an Olympic team.

[da_nang]

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/gun-toting-olympians-leave-london-early-banned-social-172959543--oly.html

Olympic athletes being censored and forced to leave the London games early for posting a picture on facebook. There is something deeply wrong with the IOC and Australia. Its a picture, free expression, or does that mean nothing anymore?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Why, WHY, do people have such overreactions over images?! (Or words for that matter.) Can't a person regardless of social status post images of his private life without some backward nutjobs going on a moral crusade against him? Or are these people so deeply locked inside their closets that they can't see past the archaic role expectations. If they don't like the images, don't look at them!

This is why we can't have nice things. This is why say a teacher who dresses himself outside the norms isn't allowed to teach or happens to have a little fun with his friends on a Saturday night, posts images of that event and then gets fired because some a-hole screamed "bloody murder". Or tweets something outside his "role expectation".

THIS IS THE 21ST CENTURY. THIS CRAP SHOULDN'T HAVE TO HAPPEN. WE'RE BETTER THAN THIS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

[GlyphGryph]

It's an image thing. A country's Olympic team is the face of their nation during the Olympics, and more than a few Australians might not be thrilled with the image of Australia being "a couple of young guys thuggin' it".

Pro athletes get censured pretty frequently now for making asinine tweets and FB postings, if it's deemed detrimental to the "team image" (i.e. brand). Wouldn't expect different for an Olympic team.

Still pretty bullshit. But then, I'm a weird guy, and very nearly of the opinion that professional athletics should be illegal by this point, so what do I know.

[Sheb]

Still, they posed with guns. I'm a gun-control-hippie-commie-crypto-muslim-american-hater as well, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this. I mean, are shotguns illegal in Australia? That pic was taken in California for god's sake! I'm just going WTF.