Jesus never advocated withholding care for someone because you knew they were destined for Hell. They are threatening to stop helping people because they don't want to slightly help gay couples with insurance coverage? Are they assuming every single person who has ever benefited from their charity work was straight? And why the fuck are they all so obsessed with homosexuality above all other sins? I thought all sins were equal, there's no such thing as a minor sin. Why aren't they up in arms every time a politician lies or when couples have sex out of wedlock or when somebody blasphemes or when people commit murder?
1. In Catholic faith not all sins are equal.
2. It's not about not helping people because they're gay; it's about not being part of a system that recognizes gay couples as "married", something that goes against their belifes and against an institution that they hold as a holy sacrament.
That's the way I interpret it at least. I'm not saying they're right in shunning gay people, but I can perfectly understand them wanting out of a system that coerces them into accepting something that they do not want to accept.
1. I reached the same conclusion as Rob reading it. To a certain extent they are concerned they will have to extend their benefits to gay couples. Though I don't agree with them I understand their viewpoint. But then again, once you consider how the Catholic church makes no effort of its contempt for gays, how many gays are really going to be looking there for jobs anyway?
2. The threat against stopping charity is empty. They are feeling desparate and are trying anything to stop it. Jesus never manipulated people by withholding treatment and help to get what he wanted (or if he did, it never made it into the Bible). If they did actually follow through it would be a terrible stain on the entire Catholic image, that they don't believe in charity for charity's sake. Or perhaps the Catholic church is so against the idea of men sticking things up each other's butts that it is worth suspending the care of the homeless, the sick, and the young. After all, they're already getting into heaven anyway.
I believe that the Catholic Church has every right to engage in politics and deliberately use their charitable efforts to pressure public policy decisions. I also believe that the government and/or body politic then has the right to revoke the Catholic Church's tax exempt status and remove any public funds that are given to Catholic Charities as a result.
Last week a 10-year-old Arkansas girl who refused to shower before bedtime and threw a fit was zapped with a police Taser after her mother gave the officer permission. The girl was then handcuffed and taken to a youth shelter, accused of disorderly conduct. She apparently was not injured.
Today, the mayor of tiny Ozark called on the state police or the FBI to investigate whether the electronic weapon should have been used on someone so young, the Associated Press reports.
"People here feel like that he made a mistake in using a Taser, and maybe he did, but we will not know until we get an impartial investigation," said Mayor Vernon McDaniel.
The state police declined, saying it only investigates criminal, not policy, matters. The FBI also demurred.
Police Chief Jim Noggle said no disciplinary action was taken against Officer Dustin Bradshaw for the Nov. 11 incident. He said Tasers can safely subdue people who are a danger to themselves or others.
"We didn't use the Taser to punish the child — just to bring the child under control so she wouldn't hurt herself or somebody else," Noggle said, adding that she was zapped for "less than a second."
He explained that had the officer tried to forcefully handcuff the girl he could have broken one of her arms or legs.
The girl's father, Anthony Medlock, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter has emotional problems, but that she didn't have a weapon and shouldn't have been Tasered.
"My daughter does not deserve to be tased and be treated like an animal," said Medlock, who is divorced from the girl's mother and does not have custody.
Keep reading for the details from the police report, which blacked out the identifies of the girl and her mother. Then it's your turn to start kicking and screaming about this.
(Posted by Michael Winter)
According Bradshaw's report, police were called to a home because of a domestic disturbance. When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, "screaming, kicking, and resisting every time her mother tried to touch her." Her mother told the officer he could "tase her" if needed, and they then carried the girl into the shower. The girl continued to defy her mother's orders.
"At this point I decided that there was not going to be a peaceful resolution to the issue," Bradshaw wrote. "I moved her into the living room and told her she was going to jail. She continued kicking and crying and I began to try to place her under arrest. She was jerking her arms away from me violently while I was trying to cuff her and thrashing about wildly.
"While she was violently kicking and verbally combative, [the girl] struck me with her legs and feet in the groin. The subject was actively resisting arrest at this time. I was having a difficult time placing the cuffs on her and administered a very very brief drive stun to her back with my taser. She immediately stopped resisting and was placed into handcuffs. She would not walk on her own and I had to carry her to my police car. ..."
...Right. Because children aren't known to do this sort of thing sometimes. Many get over it by the time they reach that age, but some are just little brats forever. This sounds like a case of a mother needing some help as a parent, but I suspect this is not an appropriate form of assistance.
Ehhh... I hate when people automatically assume it's the parents. Some kids are just nightmares. Obviously the mother was at her wits end by the time she calls the COPS on her 10 year old. The father isn't there to be the scary dad that could take care of things super easy, and honestly, the mom probably just isn't strong enough to scare her daughter into doing anything. My brother was kind of this way, he had HUGE anger problems when he was younger and, because of his high-functioning autism, had a crisis aid in elementary school and middle school for his anger meltdowns, who would physically restrain my brother on the floor so he wouldn't hurt anyone. On one occasion I believe my brother was handcuffed. It's not abusive if he is about to hurt other people or himself-- it's taking care of that situation.
So, that's an extreme case, he has a condition to go with it as an excuse, but I'm just saying that as someone who has seen a 10 year old go completely nuts and who won't give in to ANYTHING, had my dad not been there to, ahem, beat my brother into submission, my mom would definitely have had to have called the cops at some point.
And it's not a reflection of my parents. My brother was just born like that... *I* never got detention in school, was only called to the principals office ONCE in first grade for playing footsie with a boy, and never dreamed of ever getting suspended. In comparison, my brother was once expelled from one school because they didn't want to deal with his problems.
If anything, don't blame the mother, blame the dad that wasn't there to serve as the main scare tactic. I honestly only have sympathy for that mother. Her daughter obviously has severe anger issues (even the dad will admit to that, even if he calls them "emotional problems"), and she's reached a point where she can't handle it on her own. Her daughter is 10 years old. When you have to call the cops on your child because you are unable to physically restrain them... it's gotta be a rough day. No, from reading that article, I think that the cop used good judgement on quickly, quickly tasing the girl as to avoid more injury. If the girl was 'flailing her arms' while he was trying to forcefully handcuff her, yeah, she's at huge risk to break a limb, and if she's freaking nuts, she's going to keep flailing no matter what and then the cop would be in trouble for breaking a girls arm while trying to physically restrain her. THAT would sound even worse than tasing her.
Plus, she kicked him in the junk. That officer probably wasn't the most patient man after that. Moral of the story: yeah, you're right, the parents should have dealt with this, but if your child is so effed up that she'll only respond to extreme examples of violence (since they said in the article that no amount of talking to her would make any difference and, by implications, the mom wouldn't give the cop permission to tase her daughter unless she knew that trying to hit her or move her wasn't going to work), AND the big scary dad isn't around to play this role... a cop is not allowed to hit a child. A parent can get away with it if it's not borderline abusive, but a cop is left with handcuffs, a baton, pepper spray, and a taser.
I don't think he stepped out of line. The girl wasn't responding to anything else, she's obviously a total brat with severe problems, and the mom is so exhausted from trying to deal with her crazy ass kid that she has to call the cops to try to get anywhere with her daughter. I mean, think about it: her 10 year old daughter is throwing such a HUGE temper tantrum without giving in, in front of a COP threatening to ARREST her..... over not taking a shower?
I blame the kid. Or the fact that her dad wasn't there to take care of the situation himself. I feel bad for the mother for having to deal with such a difficult child, and I feel bad for the cop for being forced to make such a difficult judgement call in such a shitty situation. The mom has to feel like she's totally failed at being a mother, and the cop is going to get a lot of shit from people who assume there was some other way to get this girl to calm down. From reading the police report, hearing the divorced father's reaction, and thinking back on times where my brother was totally nuts... yeah, I don't think there was any way this could have ended well. It's just an overall very crappy situation to deal with.
I love how they just had to get the opinion of the non-custodial *cough* deadbeat *cough* dad. I totally agree that some young kids simply can't be controlled. Sometimes it's a result of mental illness. Sometimes it a result of poor upbringing. I'm going to go out on a limb and say this is probably a low income family we're talking about here. And it's no big coincidence that more criminals and more single mothers come from low income backgrounds. It's not just a problem with the kid. It's not just a problem with the mother. It's a problem with society. There aren't enough resources to help these families.
Is it fair to call the dad deadbeat? In divorce situations, the mother is usually given custody unless she's a total sack of shit. My mother had custody of my sisters and I, but my father was raking in the big bucks. Definitely not deadbeat.
My friend, the wonderful sf writer Peter Watts was beaten without provocation and arrested by US border guards on Tuesday. I heard about it early Wednesday morning in London and called Cindy Cohn, the legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She worked her contacts to get in touch with civil rights lawyers in Michigan, and we mobilized with Caitlin Sweet (Peter's partner) and David Nickle (Peter's friend) and Peter was arraigned and bailed out later that day.
But now Peter faces a felony rap for "assaulting a federal officer" (Peter and the witness in the car say he didn't do a thing, and I believe them). Defending this charge will cost a fortune, and an inadequate defense could cost Peter his home, his livelihood and his liberty.
Peter's friends are raising money for his legal defense. I just sent him CAD$1,000, because this is absolutely my biggest nightmare: imprisoned in a foreign country for a trumped-up offense against untouchable border cops. I would want my friends to help me out if it ever happened to me.
Update: Here's more from Peter, in his own words: "Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on. I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, shit-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three fucking hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.). Nor was I finally dumped across the border in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my fucking paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and, I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in the face of Ontario's first winter storm, after all buses and intercity shuttles had shut down for the night.
"In some other universe I am warm and content and not looking at spending two years in jail for the crime of having been punched in the face."
Update: David Nickle sez, "This is just to let you know that we've got a snail-mail address for people to send cheques - Bakka Phoenix Science Fiction Bookstore has agreed to collect and forward them. The details are here on my blog."
Sf writer David Nickle writes,
Hugo-award-nominated science fiction author Dr. Peter Watts is in serious legal trouble after he was beaten, pepper-sprayed and imprisoned by American border guards at a Canada U.S. border crossing December 8. This is a call to friends, fans and colleagues to help.
Peter, a Canadian citizen, was on his way back to Canada after helping a friend move house to Nebraska over the weekend. He was stopped at the border crossing at Port Huron, Michigan by U.S. border police for a search of his rental vehicle. When Peter got out of the car and questioned the nature of the search, the gang of border guards subjected him to a beating, restrained him and pepper sprayed him. At the end of it, local police laid a felony charge of assault against a federal officer against Peter. On Wednesday, he posted bond and was taken across the border to Canada in shirtsleeves (he was released by Port Huron officials with his car and possessions locked in impound, into a winter storm that evening). He's home safe. For now. But he has to go back to Michigan to face the charge brought against him.
The charge is spurious. But it's also very serious. It could mean two years in prison in the United States, and a ban on travel in that country for the rest of Peter's life. Peter is mounting a vigorous defense, but it's going to be expensive - he's effectively going up against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and he needs the best legal help that he can get.
He's got that help, courtesy of one of the top criminal lawyers in the State of Michigan. We, Peter's friends and colleagues here in Canada, want to make sure he gets the help he needs financially to come out of this nightmare whole.
The need for that help is real. While Peter is a critically successful science fiction writer, he is by no means a best-selling author. Without help, the weight of his legal fees could literally put him on the street by spring.
We can't let that happen. So there's going to be fundraising.
We're going to think of something suitable in the New Year - but immediately, anyone who wants to help can do so easily. Peter's website, rifters.com, has a link to a PayPal account, whimsically named the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund. He set it up years ago for fans of the Hugo-nominated novel Blindsight and his Rifters books, to cover veterinary bills for the cats he habitually rescues from the mean streets of Toronto. Peter has made it clear that he doesn't want to use the veterinary money to cover his lawsuit. But until we can figure out a more graceful conduit for the legal fund, that's the best place to send donations for now. Just let Peter know that the donation's for his legal defense, and that's where it will go.
The link to the Niblet Memorial Kibble Fund is in the middle of the page. The page also links to Creative Commons editions of all his published work, which he's made available free. Peter would approve, we think, if you downloaded one or two or all of them. Whether you make a donation to the legal fund or not.
Update: David Nickle adds, "there's a very small correction I need to make to the account that's gone, erm, viral. I had thought that Peter had made his way back on foot; in fact, police released him in shirtsleeves at the Canadian side of the border. It was a winter storm, he was in shirtsleeves, but he didn't have to cross the bridge on foot. I'd misunderstood Peter's account on that point."
From the quote given about Peter's personal take on what happened, Peter Watts sounds like an asshole. Still though, he shouldn't have been treated like that, and I hope he gets justice.
Just goes to show you how NOT BEING AN ASSHOLE can help out your situation a lot better. Instead of yelling at the cops and questioning them, understand that they're cops; they have more power than you. Don't fuck around, there won't be any trouble. Yeah, cops suck, but is it really worth getting beaten, spending time in jail, facing two years of prison, and spending so much time and money on court expenses, when he probably wouldn't have had any problem if he had just rolled his eyes and given the police officers everything they wanted?
It sounds like he was in the right, and the cops were actually questionable with searching his car. Still, though. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, just let the cops have their little power trip. It's so much easier after everything is said and done. I'm all about fighting for your rights, but pick your battles.
I dunno. This seems pretty extreme even if a guy is being a bit of a jerk. I'd say there are some cops here who probably shouldn't be cops. They aren't supposed to have "power trips".
Well of course they're not "supposed" to have power trips, but the majority of cops I've ever seen, they didn't actually care about the civilians at all and were very rude. Maybe it's a big city thing.
HURR DURR IM TRYING TO LOOK BADASS IN FRONT OF FORGEINERS AND NOW NEED STRANGERS TO BAIL MY ASS OUT SEND ME MONEY
If I had a nickel for every time I was in that situation!
But seriously, they make it sounds like a fuggin cancer fundraiser. I smell propoganda against the U.S., personally.
I'm with Ryan. Even if he didn't intend to do harm to a cop, if his actions made it seem like he was going to, then how are they supposed to know the difference. So, who knows.
ASHEVILLE — North Carolina's constitution is clear: politicians who deny the existence of God are barred from holding office.
Opponents of Cecil Bothwell are seizing on that law to argue he should not be seated as a City Council member today, even though federal courts have ruled religious tests for public office are unlawful under the U.S. Constitution.
Voters elected the writer and builder to the council last month.
“I'm not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he's an atheist, he's not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.
Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution trump the restriction in the state constitution, said Bob Orr, executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.
“I think there's any number of federal cases that would view this as an imposition of a religious qualification and violate separation of church and state,” said Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice.
In 1961, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Maryland's requirement for officials to declare belief in God violated the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Additionally, Article VI of the U.S. Constitution says: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
Bothwell's campaign treasurer, Jake Quinn, said everyone should be entitled to their own beliefs.
“The test occurred on (Nov. 3),” Quinn said. “It was called an election.”
Fliers mailed before the election criticized Bothwell over his atheism and his book, “The Prince of War,” which denounces evangelist and Montreat resident the Rev. Billy Graham for pushing what Bothwell says is a theocratic agenda.
Now, denizens of Internet message boards and the blogosphere are arguing over whether he can legally serve.
Edgerton said City Council should hold off swearing Bothwell into office until a constitutional question can be resolved.
“If they go ahead, then the city of Asheville and the board of elections could be liable for a lawsuit,” said Edgerton, who is known for promoting “Southern heritage” by standing on streets decked out in a Confederate soldier's uniform and holding a Confederate flag.
Bothwell didn't respond Monday to requests for an interview, but he wrote in an e-mail to the Citizen-Times: “I am not ‘an avowed atheist.'”
He has told the Citizen-Times in the past he believes in the Golden Rule, not a deity.
Bothwell labels himself an atheist on his MySpace page, though he wrote in an online post last week on fellow incoming councilman Gordon Smith's blog, Scrutiny Hooligans, that he prefers the term “post-theist.”
Bothwell added: “I don't ‘deny the being of Almighty God;' I simply consider the question of denial or acceptance irrelevant.
“Could make for a very interesting court case, seems to me.”
A Brazilian toddler has been found with up to 40 needles inside him, which police say his stepfather deliberately inserted in a "black magic" ritual.
Police said Roberto Carlos Magalhaes has confessed to sticking the sewing needles into the two-year-old boy, who is in intensive care at a hospital.
Mr Magalhaes said his mistress told him to ritually kill the child to take revenge on his wife.
Doctors will try to remove the needles, some 2in (5cm) long, from the boy.
The toddler was taken to hospital in the north-eastern Bahia state by his mother, complaining of stomach pains and vomiting.
X-rays showed scores of sewing needles inside his neck, torso and legs. At least one had punctured a lung.
'Revenge attack'
Police said Mr Magalhaes broke down and confessed after being arrested.
"He did that for revenge, to get back at his wife," the police chief the town of Ibotirama, Helder Fernandes Santana, was quoted as saying by AFP news agency.
"His mistress told him to kill the child through a macabre ritual," Mr Santana said.
The mother told police she suspected that the boy had been the victim of a black magic ritual after she found suspicious objects in the home she shared with Mr Magalhaes - her husband of six months - and her six children.
Doctors said most of the needles will be removed, but not the ones inside organs as their removal could cause more damage.
They said there were no signs of wounds on the boy.
Reports say the boy is in serious condition, but that he has shown some improvement since being admitted to hospital on Sunday.
Doctors initially said up to 50 needles had been inserted into the child, but later revised that figure to up to 40.
Comments
2. It's not about not helping people because they're gay; it's about not being part of a system that recognizes gay couples as "married", something that goes against their belifes and against an institution that they hold as a holy sacrament.
That's the way I interpret it at least. I'm not saying they're right in shunning gay people, but I can perfectly understand them wanting out of a system that coerces them into accepting something that they do not want to accept.
2. The threat against stopping charity is empty. They are feeling desparate and are trying anything to stop it. Jesus never manipulated people by withholding treatment and help to get what he wanted (or if he did, it never made it into the Bible). If they did actually follow through it would be a terrible stain on the entire Catholic image, that they don't believe in charity for charity's sake. Or perhaps the Catholic church is so against the idea of men sticking things up each other's butts that it is worth suspending the care of the homeless, the sick, and the young. After all, they're already getting into heaven anyway.
So, that's an extreme case, he has a condition to go with it as an excuse, but I'm just saying that as someone who has seen a 10 year old go completely nuts and who won't give in to ANYTHING, had my dad not been there to, ahem, beat my brother into submission, my mom would definitely have had to have called the cops at some point.
And it's not a reflection of my parents. My brother was just born like that... *I* never got detention in school, was only called to the principals office ONCE in first grade for playing footsie with a boy, and never dreamed of ever getting suspended. In comparison, my brother was once expelled from one school because they didn't want to deal with his problems.
If anything, don't blame the mother, blame the dad that wasn't there to serve as the main scare tactic. I honestly only have sympathy for that mother. Her daughter obviously has severe anger issues (even the dad will admit to that, even if he calls them "emotional problems"), and she's reached a point where she can't handle it on her own. Her daughter is 10 years old. When you have to call the cops on your child because you are unable to physically restrain them... it's gotta be a rough day. No, from reading that article, I think that the cop used good judgement on quickly, quickly tasing the girl as to avoid more injury. If the girl was 'flailing her arms' while he was trying to forcefully handcuff her, yeah, she's at huge risk to break a limb, and if she's freaking nuts, she's going to keep flailing no matter what and then the cop would be in trouble for breaking a girls arm while trying to physically restrain her. THAT would sound even worse than tasing her.
Plus, she kicked him in the junk. That officer probably wasn't the most patient man after that. Moral of the story: yeah, you're right, the parents should have dealt with this, but if your child is so effed up that she'll only respond to extreme examples of violence (since they said in the article that no amount of talking to her would make any difference and, by implications, the mom wouldn't give the cop permission to tase her daughter unless she knew that trying to hit her or move her wasn't going to work), AND the big scary dad isn't around to play this role... a cop is not allowed to hit a child. A parent can get away with it if it's not borderline abusive, but a cop is left with handcuffs, a baton, pepper spray, and a taser.
I don't think he stepped out of line. The girl wasn't responding to anything else, she's obviously a total brat with severe problems, and the mom is so exhausted from trying to deal with her crazy ass kid that she has to call the cops to try to get anywhere with her daughter. I mean, think about it: her 10 year old daughter is throwing such a HUGE temper tantrum without giving in, in front of a COP threatening to ARREST her..... over not taking a shower?
I blame the kid. Or the fact that her dad wasn't there to take care of the situation himself. I feel bad for the mother for having to deal with such a difficult child, and I feel bad for the cop for being forced to make such a difficult judgement call in such a shitty situation. The mom has to feel like she's totally failed at being a mother, and the cop is going to get a lot of shit from people who assume there was some other way to get this girl to calm down. From reading the police report, hearing the divorced father's reaction, and thinking back on times where my brother was totally nuts... yeah, I don't think there was any way this could have ended well. It's just an overall very crappy situation to deal with.
Just goes to show you how NOT BEING AN ASSHOLE can help out your situation a lot better. Instead of yelling at the cops and questioning them, understand that they're cops; they have more power than you. Don't fuck around, there won't be any trouble. Yeah, cops suck, but is it really worth getting beaten, spending time in jail, facing two years of prison, and spending so much time and money on court expenses, when he probably wouldn't have had any problem if he had just rolled his eyes and given the police officers everything they wanted?
It sounds like he was in the right, and the cops were actually questionable with searching his car. Still, though. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, just let the cops have their little power trip. It's so much easier after everything is said and done. I'm all about fighting for your rights, but pick your battles.
If I had a nickel for every time I was in that situation!
But seriously, they make it sounds like a fuggin cancer fundraiser. I smell propoganda against the U.S., personally.
Critics of Cecil Bothwell cite N.C. bar to atheists