women not responsible - fundies again

[Ossai]

Women no longer bound by laws, as long as they are married and subservient to their husbands.

This story

Man uses strict faith as defense (http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/6156959.htm )

From the article
``The situation here,'' Barnhill said during an interview last week, ``is that, according to our faith, I'm the head of the household. I'm responsible for what she does, and no one can punish her except me.

``So if they want to punish somebody, let them punish me. I am the defendant.

``That's the way I have to do things under my faith. And if I fail in that duty, I'm going to hell.''


Barnhill's wife was breastfeeding her infant while driving. The incident was reported by a trucker. Police tried pulling her over but she continued driving for three miles. The first court appearance she could have pleaded guilty and paid a fine but her husband wouldn’t let her based on religious grounds. He has promised to take the case all the way to the Supreme Court.


Isn't this one going a bit far? At what point does personal responsibility enter into the situation? If, as the husband claims, he is the one responsible then wouldn't that make the woman his virtual slave?

Ossai

[Upchurch]

I think the issue here is whether religious law overrides civil law, which it can't be allowed to do.

If such a thing were to be allowed, one could rob a bank and use "Only God can punish me" as a defense. If anyone else were to punish him (like the state), it would be enfringing on his first amendment rights. Nothing but chaos and anarchy.

[hgc]

I wonder how he would punish her for robbing a bank.

[Marc]

Originally posted by hgc
I wonder how he would punish her for robbing a bank.
One week in the closet and an appology to the bank. :D


saaaayyy, we might have something here.

[Yahweh]

Eberybodee PRAZE da BIBLE! It wuz ritten over 2 gagillion yeers ago and you have to beleeve every single thing wrtten in da bible 'cuz if you dont then god is gonna smite teh s**t out of you...

Somehow I fail to see what kind of logic this man used to come up with "No, honey, you are not stopping for the cops cuz if you do then I'm going to hell". I dont see why the man couldnt drive while his wife nurses the baby in passenger seat. I dont see why the man couldnt hold the baby and feed it with a bottle. I dont see why see why the woman had to keep driving when a police vehicle is flagging her to pull over. Oh, my bad I forgot, because it's god's will and when the both of them die God will look upon them and smile, for god does not need to cast them to eternal hell.

Something tells me that religious faith is never a winning arguement in any court. I cant imagine what the conversation between the man and his lawyer could have been:
"Please sir, you need a better defense than 'The Bible tells my wife is my slave"
"Thats not my defense, I just didnt want to go to Hell"
"Why didnt you just pull over"
"I dont know"
"Do you have another defense you can use"
"Dont worry, I got it. It was my faith and I'll just sue them if they throw me in jail"
"That wont work"
"Why not?"

I read the article. Regardless of is the woman's husband was assaulted (he should have taken legal action in a case like that), that in no way bars you from a "failure to comply with police" penalty. I dont think the Supreme Court will take this case seriously.

[hgc]

I was watching them on TV this morning. They sounded very intelligent and thoughtful. For instance, the woman had researched the law, and strictly speaking, she was not in violation. The law says that children (under some certain age) are required to be restrained in some safety system, except in the case of the a nursing child. Of course the authors of the law never intended that the driver be permitted to nurse the child! But that's the effect of badly written laws.

Having no idea about the religious beliefs, I was a little taken aback when the woman said something to the effect that she was doing as her husband instructed when she breast-fed the kid. Now I understand fully what she was talking about. :eek:

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by hgc

...
Having no idea about the religious beliefs, I was a little taken aback when the woman said something to the effect that she was doing as her husband instructed when she breast-fed the kid. Now I understand fully what she was talking about. :eek:

Interesting... originally, I thought it was a straight-forward case of "she is guilty." However, if she believes she needs to obey her husband, and he commands her to break the law, perhaps he should be held accountable?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by A_Feeble_Mind


Interesting... originally, I thought it was a straight-forward case of "she is guilty." However, if she believes she needs to obey her husband, and he commands her to break the law, perhaps he should be held accountable?
I disagree. Unless the woman was being forced against her to break the law, she did it consciously and voluntarily which would make her accountable. In the case of a car related incident, I'm going to go ahead and say that the passenger of the car holds no responsibility on whether that car pulls over or not (unless the passenger is a threat... which is not the case here).

[Ipecac]

Isn't it another important point that, whether she broke the law or not, this woman is an idiot?

First of all, breastfeeding is distracting. Shouldn't do it while driving. Second, and more importantly, it's incredibly risky to breastfeed a baby in a moving car.

If the driver (whether her or her husband) has to slam on the brakes (a not uncommon occurence while driving) the baby could very likely go into the dashboard or through the windshield. If there's an accident, the baby will likely be injured or killed.

If you have to feed the baby, pull off the d*mn road and stop! People this stupid shouldn't have children.

:mad: :mad:

[A_Feeble_Mind]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I disagree. Unless the woman was being forced against her to break the law, she did it consciously and voluntarily which would make her accountable. In the case of a car related incident, I'm going to go ahead and say that the passenger of the car holds no responsibility on whether that car pulls over or not (unless the passenger is a threat... which is not the case here).

But, the question I have is what would be required for it to be considered forced against her? If her woo-wooism does not allow her to question her husband's commands, is she not being forced?

[Ossai]

Yahweh
I dont see why the man couldnt drive while his wife nurses the baby in passenger seat. From my understanding of the article the man wasn't even in the car. Which is also why the woman didn't pull over for the cops, she was trying to get to a public place.

Does anyone have more information about the story?

Anyone else notice this,
She could have had the original charges -- driving without a license,… She didn't have a license.

Ossai