Freedom of religion

[Tribesman]

http://www.webcitation.org/5evC3axq6
Now that the father has followed the mother in being convicted of homicide is this really a case of people being punished for the "crime of praying" ?

[InsaneApache]

A terrible shame that a little lass had to die because of ignorance. I predict this thread gets locked before dinner. :yes:

[Fragony]

We have incidents like that as well in the bible-belt, people refusing to give their children certain vaccinations, really difficult subject to me, to force or not to force.

[Samurai Waki]

it was an act of willful neglect, and I hope they throw the book at the both of them.

[Crazed Rabbit]

it was an act of willful neglect, and I hope they throw the book at the both of them.

They already did. Rightfully so, I think.

CR

[Fragony]

scuzi doublepost, safari sucks so badly every time I have made a comment it asks me to send back form.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Vaccinations are far different, to me. This is scorning medical help for a sick child, because you think praying will save them, instead of medical attention. It goes against the principle of not testing God, and of preserving life as best you can.

CR

[rory_20_uk]

A definite Darwin Award. I already feel the gene-pool is cleaner.

I've had some in who didn't give their children a vaccine against Measles and wanted to know the signs. I basically said I'd never seen Measles in my medical career - but they'd made this choice, right?

It's not what I'd do, but yes, this is freedom of religion.

~:smoking:

[Samurai Waki]

A definite Darwin Award. I already feel the gene-pool is cleaner.

I've had some in who didn't give their children a vaccine against Measles and wanted to know the signs. I basically said I'd never seen Measles in my medical career - but they'd made this choice, right?

It's not what I'd do, but yes, this is freedom of religion.

~:smoking:

This is area is a little hazy in the legal department; you're definitely right that this was the Parent's choice in maintaining their right to freedom of religion, but the same logic may not always apply to their children, and tragically usually only brought to the Legal System's attention after an easily preventable death has occurred.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't know how the law works in the taliban states, however, over where I am the parents would probably get locked up in some psychiatric ward...

Def a darwin award candidate...

[KukriKhan]

Who 'owns' the child - parent or State?

When does a child cease being a child, a second-class citizen, and become a 1st class citizen, for who's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the State has the stated obligation to protect?

If a woman has a right to an abortion, how is this case different? Because the child is outside the womb, instead of inside?

[Askthepizzaguy]

It's almost the equivalent of pushing your child out of an airplane and praying that God will save them, "because I don't trust parachutes. Parachutes aren't God."

[Kadagar_AV]

Who 'owns' the child - parent or State?

When does a child cease being a child, a second-class citizen, and become a 1st class citizen, for who's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the State has the stated obligation to protect?

If a woman has a right to an abortion, how is this case different? Because the child is outside the womb, instead of inside?


State has a responcibility for children aswell as adults.

And I can't believe you have the guts to equal this to having an abortion... :inquisitive:

That is just disgusting. :thumbsdown:

[Reenk Roink]

Absolutely freedom of religion. Wouldn't be what I'd do to my kid, but it's horrifying that the government can prosecute this...

[KukriKhan]

State has a responcibility for children aswell as adults.

And I can't believe you have the guts to equal this to having an abortion... :inquisitive:

That is just disgusting. :thumbsdown:

I didn't equate them, I asked a question. However, following your accusation: in both cases we're talking about the preventable death of a human under the age of 18. You assert that "State has a responcibility for children aswell as adults. ".

I think I agree.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kukrikhan, not everyone agress with your view of a fetus being a human. But please dont troll this into an abortion debate.


ON TOPIC: I think ATPG described it best...

I mean, IF we give religious nutjobs the right to do whatever they want with their kids, what keeps parents from, say, stoning their openly gay son to death?

[Reenk Roink]

ON TOPIC: I think ATPG described it best...

I mean, IF we give religious nutjobs the right to do whatever they want with their kids, what keeps parents from, say, stoning their openly gay son to death?

Both analogies fail tremendously. For the first it would only have a point if the parents actually intentionally gave their kid diabetes.

For the second, well :rolleyes:

It's better likened it to this case:

If parents with a sick child and two treatment options are available, and the parents choose one of them as they believe with firm conviction that it will help, and it does not help, do you prosecute for negligence and endangerment.

Science is having to much influence on a free society... :shame:

[Lemur]

Absolutely freedom of religion. Wouldn't be what I'd do to my kid, but it's horrifying that the government can prosecute this...
Well, like the old saying goes, "Pray to God but row for shore." This family missed the "row for shore" part.

The government has no business telling people what faith they can practice or what they may believe, but certain minimum standards of health and safety have to be applied and enforced. If my religion says that the only way I can reach salvation is to sacrifice babies to Cthulhu, should be be excused from a murder rap when I'm caught with a dripping knife and body parts? What if my religion preaches that I may rape underage girls, or steal other people's property?

The law was applied correctly in this case, and if the parents are true believers, they are free to declare themselves martyrs to the one true God. We've sent Quakers to prison for refusing to fight in wars, and we're prosecuted fundamentalist Mormons for marrying little girls. They're free to believe as they like, but when their actions cross the lines into illegal activity, the State does what it must.

Kukri, it's not a question of who owns a child, but rather what is legal versus illegal. Conflating the reckless homicide of a 10-year-old girl with abortion does nothing to clarify the issue, and only muddies the water. (And did some part of your soul feel starved for yet another abortion thread?)

[lars573]

Both analogies fail tremendously. For the first it would only have a point if the parents actually intentionally gave their kid diabetes.

For the second, well :rolleyes:

It's better likened it to this case:

If parents with a sick child and two treatment options are available, and the parents choose one of them as they believe with firm conviction that it will help, and it does not help, do you prosecute for negligence and endangerment.

Science is having to much influence on a free society... :shame:
Your not seriously trying to compare emploring a mythological diety (that doesn't exist) vs. a shot of insulin as a real choice?

And all freedoms have limits. Freedom of religion ends when it starts to impede the health and well being of others.

[Reenk Roink]

Well, like the old saying goes, "Pray to God but row for shore." This family missed the "row for shore" part.

The government has no business telling people what faith they can practice or what they may believe, but certain minimum standards of health and safety have to be applied and enforced. If my religion says that the only way I can reach salvation is to sacrifice babies to Cthulhu, should be be excused from a murder rap when I'm caught with a dripping knife and body parts? What if my religion preaches that I may rape underage girls, or steal other people's property?

The law was applied correctly in this case, and if the parents are true believers, they are free to declare themselves martyrs to the one true God. We've sent Quakers to prison for refusing to fight in wars, and we're prosecuted fundamentalist Mormons for marrying little girls. They're free to believe as they like, but when their actions cross the lines into illegal activity, the State does what it must.

I fully agree with the first part. As far as I know most mainstream positions in all major religions, even those espousing absolute determinism and predestination, expect and even require people to do the "rowing for the shore" part. Heck, reading the positions of the occasionalist theologians (people who denied natural cause and effect in lieu of God's direct cause in EVERYTHING) these people say you should row for the shore.

For the second part, again, it's a matter of the case. This isn't a case of infringing on others rights, at least not in my view, as I take the position that the parent 'owns' the child more than the state.

As for the the actual law, you are probably right. I've heard of many of those blood transfusion cases (a lot of JW about 50 miles from me) and the judge always goes against the JW parents.

This despite the law mentioned in the article:


Under current Wisconsin law, a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child. The law is part of the legacy of the 1996 Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, which included a landmark exemption for parents who do not seek medical care for their children for religious purposes. While all states give social service authorities the right to intervene in cases of child neglect, criminal codes in 29 other states also provide additional protection for parents who forgo mainstream medical treatment.

:shrug:


Your not seriously trying to compare emploring a mythological diety (that doesn't exist) vs. a shot of insulin as a real choice?

Hell yeah I am. If it wouldn't be so off topic, I'd love to see the position challenged on epistemic grounds. Change my mind.

[Andres]

Both analogies fail tremendously. For the first it would only have a point if the parents actually intentionally gave their kid diabetes.

For the second, well :rolleyes:

It's better likened it to this case:

If parents with a sick child and two treatment options are available, and the parents choose one of them as they believe with firm conviction that it will help, and it does not help, do you prosecute for negligence and endangerment.

Science is having to much influence on a free society... :shame:

Yes, there's freedom of religion, but sometimes one's religion can interfere with the rules which are valid in a society.

This child was in need of help and there exists a known cure that would have saved her life. It's a conflict situation between freedom of religion and saving a human life and the rules of society deem the latter more important (and rightfully so, imo).

In an organised society, "freedom" can never be absolute. It's inevitable that values sometimes conflict and then one value has to take prevalence over the other.

Society deems human life more important than freedom of religion.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Those of you getting primed up for this debate, I warn you:

You won't change each other's minds. Those who already put their trust in God won't have their opinion turned aside with mere words. Certainly not secular logic or scientific arguments or even appeals to common sense, because they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it. Your logic melts in the face of that. Those who put their trust in science won't be turned away from it with a religious argument, because it already holds no weight because it isn't based in anything they consider reality.

You're just going to aggravate yourselves, and take it out on one another. I offered my opinion, but I won't be here for the debate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, like the old saying goes, "Pray to God but row for shore." This family missed the "row for shore" part.

The government has no business telling people what faith they can practice or what they may believe, but certain minimum standards of health and safety have to be applied and enforced. If my religion says that the only way I can reach salvation is to sacrifice babies to Cthulhu, should be be excused from a murder rap when I'm caught with a dripping knife and body parts? What if my religion preaches that I may rape underage girls, or steal other people's property?

The law was applied correctly in this case, and if the parents are true believers, they are free to declare themselves martyrs to the one true God. We've sent Quakers to prison for refusing to fight in wars, and we're prosecuted fundamentalist Mormons for marrying little girls. They're free to believe as they like, but when their actions cross the lines into illegal activity, the State does what it must.

Kukri, it's not a question of who owns a child, but rather what is legal versus illegal. Conflating the reckless homicide of a 10-year-old girl with abortion does nothing to clarify the issue, and only muddies the water. (And did some part of your soul feel starved for yet another abortion thread?)

While I appreciate your practical point, I think your arguement has a huge theoretical hole. Where does the State's Law aquire it's authority?

In order for the State to exercise legal authority it requires a moral authority. In an ideal world the Law of the State perfectly reflects Perfect Moral (Divine) Law. In the US as elsewhere the Law was once considered to be man's best attempt to reflect and administer God's ideal justice.

Total freedom of religion means total equality between religions, which strips the Law of the moral authority it needs to operate as Justice. If there are competing moralities then the Law will offend one while adhering to another. I think you reveal your own morality in your opening statement as "God helps those who help themselves".

So, I respectfully submit that your position owes itself to the belief that these people have offended God and therefore are morally wrong.

For the record, I don't believe in Freedom of Religion, I believe in tollerance and forgiveness because that is what my religion teaches.

[lars573]

If I were to actually believe in any sort of creation myth. It would be Stargate-ism. :egypt:

[Reenk Roink]

Well, our state (USA) derives it's authority from the people. If the majority of people shared religious beliefs as this denomination, than it would probably be a non issue at the moment.

What I find interesting is that on the face of it (there's probably tons of legislation I'm unaware of), the parents are protected in this case. However, then again, similar states have similar clauses, and yet these cases always turn against the parents...

[Fisherking]

Those of you getting primed up for this debate, I warn you:

You won't change each other's minds. Those who already put their trust in God won't have their opinion turned aside with mere words. Certainly not secular logic or scientific arguments or even appeals to common sense, because they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it. Your logic melts in the face of that. Those who put their trust in science won't be turned away from it with a religious argument, because it already holds no weight because it isn't based in anything they consider reality.

You're just going to aggravate yourselves, and take it out on one another. I offered my opinion, but I won't be here for the debate.

humm, what he said...

[Cute Wolf]

Those of you getting primed up for this debate, I warn you:

You won't change each other's minds. Those who already put their trust in God won't have their opinion turned aside with mere words. Certainly not secular logic or scientific arguments or even appeals to common sense, because they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it. Your logic melts in the face of that. Those who put their trust in science won't be turned away from it with a religious argument, because it already holds no weight because it isn't based in anything they consider reality.

You're just going to aggravate yourselves, and take it out on one another. I offered my opinion, but I won't be here for the debate.

Very true, but yet, if the police officers know about that before, they could just bust in their house and carry that girl to hospital.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Very true, but yet, if the police officers know about that before, they could just bust in their house and carry that girl to hospital.

The state already has the right to take away abused or neglected children. I've seen many examples where this is a good thing. I am sure there are examples where this is a bad thing. But on the whole I believe it is correct and more just for the children of abusive or neglectful parents. Others disagree on religious grounds, as they are free to do. We settle it by voting.

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be fair, they did not do anything 'morally' wrong (unless they were using their child to test God, I wonder if they would have done the same if it was themselves on the deathbed?). However, in doing what they did they denied their daughter the basic healthcare which the law demands that she should get. It is not ideal that their religious freedoms come into conflict with (very basic) secular ground-rules, but at the end of the day we need those rules for practical purposes. So it's tough luck for the parents, they have to be prosecuted. Maybe the sentence should be reduced considering their intentions, that could be debated.

Although not strictly relevant, going by the religion they claim follow, they don't really have anything to complain about. They should not have put God to the test (Luke 4:12), they should not have broken the laws of the land (Romans 13:1), and they should rejoice in being punished for their faith by secular authorities (Matthew 5:10).

[Reenk Roink]

You won't change each other's minds. Those who already put their trust in God won't have their opinion turned aside with mere words. Certainly not secular logic or scientific arguments or even appeals to common sense, because they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it. Your logic melts in the face of that. Those who put their trust in science won't be turned away from it with a religious argument, because it already holds no weight because it isn't based in anything they consider reality.

This is a really slimy strawman: "they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it"

If you read the article or the positions of those who argued against this position, they certainly aren't arguing what you claim they are.

They are quite clearly arguing their legal right under the Wisconsin legislation:


...a parent cannot be convicted of child abuse or negligent homicide if they can prove they genuinely believed that calling God, instead of a doctor, was the best option available for their child

The options were certainly not "let kid die" or "go to doctor" in these parents eyes. If you believe that praying for the kid is equal to letting him die, than you have some dogmatic baggage you're already bringing in which you pointed out that the "religious" had.

What is "secular" logic? Logic is a set of rules concerned with the structure of statements.

Lastly this is not a "science vs religion" thing, as it is a issue concerning states rights and parents rights as well as the scope of the freedom of religion clause. Science does play a part in it, but in an unrelated way (how much influence should science have on public policy in a free society? too much imo right now, it should be banished out to the extent of religion, only being a suggesting factor in legislation, not being the basis of it).

Lastly it should be discussed. Despite peoples minds being changed or not, it gets you thinking. Andres post here was quite (though not totally) convincing to me:


This child was in need of help and there exists a known cure that would have saved her life. It's a conflict situation between freedom of religion and saving a human life and the rules of society deem the latter more important (and rightfully so, imo).

In an organised society, "freedom" can never be absolute. It's inevitable that values sometimes conflict and then one value has to take prevalence over the other.

Good stuff to get you thinking on the nature of a free society and what it means... :smash:

[Askthepizzaguy]

This is a really slimy strawman: "they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it"

The parents did not want medical intervention, and by that fact, they were willing to let the child die if prayer or God didn't intervene. They argue they have a right to refuse it on religious grounds, and they see nothing wrong with it.

That's not a strawman, those are the facts. I'm not here to debate this issue.

[seireikhaan]

Yes, there's freedom of religion, but sometimes one's religion can interfere with the rules which are valid in a society.

This child was in need of help and there exists a known cure that would have saved her life. It's a conflict situation between freedom of religion and saving a human life and the rules of society deem the latter more important (and rightfully so, imo).

In an organised society, "freedom" can never be absolute. It's inevitable that values sometimes conflict and then one value has to take prevalence over the other.

Society deems human life more important than freedom of religion.
Point of order- There is no CURE for diabetes. Diabetes is treatable, which is much different than curing it.

To the topic: It seems that, in the context of Wisconsin state law, the parents did not violate any law. Hence, they should not be punished for choosing prayer over medication. If Wisconsinites are so troubled by what happened, they ought to get the law changed for future cases.

[KukriKhan]

Society deems human life more important than freedom of religion.

I agree with this, and I think western law does too.

So: who is more culpable in this girl's death? The parents for not providing medical care, or the State, for not intervening to save a human/citizen's life? Should not


but yet, if the police officers know about that before, they could just bust in their house and carry that girl to hospital.

as Cute Wolf observes, have been an obligation of the State, rather than an after-the-fact prosecution of parents, disabled by their religion, from providing care?

Should instead, the State Medical Authority and Law Enforcement Agencies be prosecuted for failing to protect this helpless citizen?

[Rhyfelwyr]

The parents did not want medical intervention, and by that fact, they were willing to let the child die if prayer or God didn't intervene. They argue they have a right to refuse it on religious grounds, and they see nothing wrong with it.

That's not a strawman, those are the facts. I'm not here to debate this issue.

What if they really believed that God was more likely to heal their child than the medical alternatives? In their minds, maybe they were not willing to let their child die.

[Andres]

So: who is more culpable in this girl's death? The parents for not providing medical care, or the State, for not intervening to save a human/citizen's life?

Parents are the most responsible. It was their child and their choice not to have proper treatment. They shouldn't hide behind the state. If the State was aware of the situation, then it's responsable as well, but to a lesser degree imo.

[Kadagar_AV]

The options were certainly not "let kid die" or "go to doctor" in these parents eyes.

True, but they were either psychotic or mentaly challenged. The law cant let neglect like this pass just because the offenders isnt mentaly capable of understanding the crime. There has to me some minimum level of mental ability required by the law. And if you go under it you will get help.



If you believe that praying for the kid is equal to letting him die, than you have some dogmatic baggage you're already bringing in which you pointed out that the "religious" had.

You got to be kidding? Not even the christian god that these nutjobs seemed to believe in has ever stated everything will be ok if you just pray. And yes, refusing a child medicine for an easily treated yet lethal sickness is murder by neglect.



What is "secular" logic? Logic is a set of rules concerned with the structure of statements.

One example of "secular logic" would be: "Hey, if this thingy could save the life of my child and if it has worked in millions of cases, maybe it would be a cool thing to have?"



Lastly this is not a "science vs religion" thing, as it is a issue concerning states rights and parents rights as well as the scope of the freedom of religion clause. Science does play a part in it, but in an unrelated way (how much influence should science have on public policy in a free society? too much imo right now, it should be banished out to the extent of religion, only being a suggesting factor in legislation, not being the basis of it).

The state has a responcibility to take care of its citizens... If this child would have been 18+ I wouldnt have cared as much, however, in this particular case the parents are still responcible for their action, and their action, or lack of it, elad to a citizens death.





Lastly it should be discussed. Despite peoples minds being changed or not, it gets you thinking. Andres post here was quite (though not totally) convincing to me:

Good stuff to get you thinking on the nature of a free society and what it means... :smash:

I dunno... It kind of SCARES me that this needs to be discussed at all.

[Askthepizzaguy]

What if they really believed that God was more likely to heal their child than the medical alternatives?

What if I saw a truck coming down the road about to hit my child, and I knelt in prayer instead of running towards my child in an attempt to save him? Why couldn't I pray silently while also attempting to save the child myself using the common sense method of intervening to prevent the death directly instead of waiting for God to do it for me?

Perhaps there is a legitimate argument that I tried to save the child in my own way, but admit this fact: If prayer fails, the child is probably going to die, and you know it. And I don't care how religious you are, enough examples of prayer failing to save someone can be found just this year alone in the newspaper, whereas viable medical treatments (or in the hypothetical, pushing your child out of the path of a moving vehicle) would much more likely save them, tells me that you are fully aware that you're taking a huge risk that your child is going to die because a deity didn't swoop in to save him or her.

Belief is not the issue here. What if the same exact scenario existed, but I didn't believe that God was going to save my child, what if I believed my child would heal his or herself? Am I still negligent? If so, you're discriminating against the non-religious.

[Reenk Roink]

The parents did not want medical intervention, and by that fact, they were willing to let the child die if prayer or God didn't intervene. They argue they have a right to refuse it on religious grounds, and they see nothing wrong with it.

That's not a strawman, those are the facts.

Ok then, pretty slimy phrasing... :juggle2: :rolleyes:


I'm not here to debate this issue.

But you obviously are! :laugh4:


One example of "secular logic" would be: "Hey, if this thingy could save the life of my child and if it has worked in millions of cases, maybe it would be a cool thing to have?"

That's an example of a form inductive logic (and it could be argued that induction is not really logic)... What is secular logic?


True, but they were either psychotic or mentaly challenged. The law cant let neglect like this pass just because the offenders isnt mentaly capable of understanding the crime. There has to me some minimum level of mental ability required by the law. And if you go under it you will get help.

I wish I could make judgment's on peoples mental health by reading about them on a news article. :thumbsdown: I remember you now, from an earlier thread, and why I don't bother to respond to your posts much.

By the way, if you read the law stature, you would see it made exceptions (on the face of it) in this very case.


as Cute Wolf observes, have been an obligation of the State, rather than an after-the-fact prosecution of parents, disabled by their religion, from providing care?

Should instead, the State Medical Authority and Law Enforcement Agencies be prosecuted for failing to protect this helpless citizen?


Agree with this sentiment a lot.

I am MUCH more symphatetic to courts requiring JW kids to get blood transfusions, where the state, while still intervening, is actually doing something about the situation than putting parents in jail after the fact.

[Rhyfelwyr]

but admit this fact: If prayer fails, the child is probably going to die, and you know it. And I don't care how religious you are, enough examples of prayer failing to save someone can be found just this year alone in the newspaper, whereas viable medical treatments (or in the hypothetical, pushing your child out of the path of a moving vehicle) would much more likely save them, tells me that you are fully aware that you're taking a huge risk that your child is going to die because a deity didn't swoop in to save him or her.

That argument is pretty easy to dodge though. They could just say that in those cases, people were praying to the wrong God, they weren't praying properly, whatever. In their minds, they could be sure that God would answer their prayer.


Belief is not the issue here. What if the same exact scenario existed, but I didn't believe that God was going to save my child, what if I believed my child would heal his or herself? Am I still negligent? If so, you're discriminating against the non-religious.

I'm not sure, but I think freedom to religion goes beyond just theistic systems (I'm thinking Buddhism here?). So yeah, if you *truly* believed that, then you have a case.

But such views are so extreme that we do have laws that infringe on people's freedom to act according to such thoughts, in order to ensure a minimal level of safety for those concerned.

[Askthepizzaguy]

But you obviously are! :laugh4:

I was clarifying my statement for you. I didn't touch any of your other points. I don't want to debate you about this issue, because I know we won't reach common ground.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That argument is pretty easy to dodge though. They could just say that in those cases, people were praying to the wrong God, they weren't praying properly, whatever. In their minds, they could be sure that God would answer their prayer.

If I pray to god, he will save my child.
-the child dies
I must not have been praying properly.


I'm not sure, but I think freedom to religion goes beyond just theistic systems (I'm thinking Buddhism here?). So yeah, if you *truly* believed that, then you have a case.

Prove that I truly believe something as opposed to merely stating it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If I pray to god, he will save my child.
-the child dies
I must not have been praying properly.

I'm not arguing that that is what happened, simply that people could genuinely believe that.


Prove that I truly believe something as opposed to merely stating it.

That's what we have jury's for.

[Mooks]

Anyone want to ponder if the death of the child made any dent in their faith?

[Kadagar_AV]

Anyone want to ponder if the death of the child made any dent in their faith?

I also wondered about that...

I mean, it obviosly should. But then, if you are already so fanatic you can watch your child die without trying to find any cure but prayers.... I just don't know.

Would be interesting to find out though.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well now Reenk's made me less sure of myself.

I'll state some things first:

Certainly not secular logic or scientific arguments or even appeals to common sense, because they are already arguing the parents have a right to let their children die without medical intervention and they see nothing wrong with it.

As was said, they aren't arguing that at all. They are arguing they have a right to treat their children in what they view as the best way.


but admit this fact: If prayer fails, the child is probably going to die, and you know it.

The parents said they thought she had something like a flu. As for why the child died even with prayer, they might believe it was her time to go anyway.

CR

[Centurion1]

True, but they were either psychotic or mentaly challenged. The law cant let neglect like this pass just because the offenders isnt mentaly capable of understanding the crime. There has to me some minimum level of mental ability required by the law. And if you go under it you will get help.


RUDE, that should not be said.

Now there is a book almost entirely about this. It is called i fall and the spirit catches me. In the book a young Hmong girl is diagnosed with severe epilepsy. Her parents lose faith in the hospital authorities and turn to their animist religion (which states that shamans suffering from the "shaking" disease are future religious leaders). The state seizes the child and tries to care for her. In the end she dies because of improper medical treatment and her life was questionably worse as a result (the medicine she was given caused pain and physical atrophy).

Now i think these parents were foolish to do as they did. I believe there should be a legal limit to where your freedom of religion should end. as was stated earlier with the row to shore analogy i absolutely agree. These parents were testing god and god punished them. There is no reason you can't pray AND take shots of insulin. I think even Amish allow modern medical care (i saw them in the orthopedic clinic when i broke my leg at least.)

However, i would like people to avoid from comments like the one i quoted at the beginning. They are rude and very thoughtless. As such, they reflect badly on what is meant to be a polite and informative debate.

[KukriKhan]

Reportedly, "a persistant teenage family member from California" had called the local Wisconsin 911 center 3 times during the victim's last day. Finally, emergency crews rolled when someone in the actual house of the victim called for help. Should the 911 operator taking and ignoring those first 3 calls be prosecuted for manslaughter too, or at least dereliction of duty?

[Kadagar_AV]

RUDE, that should not be said.

Now there is a book almost entirely about this. It is called i fall and the spirit catches me. In the book a young Hmong girl is diagnosed with severe epilepsy. Her parents lose faith in the hospital authorities and turn to their animist religion (which states that shamans suffering from the "shaking" disease are future religious leaders). The state seizes the child and tries to care for her. In the end she dies because of improper medical treatment and her life was questionably worse as a result (the medicine she was given caused pain and physical atrophy).

Now i think these parents were foolish to do as they did. I believe there should be a legal limit to where your freedom of religion should end. as was stated earlier with the row to shore analogy i absolutely agree. These parents were testing god and god punished them. There is no reason you can't pray AND take shots of insulin. I think even Amish allow modern medical care (i saw them in the orthopedic clinic when i broke my leg at least.)

However, i would like people to avoid from comments like the one i quoted at the beginning. They are rude and very thoughtless. As such, they reflect badly on what is meant to be a polite and informative debate.


Rude? How so?

If I would see my child slowly die I'd do ANYTHING in my power to keep that from happening. These parents instead turned to some "god".

Do you mean that isnt stupid, or that fanaticism like that isnt psychotic?

End result: one dead child. Can you really defend this?

You yourself said that the parents were foolish, well, aren't fools below the norm when it comes to mental ability, or?

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

From what I can understand from the situation the parents seem to have legitimately believed that they were doing what was best for their child. If their faith tells them that medical treatment is wrong or morally questionable, then it is their right to refuse it.

As far as I can tell the main issue here is whether the parents should be punished for the death of a child, due to their exercise of this right, on the behalf of their child, who is their responsibility. That is the grey area, and what needs to be clarified. According to the judgement of the state in this case, the parents are to be held responsible for their desicion made on the behalf of their child.

The questions that need to be asked are: is a person's right to refuse treatment on religious grounds to be upheld?; does a parent have the right to make such a desicion on the behalf of their child?; or is the latter desicion to be constrained by the state, contravening their religious views in order to conform to the ethical code of the majority?

If the answer to the first two questions is yes, the third cannot be, and the state, and the wider public, should not be able to intervene.

[rory_20_uk]

An innocent died due to another person's religious beliefs.

If it is decided that acts based on religious beliefs which end in the death of another are allowed does this mean merely acts of inaction are allowed (not providing assistance / altering one's actions based on changing circumstances), or are acts of action allowed?

Examples of the latter are easy. Could it be argued that shooting for religious reasons is OK? I imagine the resounding answer is "NO".

But the former might be more interesting:


Driving a car thais so poorly serviced the breaks don't work - "God will stop the car if it should"
Not breaking or swerving when someone is crossing the Road "It is their time to die"
Not calling an ambulance after witnessing a shooting "their time to die"
Not calling the ambulance based on the person's religion / ethnicity "God doesn't want them to live"


~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

OK I've read enough to make a comment.

First up, you don't own your children. You nuture and care for them until they are old enough to care for themselves. They should be able to rely on you to do the right thing for them physically and emotionally. They are a part of you but they are not you. This means that you have to respect them as human beings with all that entails.

To put your child at risk by delaying medical treatment is immoral. That's right an atheist is saying that these religious nutjobs behaved immorally. Even if what they did was not illegal in that state, it was wrong.

They should throw the book at them and lock them up for a very long time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

An innocent died due to another person's religious beliefs.

If it is decided that acts based on religious beliefs which end in the death of another are allowed does this mean merely acts of inaction are allowed (not providing assistance / altering one's actions based on changing circumstances), or are acts of action allowed?

Examples of the latter are easy. Could it be argued that shooting for religious reasons is OK? I imagine the resounding answer is "NO".

But the former might be more interesting:


Driving a car thais so poorly serviced the breaks don't work - "God will stop the car if it should"
Not breaking or swerving when someone is crossing the Road "It is their time to die"
Not calling an ambulance after witnessing a shooting "their time to die"
Not calling the ambulance based on the person's religion / ethnicity "God doesn't want them to live"


~:smoking:

All of those are extreme examples, so yes in those cases the law of the land should prosecute such people. Maybe it should be more lenient if their beliefs are genuine, and if they are then it does infringe on their religious freedom, but it's needed for practical reasons. Not everything can be ideal.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I find it difficult to prove what beliefs are genuine and what aren't. To me, the same standards should apply to everyone regardless of "belief"

[Rhyfelwyr]

I find it difficult to prove what beliefs are genuine and what aren't. To me, the same standards should apply to everyone regardless of "belief"

That's extremely intollerant. Why should you be able to criminalise people just because they do not follow your branch of epistemology? Normally that's reserved for places such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc...

[Reenk Roink]

To the beliefs argument, in a government like the United States, it probably has to do with the beliefs of "the people..."

Obviously there is a strong enough value to "the people" of modern medicine to have laws that make not seeking these measures considered neglect.

By the same token there must be a strong enough value to "the people" on freedom of religion to grant exemptions from seeking medical care in the case of religious beliefs.

:juggle2:

[Husar]

That's extremely intollerant. Why should you be able to criminalise people just because they do not follow your branch of epistemology? Normally that's reserved for places such as Saudi Arabia, North Korea etc...

Well, yes, I happen to believe that everybody but myself should die, naturally I would only be prosecuted for acting on my beliefs in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia...

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, yes, I happen to believe that everybody but myself should die, naturally I would only be prosecuted for acting on my beliefs in North Korea, or Saudi Arabia...

That's another extreme example, and as I said in such cases people must be suppressed in their beliefs (or at least acting on them), it's not ideal but it's practical.

ATPG on the other hand seemed to be saying no latitude should ever be given for people's beliefs, regardless of whether they are genuine, whether they affect people's intentions, whether they are deluded by them, and whether or not they could, just maybe, even be right.

[Askthepizzaguy]

No, ATPG was saying that people should be treated the same regardless of belief. That would be the opposite of intolerance. It's called equality.

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, ATPG was saying that people should be treated the same regardless of belief. That would be the opposite of intolerance. It's called equality.

And the standard belief to judge by is... your own.

[Andres]

And the standard belief to judge by is... your own.

No.

The standard is the law.

[Centurion1]

The line is drawn when peoples health and safety is involved

[Tribesman]

And the standard belief to judge by is... your own.

Bollox, leaving aside the religious judge not stuff, how about never judge by your own standards

[Rhyfelwyr]

Bollox, leaving aside the religious judge not stuff, how about never judge by your own standards

I wasn't talking about moral beliefs, I'm talking about epistemology, I had in mind the argument Reformed folks use with presuppositionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) - so in other words why should ATPG's belief in the inherent truthfulness of logic or science form the basis of the laws by which people who presuppose the truthfulness of, say the Bible, be judged? I was kind of hoping Reenk might come in to take over from here on, he's the expert on that stuff, I'm a noob at it but I'm going to try to learn... :sweatdrop:

[gibsonsg91921]

My pastor once told us a story of a flood. A man waited on top of his house, saying God will save him. Neighbors with a boat came by to pick him up, and he declined, saying God would save him. A military helicopter came to pick him up, and he declined, saying God would save him. When he got to heaven, he asked God:

"I was completely faithful, why didn't you save me?"

"I sent a boat and a helicopter to save you, what more do you want?"

[Tribesman]

Blasphemy, how dare you take our saviour and put him into a joke Gibson.

Two bags of gravel please

[Rhyfelwyr]

Blasphemy, how dare you take our saviour and put him into a joke Gibson.

Two bags of gravel please

Nobody is saying it is blasphemy except you, my Minister said the same joke at a service once. :shrug:

[Kadagar_AV]

I wasn't talking about moral beliefs, I'm talking about epistemology, I had in mind the argument Reformed folks use with presuppositionalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) - so in other words why should ATPG's belief in the inherent truthfulness of logic or science form the basis of the laws by which people who presuppose the truthfulness of, say the Bible, be judged? I was kind of hoping Reenk might come in to take over from here on, he's the expert on that stuff, I'm a noob at it but I'm going to try to learn... :sweatdrop:

Why should any individual follow the law instead of, say, the writings of Douglas Adams?

Your argument is absurd to anyone but a fanatic.

[Kadagar_AV]

I will follow up on my last post to avoid misconceptions.

The law is what MOST people can agree on is proper human behaviour. You don't steal, you don't drive drunk, you don't pray to god as you watch your child die.

Is the law always right? No. Of course not. Even 49,9% can believe it's wrong. However, it is the moral code that binds us together.

So you want to follow some other moral code, like, the bible? Sure, by all means, do so. However, you must then be ready to face the consequence when your actions are in violation of the common acceptance.

This goes for any obscure sekt, aswell as popular religions.

Basicly, you have as little right to pray instead of seeking medical aid when your child is about to die, as you have of reading The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy as you watch your child die.

Why? Easy, can you imagine the stress on the community as a whole if we let any nut job have his way?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why should any individual follow the law instead of, say, the writings of Douglas Adams?

Your argument is absurd to anyone but a fanatic.

That analogy makes no sense considering what it was in reply to. :shrug:


I will follow up on my last post to avoid misconceptions.

The law is what MOST people can agree on is proper human behaviour. You don't steal, you don't drive drunk, you don't pray to god as you watch your child die.

Is the law always right? No. Of course not. Even 49,9% can believe it's wrong. However, it is the moral code that binds us together.

So you want to follow some other moral code, like, the bible? Sure, by all means, do so. However, you must then be ready to face the consequence when your actions are in violation of the common acceptance.

This goes for any obscure sekt, aswell as popular religions.

All true, and nobody denies this. The problem is over how far these laws go. If all laws should be passed when most people agree with them regardless of how they affect those who don't, then you will have a tyranny of the majority. Individual freedoms have got to count for something, that's why we try to keep these generally accepted norms to a minimum, and without them encroaching too much on the private sphere. Liberal democracy isn't about majority rule, it's about ensuring equal status for minorities. Otherwise, with the attitutudes of a few hundred years ago, you post could have read:

The Bible is what MOST people can agree on is the proper example for human behaviour. You don't steal, you don't get drunk, you don't practice witchcraft, you don't blaspheme, you don't spread heresies.

Does everyone believe the Bible is right? No. Of course not. even 49.9% can believe it's wrong. However, it is the moral code that binds us together.

So you want to follow some other morale code, like, secular humanism? Sure, by all means, do so. However, you must then be ready to face the consequence when your actions are in violation of the common acceptance.

That goes for any obscure philosophy, as well as outright atheism.


Basicly, you have as little right to pray instead of seeking medical aid when your child is about to die, as you have of reading The Hitch Hikers Guide To The Galaxy as you watch your child die.

Why? Easy, can you imagine the stress on the community as a whole if we let any nut job have his way?

Of course, I've said this many times over. This is sadly infringing on people's freedoms, but we do it for the sake of practicality.

[Husar]

That's another extreme example, and as I said in such cases people must be suppressed in their beliefs (or at least acting on them), it's not ideal but it's practical.

Well, their daughter died, is that not extreme?

[Tribesman]

Nobody is saying it is blasphemy except you,
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Would you like a pair of stilts?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Well, their daughter died, is that not extreme?

Yes, and that is why the parents actions cannot be accepted, although I think that they should have some leniency in their sentencing considering their intentions.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
Would you like a pair of stilts?

What is the problem now?

[Husar]

Yes, and that is why the parents actions cannot be accepted, although I think that they should have some leniency in their sentencing considering their intentions.

Well, they're being tried for "reckless endangerment" according to the article in the OP, not murder or manslaughter. I find that quite fitting. It does however appear that that somehow changed to second-degree homicide, whatever that is.
That the parents didn't even try to get any help when their daughter was almost dead really makes me wonder though, they say they thought god was trying them but then he could still have done that with a doctor trying to help their daughter, that shouldn't be a valid excuse by itself. I'm very temped to agree with my dad that whoever made them think like that should be sentenced as well, though that might be a bit utopic.

[Samurai Waki]

Well, they're being tried for "reckless endangerment" according to the article in the OP, not murder or manslaughter. I find that quite fitting. It does however appear that that somehow changed to second-degree homicide, whatever that is.

Murder without cause or intent; since it wasn't accidental, it won't count as Manslaughter. Bare in mind, these aren't charges being brought up against these two by the state, which couldn't prosecute them on Murder 2, or Manslaughter based on their own legislative law. These are Federal Crimes, and since the Feds hold more power than the state, they will file the charges, and they will be prosecuted in Federal Court.

The State Court can of course still file for reckless endangerment, and I'm sure they will. However, The Federal Government usually tends to sideline the religious argument.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Who 'owns' the child - parent or State?

When does a child cease being a child, a second-class citizen, and become a 1st class citizen, for who's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, the State has the stated obligation to protect?

If a woman has a right to an abortion, how is this case different? Because the child is outside the womb, instead of inside?I for one think this is an intruiging question.

Let's for the sake of argument assume the unborn are equal to the born. Then, if one follows the 'child care is subject to freedom of religion' path, then religious people should accept that abortion is a matter of the parents' faith. That is, if my religion accepts abortion, then it would infringe on my freedom of religion to ban abortion. Abortion then ought to be freely available lest it infringe on freedom of religion.

The above is the mirror image of the case that is the subject of this thread. Following the logic to its conclusion, then religious people who believe the parents of this case had the freedom of religion not to seek medical treatment, must be in favour of freely available abortion.

Which means that comparing the case to 'abortion' does not reveal any hypocrisy on the part of pro-choicers who do want the parents prosecuted, but rather of pro-lifers who don't on account of the freedom of religion of these parents.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I wonder:

If the parents had been some of the many thousands who register on censuses as Jedi, and they had tried very hard to use the Force to heal their child - yet failed - would anyone be defending or excusing them?

In other words, is there a hierarchy of fairytale in law?

:inquisitive:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I would think losing their child due to their dubious belief would be punishment enough. To what purpose would time in jail serve? Would they be rehabilitated? They need counselling.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I for one think this is an intruiging question.

Let's for the sake of argument assume the unborn are equal to the born. Then, if one follows the 'child care is subject to freedom of religion' path, then religious people should accept that abortion is a matter of the parents' faith. That is, if my religion accepts abortion, then it would infringe on my freedom of religion to ban abortion. Abortion then ought to be freely available lest it infringe on freedom of religion.

The above is the mirror image of the case that is the subject of this thread. Following the logic to its conclusion, then religious people who believe the parents of this case had the freedom of religion not to seek medical treatment, must be in favour of freely available abortion.

Which means that comparing the case to 'abortion' does not reveal any hypocrisy on the part of pro-choicers who do want the parents prosecuted, but rather of pro-lifers who don't on account of the freedom of religion of these parents.

But killing children through abortion would come under the "too extreme and therefore needs to be suppressed" category, just like in the OP's case. If abortion was a genuine belief of theirs, then yes you could show some leniency if they went ahead and did it, but you would still need to punish murder (as we are considering it for the sake of the analogy).

[Banquo's Ghost]

I would think losing their child due to their dubious belief would be punishment enough. To what purpose would time in jail serve? Would they be rehabilitated? They need counselling.

I happen to think that rehabilitation might well be a sensible option in this case, since one might hope there is little chance of re-offending, but there are two thoughts that your position provokes.

Firstly, would we say the same thing about a paedophile who abused his daughter? Many of them have sincerely held beliefs that sex with children is somehow acceptable. Rehab or jail?

Secondly, one would have to be certain that they understood the gravity of their error and take responsibility for their loss. If the loss had not brought on this realisation, would rehabilitation have to take the course of forcing them to repudiate their beliefs - and by extension, their personal grasp of Christianity?

[Reenk Roink]

In other words, is there a hierarchy of fairytale in law?

Yeah, in this case medical science seems to be at top with exceptions made for monotheistic religion.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I happen to think that rehabilitation might well be a sensible option in this case, since one might hope there is little chance of re-offending, but there are two thoughts that your position provokes.

Firstly, would we say the same thing about a pedophile who abused his daughter? Many of them have sincerely held beliefs that sex with children is somehow acceptable. Rehab or jail?

Secondly, one would have to be certain that they understood the gravity of their error and take responsibility for their loss. If the loss had not brought on this realisation, would rehabilitation have to take the course of forcing them to repudiate their beliefs - and by extension, their personal grasp of Christianity?

To me, pedophiles must be incarcerated, whether in jail or a secure mental institution for as long as it takes to treat them, on a case by case basis. The rate of recurrence can be quite high in some cases, and the danger they pose to society demands that the worst cases should never be released, and those that are deemed an acceptable risk should still be monitored by police.

The people in the original topic, I don't believe, can receive the treatment they need in a correctional facility *jail* setting. They really aren't a danger to society at large. However, any other children in their care need to be monitored/protected by the appropriate state authorities. If deemed to also be endangered in a similiar way they should be removed from that situation.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yeah, in this case medical science seems to be at top with exceptions made for monotheistic religion.

So how is it decided which fairytale takes precedence?

[Reenk Roink]

So how is it decided which fairytale takes precedence?

In our society, "the people" do, at least that's what I gather.


To the beliefs argument, in a government like the United States, it probably has to do with the beliefs of "the people..."

Obviously there is a strong enough value to "the people" of modern medicine to have laws that make not seeking these measures considered neglect.

By the same token there must be a strong enough value to "the people" on freedom of religion to grant exemptions from seeking medical care in the case of religious beliefs.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2304184&postcount=25
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2304952&postcount=55

[Banquo's Ghost]

To me, pedophiles must be incarcerated, whether in jail or a secure mental institution for as long as it takes to treat them, on a case by case basis. The rate of recurrence can be quite high in some cases, and the danger they pose to society demands that the worst cases should never be released, and those that are deemed an acceptable risk should still be monitored by police.

The people in the original topic, I don't believe, can receive the treatment they need in a correctional facility *jail* setting. They really aren't a danger to society at large. However, any other children in their care need to be monitored/protected by the appropriate state authorities. If deemed to also be endangered in a similiar way they should be removed from that situation.

Most child abuse takes place in the family, and familial paedophiles rarely threaten other children.

Again, why do these religiously motivated parents deserve leniency when the sincere belief of a paedophile also causes them to break the law? Surely the non-dangerous of both belief systems ought to be placed in a treatment regime rather than a punitive one. But whilst you might sell the religious one to Joe Public, you probably won't with the paedophile.

I'm trying to explore why, you understand.

[Reenk Roink]

Most child abuse takes place in the family, and familial paedophiles rarely threaten other children.

Again, why do these religiously motivated parents deserve leniency when the sincere belief of a paedophile also causes them to break the law? Surely the non-dangerous of both belief systems ought to be placed in a treatment regime rather than a punitive one. But whilst you might sell the religious one to Joe Public, you probably won't with the paedophile.

I'm trying to explore why, you understand.

Again Banquo, it all has to do (in this country's case) with the society at large. Just several decades ago, homosexuality was not only banned in legislation, it was considered a mental disease by medical science. Not only to the value on the differing fairy tales change, but as the change of the status of homosexuality in medicine, the fairy tales themselves are subject to society's opinions at large.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In our society, "the people" do, at least that's what I gather.

Fair enough. I would suggest that in most western societies, medical science has a greater "faith" among the people than any other.

Also, what happens when my fairytale is much less understood or popular - ie so far down the hierarchy that it is barely distinguishable? Am I likely to get the same "understanding" if I am a Muslim child murderer, for example, in a Christian society? Or has been noted before, Wotan requires that I sacrifice a child through neglect?

[Reenk Roink]

Also, what happens when my fairytale is much less understood or popular - ie so far down the hierarchy that it is barely distinguishable? Am I likely to get the same "understanding" if I am a Muslim child murderer, for example, in a Christian society? Or has been noted before, Wotan requires that I sacrifice a child through neglect?

You're screwed. :shrug:

Again, look at the homosexuality example through different eras.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You're screwed. :shrug:

Again, look at the homosexuality example through different eras.

Your homosexuality example is good one. :bow:

The conclusion you posit above is a recognition of the reality of this story: to wit, the parents are out of kilter with current societal norms of justice, therefore they are screwed.

So, should we forcibly re-educate them as Hosa is suggesting?

[InsaneApache]

We could always send the parents to their maker to be judged.

[KukriKhan]

We could always send the parents to their maker to be judged.

Presuming there is such a thing.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Most child abuse takes place in the family, and familial paedophiles rarely threaten other children.

Again, why do these religiously motivated parents deserve leniency when the sincere belief of a paedophile also causes them to break the law? Surely the non-dangerous of both belief systems ought to be placed in a treatment regime rather than a punitive one. But whilst you might sell the religious one to Joe Public, you probably won't with the paedophile.

I'm trying to explore why, you understand.

From personal observation of child abuse cases in my local area over the years, I think the fact that it takes place many times "within the family circle" is as much attributed to "opportunity" as anything else, imo. Once a perpetrator has been caught and is known to family & friends the repeat offender will prey upon those who don't know his history.

I know there are treatment programs in correctional facilities for pedophiles, being that it is an all too common offense. I'm not familiar with the treatment for "religious crack-pottery", being it isn't as common an offense to this degree of harm, in the withholding of medical treatment, anyway.
The best punishment would be the sudden epiphany of the deadly misguided action they chose. How to bring it about and where, does not matter to me. Human nature dictates that, as a defense mechanism, some will probably never admit that it was anything but the will of God. That's certainly understandable considering the horror & pain of the truth. The one person we lie to, more than anyother, is ourselves.

[miotas]

We could always send the parents to their maker to be judged.
He he, my grandfather used to say (in a joking manner) "Kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out".

I believe the parents should be locked up in a mental facility until such time as we can be certain that their beliefs wont cause any further harm to another person. If a person wants to endanger their own life then let them be, but when they start endangering the lives of others, something must be done.

Plus their religous argument falls through since they were testing god and that goes against christian teachings.

Also, whilst I have nothing wrong with people who believe in god, many of the teachings in the bible have no place in modern society. If someone tried to live according to the teachings of the bible, most people, including most cristians would be disgusted. I have a short clip which details this very well, and while I don't find it in the least bit offensive, I suppose that some here might, so I will refrain from posting it.

[Samurai Waki]

They won't be going to any sort of Mental Rehabilitation Facility if they are guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. 15 years to Life within a Federal Maximum Security Prison (which may host a Rehab Facility), with a chance for parole after the first 15 years.

[KukriKhan]

They won't be going to any sort of Mental Rehabilitation Facility if they are guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. 15 years to Life within a Federal Maximum Security Prison (which may host a Rehab Facility), with a chance for parole after the first 15 years.

So, in effect, society intervenes post facto, and takes over the care of what once was a family, versus intervention beforehand.

I understand that it can be argued that the actions/inaction of the parents generally, and the father particularly, brought on this breakup of a family unit; it's just gut-wrenching to see that not only has an innocent died, but now 4-5 other people will suffer the rest of their lives.

and taxpayers are gonna pay for it all.

Was this girl in school somewhere? Has anyone seen reports of classmate or teacher concerns?

[Husar]

Was this girl in school somewhere? Has anyone seen reports of classmate or teacher concerns?

Given the circumstances of her death I wouldn't be surprised if she was homeschooled.

[Samurai Waki]

So, in effect, society intervenes post facto, and takes over the care of what once was a family, versus intervention beforehand.

I understand that it can be argued that the actions/inaction of the parents generally, and the father particularly, brought on this breakup of a family unit; it's just gut-wrenching to see that not only has an innocent died, but now 4-5 other people will suffer the rest of their lives.

and taxpayers are gonna pay for it all.

Was this girl in school somewhere? Has anyone seen reports of classmate or teacher concerns?

It can't be helped, it's not the Government's job to actively intervene in people's lives if they aren't suspected of doing anything wrong.

Whatever the case, it was a preventable death of a child, which is always enough for Federal Prosecutor's to conduct their own investigation. I'm assuming, there was enough evidence to support filing murder charges, but thats not always the case, from what I see it could be circumstantial evidence (ah, that gray area in the land of law). I can already tell you, that the Feds want this guy, in a bad way, and I don't envy the Defense for it.

The thing that makes my gut wrench, is that I don't think either of these people will survive long in Club Fed.

:thumbsdown:

[Louis VI the Fat]

The thing that makes my gut wrench, is that I don't think either of these people will survive long in Club Fed.Part of me wants them punished, part of me not. I don't know. I don't really have much of an 'off with their heads' view about them. I feel a bit sorry for them.

I can't make up whether these parents are deranged cultists, ready to sacrifice children. Or just deluded spiritualists. I can see this happening to somewhat normal people.

They needed a bucket of icewater thrown over them, a slap in the face. A wake-up call. Everything done now feels too late.

It is the same feeling I have about people who kill somebody in traffic. Sometimes, it is a bastard who consistently gives preference to saving five seconds of his time over the life and well-being of his fellow human beings. Sometimes, it really was just a normal person whose thoughts went astray for fifteen seconds. Then another's life was ruined, or taken. I get so little satisfaction of seeing somebody like that locked up for years.

So much misery, over something that was so easily avoidable. Bah.

[Samurai Waki]

Part of me wants them punished, part of me not. I don't know. I don't really have much of an 'off with their heads' view about them. I feel a bit sorry for them.

I can't make up whether these parents are deranged cultists, ready to sacrifice children. Or just deluded spiritualists. I can see this happening to somewhat normal people.

They needed a bucket of icewater thrown over them, a slap in the face. A wake-up call. Everything done now feels too late.

It is the same feeling I have about people who kill somebody in traffic. Sometimes, it is a bastard who consistently gives preference to saving five seconds of his time over the life and well-being of his fellow human beings. Sometimes, it really was just a normal person whose thoughts went astray for fifteen seconds. Then another's life was ruined, or taken. I get so little satisfaction of seeing somebody like that locked up for years.

So much misery, over something that was so easily avoidable. Bah.

Pretty much the way I see it. The Feds want this, because it could set a new precedence when it comes to similar cases (I don't feel like using scaremonger tactics to tell anyone what potentially COULD happen sometime in the future, if more similar cases arise) but, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out. Part of me wants Defense to win, simply to tell the Feds to butt out of their state's legislation, the other part of me wants the Feds to win, so that a clear message will be sent to every religious nutter who feels praying to god instead of sending your child to the Doc when the kid is clearly sick, will get you thrown in a place you really don't want to be. Either way, the parent's of the Child have the most to lose, and relatively little to gain from all of this.

[Centurion1]

Part of me wants them punished, part of me not. I don't know. I don't really have much of an 'off with their heads' view about them. I feel a bit sorry for them.

I can't make up whether these parents are deranged cultists, ready to sacrifice children. Or just deluded spiritualists. I can see this happening to somewhat normal people.

They needed a bucket of icewater thrown over them, a slap in the face. A wake-up call. Everything done now feels too late.

It is the same feeling I have about people who kill somebody in traffic. Sometimes, it is a bastard who consistently gives preference to saving five seconds of his time over the life and well-being of his fellow human beings. Sometimes, it really was just a normal person whose thoughts went astray for fifteen seconds. Then author's life was ruined, or taken. I get so little satisfaction of seeing somebody like that locked up for years.

So much misery, over something that was so easily avoidable. Bah.

I absolutley feel the same way. I almost pity them. I would be willing to bet that they didn't want to lose their daughter. i also bet they loved her and wish they were dead right now.

Oh and i think they will be fine in prison. Unfortunately not all pedophiles (scum of the earth) are killed in prison, so i bet people who accidentally killed their daughter will "survive" even if they don't want to.

[KukriKhan]

So much misery, over something that was so easily avoidable. Bah.

Yeah.

OK, it's 'fess-up time: I've been banging on about who else to hold responsible besides the parents, and whether the State had failed in its duty to protect the life of this innocent. No one here took the bait, and I admit: I can't make a case either, although I wish I could. I don't want the State intruding into matters usually best left to parents, unless there is a dire one-off emergency. The State already interferes too much (in the US) IMO.

Yet here we have a dead girl. Who didn't have to die when she did. Because no doc knew and could treat her manageable condition.

The State guarantees to defend the life of its citizens - but entrusts the lives of its children to their parents. The parents have the duty to call on the State to assist. Some parents aren't up to the task, even when they think they are. When they fail to adequately defend the lives of their kids, AND fail to call on the State to assist, and a citizen-child dies due to those failures...

It's on the parents. It's ugly, but there's no other way around it. The child-citizen's right to breathe trumps the parents' right to exercise their freedom of religion.

[Tribesman]

Given the circumstances of her death I wouldn't be surprised if she was homeschooled.

Is that just a lucky guess or did you read about the case?

[Centurion1]

^ Many fundamentalist Christians home school their children to shelter them from the corrupting influences of the outside world (some influences which ARE corrupting). Home schooled kids often tend to be a little socially awkward, IMHO. (though not all, it really depends on the parents in that case and how active they are in their community, etc.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah.

OK, it's 'fess-up time: I've been banging on about who else to hold responsible besides the parents, and whether the State had failed in its duty to protect the life of this innocent. No one here took the bait, and I admit: I can't make a case either, although I wish I could. I don't want the State intruding into matters usually best left to parents, unless there is a dire one-off emergency. The State already interferes too much (in the US) IMO.

Yet here we have a dead girl. Who didn't have to die when she did. Because no doc knew and could treat her manageable condition.

The State guarantees to defend the life of its citizens - but entrusts the lives of its children to their parents. The parents have the duty to call on the State to assist. Some parents aren't up to the task, even when they think they are. When they fail to adequately defend the lives of their kids, AND fail to call on the State to assist, and a citizen-child dies due to those failures...

It's on the parents. It's ugly, but there's no other way around it. The child-citizen's right to breathe trumps the parents' right to exercise their freedom of religion.

So, ultimately you don't believe in freedom of religion?

If you take it to its logical conclusion then you have to let the child die. Otherwise, at some point you have subjected the parents to your own morality, your "religion".

No offense, I'm merely making a point.

[Husar]

Is that just a lucky guess or did you read about the case?

It was a guess, not a lucky one, more like a prejudiced one, you should know I can't read.

[KukriKhan]

So, ultimately you don't believe in freedom of religion?

If you take it to its logical conclusion then you have to let the child die. Otherwise, at some point you have subjected the parents to your own morality, your "religion".

No offense, I'm merely making a point.

Point taken. It's the "take it to its logical conclusion" bit that rubs. Freedom of religion does go quite far; witness all the whacky cults we have over here. But the State (as representative of the people) has to draw a line at, for example: human sacrifice. So Freedom of Religion prevails, until it interferes with another freedom: life or liberty.

So a religionist cannot kill a non-believer, or imprison a heretic until they "see the light", or withold medical treatment to the extent of death.

So yes: "...at some point you have subjected the parents to your own morality, your "religion"." Only it's not my personal morality, but the stated/agreed upon morality (or limit to freedom) of the State.

[Tribesman]

Homeskoolin FTW
We don't need no evil feds brainwashing us , we understand that the ZOG would fool our children and turn them against the true Christian(available on www.good christian god.com)values we hold so dear.

[Samurai Waki]

One's freedom of religion is assured, as long as it doesn't infringe on another's right to life. These people are still welcome to continue in their crazy beliefs, that's their right to the first amendment. But they (as assumed) killed their child through willful neglect, and that is what they are being charged for.

[rvg]

They obviously didn't pray hard enough or just didn't do it right. I'd lock 'em up for blasphemy.

[Meneldil]

Retard parents caused the death of their child in a most retard way. Happens all the time.

One could think that this will change their mind about their fairytales, but I highly doubt this is going to happen. I hope they'll feel bad for the rest of their short - as I hope they won't accept any cure for themselves aswell - life though. People should never play with their children' life just to make a point.

[LittleGrizzly]

It seems pointless locking them up... as someone else said they are not really a risk to others (or this doesn't show them to be)

I wouldn't let them raise children again... or at least not without daily visits by some kind of social worker at the very least, but possibly taking the children whilst they are still young so they can recieve medical care...

They are not bad people... they (I assume) did not want thier child to die... and intent should be a consideration whilst sentencing... but the other considerations for sentencing the result (dead kid) and the actions they chose to take (choosing not to go to the doctor)

and this is why they are getting a big sentence... as well as to scare other people...

Onto the scare factor... are people who are this incredibly deluded really going to be worried about this ?

Could they simply (if the worst happens) pray not to go to prison... then when if that fails pray to get out of prison....

If your deluded enough into thinking some guy in the sky is going to work miracles for you personally then why do you need to worry about anything ?

Though thinking on it if this couple had any kind of home security or safety equipment or anything which in any way can help prevent death or injury then they are complete hypocrits...

They don't need a break in alarm, god could simply smite the criminals, they don't need a fire alarm, god could simply douse the flames.... they don't need a baby door on the stairs, god could simply float the child safely down the stairs...

The house should be searched until some kind of safety/harm prevention device is found. They should then have thier own hypocriscy exposed to them... then they should do the honourable thing and remove thier defective genes....

[Kralizec]

I remember a backroom thread about a vegan couple who starved their baby to death by feeding him only soi milk and apple juice. Where was all the religious compassion in that case? The couple was convicted of murder and a string of other charges, by the way.

I really don't see what the sense of satisfaction of some orgahs has to do with the perpetrators being punished or not. The childs death was easily avoidable yet happened anyway because her parents suffered from delusions. The only argument against their punishment, as far as I'm concerned, is to go as far as to consider their religious fanaticism a mental illness. Wich is not that much of a stretch, in my opinion.

As for the bit of Wisconsin law that may or may not protect the parents, isn't it a violation of the first amendment? Surely a blanket rule that you can neglect your kids into death when you think god wants you to is a law respecting an establishment of religion...


So, ultimately you don't believe in freedom of religion?

If you take it to its logical conclusion then you have to let the child die. Otherwise, at some point you have subjected the parents to your own morality, your "religion".

No offense, I'm merely making a point.

Personally, my "belief" in freedom of religion is rather limited. It's mainly freedom of conscience, expression and congregation. I don't view statutes against bigamy and polygamy as contrary to freedom of religion, for example.

Coincidentally, parents also have the right to raise their children with the morals and religion they see fit. But more importantly they have an obligation to keep them alive and healthy until the age of majority. Even if you'd accept that people should be able to decide on wether or not to gamble with their own lives that doesn't mean you're allowed to do the same with others, including those you're entrusted to protect.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Personally, my "belief" in freedom of religion is rather limited. It's mainly freedom of conscience, expression and congregation. I don't view statutes against bigamy and polygamy as contrary to freedom of religion, for example.

Coincidentally, parents also have the right to raise their children with the morals and religion they see fit. But more importantly they have an obligation to keep them alive and healthy until the age of majority. Even if you'd accept that people should be able to decide on wether or not to gamble with their own lives that doesn't mean you're allowed to do the same with others, including those you're entrusted to protect.

That assumes their physical responsibility to their children trumps their spiritual one. That's also an assumption of a religious, or quasi-religious, nature.

So I suppose we're all bigots.

[Kralizec]

That assumes their physical responsibility to their children trumps their spiritual one. That's also an assumption of a religious, or quasi-religious, nature.

Of course the law should trump individual beliefs. Religious freedom is purely an individual right. It does not include a right to harm your kids. Any other opinion would make children their parents' property.

As for the morals behind those particular laws, you're right that it's based on the commonly (not quite universally) shared belief that the first duty of a parent is to raise their child till adulthood, until they can make their own choices- religious or otherwise.

I assume that you're playing the devils advocate, but it's a trivial point without much significance. There's no shortage of convicted murderers who genuinely thought that they were doing the right thing and that they're being persecuted for it. Many of them reside in insanity asylums. Are they victims of bigotry?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course the law should trump individual beliefs. Religious freedom is purely an individual right. It does not include a right to harm your kids. Any other opinion would make children their parents' property.

As for the morals behind those particular laws, you're right that it's based on the commonly (not quite universally) shared belief that the first duty of a parent is to raise their child till adulthood, until they can make their own choices- religious or otherwise.

I assume that you're playing the devils advocate, but it's a trivial point without much significance. There's no shortage of convicted murderers who genuinely thought that they were doing the right thing and that they're being persecuted for it. Many of them reside in insanity asylums. Are they victims of bigotry?

I am playing Devils advocate, but it isn't a trivial point.

Today people pray for miracles after they have exhausted all other options. 500 years ago, you were expected to go to the Saints first.

"God helps those who helps themselves" is a very modern concept, remember Gene Hackman's sermon in the Posidon Adventure? It was met with consternation then, and that film isn't that old.

The idea that God will look the other way until adulthood is much easier to stomach for Christians of most stripes (Grace and forgiveness, etc.), what about other religions?

Jehovah's Witnesses, for example? Should their children be given legally enforced blood transfusions?

[Kralizec]

I am playing Devils advocate, but it isn't a trivial point.

Today people pray for miracles after they have exhausted all other options. 500 years ago, you were expected to go to the Saints first.

"God helps those who helps themselves" is a very modern concept, remember Gene Hackman's sermon in the Posidon Adventure? It was met with consternation then, and that film isn't that old.

The idea that God will look the other way until adulthood is much easier to stomach for Christians of most stripes (Grace and forgiveness, etc.), what about other religions?

Jehovah's Witnesses, for example? Should their children be given legally enforced blood transfusions?

I realize that my position is a modern one. In the early days of the Roman Republic fathers had the legal right to have their own children killed or sold into slavery. Nowadays children have rights - I call that progress.

As for JH' children: yes. A (religiously motivated) choice made by an adult that concerns only his own health should be respected, misguided as it may be. They should not be able to withold life saving treatment on behalf of other people.
I'm not a cultual relativist, and I realize that this means putting my own morals before the choice of parents.

You suggested however that this limits religious freedom, wich itself is a fairly modern concept. And from early on, it was understood chiefly to mean freedom of conscience and thought for the individual.

Just curious, why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses considered to be christian?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Just curious, why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses considered to be christian?

They themselves reject the label, to them Christianity is one of the false pagan religions which comprises the Babylon of Revelation. Also, they reject the Trinity, which is pretty central to Christianity.

[rvg]

Yeah, they aren't really Christians, just like Mormons cannot be considered Christian.

[Hax]

The idea that God will look the other way until adulthood is much easier to stomach for Christians of most stripes (Grace and forgiveness, etc.), what about other religions?

Speaking for Buddhism if I may, the concept of God was never really mentioned. For the sake of discussion, we see "God" as living in ourselves. There is no deus ex machina.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I realize that my position is a modern one. In the early days of the Roman Republic fathers had the legal right to have their own children killed or sold into slavery. Nowadays children have rights - I call that progress.

As for JH' children: yes. A (religiously motivated) choice made by an adult that concerns only his own health should be respected, misguided as it may be. They should not be able to withold life saving treatment on behalf of other people.
I'm not a cultual relativist, and I realize that this means putting my own morals before the choice of parents.

You suggested however that this limits religious freedom, wich itself is a fairly modern concept. And from early on, it was understood chiefly to mean freedom of conscience and thought for the individual.

Just curious, why aren't Jehovah's Witnesses considered to be christian?

Well, you could call them Christian, but the term comes from Christianus fidelis, from the older Christe fidelis which means "Faithful of Christ". It denotes catholic Christians as defined by the Creeds etc., Armenians, Nestorians et al. are out. Basically, in order to be Christian you have to in some way trace your theology back to Late Antiquarian Rome and the Church Fathers.


Speaking for Buddhism if I may, the concept of God was never really mentioned. For the sake of discussion, we see "God" as living in ourselves. There is no deus ex machina.

Well, if I may, your theology/philosophy operates on a fundamentally different idea of what life is about. So my point does not apply in quite the same way.

[Hax]

Well, if I may, your theology/philosophy operates on a fundamentally different idea of what life is about. So my point does not apply in quite the same way.

Of course, I was just giving some information on the Buddhist ideas of action and inaction when it comes to spirituality.

[Kadagar_AV]

The jehovas is an interesting example...

Basicly, if the parents grants blood transfusion, the child is condemned to hell...

The "logical" choice for parents would of course be to say no to blood transfusion, even if it saved the childs life.

Should they then be sent to prison?

I had a classmate, he was 16, and he carried a card sying he would not admit to blood transfusion... is this legal? This was in sweden, mind you, I am not even sure of the rules THERE, even less somewhere else.


My personal perspective is, however, that people believing in god doesnt do much in the long run to hurt the human genome if they remove themselves from the genepool...

However, their offspring CAN be helped, specially in a civilized educational system that doesnt allow home schooling.

So, death of a child, if modern science can help, should always, ALWAYS be punished.

[Kralizec]

People who refuse blood transfusions for their children can be (temporarily) relieved of custody or otherwise bypassed in the Netherlands, but vaccination is another issue.

There's a small minority among Dutch protestant christians who refuse to have their childs vaccinated because they think that this goes against God's plans for them (or something along those lines)
They also reject concepts like insurance for the same reason.
Since these people generally live together in isolated pockets of our "bible belt", there's an outbreak of measle, polio or other diseases that the rest of us are immune to every decade or so.

[Centurion1]

I mean these people were questioning and testing God. They are stupid and uneducated (or maybe even just blinded by religion). I do not believe they are inherently evil people, just blinded by fate.

I believe currently in the United states social services can step in when the child's life is directly in danger. This can cause some problems because they may suffer irreparable damage before the authorities can move in and remove the child.