Freedom of religion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?"

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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:

Quote:

---

I'm not here to debate this issue.

---

But you obviously are! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KadagarAV

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KadagarAV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Askthepizzaguy

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

---

That's what we have jury's for.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mooks

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.

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

I'll state some things first:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

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?

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.

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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.

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"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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"

---

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...

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

---

No.

The standard is the law.