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.

[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.

[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.

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...

That is just disgusting.

[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...

That is just disgusting.

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

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...

[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

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...

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.

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

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...

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.

[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...