Freedom of religion

[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?

[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...

[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?)

[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.

[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.

[lars573]

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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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...

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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]

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]

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.

[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/showp...4&postcount=25
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...2&postcount=55

[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?

[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).