Freedom of religion

[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 - 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...

[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.

[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 - 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...

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.

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:

Spoiler Alert, click show to 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,

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.

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?

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

Again, look at the homosexuality example through different eras.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You're screwed.

Again, look at the homosexuality example through different eras.

Your homosexuality example is good one.

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.