Taking faith to far???

[Sooner_Havok]

and no, I am not trying to stir up ****. I came across this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html) and it got me thinking. I just can't understand how you could sit by and let your child die. They prayed for her recovery, well guess what, god made it possible for her to recover, all you had to do was take her to the hospital and get her medical care!

[olevetonahill]

Trouble maker :cool:

[Sooner_Havok]

Trouble maker :cool:

You know it :P

coincidences, they happen :D

[Sooner_Havok]

But really, if you have money and access to medical care, does that not equate to god giving you a way to save your child? I just think maybe the prayed, but didn't listen to what their god was telling them.

[olevetonahill]

Dont even need to read ,
Yup the parents are Idjits and should be prosicuted .

[tbl]

This is one of the many things that makes me sick about the word/faith-name it/claim it theology. These people get suckered in by false teachers such as Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, and there are real world consequences that can devastate families and be a HORRIBLE witness to those around them. This time its killed a poor little child that had her whole life ahead of her... Ridiculous.

[Curly Bill]

I wouldn't do what they did, but their beliefs are their beliefs and I'm not sure it's anyone elses business. I certainly don't think it's any business of the govt. or the courts.

...but then I'm very much of the mind that people should be left alone as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

...and as far as I know there are no laws that say you have to seek medical treatment for yourself or your loved ones if they are ill, but then again in these nanny-state times there could be such a law.

[tbl]

I'm as Libertarian as they come, but when it comes to endangering the lives of your children (or anybody else), we then have a problem. Personal liberty is the issue. That child had none...

[olevetonahill]

Curly
Please dont tell me you think its ok for Parents, To NOT take A child To the Doc when Its Dying ?:eek:

[Curly Bill]

Curly
Please dont tell me you think its ok for Parents, To NOT take A child To the Doc when Its Dying ?:eek:

Is it OK? No, of course it's not.

...but neither do I think it's OK for me or anyone else to impose their thoughts and beliefs on other people.

This is a sad deal, no doubt about it, but I don't know that the answer is to prosecute these people because they did not do what most of us would have done.

[Sooner_Havok]

I wouldn't do what they did, but their beliefs are their beliefs and I'm not sure it's anyone elses business. I certainly don't think it's any business of the govt. or the courts.

...but then I'm very much of the mind that people should be left alone as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

...and as far as I know there are no laws that say you have to seek medical treatment for yourself or your loved ones if they are ill, but then again in these nanny-state times there could be such a law.

Dude, I am with you on the nanny-state thing. But they killed a minor. Beliefs or not, these people's lack of action led to the death of an 11 year old girl. If you are an adult and don't want to receive medical care, fine die, I and the world won't miss you. But this wasn't a consenting adult refusing treatment, this was two religious zealots deciding that their child's life was worth taking no action but praying. They killed their child. No way around it, and if there isn't a law saying that you must seek medical attention for a minor in your care, then there should be.

Praying for someone with cancer after medicine can no longer help is one thing, but bypassing medical help and going straight to prayer, if you are making the decision for yourself fine, but if you are doing it for a child in your care...prison is to good for those people.

[shaun4411]

this guy was once stranded on an deserted island all by himself. someone on a boat came by and said "i can rescue you". "no, god will save me". then came a guy in a helicopter, "i can rescue you". "no, god will save me". finally, after 3 weeks with out food and water, he was hallucinating and a dolphin came by and said "i can rescue you". "No," the man replied, "god will save me." the next day he died. upon entering the pearly gates, the man inquired to god "why did you let me die?" "Let you die? i sent a boat, a helicopter, and and a dolphin."

[olevetonahill]

Is it OK? No, of course it's not.

...but neither do I think it's OK for me or anyone else to impose their thoughts and beliefs on other people.

This is a sad deal, no doubt about it, but I don't know that the answer is to prosecute these people because they did not do what most of us would have done.

On that same token then we need to get rid of all laws pertaing to Child Abuse .
You are Wrong On this one bro
Less Im way Misreading your Post.

[olevetonahill]

this guy was once stranded on an deserted island all by himself. someone on a boat came by and said "i can rescue you". "no, god will save me". then came a guy in a helicopter, "i can rescue you". "no, god will save me". finally, after 3 weeks with out food and water, he was hallucinating and a dolphin came by and said "i can rescue you". "No," the man replied, "god will save me." the next day he died. upon entering the pearly gates, the man inquired to god "why did you let me die?" "Let you die? i sent a boat, a helicopter, and and a dolphin."

Jokes Older than you !
FAIL

[Sooner_Havok]

On that same token then we need to get rid of all laws pertaing to Child Abuse .
You are Wrong On this one bro
Less Im way Misreading your Post.

We have laws restricting aspects of religions. You can't have multiple spouses, you can't have human sacrifice, and you shouldn't be allowed to let a little girl die of a completely treatable disease.

[Sooner_Havok]

Jokes Older than you !
FAIL

Give him a break vet, least his post is relevant this time

[Curly Bill]

I understand what you're all saying, and I see the point that this was a young child with no free will....

I just absolutely hate the idea though that the govt. or anyone else wants to impose their values on other people.

[Sooner_Havok]

I understand what you're all saying, and I see the point that this was a young child with no free will....

I just absolutely hate the idea though that the govt. or anyone else wants to impose their values on other people.

Some values should be central to all societies, and governments are only allowed to exist so that they can ensure that these values are upheld. In America you can't kill someone, even though some cultures would allow you to do so. In America you can't rape people, in some cultures there is no word for rape.

[Curly Bill]

We have laws restricting aspects of religions. You can't have multiple spouses, you can't have human sacrifice, and you shouldn't be allowed to let a little girl die of a completely treatable disease.

...but I think you should be able to have multiple spouses, though I'm not a Mormon. I just don't think it's the gov's business on this one either. If a guy wants more then one wife, and if more then one wants him (or vice versa)why is that my or your business?

[olevetonahill]

I understand what you're all saying, and I see the point that this was a young child with no free will....

I just absolutely hate the idea though that the govt. or anyone else wants to impose their values on other people.

In that case Bro . Ya have to withdraw from the Human Race .
Just sayin
I hate the Fact I cant Drive Drunk , I hate the Fact I cant drive 150 miles and hr Ya get My point ?
WE ahve Rules for the betterment Of Society.
Now I will Agree with you thata Lot of those Rules are Taking things way to far .

[shaun4411]

i know how old the joke is. its a good one. no failure, that was a grand success since it makes sense. i couldnt remember exactly how it goes. so i filled in the gaps. prefer i do it in german?

[olevetonahill]

i know how old the joke is. its a good one. no failure, that was a grand success since it makes sense. i couldnt remember exactly how it goes. so i filled in the gaps. prefer i do it in german?

Naw Its still
FAIL

[Sooner_Havok]

...but I think you should be able to have multiple spouses, though I'm not a Mormon. I just don't think it's the gov's business on this one either. If a guy wants more then one wife, and if more then one wants him (or vice versa)why is that my or your business?

Fine, take out the Polygamy, should we also allow human sacrifice?

[Sooner_Havok]

Naw Its still
FAIL

Crotchety old man :P

[Curly Bill]

In that case Bro . Ya have to withdraw from the Human Race .
Just sayin
I hate the Fact I cant Drive Drunk , I hate the Fact I cant drive 150 miles and hr Ya get My point ?
WE ahve Rules for the betterment Of Society.
Now I will Agree with you thata Lot of those Rules are Taking things way to far .

On this we can agree...

....but where is that line? Obviously you think the parents letting their child die is over that line, you might be right on this one, and I think most people will agree with you. I'm just not as sure as you.

[shaun4411]

Naw Its still
FAIL

oh no... my world....crashing....down

[olevetonahill]

Fine, take out the Polygamy, should we also allow human sacrifice?

Only If Its Young Nubile Virgins sacrificed On the altar Of the Olevet bed :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

[Curly Bill]

Fine, take out the Polygamy, should we also allow human sacrifice?

Only if both the sacrificer and the sacrificee are OK with it. :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Only If Its Young Nubile Virgins sacrificed On the altar Of the Olevet bed :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot: :hot:

You did hear Smiling Bob was a sham right?

[olevetonahill]

oh no... my world....crashing....down

You should Be crushed By the Olevet Criticism .:cool:

[olevetonahill]

You did hear Smiling Bob was a sham right?

Who the hell is Bob
Im saying Herman will Will enjoy :hot:

[Okla-homey]

I'm as Libertarian as they come, but when it comes to endangering the lives of your children (or anybody else), we then have a problem. Personal liberty is the issue. That child had none...

Absolutely. What's more, as a person of faith who also happens to be anti-abortion, I have to come down on the side of throwing the book at these moonbat parents. I'm an advocate for innocent life. Period. Those parents "right to choose" on decisions affecting whether that little girl lived or died ended the moment she was conceived.

Further, this whole notion of "pray hard enough and you won't need a doctor" is only about a hundred year old "theology." It's tied to that whole Oral Roberts-esque faith healer (in exchange for your kind "love gift" of whatever you can afford) flim-flam.

Our Lord Himself called a physician among His apostles. He did not, as near as I can tell, order Luke to throw his medical bag away.

[Sooner_Havok]

On this we can agree...

....but where is that line? Obviously you think the parents letting their child die is over that line, you might be right on this one, and I think most people will agree with you. I'm just not as sure as you.

Yeah, I think a lot of laws cross the stupidity line. But most all of the stupid laws are set up to protect the idiot adults from themselves. I say, if you can't figure out that your hot coffee is hot and spill it in your lap, you deserve to have shriveled and burned junk.

Most laws governing morales fall into this stupid area too. If I guy really wants the headache of ten wives, go for it. As long as what you do doesn't infringe on someone else's rights. And no, the happy feeling you get when everyone thinks and behaves the same way as you do is not a right.

In this case however, their right to freedom of religion interfered with their underage daughters right to life. To me, that is a pretty easy line to spot.

[olevetonahill]

On this we can agree...

....but where is that line? Obviously you think the parents letting their child die is over that line, you might be right on this one, and I think most people will agree with you. I'm just not as sure as you.

actually we agree on a lot of things :cool:
im all for total freedom . as long as it doesnt hurt any one else . Or an Innocent Child

[Sooner_Havok]

Who the hell is Bob
Im saying Herman will Will enjoy :hot:

http://myspace-932.vo.llnwd.net/00079/23/95/79235932_l.jpg

[achiro]

Though these folks don't seem to be from any of them, there are a few faiths that do not believe in the use of modern medicine. Now I can see this in court already..."why is your faith that there is no God any more valid than these folks faith that there is a God?"
"but the little girl died"
"God must have a different plan that we had"

[olevetonahill]

What havok said , Some rights Trump others !

[olevetonahill]

Though these folks don't seem to be from any of them, there are a few faiths that do not believe in the use of modern medicine. Now I can see this in court already..."why is your faith that there is no God any more valid than these folks faith that there is a God?"
"but the little girl died"
"God must have a different plan that we had"

Damn Folks , If Ya dont agree with the Law here go somewhere That you Do .
A lil Kid Deserves to Live , Nuff ****in said !:mad:

[Curly Bill]

Like I said: I think they're wrong, I just don't know how far we go in making others conform to our beliefs, or how far we go in punishing them when they don't.

Continuing being the Devil's advocate here: should we (and by we I mean society at large) be able to direct these people exactly what hospital to go to? Suppose they're poor and want to take their child to the "free hospital," while across town there is a hospital that specializes in treating the disease their child has but it's incredibly expensive. Should we be able to make them take their child to the expensive hospital? Should we make them sell their house or drain any savings they might have to do so? What if there are different options for treatment, should we be able to require the parents to try any certain one of them, or all of them?

See what I'm getting at? Where does our role in making them conform to what we consider to be the only right thing to do end?

[achiro]

Damn Folks , If Ya dont agree with the Law here go somewhere That you Do .
A lil Kid Deserves to Live , Nuff ****in said !:mad:

I do agree with the law here, it seems to be you that has issues with it. The law says something about freedom of religion. ;) I don't agree with their decisions at all BTW but I have run across several locals around here that do not believe in the use of modern medicine to intervene in "God's will".

[Okla-homey]

I do agree with the law here, it seems to be you that has issues with it. The law says something about freedom of religion. ;) I don't agree with their decisions at all BTW but I have run across several locals around here that do not believe in the use of modern medicine to intervene in "God's will".

Ain't no gubmint gonna make my younguns get no danged ol' shots neither.;)

[Sooner_Havok]

I see what you are getting at, but even in secular countries (which we are supposed to be) there are core beliefs and morals that the government most uphold. Ours are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In exercising their lesser rights, they impeded upon her basic human right to life.

If this was a poor family who had sought treatment but then couldn't afford it and who couldn't get any help, the sentiments would be exactly opposite right now. I don't think that by saying you must seek medical help for an ill minor in your care equates to forcing you to go to the most expensive hospital.

[Sooner_Havok]

I do agree with the law here, it seems to be you that has issues with it. The law says something about freedom of religion. ;) I don't agree with their decisions at all BTW but I have run across several locals around here that do not believe in the use of modern medicine to intervene in "God's will".

But does freedom of religion trump someones inalienable rights? is freedom of religion an inalienable right? Our constitution seems to make a distinction there.

[AlbqSooner]

The law says you have the right to freely swing your fist. Your right to do so, however, is not unlimited. It ends at the tip of my nose.

The parents in this case had the right to freely reject medical care. Their right to do so ended at their personal being. It did not extend to rejecting medical care for their child or anyone else.

When one's rights infringe on another's rights (i.e. prevent the other from exercising their own lawful rights) therein lies the limit to the personal freedom of choice and action. (or inaction)

[achiro]

But does freedom of religion trump someones inalienable rights? is freedom of religion an inalienable right? Our constitution seems to make a distinction there.

Prove to me that there is no God, and that God does not heal the sick.

[Okla-homey]

I see what you are getting at, but even in secular countries (which we are supposed to be) there are core beliefs and morals that the government most uphold. Ours are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In exercising their lesser rights, they impeded upon her basic human right to life.

If this was a poor family who had sought treatment but then couldn't afford it and who couldn't get any help, the sentiments would be exactly opposite right now. I don't think that by saying you must seek medical help for an ill minor in your care equates to forcing you to go to the most expensive hospital.

forgive me if I missed something, but I thought the child was diabetic and a course of insulin injections could have saved her. That is not the sort of thing you have to go to the Mayo Clinic or MD Anderson to get. Methinks any ER in the United States could have gotten her turned around.

[Curly Bill]

I see what you are getting at, but even in secular countries (which we are supposed to be) there are core beliefs and morals that the government most uphold. Ours are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In exercising their lesser rights, they impeded upon her basic human right to life.

If this was a poor family who had sought treatment but then couldn't afford it and who couldn't get any help, the sentiments would be exactly opposite right now. I don't think that by saying you must seek medical help for an ill minor in your care equates to forcing you to go to the most expensive hospital.

...but how much help and from whom, and who gets to decide when enough has been done, or that there has to be more done? Are we gonna let parents make the decisions, or if we're gonna make them for them then who's gonna be the "deciders?" Do we create yet another govt. agency to handle this admittedly controversial issue, or do we trust it to a current govt. agency? They're all doing such a good job it should be easy to find one qualified to make the calls on these important life and death decisions, don't you think?

[Sooner_Havok]

Prove to me that there is no God, and that God does not heal the sick.

Why do I have to? We are ruled by the law of man, not the rule of "God" in the United States.

[achiro]

You guys do realize that this has happened before and I'm pretty sure the courts sided in favor of the parents.

[Okla-homey]

Prove to me that there is no God, and that God does not heal the sick.

He does bro, but he also imbued humanity with the ability to cure ourselves of disease. Just as he made us relatively weak, lacking fangs or talons, and not particulalry able to endure extremes of heat and cold. Instead, he gave us a far more useful quality. A brain with the ability to reason, which led to the invention of houses with roofs, weapons, protective clothing to cover our furless hides, and air conditioning.:D

[Curly Bill]

But does freedom of religion trump someones inalienable rights? is freedom of religion an inalienable right? Our constitution seems to make a distinction there.

Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness are found in the Declaration of Independence. Freedom of religion can be found in the Constitution. If you want to argue rights, my vote is with the Constitution.

...at least from a legal standpoint. ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

...but how much help and from whom, and who gets to decide when enough has been done, or that there has to be more done? Are we gonna let parents make the decisions, or if we're gonna make them for them then who's gonna be the "deciders?" Do we create yet another govt. agency to handle this admittedly controversial issue, or do we trust it to a current govt. agency? They're all doing such a good job it should be easy to find one qualified to make the calls on these important life and death decisions, don't you think?

I get it, the "slippery slope" but minors are treated, and must be treated, differently in the eyes of the law. That is why we have DHS. No, they may not do a great job, but they are there to prevent guardians from causing harm to a child.

If you hit a man crossing the street with your car, can you just leave and tell the police later that you prayed and thought that god would have saved the man? No. Why?

[achiro]

Why do I have to? We are ruled by the law of man, not the rule of "God" in the United States.

and the rule of man says that we have religous freedoms. ;) If you want to arrest and prosecute this family, you have to prove that their faith is in any way less "provable" than your own. Thats my whole point.

[shaun4411]

You should Be crushed By the Olevet Criticism .:cool:

im a german jew, ive experienced more criticism than you could dish at me =0

[olevetonahill]

I do agree with the law here, it seems to be you that has issues with it. The law says something about freedom of religion. ;) I don't agree with their decisions at all BTW but I have run across several locals around here that do not believe in the use of modern medicine to intervene in "God's will".

Bone Craker. What Im sayin Is
Yes you have the Freedom of Religion .
But a Childs Right to Life Trumps that freedom all to hell.

[Okla-homey]

You guys do realize that this has happened before and I'm pretty sure the courts sided in favor of the parents.

That case was different. It involved a teenaged child whose parents didn't want him to endure painful chemo for cancer that didn't afford much hope anyway. Neither did the kid. This case is very differnt

[olevetonahill]

Ain't no gubmint gonna make my younguns get no danged ol' shots neither.;)

Them Revnoors better stay away to .

[achiro]

He does bro, but he also imbued humanity with the ability to cure ourselves of disease. Just as he made us relatively weak, lacking fangs or talons, and not particulalry able to endure extremes of heat and cold. Instead, he gave us a far more useful quality. A brain with the ability to reason, which led to the invention of houses with roofs, weapons, protective clothing to cover our furless hides, and air conditioning.:D

and I totally agree with you, but there are people out there that don't. You want to take on the entire Amish people, knock yourself out!!:D

[Sooner_Havok]

and the rule of man says that we have religous freedoms. ;) If you want to arrest and prosecute this family, you have to prove that their faith is in any way less "provable" than your own. Thats my whole point.

Yes, but we also have a hierarchy of rights. The right to life, for example, trumps the right to worship however you want. You can break a law in two ways. By your actions, and by your inactions. Here, their inaction lead to the death of a small girl.

[Curly Bill]

I get it, the "slippery slope" but minors are treated, and must be treated, differently in the eyes of the law. That is why we have DHS. No, they may not do a great job, but they are there to prevent guardians from causing harm to a child.

If you hit a man crossing the street with your car, can you just leave and tell the police later that you prayed and thought that god would have saved the man? No. Why?

But injuring someone and and refusing to seek treatment for an illness are not the same thing. You might think it semantics but the parents here did not harm their child, they refused treatment for a disease.

...now had they beat her with sticks and stones and she was injured then yeah lets throw them under the jail.

[olevetonahill]

The law says you have the right to freely swing your fist. Your right to do so, however, is not unlimited. It ends at the tip of my nose.

The parents in this case had the right to freely reject medical care. Their right to do so ended at their personal being. It did not extend to rejecting medical care for their child or anyone else.

When one's rights infringe on another's rights (i.e. prevent the other from exercising their own lawful rights) therein lies the limit to the personal freedom of choice and action. (or inaction)

Did you have the right to Put your Nose In the way Of My Fist ?
I think Not :D

[achiro]

That case was different. It involved a teenaged child whose parents didn't want him to endure painful chemo for cancer that didn't afford much hope anyway. Neither did the kid. This case is very differnt
It involved an eleven year old child whose parents didn't want her to endure painful shots for diabetes that may or may not have afford much hope anyway. Neither did the kid. This case is very similar.:confused: :D

[Curly Bill]

If nothing else we see what a bear of an issue this is to deal with. We have some very like-minded people on here who seem to be on pretty opposite sides of the issue.

[olevetonahill]

im a german jew, ive experienced more criticism than you could dish at me =0

Hitler get ya ?

[Sooner_Havok]

Is it any different than a parent who knows that their boyfriend has been beating their child and does nothing? They knew the child was being injured, they knew it could lead to its death, but the kept silent. You would have one guilty of the beating, but you would have the other who knew of the beating innocent?

[Sooner_Havok]

If nothing else we see what a bear of an issue this is to deal with. We have some very like-minded people on here who seem to be on pretty opposite sides of the issue.

Don't lump me in with your kind!:D

[achiro]

Is it any different than a parent who knows that their boyfriend has been beating their child and does nothing? They knew the child was being injured, they knew it could lead to its death, but the kept silent. You would have one guilty of the beating, but you would have the other who knew of the beating innocent?

not even close to the same thing.

[Curly Bill]

Is it any different than a parent who knows that their boyfriend has been beating their child and does nothing? They knew the child was being injured, they knew it could lead to its death, but the kept silent. You would have one guilty of the beating, but you would have the other who knew of the beating innocent?

Well this one's easy: as soon as you tell your daughter that she can't see so-and-so because he beats her then you've guaranteed that she'll stay with him. ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

not even close to the same thing.

Why? The mother could have thought that by praying, god would make her abusive boyfriend stop beating her child, and heal her child's broken bones.

[olevetonahill]

But injuring someone and and refusing to seek treatment for an illness are not the same thing. You might think it semantics but the parents here did not harm their child, they refused treatment for a disease.

...now had they beat her with sticks and stones and she was injured then yeah lets throw them under the jail.

Them By your thinkin
They should Nevar have fed the Kid cause . God will Provide ?
God Feeds
God Heals

[Curly Bill]

Don't lump me in with your kind!:D

Nah, you're too good for my kind, I was talking about OLEVET of course. :P :D :D :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Well this one's easy: as soon as you tell your daughter that she can't see so-and-so because he beats her then you've guaranteed that she'll stay with him. ;)

Funny, but I meant the mother's boyfriend. Didn't I???? Ah hell, you confused me!:mad:





:D

[Sooner_Havok]

Nah, you're too good for my kind, I was talking about OLEVET of course. :P :D :D :D

There are a lot of drunkards on these boards aren't there?

[olevetonahill]

Is it any different than a parent who knows that their boyfriend has been beating their child and does nothing? They knew the child was being injured, they knew it could lead to its death, but the kept silent. You would have one guilty of the beating, but you would have the other who knew of the beating innocent?

But I just NEW God would answer My prayers and Make that Bastage stop Beatin and Raping My lil child , I didnt need those Cops

[shaun4411]

Hitler get ya ?

no, hitler died 40 years before i was born. that makes no sense. lets just say that i am more of a minority than black people or women.

[Sooner_Havok]

But I just NEW God would answer My prayers and Make that Bastage stop Beatin and Raping My lil child , I didnt need those Cops

eggs-actly

[olevetonahill]

Nah, you're too good for my kind, I was talking about OLEVET of course. :P :D :D :D

I aint Too good fer any kind lol:cool:

[olevetonahill]

no, hitler died 40 years before i was born. that makes no sense. lets just say that i am more of a minority than black people or women.

Makes as Much sense as Most of your Posts :pop:

[Curly Bill]

Them By your thinkin
They should Nevar have fed the Kid cause . God will Provide ?
God Feeds
God Heals

Na, I think you gotta feed them. I'm not sure you can require they seek medical help for themselves or the minor children for whom they are responsible.

[Curly Bill]

and no, I am not trying to stir up ****. I came across this story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341574,00.html) and it got me thinking. I just can't understand how you could sit by and let your child die. They prayed for her recovery, well guess what, god made it possible for her to recover, all you had to do was take her to the hospital and get her medical care!

Seems like you kind of did stir things up! :D

edit...but in a thought provoking good way. :)

[olevetonahill]

Na, I think you gotta feed them. I'm not sure you can require they seek medical help for themselves or the minor children for whom they are responsible.

But Iffen Ya done Feed em then You dont need a Doc .

[olevetonahill]

Seems like you kind of did stir things up! :D

edit...but in a thought provoking good way. :)

He just wants everyone to know thier ****s Does In fact stink .:D

[Curly Bill]

But Iffen Ya done Feed em then You dont need a Doc .

Maybe so, there have been people live a long time with little input from the medical community.

[shaun4411]

question: did Jesus' sh*t stink?

[olevetonahill]

Heres One from me that goes the Udder way
A woman I know has a Step grandkid .
Kid is a Veggie . She was cryin about the Mom Not trying to get this Vegimatic kid the Meds she needs to live,
Kid will Live at Most 5 mo years . will nevar be able to speak , smile , or anything else .
The Only way this Kid will evar Live 5 Mo years Is By taking Meds that the Gov provides . somr thing like 2500 a Month or some Crazy shat .
Now Heres where I say, God do your Thing .

[AggieTool]

question: did Jesus' sh*t stink?

Yes.....an there was much rejoicing.:D

[olevetonahill]

question: did Jesus' sh*t stink?

**** do be ****

[Sooner_Havok]

You know, Vet does bring up an interesting point. Curly asked where would forcing parents to seek help for their ill children end. He asked would we force them to go to the most expensive clinics.

Well, what if we build vet's argument the same way. Where does feeding your kids stop? Do you have to feed them white truffles and caviar? And can't one reasonably say that they thought that god would provide for there children the same as he provided for Jesus in the desert?

This seems to be a slippery slope on both sides.

And yeah, the disclaimer was there in hopes that I wouldn't get carded for bringing up a topic in a locked thread. I saw this story on digg and decided that in the end this was more of a legal topic rather than a does god exist one.

[BlondeSoonerGirl]

question: did Jesus' sh*t stink?

Watch it, fellas.

Don't let this bedowngrade into a crappy thread I have to lock.

[shaun4411]

Watch it, fellas.

Don't let this bedowngrade into a crappy thread I have to lock.

no pun intended?

[olevetonahill]

God Is Dead !
Oh wait this aint the 60s Nomo .:O

[Curly Bill]

This seems to be a slippery slope on both sides.


Part of why it's such a tough issue to deal with. On either side there are, to my thinking anyway, good arguments and legitimate concerns.

[olevetonahill]

Watch it, fellas.

Don't let this bedowngrade into a crappy thread I have to lock.

Its Shawns Fault He did it :pop:

[shaun4411]

daed si dog. daed. si, dog.

[shaun4411]

Its Shawns Fault He did it :pop:

yea shawn did it. which one of you sissies is shawn?

[olevetonahill]

no pun intended?

She will Flush you like a turd :D

[mdklatt]

On this we can agree...

....but where is that line?

If there's a victim, it's wrong. It's that simple. That's the bright shining line of morality independent of any societal mores or supernatural authority. If an adult refuses medical care that's one thing, but withholding medical care from a child is wrong.

[olevetonahill]

I do agree with the law here, it seems to be you that has issues with it. The law says something about freedom of religion. ;) I don't agree with their decisions at all BTW but I have run across several locals around here that do not believe in the use of modern medicine to intervene in "God's will".

But didnt you say In the other thread That Parents Shouldnt Vac , thier Kids ?
And Isnt it the Law that Kids Have to Be Vac? ?

[Sooner_Havok]

But didnt you say In the other thread That Parents Shouldnt Vac , thier Kids ?
And Isnt it the Law that Kids Have to Be Vac? ?

And spayed and neutered!

[Curly Bill]

If there's a victim, it's wrong. It's that simple. That's the bright shining line of morality independent of any societal mores or supernatural authority. If an adult refuses medical care that's one thing, but withholding medical care from a child is wrong.

Totally agree that it's wrong, but is it mine or your job to make these parents do right by their child? Is it the job of the government? Who are we gonna put in charge of making sure that parents seek the peoper medical help for their children?

...and as already mentioned what if it violates their faith, not my faith, or your faith, nor the prevailing faith of the country, but their faith?

[Curly Bill]

And spayed and neutered!

What would Bob Barker do? That's what we must ask ourselves. ;)

[Sooner_Havok]

I just think that eventually we are going to have to kick the crutch of "It is against my religion" out from under people. It leaves the door open for way to many illegal activities.

[mdklatt]

Is it the job of the government?

Yes. That is the primary function of government, to protect us from others. Religious freedom is absolute right up to the point of endangering others.

[SoonerInKCMO]

I wouldn't do what they did, but their beliefs are their beliefs and I'm not sure it's anyone elses business. I certainly don't think it's any business of the govt. or the courts.


Utter bull****. They're murderers. They had the power to save someone and refused because of utterly idiotic beliefs.

[yermom]

what ever happened to those vegan parents that had the baby die from malnutrition?

anyway, maybe they were within the law, but just because that's the law, doesn't mean it's right

like abortion

the idea that a minor doesn't have rights sickens me

hell, the girl probably should have gotten herself pregnant...

[Curly Bill]

Utter bull****. They're murderers. They had the power to save someone and refused because of utterly idiotic beliefs.

To you and me, but maybe not to them.

Do we want to appoint a CZAR of religion to determine what is, or what's not appropriate?

[mdklatt]

Do we want to appoint a CZAR of religion to determine what is, or what's not appropriate?

If somebody gets hurt, it's not appropriate. I think the existing court system can handle that.

[olevetonahill]

To you and me, but maybe not to them.

Do we want to appoint a CZAR of religion to determine what is, or what's not appropriate?

In this Bizar situation
YES

[Curly Bill]

Yes. That is the primary function of government, to protect us from others. Religious freedom is absolute right up to the point of endangering others.

So where was the government when my Dad spanked me with his leather belt? Should they have intervened on my behalf and protected me, or should they only intervene when it's more serious as it was in this case, and who decides when they get to intervene?

[olevetonahill]

So where was the government when my Dad spanked me with his leather belt? Should they have intervened on my behalf and protected me, or should they only intervene when it's more serious as it was in this case, and who decides when they get to intervene?

Since ur Here Bitching you Didnt Die from it .
Now If he Had Kilt you Id say we to string him up .;)

[Curly Bill]

In this Bizar situation
YES

So how do we go about determining who gets to be the CZAR of religion? What faith do they have to belong to, or must they be faithless? Who determines these standards? What if the CZAR of Religion is a Catholic and me being Protestant do I still have to obey their dictates? What if the decisions reached by this CZAR contradict hundred of years of the doctrine of my church?

[mdklatt]

So where was the government when my Dad spanked me with his leather belt? Should they have intervened on my behalf and protected me, or should they only intervene when it's more serious as it was in this case, and who decides when they get to intervene?

There are already laws against child abuse. Abuse is abuse whether God told you to do it or not.

[olevetonahill]

Now you just being Contrary ;)
I think Czar would make a Great Mod :cool:

[Curly Bill]

There are already laws against child abuse. Abuse is abuse whether God told you to do it or not.

...but is refusing medical care abuse? especially if it is contrary to their religious beliefs? We can agree that beating a child, refusing them food and drink long-term is abuse, but is it if they just don't believe in modern medicine? Is it crazy to most of us? Yes it is, but is it abuse?

...and I ask again: who gets to decide?

[yermom]

i'm thinking a judge could approve and injunction or something

i mean really, are you that worried about a child's soul if the govt. forces medical care on it? ;)

[mdklatt]

...but is refusing medical care abuse? especially if it is contrary to their religious beliefs? We can agree that beating a child, refusing them food and drink long-term is abuse, but is it if they just don't believe in modern medicine? Is it crazy to most of us? Yes it is, but is it abuse?


So is your only hangup their religious objections? If they didn't take the kid to the doctor because they were too busy watching American Idol would you feel the same way?

Religion schmeligion. Wrong is wrong.

[Sooner_Havok]

...but is refusing medical care abuse? especially if it is contrary to their religious beliefs? We can agree that beating a child, refusing them food and drink long-term is abuse, but is it if they just don't believe in modern medicine? Is it crazy to most of us? Yes it is, but is it abuse?

...and I ask again: who gets to decide?

Wait, we never agreed that beating your kids, or depriving them of food and water is wrong. What if it was in their religion to beat there kids and starve them for periods of time? Who are we to question that? Is their faith any less valuable than ours? Just because we don't agree with them, does that make what they do under the guise of religion wrong?

Indeed, who does get to decide on the limits of the "My religion said I could" argument?

[Curly Bill]

So is your only hangup their religious objections? If they didn't take the kid to the doctor because they were too busy watching American Idol would you feel the same way?

Religion schmeligion. Wrong is wrong.

I agree totally that it was wrong, and I agree that religion is often used to justify all kinds of wacky, and in this case tragic things. My deal is who's going to determine what is appropriate religion wise, or for that matter what's appropriate parent wise. Do we want the government forcing people to seek medical help if it is against their will, is it different if it's for their minor child? I just don't think this is something you pawn off on the government or some bureaucratic agency and let them start deciding these things for parents.

As was pointed out earlier, it's sort of the slippery slope argument: first the government will make you seek medical care for your children, then they'll demand that you feed them only healthy foods, then they'll require that the children be allowed only so much TV watching per week, and only government approved programs of course, and then you can only speak to your children in hushed tones so as not to frighten them, and if you violate this then your children are taken from you for their own good and the government trained and approved nanny will get to raise them.

If my slippery slope scenario seems far fetched, and indeed it might be, I only use it to say: where do you draw the line on what the government can and can't require of you as a parent? If they can require parents that they absolutely must seek medical care for their ill children, what else will they then require as well?

[Curly Bill]

Indeed, who does get to decide on the limits of the "My religion said I could" argument?

That's what I'm waiting on one of you to tell me!!! :D

[Sooner_Havok]

I agree totally that it was wrong, and I agree that religion is often used to justify all kinds of wacky, and in this case tragic things. My deal is who's going to determine what is appropriate religion wise, or for that matter what's appropriate parent wise. Do we want the government forcing people to seek medical help if it is against their will, is it different if it's for their minor child? I just don't think this is something you pawn off on the government or some bureaucratic agency and let them start deciding these things for parents.

As was pointed out earlier, it's sort of the slippery slope argument: first the government will make you seek medical care for your children, then they'll demand that you feed them only healthy foods, then they'll require that the children be allowed only so much TV watching per week, and only government approved programs of course, and then you can only speak to your children in hushed tones so as not to frighten them, and if you violate this then your children are taken from you for their own good and the government trained and approved nanny will get to raise them.

If my slippery slope scenario seems far fetched, and indeed it might be, I only use it to say: where do you draw the line on what the government can and can't require of you as a parent? If they can require parents that they absolutely must seek medical care for their ill children, what else will they then require as well?

They already require you to feed them and cloth them, perhaps against a persons religious views. Is it going that much further to say you must provide them medical care, when faced with a life or death situation? Hell, at least force them to take them to a doctor. No treatment, but let them hear what a doctor has to say. That way the doctor might at least be able to recomend a non-medical solution.

[Sooner_Havok]

That's what I'm waiting on one of you to tell me!!! :D

But you already determined that the government makes us give children food and drink, is it a big step to include medicine?

[mdklatt]

My deal is who's going to determine what is appropriate religion wise

That's a non-issue. If it's illegal to do if you're an atheist, it's just as illegal if you're hiding behind the Bible. Religion should not confer any special privileges.



Do we want the government forcing people to seek medical help if it is against their will


No.



is it different if it's for their minor child?


Yes.




As was pointed out earlier, it's sort of the slippery slope argument

Well then we might as well abandon all laws. The entire criminal justice system is a slippery slope.

[achiro]

But didnt you say In the other thread That Parents Shouldnt Vac , thier Kids ?
And Isnt it the Law that Kids Have to Be Vac? ?

No I never said that and
No it isn't the law that they HAVE to be.

[achiro]

That's a non-issue. If it's illegal to do if you're an atheist, it's just as illegal if you're hiding behind the Bible. Religion should not confer any special privileges.

So I guess you are working through Christmas this year.;)

[mdklatt]

So I guess you are working through Christmas this year.;)

Government-sanctioned holidays apply to everybody equally. If a private entity like a business wants to let its Jewish employees celebrate Jewish holidays etc., that's their prerogative.

[achiro]

You guys are cracking me up. You must really be sheltered if you think this stuff doesn't happen all the time. There are many sects of the Amish churches that don't use modern medicine. Many Jehovah's Witnesses don't use blood transfusions(yes even in cases of life or death, and YES even in kids) It goes on and on.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/fundienazis/col_children.htm

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that parents do not have an absolute right to deny their children medical treatment on religious grounds, saying in a 1944 decision that while parents "may be free to become martyrs themselves," "it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children." The court reprised the same thought in a 1990 case.

But legal experts say that state and local officials have not seen the Supreme Court language as a clear directive for prosecution of child abuse and homicide cases. Congress did little to clarify the issue with a 1974 directive that required states receiving federal money for child abuse and prevention programs to have an exemption for parents who substitute spiritual healing for medical care. The requirement was rescinded nine years later, but by then, most states had enacted their religious exceptions, which effectively allow parents to treat ailing children through prayer without fear of prosecution if something goes wrong.

Then in 1996, Congress seemed to reverse itself in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, saying there was no federal requirement that a child must be provided "any medical service or treatment against the religious beliefs of the parent or legal guardian."
and on and on.

[LosAngelesSooner]

I just absolutely hate the idea though that the govt. or anyone else wants to impose their values on other people.

So you're pro-gay marriage.

:pop:


not even close to the same thing.So as long as religion is involved, that makes any heinous act legal?


Na, I think you gotta feed them. I'm not sure you can require they seek medical help for themselves or the minor children for whom they are responsible.Why is it people in this country seem to think that medical care is not a necessity? Or a right? :confused:


...but is refusing medical care abuse? especially if it is contrary to their religious beliefs? We can agree that beating a child, refusing them food and drink long-term is abuse, but is it if they just don't believe in modern medicine? Is it crazy to most of us? Yes it is, but is it abuse?

...and I ask again: who gets to decide?
The courts already handle this. They get to decide...and in most cases, already have.

[Sooner_Havok]

Amish still go to doctors. They might not use insulin injections and pacemakers, but they do still practice medicine.

[achiro]

Amish still go to doctors. They might not use insulin injections and pacemakers, but they do still practice medicine.

Thats why I said "modern" medicine.:rolleyes: Also, now I know all you want to do is argue when this is all you draw from my entire last post.

[MojoRisen]

Until they fix healthcare no-one should be forced to go to the Hospital or doctor. In this case though with it being a child I bet there will be some prosecution - like the priest in the Emily Rose case.

[Sooner_Havok]

Thats why I said "modern" medicine.:rolleyes: Also, now I know all you want to do is argue when this is all you draw from my entire last post.

I didn't want to just argue, but there is a difference between 18th century medical technology and none. At least the Amish would have taken their daughter to some kind of doctor.