quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I present this as an example of an extreme, fringe-group behavior. Agreed, very intelligent of you to make your intent clear, hopefully the spin masters will leave you be. I do not hold any delusion that this is standard behavior for any major religious demographic.

So, is this a fair practice of faith, or child abuse?

Good question. If it is a practice of faith, I would ask the ppractitioners to demonstrate the vallidity of their claim. If Christianity is claimed, not valid according to my research and study.

Child abuse may be hard to prpove based ont eh legal definition. Child endangerment, solid case base on the legal precidense set in the United States. No matter the religious claims. But no one wants to try and prosecute the case because of the deluge of people that will come out and claim religious persecution.

The only answer I can envision based on my research is two part (a) haul all of the leaders of the grgoup in question in and make them accountable for whaat they teach and support. Personal liabillity seems to have the effect of toning down support of stupid policies, most time. (b) Have the FDA rescind its rediculous stand against herbal and naturally ocurring cures/"medicines" that support the major drug producing companies. It should be easy to create a separate division to handle companies that provide alternatives to synthetic drugs without throwing them in jail for using the word "cure" or "medicine" without permission.


Is this acceptable or not? IMHO, no for Christians. Not supported by any teaching of Jesus that I know. Last I checked, Jesus said He was our only teacher. Boiled things down to Love God with alll your might and Love your neighbor as yourself. This action seems contradictory to both, IMHO.

I hear so many people say that all these non-religious things are "bad for children", but what about when religion kills the children?
Well there you go. For Christians, if you believe religion more than Jesus, you have just got ont hte side of the goats and not His sheep. It would be curious to find out the particular faith of this family. Simple answer if I was the investigating officer is to have them provide me the supporting documents on which they based their decision. Got to close out the paperwork. We typically have a problem asknig anyone to provide evidence of their beliefs when we are unclear of how to support our own beliefs. So we just let people slide all the time. Religion can not kill anyone. People kill. Tis is no different thatn the discussion on guns.

How about we just hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of the cause. The sentencing upon being found guilty will take into account any extenuating circumstances. I thought that was how the legal system worked.

My rationale for making this statement. The constitution gives you the right to pracice any form of religion you desire. It does not protect you from the consequences of actions as a result of that practice. Again I state, the sentencing will take into account you intent. You intent does nto make you not guilty.

But I am not a lawyer, so I may be way off base. Did I add to the discussion or start a war? Time and the next posts will tell.
Please, discuss.

quote:

Originally posted by all4truth:
Blessings Whirled_Peas,

How are youo today? I pray that your recent ailment has been defeated adn that you are well. I will dive in here as it is one of my pet peeves and a soap box that I seem to be called to do as the Holy Spirit has not corrected this behavior in me.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I present this as an example of an extreme, fringe-group behavior. Agreed, very intelligent of you to make your intent clear, hopefully the spin masters will leave you be. I do not hold any delusion that this is standard behavior for any major religious demographic.

So, is this a fair practice of faith, or child abuse?

Good question. If it is a practice of faith, I would ask the ppractitioners to demonstrate the vallidity of their claim. If Christianity is claimed, not valid according to my research and study.

Child abuse may be hard to prpove based ont eh legal definition. Child endangerment, solid case base on the legal precidense set in the United States. No matter the religious claims. But no one wants to try and prosecute the case because of the deluge of people that will come out and claim religious persecution.

The only answer I can envision based on my research is two part (a) haul all of the leaders of the grgoup in question in and make them accountable for whaat they teach and support. Personal liabillity seems to have the effect of toning down support of stupid policies, most time. (b) Have the FDA rescind its rediculous stand against herbal and naturally ocurring cures/"medicines" that support the major drug producing companies. It should be easy to create a separate division to handle companies that provide alternatives to synthetic drugs without throwing them in jail for using the word "cure" or "medicine" without permission.


Is this acceptable or not? IMHO, no for Christians. Not supported by any teaching of Jesus that I know. Last I checked, Jesus said He was our only teacher. Boiled things down to Love God with alll your might and Love your neighbor as yourself. This action seems contradictory to both, IMHO.

I hear so many people say that all these non-religious things are "bad for children", but what about when religion kills the children?
Well there you go. For Christians, if you believe religion more than Jesus, you have just got ont hte side of the goats and not His sheep. It would be curious to find out the particular faith of this family. Simple answer if I was the investigating officer is to have them provide me the supporting documents on which they based their decision. Got to close out the paperwork. We typically have a problem asknig anyone to provide evidence of their beliefs when we are unclear of how to support our own beliefs. So we just let people slide all the time. Religion can not kill anyone. People kill. Tis is no different thatn the discussion on guns.

How about we just hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of the cause. The sentencing upon being found guilty will take into account any extenuating circumstances. I thought that was how the legal system worked.

My rationale for making this statement. The constitution gives you the right to pracice any form of religion you desire. It does not protect you from the consequences of actions as a result of that practice. Again I state, the sentencing will take into account you intent. You intent does nto make you not guilty.

But I am not a lawyer, so I may be way off base. Did I add to the discussion or start a war? Time and the next posts will tell.
Please, discuss.

LJ

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:

quote:

Originally posted by all4truth:
Blessings Whirled_Peas,

How are youo today? I pray that your recent ailment has been defeated adn that you are well. I will dive in here as it is one of my pet peeves and a soap box that I seem to be called to do as the Holy Spirit has not corrected this behavior in me.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I present this as an example of an extreme, fringe-group behavior. Agreed, very intelligent of you to make your intent clear, hopefully the spin masters will leave you be. I do not hold any delusion that this is standard behavior for any major religious demographic.

So, is this a fair practice of faith, or child abuse?

Good question. If it is a practice of faith, I would ask the ppractitioners to demonstrate the vallidity of their claim. If Christianity is claimed, not valid according to my research and study.

Child abuse may be hard to prpove based ont eh legal definition. Child endangerment, solid case base on the legal precidense set in the United States. No matter the religious claims. But no one wants to try and prosecute the case because of the deluge of people that will come out and claim religious persecution.

The only answer I can envision based on my research is two part (a) haul all of the leaders of the grgoup in question in and make them accountable for whaat they teach and support. Personal liabillity seems to have the effect of toning down support of stupid policies, most time. (b) Have the FDA rescind its rediculous stand against herbal and naturally ocurring cures/"medicines" that support the major drug producing companies. It should be easy to create a separate division to handle companies that provide alternatives to synthetic drugs without throwing them in jail for using the word "cure" or "medicine" without permission.


Is this acceptable or not? IMHO, no for Christians. Not supported by any teaching of Jesus that I know. Last I checked, Jesus said He was our only teacher. Boiled things down to Love God with alll your might and Love your neighbor as yourself. This action seems contradictory to both, IMHO.

I hear so many people say that all these non-religious things are "bad for children", but what about when religion kills the children?
Well there you go. For Christians, if you believe religion more than Jesus, you have just got ont hte side of the goats and not His sheep. It would be curious to find out the particular faith of this family. Simple answer if I was the investigating officer is to have them provide me the supporting documents on which they based their decision. Got to close out the paperwork. We typically have a problem asknig anyone to provide evidence of their beliefs when we are unclear of how to support our own beliefs. So we just let people slide all the time. Religion can not kill anyone. People kill. Tis is no different thatn the discussion on guns.

How about we just hold people responsible for their actions, regardless of the cause. The sentencing upon being found guilty will take into account any extenuating circumstances. I thought that was how the legal system worked.

My rationale for making this statement. The constitution gives you the right to pracice any form of religion you desire. It does not protect you from the consequences of actions as a result of that practice. Again I state, the sentencing will take into account you intent. You intent does nto make you not guilty.

But I am not a lawyer, so I may be way off base. Did I add to the discussion or start a war? Time and the next posts will tell.
Please, discuss.

LJ

Greetings LJ,

Yes, my shoulder is doing much better. Not 100% yet, but I'm pleased with the progress. I should be out of the sling by the middle of next week.

No, you didn't start a debate war. At least, I certainly don't think so. Your views are consistent and precise. I don't know all the technical legal details, but I do see one glitch that might not fly in court (even though I personally agree with you). As Darlene might say, Wunderbar.

I don't know if a court can demand that someone provide legal proof of the validity of their faith. I am not sure this quite fits what I was trying to propose. It should be able to ask fro proof of what is in their religion. Faith is a bad word to use as it does not match the constitution. However any person that is following a religion and causes harm to another has transition from personal practice of religion and moved on to another's rights, IMHO. Hopefully you follow my line of reasoning.

I'm not sure of how that part of the law works, but based on my current understanding of the law, people can believe whatever they want, and there's no requirement for validity or proof. Why should you not have to prove that the actions you did that caused harm to another. Just like sacrificing someone or anything else that effects someone else. I believe that the constitution is about our rights personally and not our rights to cause harm to others because of our beliefs. Am I off base in my reasoning.

A person's religious practice can be anything, as long as it doesn't violate other laws (ie. you can't have human sacrifices or smoke crack just because you say it's part of your religion). However, the bit with "faith healing" has walked the grey area between legal and illegal, and people are still fighting over it. Let's try to stay on target with the point that I am trying to make. I am not advocating anything about the practice of their religion. All is good until a person's practice causes harm to another. Once that has happened, I believe the law is clear that an investigation is in order to see whether harm was caused. Intentionally or not. Once we have determined that the actions of one person caused harm to another person a guilty verdict has to be rendered. Now in the sentencing phase, extenuating circumstances could be "insanity", "inadvertent actions", "religious beliefs", etc. So the sentence could be lighter but responsibility for the action must be retained in order to say we are ruled by law. Just my humble opinion. Christian scriptures includes rules that allow cities of refuge for inadvertent harm. The person was not absolved of the action. So I see no reason why this is different. More comment from you or others is sought.

For example, if a person truly believes that they're doing the best thing for their child by not going to a conventional doctor or not accepting a blood transfusion, how do you call that person a liar? Hopefully my post here has shown that this is not necessary, except in the sentencing phase. If they are guilty AND the practice is not verfiable in their religion, thn no extenuating circumstance is allowed. Expert witnesses can be brought to testify about what is a religious practice during the sentencing. So all rights can be maintained.

The government recognizes the rights of people to practice religions and faiths other than Christianity, so as far as the LEGAL part is concerned, a person doesn't have to prove their beliefs solely on the Bible. So, how do you make them "prove it" legally? Have them bring in their family bible, religious teachers and other witnesses to prove that they are actually following their religious beliefs. I do not see how this would be difficult or unreasonable. We do the same for proving insanity, an equally subjective rationale.

I don't know if there's a way, at least, not under our laws, and not without major risk to religious freedom.Maybe you an restate this position based on my explanations. Or maybe I cleared up any legal problems that are inconsistent with constitutional rights. After all, that is what we are discussing. We would do the same if talking about freedom of speech or press. Am I off base here?

The next step would be to say that perhaps they can't force their beliefs on their children, but then we must ask, what beliefs are restricted? Children learn the religions of their parents. Christian parents take their kids to church, Jewish parents take their kids to synagogue. Muslim kids learn to pray five times a day. Wiccan kids learn to call the corners and invoke the deities. It would be wrong to tell parents that they can't teach their kids their religion or faith. I am not saying anything that should infer a challenge to any of this. What I am saying is consistent with constitutional law. Your religious freedom stops where it intersects with a harmful result to another person. The government is called the people in courts of law. That is the rights of the person harmed are represented by prosecutors. No excuse should automatically result in a no harm no foul case closed verict without properly concluding the case. Again I am not a lawyer, but clearly to me, what I have posted is well within the expectations of our legel system as far as Christian religion is concerned. Now I do not try to say it works for other relligious beliefs. Hence why I asked what religious faith was claimed by the family in this particular tradgedy.

So where do we draw the line? When something causes harm? Well, what causes harm? Having your kid join the gymnastics team puts your kid at risk. OK, let's take this to discussion. A parent has to sign a waiver releasing the school or other group from responsibility when a child plays a sport. So it is a lawful assumption that the parent is responsible for the wellbeing of their children. If a parent let a child run wild near a street and was hit by a car because of lack of supervision, then that parent would be brought up on charges and an investigation would be done to determine if guilty of a failure to exercise their legal responsibility. So I woul propose that a parent is also responsible to care for their children in all cases. If a religious leader tells a parent to sacrifice thie child or to shoot their child or to put their child into any other harmful situation, IS THAT LEGALLY THEIR RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION? I do not think any religiousleaders will support a belief in religion overriding a parents responsibility to care for their children. This set of parents failed to do all in their power to care for their child. Guilty on their part. I will elaborate. What IF the child decided they wanted to see a doctor. Does the parent have the right to exert parental control which is a practice of religion over the rights of the child who can make their own choice as to religious practice.

And as for the soul - parents of Faith A would feel that parents of Faith B are leading their kids on the road to damnation. If one group says that another group is causing harm to their children, where does it end?Why should anyone be exempted from proving what is in their religion? Each parent chooses their religious practices. The group that they belong to should have no problem being witnesses for the parents in the completion of the investigation and possible trial.

If you'll forgive the cliche, I was obviously playing devil's advocate there, but if you look at the legal perspective, it gets very sticky very fast. Obviously, on a human level, I think that these people who put their kids at risk of death because they refuse to see a doctor need to be stopped, and those kids need to be placed in protective custody. I consider it to be child abuse. Hopefullly I have clarified my points here. I think a better charge is incompetence or inability to properly care for a minor.

But when we get into the legal aspects of "freedom of religion", it's a tough question of where it all ends. The line looks clear when we look at a case like this where an innocent child dies due to lack of medical care, but when you start messing with people's religions in a society in which freedom of religion is a cornerstone...To say lack of medical care is full of holes, IMHO, as it allows a particular religious belief to be submitted as proper medical care under the freedom of religion rationale. Failure to properly care for a minor where the focus is on whether the parens did ALL that could have been done and had the financial resources to do whatever is necessary si easier to prove and is also supported by most religious doctrines.

It's so sticky, but it's so messed up, and my head just spins with the insanity of the extremes to which some of these people go, and the things they do to themselves and their children in the name of their bizarre faith. Failure to take responsibility is what I believe it is. The reason they would lose to me is I would highlight and bring out whether the parents maintained all the religious requirements or just the ones that were convenient. There are only a few groups that could possibly stand up to this challenge.

Well, let's see what the next person has to say. Like I said, I just put this out for discussion. Time and posts will indeed tell.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I don't have time to reply fully, but I wanted to drop a quick note to say that I think I slightly mis-read what you intended, and I apologize for that. I see where you're going with it now, and I think we're on the same page. I don't have time to elaborate - I'm heading out for the next two days. It's Solstice (tonight at 11:54 PM central time), and I quite literally have an appointment to meet with God tonight. I can't be late for that.

Be well, and I promise to return the discussion in-depth when I return. I enjoy reading what you have to write, and again, I apologize that I thought you meant something slightly different.

quote:

Originally posted by Whirled_Peas:
I know it's not limited to Christians. I've seen people who will only go to "witch doctors" and Reiki masters and acupuncturists, but won't step foot in a real doctor's clinic. Yes, some faith healers of various traditions are very skilled and effective, but we all know that certain things need medical intervention.

I believe in a mixed approach. If your body has the capability to heal itself, then "alternative therapies" (including prayer) could potentially speed your recovery. If you are being treated by a conventional doctor for an illness or injury, alternative therapies could help you, too. But I would never advocate that someone with a serious ailment uses only "alternative, new-age" therapies. Modern medicine works!

If I get the flu, I don't go to a doctor (unless there were to be severe complications). I've practiced herbal medicine for years for the treatment of mild ailments. I use herbal and natural healing to HELP myself recover from things that my body would naturally heal over time. I believe in avoiding artificial chemicals as much as possible, because often, the side-effects aren't worth it. I only take prescription meds if they're absolutely needed. I think people rely on prescriptions too much.

My boss at my last job, who had a Ph.D. in pharmacology, declared that I'd discovered the cure for the common cold. When a nasty flu bug hit everyone in our labs, he started to come down with symptoms. The cold lasted a week for everyone else. I gave him a three-day supply of one of my remedies. He was better two days later, and credits my herbal blend. (I didn't even catch the bug.)

However, if the flu turns into pneumonia, you can bet your buttons that I'll be at a doctor's office, demanding a prescription! And if there's a life-threatening ailment, there's no excuse for not going to a real doctor!

Headache that lasts a day: Reiki and a glass of water.
Headache that lasts a month: Doctor and a CAT scan.
Stomach ache that lasts an afternoon: Peppermint and ginger tea.
Stomach ache that lasts several days or is accompanied by other severe symptoms: Emergency room.
Sore throat that lasts a few days after a cold: Slippery elm tea and ice cream.
Sore throat that lasts several weeks: Doctor!
Knots in muscles: Massage.
Lump in breast: Doctor.
Throwing up because you drank too much: Boot to the head. (And water.)
Throwing up because you ate tomatoes during a reported salmonella outbreak: Emergency room.


So I agree... this isn't limited to Christians. It just seems that the ones who force their children to do it so dogmatically are these few extremist groups. As I said, I know that this is not a mainstream practice, and would never put this on anyone who doesn't do it.

As an offshoot of this, what about the children who are being abused and killed by this new practice of "attachment therapy"? Have you heard about this? I could dig up some links, but I probably shouldn't while I'm at work. Do a Google search. It's a practice being performed specifically by fringe-groups of so-called Christians (once again, I know this is not what mainstream Christians do) to "cure" children of their "attachment" disorders and whatnot. It seems like it's common in Australia, too. There are also kids who are dying from "exorcisms". It's really really messed up, and scary.

For all the people who ask why don't certain groups don't step up and openly condemn the bad behavior of the extremists from their own groups, I'd like to see intelligent Christians stand up and openly condemn the bad behavior of groups who subject their children to treatment (or lack of treatment) that kills the kids.

I am grateful for your intelligent and compassionate reply to this thread. But then, I would expect nothing less from you, as you have proven yourself to be a level-headed man of true faith and a great deal of knowledge.