Now, there is a tough one. Did
the parents have the obligation to go against thier religious beliefs? Does the state have the right to charge them
with a crime when they were simply doing what their beliefs demanded?
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/04/28/....ap/index.html
Figured we'd get an interesting
comment or two. Cases like this have been in the news in Oregon for a while here recently (lots of "renegade" types
live up here).
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Now, there is a tough one. Did
the parents have the obligation to go against thier religious beliefs? Does the state have the right to charge them
with a crime when they were simply doing what their beliefs demanded?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
This is sad and disappointing.
I don't think having faith requires checking your brains at the door.
it's not a tough call for
me at all. "The Lord helps those who help themselves".
Should we suppose that when the car(s) of these
parents breaks down that instead of taking it to a mechanic that they pray over it?
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
You know I do not believe in
religion but it is tough call for me. Under the constitution they have the right to practice their religion. If it
includes vodoo dolls and magic chants, it is still their right to practice. Just because I believe in science does
not mean that everybody else does or should.
It saddens me that an innocent child died on the alter of
religious belief but I have to ask how many others have died the same way? And where should the line be drawn?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
To me its pretty obvious that
the welfare of a child should be paramount. Like you say, they're innocent. Religion, and the "free practice
thereof" should not allow such a thing to happen.
There must be some case law on this, but I've not seen or
heard anything in the media. It must fall under child endangerment or something, with religious belief not
allowable as a defense.
Anyway, the offending parents are being prosecuted, so there must be some
exclusion.
IMO, the parents were just stupid. There are plenty of smart people who believe God can, and does
heal "miraculously". Those same people will not presume upon God that he automatically will do such, just for the
asking. Until God acts, its incumbent on each person to do what they know can be done in their own strength,
including driving to the doctor's office.
Fomr my perspective, I
completely agree. I would take my child to see a doctor. That doesn't mean that I can enforce that on another, as
much as I hate seeing a child hurt. They believe what they believe and I have no right to judge them on it.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Of course, I have my own
opinion, and someone who knows me might be able to guess it; but I'm enjoying everyone else's views.
Questions:
Does the family own the child? Is the child equivalent to the family's property?
Does the
child have rights?
Whose "property" is the child?
Can the child make a decision?
If the state protects
the child's "rights" is the state interfering in a family's "privacy" or "autonomy"? Are the so called "child's
rights" just a euphemism for state interference?
Are there competing rights? If so, which takes precedence?
Cases like this tread the boundaries among religion, politics, morality, law, and liberty.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I can give my own life for my beliefs, but I've no right to another's life.
I'm not
judging anyone, I'm just saying that the parents are possibly responsible for their child's death.
As far as
the State is concerned, the "free exercise thereof" does not include breaking laws. Otherwise, lawlessness would be
a religion.
Recently saw some graffiti out
here that said, "Legalize crime", so I don't know. Thought it was a clever summary of anarchism.
Just because
something is a law doesn't mean that it's constitutional, much less morally right; correct?
Is not civil
disobedience as much an essential part of Americal tradition as law abiding? Didn't the founding fathers even
design our system that way?`
Just suggesting issues for possible consideration, trying to learn more about you
guys' opinions. That helps me also to think better about why I believe the way I do. Feel free to ignore them.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
I don't think a life can be thought of as property. I think parents are stewards, responsible
for the welfare of the child until maturity.
I've very wary of the term "child's rights", and in this
particular case think there's the larger issue of life or death, which is the responsibility of the parents.
I
understand the nature of your questions, and agree that its prickly at best when the interests of the State cross
the traditional autonomy of parents.
The less severe the offense the pricklier it becomes as different views of
responsibility and parenting clash. How much is too much? How little is too little?
I think its relatively easy
in this case to see that the State should not permit a child to be allowed to die when its preventable.
You are asking good questions,
Doc. Along the line of my own questions or thoughts. I really don't know the answers but I do know that simply
saying "It's the law" isn't the answer.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
You are
arguing in a circle. These people, for whatever reasons, believe in miracle cures and do not believe in science.
Just for the record, science kills children too.
The point is that they believed, honestly believed, that they
were doing the right thing for the child. What you believe is irrelevent, it was their child that they were making
their best decisions based on what they believed. Would you also hold responsible some person from some third world
country that believed the witch doctor could cure their child instead of the white man's doctor?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
No, it wasn't irresponsible if
you assume that they truly believed their god would heal the child and science couldn't. You assume they 'know'
the same things you 'know' about the benefits of science.
Yes, it has been consistant but you are making a
couple assumptions that I am questioning. The first is the power of the state over the right of the individual to
make decisions based on their personal beliefs. The second is that the parents knew that science was the better
choice for their child.
I personally believe in science and would not have hesitated to take a child to see a
professional for help. But, let's consider a couple things here.
1. For many years most doctors considered
chiropractors to be quacks. Recent research has demonstrated that many of the false claims they made were true and
most doctors are willing to work hand in hand with them now. Science isn't always right.
2. Western medicine
isn't the only form of effective healing. The Chinese have a completely different set of rules that have been
proven to be very effective, in some cases resolving problems that modern medicine can't.
3. Belief is incredibly
powerful. As Psych prof back in college was at great pains to pound that into our heads. He used an example of a
trible witch doctor who could cure many things but also could cause death because the people believed in his power.
Who are we to demand people believe and practice as we believe and practice? That is a door I don't care to
open.
4. How many millions of kids have been 'helped' by forcing Ritalin down their throats only to discover
later that it resulted in long term issues that could adversely effect the rest of their lives? Do you have the
right to decide against following a doctor's advice about your child? If so, where do you draw the line?
As I
said, I hate to see a child hurt in any way, especially through neglect. However, many children have been hurt
through our scientific medical system or through other state sanctioned programs or activities. Is it our place to
force our beliefs down the throats of others who believe differently from us?
Last edited by belgareth; 04-30-2008 at 05:22 AM.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
So, in some instances the law should be absolute and can over ride personal or religious beliefs?
Where's the line and why is it there? Does that also mean it can be applied to an adult who chooses to resort to
miracles rather than science? Should they be declared mentally incompetent and forced to submit to science?
As
I keep saying, in their belief, they believed in the healing power of their religion. How is that different from
your belief in the healing power of science? I'll bet they can cite numerous 'proofs' of their beliefs and
failures of yours. There is a fundamental principle here that needs to be examined. It is not clear or black and
white. DST has implied as much with his questions.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I think I understand what you're getting at, I think.
First, my views
toward God and science are completely different in terms of "belief". Believing that God can heal has nothing to do
with going to a doctor.
If I believe God "can" heal, its quite presumptive of me to think he "will" heal. I
can't post a prayer on the "faith forum" and expect a miracle to be automatically forthcoming. If so I would be
God, which is antithetical, and God would be reduced to an errand boy, and wouldn't be God, etc, etc.
This is
the problem these parents faced. They believed, but also assumed, erroneously.
Seeing that their daughter was
getting worse, their assumption should have been "well, not this time", and taken her to the doctor. Its my
understanding that the girl had a treatable form of diabetes. Which leads me too...
I have no "faith" in
science. I do have an understanding that science (medicine) has some capability to prevent and/or treat illness.
Its a purely common-sense intellectual decision to seek treatment.
The problem for these parents was that their
faith was "blind", or they were subject to bad teachers of the faith (there are lots of those).
I do think the
State should intervene when the life of an individual is at stake. I think that standard should cross the boundary
of parenthood and religious belief. That's a line that, for me, is easy to draw.
The parenthood line is crossed
every day by Depts. of Social Svcs all accross the country. Some for good reason, some not, mistakes are made. If
there is an element of doubt in a certain case, the State should defer to the parents.
Religion presents a
different set of problems, but the same line should be drawn when it comes to a life.
What I "believe" is
unassailable. What I "do" can be called into question when it impacts the life (death) of another.
Good
discussion, the kind that can take a thousand turns.
Edit: As we talk, there's another religious/social/law
crisis in Texas, with the FLDS church. Are their beliefs sufficient legal cover for statutory (if not outright)
rape? Its all alleged at this point, but apparently many of the teenage girls are pregnant, some as young as
14-15.
Last edited by idesign; 05-01-2008 at 07:30 PM.
In the circumstance you
describe, where the patient is getting worse, some are so fatalistically religious as to assume if god does not heal
it is because god has decided to return that soul to heaven. Common sense has nothing to do with religious beliefs
and in some fanatics it is completely missing. However, that does not negate the fact that this is how they believe
versus how you believe. How can you justify interferring with personal beliefs? Would you say the same had they been
to see a traditional chinese doctor? How about if she had been taken to the 'scientific doctor' and still died?
Would it have been different in some way?
The actions of social services departments are at best erratic and all
to often irresponsible and destructive. I do not believe for even a small fraction of a second that they have the
wisdom, knowledge or humanity to speak for the well being of any child. Needless to say, I had a run in or two with
them in the past. My impression was bullying jackasses with no regard for facts or right and wrong. Only policy,
procedure and statistics.
The FLDS church is another subject altogether; Apples and Oranges. First, age of
consent and marriage is an arbitrary thing that goes against thousands of years of facts. Like it or not, as
recently as 100 years ago in this country and yesterday in many others, girls are married and raising families at
that age. That does not justify rape or forced marriage under any circumstance. It does say that if under their own
beliefs and free will, providing they have the maturity to make those decisions, those girls chose to marry at that
age and to those men, it is not the state's business. Nor do I consider it the state's business how many husbands
or wives a person has, regardless of the law.
It occurs to me that were younger women allowed to marry there
would be far fewer problems with teenage unwed mothers for a lot of good reasons.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I can
justify it precisely at the point where belief meets another life, or death.
If you open a door for "belief" to
trounce upon the fundamental right to live, then you open doors to many more issues which are more "palatable".
If anything goes based on a belief, certainly anything goes. Look out below.
You're mixing faith and
reason here. To have "faith" in a doctor is not the same as a faith in God. Its my understanding that the child's
condition was scientifically treatable. In that way its knowledge, not faith. If the child still died, the the
parents would have offered her every reasonable chance to live, regardless of faith.
You justify over-riding
another's belief with your own belief? And it is a belief in the worth of modern, western science. You can call it
knowledge but a lot of others wouldn't. Knowledge is a slippery thing. They know that their daughter will either be
cured or die depending on their god's whims, a god they fully believe has that power. Can you really say that your
'knowledge' of science is stronger or can over-ride their knowledge of their god's will?
Modern medicine is
reason to you and me. It is not to them! God's will is reason to them. The $50 question of the day is where the
line is drawn. You made a generalized statement about fundamental right to life but that is too generalized. There
are far too many loopholes in that stand. When and where does your 'knowledge' have the right to overrule another
person's 'knowledge'?
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
I love that you guys are deliniating the issues here,
and saying what you believe. Thanks to both of you!
You all are getting closer to some of the core issues those
questions might get at, IMHO.
For example, who "owns" the child? Does anybody? Do we have to decide that? Do we
have to ask it in that way?
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Keep in mind that my discussion
here applies to this particular case, and may or may not apply to more general issues of "belief".
I think I said
earlier that I think nobody "owns" the child in the normal sense of ownership. The parents do however have
responsibility for the well-being of the child they brought into the world, to include such "secular" means as are
at their disposal.
Doc, I think we should think more about "protection" in the case of life and death situations
of a child. I don't know how the word ownership can even be applied to a life. In a spiritual sense, one could
say that God "owns" the life, and we serve as protector until the age of majority.
Knowledge and faith are
intertwined for a "believer". There is a knowledge which springs from faith, and is apprehended in the course of
studying, practicing and living out one's beliefs. A knowledge of God and His ways if you will. Then there is the
gift of knowledge which allows us to function quite well as humans living a temporal life. Its this latter mode of
knowledge which compels each of us to use our reason in the course of life's decisions, and is the one these
parents failed to exercise.
A "religious" person should understand this both spiritually and temporally. Sorry
to get theological on you, but I think its important to get into the "heads" of these parents.
Bel, I can only
appeal at this point to a common "morality" which accepts that a life is "sacred", and is to be protected. Really,
its the same morality that makes murder illegal. That could be the "line" you're looking for.
You contend that life is
sacred? Based on your religious beliefs? I do not share your beliefs nor do I believe in a common morality. That's
the whole point of discussion. How can there possibly be commonality of morality? Each individual values life
differently. Personally, I value the life of the beasts the same as that of man or a plant. Life is life is life and
all forms of it should be protected as appropriate to one's own belief system. But my system is not yours and I
would never consider imposing my system on you, only discussing its aspects. Were you too try to impose your beliefs
on me you would encounter substantial resistance therefore, while I do not agree with their decisions about their
child, I certainly understand them.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
Idesign, it's a
very liberating feeling when you can discuss something intellectually and explore it from different angles -- but
without any regard whatsoever for what conclusions you might make or what you happen to believe about a topic. This
is what I'm doing. So if I'm a devil's advocate, it is neither because I'm expressing a conclusion, nor because
I'm playing some kind of game. I hope that's OK.
Idesign, what you are talking about is akin to ownership;
legally, or in terms of actual policy, if not philosophically or spiritually.
If the parents are responsible,
then they have, in a sense, a kind of ownership; certainly a custody. So it would be more their decision according
to that "responsibility" argument, which I'm pointing out just to highlight the kind of challenges this case poses
for us.
What you are talking about is not the parents having responsibility, but rather society having
responsibility, and therefore a kind of ownership or say. The "reponsibility" you ascribe to the parents is really
more a specific obligation to society.You are defining a rule, and then saying the parents have to meet it. Period.
So you are taking responsibility for the child, presumably as a representative of society; and using the word
"responsibility" colloquially as applied to the parents.
Normally you'd want to say the child owns himself or
herself. But you can't really, because the child is not his or her own custodian. But it's interesting that the
child gets no say in whether he or she gets the medicine. How do we know when the child is old enough to have a
meaningful opinion?
I think you want to simplify it into a neat little package, and Bel is not letting you;
because in fact it's not all that simple. It's a bit tricky to navigate. But to Bel, it's a little neater,
because Bel has a fairly clear, overarching philosophy he sort of applies to everything.
I'm saying this to
help clarify things, not to criticize.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
the State owns the
child and the parents have only custody, unless they screw up then the State gets custody.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
No, they do not! The state only has privilages as given or taken from the citizens but the state
owns nothing, especially not human life.
I'll admit that it is pretty hard to argue with a bunch of state
representatives carrying guns but might does not make right.
Hey Doc! Thank you for adding the clarity to what I
was trying to say.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
So
Koolking re-enters the discusssion, and brings his enourmous balls with him, causing Bel to BLOW A GASKET.
But I think, Koolking, you are touching on the kinds of difficult issues people need to be able to
discuss. And you're sort of expressing it in the least palatable way, which makes it good ice breaker for the
issues involved. Bravo.
Bel also has some rather large balls here, metaphorically speaking (), because he is
appearing to suggest that parents can do whatever they want to their kids if their "beliefs" say so, socially
or legally speaking.
So if their parents believe that, say, raping and torturing their 3, 7, 8, 9, and 11 year
old kids would heal them; by, say, "beating the inherent evil out of them, delivering God's punishment, and
therefore allowing healing to occur" (remember, there are sects of fundamentalist Christianity that have believed
similar things to this, and there are certainly lots of individuals who have given such things as reasons for their
actions), would it be "acceptable" (legally) to Bel, even though he might personally disagree with that "healing
method"?
(I'm tempted to inquire as to whether the atrocities described would be just as repulsive should they
be perpetrated on house plants, since all life has equal value, but that would not foster coherent discussion for
the thread's purposes; just be mischievious.)
So it's not like it's all that simple for either side,
no matter your beliefs. At the beginning of the thread, Bel acknowldged it was not an easy question for him, even
though he appears to be expressing what for him are clear and strong beliefs on the topic.
Last edited by DrSmellThis; 05-08-2008 at 07:01 PM.
DrSmellThis (creator of P H E R O S)
Doc, go back and read my posts
in the thread about the FLDS church. I clearly stated that rape and forced marriage were wrong. To amend that
statement I also will state that beatings are wrong. You are misconstruing what I said. If you'll remember my often
repeated stand on human rights, there could be no question about how wrong your statements are. That I also find the
idea of the state owning any human being repulsive should be understandable to any free person.
That I value all
life is to me far more rational than saying humans are more important than the beasts or the plants. The earth would
do just fine without us. It would not do so well without the plants or animals. A fact that we mighty humans seem to
forget all the time is that we are a aprt of 'The Beasts'. The unfortunate part is that we regard ourselves as
more important than the rest of the system within which we dwell.
Your statements remind me of all the
destruction and misery caused by the misguided belief that we are the rulers of this world and more important than
the rest of it. And to place 'The State' above even that is obscene.
To set one last thing straight, I am
asking as many questions as I am making statements. Very little of what I have written has anything to do with my
own beliefs. Rather, it has to do with respecting others beliefs and the obvious fallacy of assuming everybody's
knowledge is the same. To remind you: Your reality is dependent on your focus. Your reality is not mine, nor is it
theirs.
To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.
Thomas Jefferson
smiling here, I had my
reply all set till I read the good Dr's response. ah screw it, I'll go with it:
Bel, like it or not, you
have a part number, an inventory control number, it's 9 digits long. In the good old days you wouldn't have come
into this unique experience (of being a part number) until you were 18 or thereabouts and needed a job. Back in
1987-8 part numbers were assigned to folks at about age one when their parents sold them for about $600 (standard
deduction at the time for income tax purposes if I recall correctly, does it matter though?). ) immediately and
some vague guarantee of the same amount, adjusted for inflation, till the child turned 18, or 22 if they went to
school.
Now, I have a business, you have a business, DST has a practice and a business, IDesign has something
or other, and we all keep, at least somewhat, an inventory of what's ours. I really don't care to keep an
inventory of what you have or what DST has or IDesign's holdings. I could care less other than I hope it's pretty
decent cause I wish you all the best. But, the State seems to care a lot. People (or the State) only inventory
what they themselves own.
There is a cure for electile dysfuntion!!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks