news item

[DrSmellThis]

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).

[belgareth]

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?

[idesign]

This is sad and disappointing.

I don't think having faith requires checking your brains at the door.

[koolking1]

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?

[belgareth]

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?

[idesign]

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.

[belgareth]

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.

[DrSmellThis]

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.

[idesign]

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.

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.

[DrSmellThis]

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.

[idesign]

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.

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.

[belgareth]

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.

[belgareth]

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.

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?

[idesign]

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.

When it comes to the preventable death of a

child (this topic), "its the law" is a pretty strong position, as it should be.

[idesign]

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?

Bel,

you of all people should understand that what these people did was irresponsible. Forget their beliefs, it doesn't

excuse neglect of a life unto death, especially parents.

I believe my thinking here has been pretty consistent.

[belgareth]

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?

[belgareth]

When it

comes to the preventable death of a child (this topic), "its the law" is a pretty strong position, as it should

be.

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.

[idesign]

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.

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.

[belgareth]

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.

[idesign]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[belgareth]

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'?

[DrSmellThis]

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'?

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?

[idesign]

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.

[belgareth]

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.

[DrSmellThis]

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...

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.

[koolking1]

the State owns the

child and the parents have only custody, unless they screw up then the State gets custody.

[belgareth]

the

State owns the child and the parents have only custody, unless they screw up then the State gets

custody.

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.

[DrSmellThis]

the

State owns the child and the parents have only custody, unless they screw up then the State gets custody.

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.

[belgareth]

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.

[koolking1]

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.