BS: Religious freedom, or murder?

Subject: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:32 AM

OK, here we are again, a family prayed over a little diabetic girl till she died. Here is a quote from the mom:

She also says she's not concerned about a police investigation, because she and her husband believe their lives are in God's hands and they did nothing criminal, only tried to do the best they could for their daughter.

So - would you prosecute?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:38 AM

The law is well-settled on this point, at least in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:42 AM

It is? Which way, Rapaire?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:55 AM

They will probably be charged with child neglect.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:36 AM

They'll probably get charged with more than than. They'll probably do prison time, both of them. The law is very clear about withholding life-saving medicine. They might as well have chained that child to a table and not fed her. People take a dim view of that kind of disregard for the suffering of their child.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM

I think what people fail to think about is that yes, there is religious freedom.... it's an extension of free will which is, in simplest terms, merely a description of the better side of human nature. BUT in that "freedom" there are also consequences, sometimes tragic ones, for how one exercises it. And as jeffp says, one of those consequences can be a prosecution for child neglect.

"Murder" as a legal charge must include, and prove, intent to kill. A lesser charge may be tacked onto the child neglect charge, but if the prosecution cannot prove they specifically intended their actions to result in the child's death, it can't be charged as murder.

I feel for ya, Mrr. You clearly feel and react strongly to tragic choices. But there is a legal system that supersedes the emotional need to scream "murder", and the issues are more complex and tangled than can be addressed in the grip of that strong feeling.

For instance, say the couple decided that if they sacrificed their child, they'd land in prison and thereby have a chance to "save" or convert prisoners as part of their "witness." An anti-religion person will see that as murder, but a defense lawyer will see it as legally defined insanity, and a prosecuter will see it as a set of facts to prove, one by one.

Here at Mudcat we do not have to make the legal decisions, so we can just vent away even though the venting has little to do with the realitites that are entangled in the issues, nor the faith lives of the majority of Americans whose stories are not "pressworthy."

The need to vent will poison this thread so that rational discourse about the tangled-up issues becomes unwieldy at best, and impossible in the end. The rational religionists among us will simply allocate our time elsewhere (perhaps to good works) as we often quietly do.

But I feel for ya. This is a heartbreaking case.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,leeneia
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:03 AM

Once I was reading a judge's decision and came upon this thought:

'Freedom of religion involves freedom of belief, not of action.'

Important words! You can believe in anything, but are not free to break the law.

I hope they throw the book at them.

Cases like this have led me to understand what the ancient Greeks were talking about when they dealt with hubris.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Midchuck
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:21 AM

These people should not be punished, because by any really rational test, they're insane, and insanity is a defense to crime. Perhaps they should be shut up in a funny farm, but not as punishment, just to protect others from them.

But we can't allow the concept that devout religious belief constitutes insanity, because that would be disrespectful of the religious beliefs of others.

So they get punished because they have a form of insanity that's more institutionalized than that of some other people. Strange.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:35 AM

There is something to be said for the idea that religious freedom should, in fact must, be the freedom to make choices only for oneself.

I know that this idea will spark a storm of protest, but I really feel that children should be educated in morals, and ethics, (right and wrong) until they are old enough to make their own informed choice as to whether they will follow a religion, and which religion they will choose.

To choose death for one's child, for any reason must be considered reprehensible. To do so for one's own chosen faith even more so.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: jeffp
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM

The legal definition of insanity is a very narrow one. I seriously doubt that this couple fits that definition. I suspect that a charge of involuntary manslaughter could stick, but that's a tough call.

Remember, the parents may have freedom of religion, but that does not give them the right to cause the death of another, either through action or inaction, no matter now justified they may feel. This has been tested in courts many times, frequently involving Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions or Christian Scientists and necessary surgeries. Generally the safety of the child, who has no say in the matter, is considered by the court to be paramount.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM

Prosecution is useless...they won't comprehend why, and it won't affect others who believe that way...the rule should be INTERFERE and save the girl. Then you can tell the family "it was God's will that we did this, and that it worked..and you have your daughter."

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:13 PM

So why did this child's doctor not report the situation to social services for action?

About mandating moral education.... that sounds fine until you get to the specifics, and to the specific parents who are going to decide what is taught for specific groups of other parents who may like to decide differently. It's easy to pontificate HERE on what oughtta be taught, but imagine that YOU are the parent who is about to be told what your child will learn. Trust me, that issue will suddenly look very different.

That is why we have states' rights in the US as well as federal laws, to try to keep all the rights in balance. It's a good idea, for example, to know what any given state tends to decide in these important areas of law, before moving there.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:20 PM

It seems insane to me. The unfortunate thing is that this kind of event tends to make people who are very adamantly religious try to defend it on freedom of religion grounds. I understand their fears: if this religious practice (snakehandling, eschewing medical care, etc.) is made illegal, where does it stop? What religious practice of mine is next to be criminalized by the state?

But it is indefensible, IMO. The child has no choice. The parents are welcome to make their own decisions wrt refusing medical care for themselves. If they did not claim religious reasons for this neglect, there would be no question that their actions would be seen as criminal neglect.

At the very least, I think the state should have an obligation to ensure that children be allowed to grow up before having extreme religious beliefs put their lives at risk.

And yes, those of us who are not religious are sickened by faith based extremist behaviour like this, and put it in the column marked Bad Things Religion Supports. It would be nice to see some church leaders of various denominations step forward and say outright 'we think this kind of behaviour is wrong and evil, and not supported in any way by the Bible or any other teaching from God'.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:26 PM

I believe the technical term is manslaughter. It should be basic part of Civics 101 in 7th grade that the sphere of actions and transactions between people is not protected by religious freedom, but by civil law, and that no religious tenet can free you from the obligation of respecting another's civil rights.

I don't know if there is a Child's Bill of Rights in this country, but it would be a jolly good idea. If women can be elevated from chattelhood, so can young people.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:26 PM

I understand Winconsin law contains a
"state statute 948.03(6), against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm. It contains an exemption for what it refers to as " Treatment through prayer." To wit: "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."
Isthmus

In the U.K......
'the General Medical Council places great importance on respecting the religious beliefs of patients, but in cases where parents refuse consent for a child's essential care, doctors can and do go to the courts. If an adult refuses a transfusion, there is nothing doctors can do other than try alternative treatments. Jane O'Brien, head of standards and ethics at the GMC, says this can lead to distressing situations for doctors. "Sometimes they have to watch people die, but you can't treat people against their wishes." '
The Guardian

When a woman in Canada gave birth to six babies last year 'it led to a battle between religion and medicine, between the children's right to life and their parents' right to practise their religious beliefs. Two of the babies, born 15 weeks early, died. The parents, who are both Jehovah's Witnesses, refused to allow blood transfusions, in accordance with their faith, and three of the babies were taken into custody by social workers so they could be given the treatment. Custody has now been returned to the parents, who have not been named, but they are angry at the intervention and have gone to court to prevent officials stepping in again'
Ibid

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:27 PM

I believe the relevant charge would be "negligent manslaughter" or "negligent homicide". Of course if the State they live in defines child neglect as a felony, then a death (even if not intended) resulting from the commission of a felony is defined as murder.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

Can we tie this thread to the one about a Mudcatter objecting to haveing to show vaccinations of his child in order to attend school?

Are a person's beliefs about vaccinations more or less protected than one's belief about what medical treatments God wants us to use?

If the state ( general term) can mandate medical action, can it not also mandate specific actions, auch as abortions ( for mentally retarded children who have been raped, for example) that many would disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:38 PM

"Religion is a collective insanity."

Mikhail Bakunin

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

I find the anti religionists to be just as noisy and dogged as I do the religious fundies. This thread is another example of that, in the responses. The usual suspects come out, use the example of a fundamentalist couple (ever heard of demagoguery?) and then paint all of us that have a myriad of faiths and beliefs with the same brush.

No need to restate what others have said already, other than to say that civil society, and membership in it, has obligations to protect our young folks. People have a right here to their belief as well. When the two are in conflict, then the State has an obligation to act until the courts make a determination.

As to the idea that Don expresses, it is ludicrous. To suggest that parents don't have a right to teach the children they created their own value system and religious beliefs goes beyond the pale. Because you don't believe in these things, you believe that all folks who do should be prohibited from passing on their beliefs? What then, beyond food and clothing, is the role of the parent? Nice theory, but wholly impractical. That would be like me prohibiting you from teaching atheism until a child is old enough to make their own determinations. The facts are that people will almost always arrive at their own place, based on life experience, in matters of the soul without your interference in the rights of parents to raise their kids.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:14 PM

Ach, Mick, you're right -- up to a point. The right and duty of a teacher-parent depends on whether you want to launch a clone into the world, or someone capable of independent thought. There's a world of difference, when a being is in her formative and impressionable years, between saying "Mugwump is The Way" and saying "We believe that Mugwump is The Way". Enforced opinions do not enhance anybody's level of ability, backed as they are essentially by overwhelming power. In the condition of extreme vulnerability in which a small child lives all day, she will often generate whatever thoughts are expected of her to placate the forces around her.

In the matter of the fuel system of the body, no-one would forgive a parent who fed his child cardboard with ketchup on it, just because he believed it was a sacramental dish. In the matter of the child's mind, we are much more lenient. This is not just a matter of preferred belief; it is a matter of the child's ability to think. Thus, it has a direct impact on his or her future well-being.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:21 PM

Big Mick, there was nothing preventing these parents from teaching their children their beliefs about healing with prayer. But what could possibly be wrong with allowing the children to grow up before insisting that they also refuse medical care for religious reasons? Most religions do agree that children must reach a certain age before even being allowed to profess their belief by communion or confirmation or other rite of passage. Meanwhile, they freely teach and encourage their children, i.e., 'pass on their beliefs'.

None of us 'usual suspects' - note I have never referred to you or other theists so dismissively - are particularly bothered by the practices of Episcopalians or Lutherans or Roman Catholics or other mainstream denominations, even if we frankly reject those beliefs. I am bothered that you, and apparently some other 'mainstream theists' find this case defensible on religious grounds.

Sometimes the rights of parents to raise their kids must be weighed against the rights of kids to survive that raising.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM

It's a very sad case of parents who love their religion more than they loved their child. It's why the ancient Phoenicians (at least the nobility) sacrificed their first- born children to Moloch, and why countless thousands of parents of my great-grandparent's generation kept a stiff upper lip when the telegram arrived informing them of the death of a loved son in the trenches- belief in the Greater Good. And of course there's no denying that sometimes there can be greater goods.

Our own NHS sometimes denies treatments which could prolong a sufferer's life from a belief that the cost outweighs the patient's right to life. That's a different sort of Greater Good, and I'm not sure why economic belief should be put on a different plane from religious belief.

The child is dead; the parents have been rewarded for their belief. Perhaps they will question their God, but probably not.

The case is quite different from that of vaccination, as no other child is at risk because of their actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM

"I am bothered that you, and apparently some other 'mainstream theists' find this case defensible on religious grounds."

Bee - I've re-read the thread and can't find any posts that come anywhere close to supporting the actions of these parents. You weren't talking about Mudcatters were you?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

Exactly, Wesley. Folks that always try to claim the high ground make charges without reading. I did not defend these folks. I think they are wrong, and that the authorities should have gotten involved. But that leads us to another problem, and that is the underfunding of public agencies charged with these protections, which leads to cases like this which should have never fallen through the cracks. Instead of you good folks (sincere comment)focusing on all of us with one form or another of theist philosophy, you need to be focusing (IMO)on electing officials who will step up and use our budget to fund things like this, instead of massive phony wars in Iraq.

And I do not believe there is any ground to give on the right of parents to raise their children with the belief system of the parents. Just as Amos and others have every right to teach their belief system to the children, so do the rest of us. The systems are already in place to remove children from dangerous environments for physical, and mental abuse. If one can show that the religious practices are dangerous to the health AND WELFARE of the child, then they can be removed from the home. What some of the anti-theists would like to do is remove my ability to teach my beliefs, only because they find them ridiculous, or anti-intellectual based on their beliefs. That is uncivilized and undemocratic, and amounts to repression of one of the basic tenets of our society, that being freedom to practice my religion and its beliefs. Simply put, it is none of your business what I teach my children, as long as it is not injurious to society. You good people (again a sincere comment)always teach tolerance. You should also be tolerant of my right to teach the world to my kids as I see it. You don't need to agree with my beliefs, but many of you know me. I raise good kids, I fight for worthy causes, I pay my bills, I play music, have many friends who are atheists and pagans and Hindi and Baptist and Jewish and Moslem, I help others, and I try to leave the place better than I found it. All that, and a theist, imagine that!!!

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:00 PM

"It's a very sad case of parents who love their religion more than they loved their child." Guest PMB

I believe that those parents and others like them would never say or even believe that. Rather, they would say that, of course, they love their God more than their child, because they accept that the child was given to them by God.

There is a big difference there. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" is not an idle statement to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:14 PM

Teach your beliefs, yes. Allow your child to die based on demonstrably incorrect beliefs, no.

And I don't think the word Murder excludes accidental death caused by a poor choice of actions - that's called manslaughter or 3rd degree murder. You don't have to have even intent to harm, let alone to kill, to be guilty of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:18 PM

Bruce's comparison to the vaccine controversy hits home for me. I'm a conventional kind of guy who more-or-less trusts the American food supply and medical system, but I'm married to a chiropractor who is tied to the natural-food, natural-medicine culture. I think my approach to medicine is very rational and scientific - but my wife may disagree with my self-assessment of my position ;-)

My 18-yr-old stepson is somewhat of a crusader, and one of the causes he espouses is the campaign against vaccines. If I want to get him going, all I have to do is mention the word "vaccine"; and he'll pull out a dogeared anti-vaccine treatise that's full of anti-vaccine factoids that he's memorized. The opposition to vaccines is almost religious in its fervor - but since it's generally NOT religious in its roots, it seems acceptable to people who condemn those who base their medical decisions partly (or completely) on religious beliefs.

So, is it OK to base medical decisions on factoids, but not if the factoids are religious?

(My personal opinion of vaccines is "cautious acceptance").

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

As in a number of other cases involving children, there seems to be an eagerness to point the finger and lay down the law, in advance of actually having enough information to make those kind of judgements.

Here's a link to a editorial about this case in the local paper where this happened which seems to say some sensible things about the need to hold off making judgements.

"Step back from our shared emotional reaction to this story, though, and judgments are less clear.

While we all can agree that Kara's death is tragic and could have been prevented, there's still much we don't know -- which is why authorities still are investigating and prosecutors still must determine if any criminal charges are appropriate. "

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:23 PM

At present all of the (English) textbooks I have been able to come up with start the necessary mens rea for murder with "an intent to do an act" before going on to futher features of intent. In this case there was, it seems, no act done and no intent to so any act.

I am in some doubt whether that is right, but will be back after furhter reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: theleveller
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:37 PM

"The facts are that people will almost always arrive at their own place, based on life experience, in matters of the soul without your interference in the rights of parents to raise their kids."

I don't think that's necessarily true, Mick. Bigoted parents often have bigoted children who grow up into bigoted adults, in the same way that abused children often become abusers themselves. What you are saying is that parental views and values don't influence children. I know that they do and, from your later post, I know that you do, too. Yes, I bring up good children, too, and I've never imposed any religious values on them, actively encouraging them to think for themselves.

Incidentally, I wonder what would have become of the five year old child of the convicted terrorist who was teaching him how to behead people? I hope that he won't now see his father as a martyr or grow up with his values.

Of course everyone should have the right to practice their belief in as much as it does no harm to society or individuals - especially individuals who they should be protecting - and does not turn into a political issue or influence the making of laws that govern those who do not share that belief. Unfortunately, intolerance is rife amongst those with strong religious beliefs. Just look at the issue of abortion, stem cell research - even the fact that no shops were allowed to open on Easter Sunday. I wonder, if I decided to become an evangelical Satanist, how many would defend my right to spread my belief?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:48 PM

Again, my friend, you fall to the same logic that others have tried. You pull out the most radical examples to try and uphold a general point. What if I pulled out the millions of examples of peace activists, as well as the everyday folks of faith that do countless good deeds, or just folks that go to church, synagogue, or mosque and live a good life? I think I could find far more examples of this than the radical examples you use.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Emma B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:50 PM

This child was suffering from Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA)

'The pathogenesis of DKA is mainly due to acidosis. Excessive production of ketone bodies lowers the pH of the blood; a blood pH below 6.7 is incompatible with life.

Onset of DKA may be fairly rapid, often within 24 hours.'

Her parents are reported to have said that they didn't know she had diabetes and that 'she was perfectly fine until the last few days' they didn't take her to a doctor but prayed for healing. There is no indication according to reports that the authorities knew of the girl's dire medical condition before her death.

Tragic? - yes certainly
Murder? - not by any humane definition surely?

I can ascertain no 'malice aforethought' here.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

Hmmm. Leveller, you make me think.

I'm Catholic - a very active Catholic, in fact. I sent my children to Catholic schools. I exposed them to religious beliefs and values, but I certainly didn't think I "imposed" any religious values on them. I think I did a good job of "encouraging them to think for themselves" - and I think that most American Catholic schools have a tradition of encouraging critical thinking (which is why they are condemned by Catholic fundamentalists).

When he was about 18, my son once accused me of "shoving religion down his throat." I wonder what he'd say about that now at the age of 35. He certainly doesn't set foot in a church very often, but he seems to appreciate the education he got.

As always in these religious discussions, I think it's important for us to acknowledge that there is a wide spectrum of religious belief, and it's unfair to condemn all for the misdeeds of a few. As I see it, there are two major schools of religous belief: philosophical and doctrinal. The philosophical religious people ponder the questions of life, within a spiritual context. The doctrinal ones insist they know the answers to the questions of life. That's a horse of a different color.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

Mick:

I completely honor your right to teach the world as you understand it, as informed by your own good will and observation.

I don't think you spoke to my point, which is that there are two ways to share such information with a child. One is authoritarian, and the other is open. From the former, aperson grows up with a belief he holds because he has to; from the latter, because he chooses to. One of these makes for a strong individual who can think. Passing on authoriotarian information on an enforced basis, which is NOT what you do, I hasten to add, is toxic, mentally.

I also want to make it clear, my friend, that I have no objections to theism. I do have objections to anthropomorphism and authoritarian or dogmatic versions of theism. Perhaps I am just an old Protestant. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:12 PM

"One is authoritarian, and the other is open. From the former, aperson grows up with a belief he holds because he has to; from the latter, because he chooses to. One of these makes for a strong individual who can think"

Amos - a serious question for you. How do we monitor the teaching of children so that they get the right education that you propose? Does someone come around to the house and check? If so - who? Would you consider that intrusive if they showed up at your house?

I've seen enough cases - and I've been one myself - where the childs views end up to be very different from the parents. Just because a view is taught does mean its going to take hold and flourish. Would you agree? Do your views differ greatly from what your family wanted you to believe?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:13 PM

Fair enough, Amos. And I share your concern about those same issues. Joe's point about Catholic education are important and shouldn't be glossed over. Once I had a dear friend, who was a very conservative Catholic, and we constantly argued. Once, in exasperation, he wanted to know what had screwed up my thought processes and made me so liberal. I gave him a one word answer:"Jesuits". He said, "I should have known". ****chuckle****.

My point to you, my friend, is that the assumption based on the overwhelming numbers of decent, everyday folks out there should be that we aren't imposing our thoughts on kids, and that we are raising independent thinkers. Sure there are those that use the authoritarian method. Do you think that Madalyn Murray O'Hair had any tolerance for religious teaching? I suppose that authoritarian teaching has it adherents on all sides of the "God" discussion, and in all segments of society.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM

Another lawyer friend has promised me some notes, building the proposition that in crime as in tort, there may be an "activity duty" where one has or adopts a duty of care, so that the withdrawal of that care or failure to provide it may be part of the actus reus of a crime, and therefore the intention not to provide may also be that relevant part of the mens rea.   Best case maybe about a tramp called Murphy who burned a building down by going to sleep smoking.

Then one would merely need to show that the intention not to provide was reckless (as to whether the consequence would be death) - I apparently need to re-read a case called "Woolley".

Said barrister is however a proselytising atheist so may be building a case here!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bee
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 03:45 PM

Joe said: "My 18-yr-old stepson is somewhat of a crusader, and one of the causes he espouses is the campaign against vaccines. If I want to get him going, all I have to do is mention the word "vaccine"; and he'll pull out a dogeared anti-vaccine treatise that's full of anti-vaccine factoids that he's memorized. The opposition to vaccines is almost religious in its fervor - but since it's generally NOT religious in its roots, it seems acceptable to people who condemn those who base their medical decisions partly (or completely) on religious beliefs.

So, is it OK to base medical decisions on factoids, but not if the factoids are religious?"

Au contraire, Joe - I find your son's anti-vaccine campaigning every bit as distressing as the with-holding of medical care to children for religious reasons. Clearly, vaccination over the past 60 years has saved millions of children from early death and disability. Not vaccinating your children because of some very shaky and mostly debunked 'research' is wrong, not just endangering your own children, but also others. I would like to lead your son through the genealogies of most families who inevitably lost children to diseases your son has probably never seen. I would like to lead him through a thousand old graveyards full of lambs, doves, cherubs, and other markers on the tiny graves of dead children.

The anti-vac brigade is starting to have an effect, all right. I have been reading about recent outbreaks of measles, mumps and chickenpox, mostly in American schools, that are directly attributable to that campaign. Most children survive these childhood viruses just fine, but an un-necessary number will not.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: freightdawg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:16 PM

I find it interesting in discussions such as this (and a recent thread on whether a group of doctors in Canada should be allowed to disconnect an elderly gentleman from life support against his Jewish famiy's wishes) that there seems to be a disconnect between those who see religion strictly as a philosophy and those who see it as a philosophy which has a direct impact on life. And, as strong as our constitution is regarding the free exercise of religion, one major weakness in recent interpretation of that constitution is that the state relentlessly invades that protected area of life in the United States.

I know what I am about to say is exteme, and is about as un-American as it can be (at least in the recent PC dominated America), but I find the state to be utterly oppresive against the free exercise of religion in the US. To take just one "extreme" example, I find no justification for the prohibition of polygamy as practiced by the Mormons in the early years of their movement. Yet this is just what the state ultimately attempts to do on a regular basis: determine what is "acceptable" for a religion to teach, and then allow the acceptable and ban the unacceptable.

I disagree with the practice of polygamy. But, if the government says that there will be no laws which prohibit the free exercise of a religious belief, how can the state mandate that such a religious belief is "illegal."

Simply put, I really don't see how our constitution and the pure, unfettered exercise of religion can co-exist. Either the state will act coercively against a particular religious practice, or one (or many) religious practices must be allowed unfettered freedom in spite of and quite possibly against the view of the majority within the state.

Call me nuts, but I just do not see how a secular instrument like the constitution can exist in the same realm as pure religious freedom without there being some major disagreement on one side or the other.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:17 PM

McGrath, thanks for the link to the editorial. Certainly there is more to this story than first posted.

"It's a very sad case of parents who love their religion more than they loved their child." Guest PMB

"I believe that those parents and others like them would never say or even believe that. Rather, they would say that, of course, they love their God more than their child, because they accept that the child was given to them by God." Ebbie

I agree with Ebbie.

I would also say that others like them would see their prayers as an act of love for their child so it would not mean they "love religion more than their child." Their belief is prayer is the way to honour their god and the responsibility he has given them as parents.

We cannot raise children in a vacuum of no beliefs; life demands opinions, outlooks, decisions,etc. whether one is religious, spiritual, atheist, or anything in between. A small child looks to us for direction. When they get into the outer worlds of school and other outlets, they may break away and find a new belief system, but they have to have some kind of foundation, religious or not, to get them through the first six years, at least, imo.

I have just finished reading a Native American classic, Lame Deer - Seeker of Visions. I would imagine he would urge us to have compassion for the parents in doing what they believed to be right. I expect another hero of mine, the Dalai Lama, would suggest the same. Lame Deer might also suggest a healing ceremony for them and their little girl's spirit, what the Navajo would call a "blessing way." I do feel compassion for all involved.

I also agree it would be best if the authorities could step in in these types of cases, but from the sounds of it, it may be no one even knew how ill she really was.

Now, this may anger some of you, but it could be her karma was to come into this world to help her parents learn a valuable lesson through such tragedy. It is my belief we choose our parents before we come into each lifetime and we have lessons to learn, also. This I believe...doesn't mean you have to, my friends.:-)

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:34 PM

"It is my belief we choose our parents before we come into each lifetime..."

It is truly amazing what a wide variety of things people can 'believe', with no explanation of how any of it might be possible....or what other implications their 'beliefs' might have if they are true.
Just the debate between Jesuits and more conservative Catholics strains one to comprehend...never mind why one would believe that God, if one believes in a god in the first place, didn't want us to find drugs and medical ways to keep our children safe, so that He could get all the credit.

   You see, there are good reasons why certain ideas are called 'beliefs'...even if most 'believers' treat them as some sort of revealed truths.

♫"I believe that for every drop of rain that falls, a flower grows."♫

Think about taking THAT literally.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:42 PM

Ah, now, Bill, I DID say it was my belief and that you do NOT have to agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:55 PM

Of course you did! But you probably realized it would set off my detectors! ;>)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM

with no explanation of how any of it might be possible

Bill:

I am sure such explanations are available. I am equally sure they would not be comprehensible to you, because of a fundamental assumption about materiality and the nature of the being.

Wes, Mick: I meant in no way to imply there should be some authority checking on how information is transmitted to the young. I live, unfortunately for me, in a world where individuals use their innate sense of ethics to choose right action, in the very way Mick describes that majority of decent folks. I think part of the culture's tragic aberration is born and nurtured in the pit of enforced illogic, where a young person is taught by force to accept things he cannot see, sense, measure or experience. That's where the risk opens up of generating a damaged mind (in a strict sense) operating on fixed ideas, unable to adapt to new conditions.

A loving and supportive environment which encourages dialogue, exploration, questions and discovery will produce a brighter, better child -- in general -- no matter which religion informs it.

(I know that is a sweeping generality. Ok, ok....!)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:19 PM

"I am equally sure they would not be comprehensible to you, because of a fundamental assumption about materiality and the nature of the being."
Well...sure!
Of course, I'd maintain that they are no MORE comprehensible to the assertor/believer, but merely a linguistic convention.
The 'fundamental assumption' that is relevant is that OF the believer that such realms are possible.

(kat...I do know that if you are correct, I sure chose a strange set of parents this time around...*grin*.)

The metaphysics of multiple lives is ming-boggling enough, without adding in 'choice' and figgering out how those choices are made.

But we Taureans are easily confused & stubborn....

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM

LOL!!! The stars tell all, Bill D. Yon mystic has yer number!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM

Yep...I once told a lady who wanted to cast my horoscope.."It's May 20, but I don't really put much stock in this stuff."

So she mumbled a bit and thumbed thru some stuff and announced.."Yep...that's just what your horoscope SAYS you'd say!"

I have learned that I can never win when the definitions are adjusted to compensate for any skepticism!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM

*******Roaring with laughter at Bill's comment*******

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:19 PM

Bill, as I'm sure you would expect, I can easily, even if not clearly, imagine how one might agree to or seek to 'come back' to a specific situation. Let's assume that I learned some things this time around- and failed to learn some others. Let's assume, for instance, that upon having gained power I had been abusive to those in my care. On the 'other side' I might clearly see my failure and say "I can do better than that. Let me try that again."

Or let's assume that in this life I had been oblivious to the harm I had done- my self-chosen amends might involve taking on the karma of undergoing abuse myself.

I'll go even further: I suspect that the infants and children who have died much too soon might in actuality be 'maturing' spirits who, while waiting for their next 'assignment' might offer to live the truncated life of the doomed baby.

I can't 'prove' any such thing- but I enjoy thinking such. :) I might add that as long as it does no harm to any I enjoy eccentricity, whether mine or someone else's.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:34 PM

"I can't 'prove' any such thing- but I enjoy thinking such. :)"

Yup! And *I* suspect..since 'suspecting' is in order... that such enjoyment¹ is at the root of most of the metaphysical thinking since we began TO think and sat in caves and tried to come to terms with the scary world.

(and before Little Hawk drops by to explain that I 'merely' have a different set of 'beliefs', let me clarify that I am not believing OR denying anything...I am being **skeptical** and refusing to 'believe' without more reason than just 'liking the concept'.)








1. dare I say wishful thinking?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:37 PM

Now...you all may settle it with no more interference from your resident skeptic...*smile*...We are off for a weekend of music in W. Va.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:41 PM

Wish I could join you! Well, actually, I can, but not so you'd see me. :D

Enjoy yourself!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:55 PM

If there are any maturing spirits about may I have them in a tumbler with no ice and two drops of water please?

I met a loony at a handfasting once - alleged to be a "powerful spirit". Offered me two "proofs" of physical manifestation that I disproved in about 10 seconds flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:00 PM

..demonstrating that you were more powerful as a disprover than he was as a prover, eh?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM

Right..... man........ c'mon...... don't bogart that thing, man......
wait ..... turn up the radio......the latest version of the OB Ranger is on KCBQ........

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:17 PM

Back to the original problem, the death of a child whose parents did not seek treatment in a timely fashion, thus causing her death from an otherwise treatable condition.

I heard lots of stories when I was growing up as the daughter of a psychiatric social worker (MSW) who worked for the DSHS's aid for dependent children program. Child Protective Services.

Different cultures around the world may have different approaches to treating illness. In Western cultures where it does indeed take a village to raise a child, society as a whole does not approve of this kind of death of a child. Whether the child was chained to a table and not fed or swaddled in religious hokum dreamed up by the parents, there is a basic lack of sound common sense and parenting skills. When it gets to the point of causing a death, the intent *might* be considered a mitigating circumstance, but in either case, the rest of the children should be removed from the home and these people should not be allowed to raise any more children. Jealous-food-hoarder or religious-zealot, it makes no difference in the courts. And this wasn't "child neglect." A neglected child is still alive. This is probably manslaughter.

I can't recall the name of the boy now, in Everett, Washington, from a waterfront home in the mid-1980s, a three-year-old murdered by his father after having been returned by caseworkers. He didn't get the potty training so his father kicked and beat and burned and murdered him. There are too many cases like that, and when they happen, the caseworker is blamed almost more than the parents, because that caseworker represents the law and the will of the people. My mother had to regularly remove children from unsafe homes, and there were some families who kept making babies and she had to literally pick up the newborn at the hospital to keep them out of the hands of these wildly-dysfunctional parents who were so totally unequipped and apparently ineducable about caring for children.

There were also the sad cases where something uncommon but not wrong was misread by a passionate amateur who reported the "crime" to caseworkers and innocent families were ripped apart for no good reason other than neighborly meddling. Sometimes it is a nasty trick of revenge, and it is a regular trick in divorce proceedings to report the other as an unfit parent.

Understanding the broad sweep of a public understanding and the emotions in the range of cases that are out there, one can still hold onto one's common sense as a guide. And in the case of this girl's dying, that editorialist that Kevin linked to is an apologist, not a real voice of reason. Nothing new was contributed to the story, just someone who doesn't want the religious parents jumped on right away. The bias is showing.

I have no patience for those who call to give the benefit of the doubt to the religious parents over the parents who batter and starve their children. Because they have religion, this death is different? They'll learn their lesson so a slap on the hand is sufficient? In my opinion, these parents are just as scary as the ones who chain boys to tables in the kitchen just out of reach of the refrigerator. Don't be fooled by that pious expression and hand wringing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:43 PM

"As to the idea that Don expresses, it is ludicrous. To suggest that parents don't have a right to teach the children they created their own value system and religious beliefs goes beyond the pale. Because you don't believe in these things, you believe that all folks who do should be prohibited from passing on their beliefs? What then, beyond food and clothing, is the role of the parent? Nice theory, but wholly impractical. That would be like me prohibiting you from teaching atheism until a child is old enough to make their own determinations."


Thank you so much for making clear your total lack of respect for my right to express an opinion, Mick. I've noticed before this tendency you have to jump in with your mouth while the brain is still searching for first gear, and completely misinterpret what you read.

Where do you get the brass balls to assume that I don't believe in religion, and further assume that I would be teaching atheism. I do have a faith, though that is none of your blasted business.

My point, which you obviously missed, is that I have the right to make life or death decisions for myself alone. Not for my wife, my child, or any other member of my family.

Moreover, since my child is reliant upon me for nurture, it is my responsibility to place my faith second to his/her well being. I do not have the right to decide to allow another human being to die.

For followers of extreme fundamentalist religions which forbid human intervention in the progress of illness to the point of allowing death to intervene, they SHOULD be prevented from imposing their beliefs until the children are old enough for an informed decision.

They should, in those circumstances, confine themselves to informing the child as to morals and ethics, and such information about their religion as would not lead the child to suffer feelings of guilt about not being dead.

For God's sake, Mick, what precisely is ludicrous about that?

And what d'ye suppose Jesus or Mohammed would have said about allowing children to die for OUR faith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM

BillDarlin'...I keep telling you, with that sceptical mind of yours, you'd make a great Rosicrucian, i.e. "Walking Question Mark!"

Ebbie, good posting!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:21 PM

"...just someone who doesn't want the religious parents jumped on right away. The bias is showing."    

So if one is opposed to parents, or in fact anybody, being "jumped on right away" on a basis of partial information, that is "bias"? I have to confess to being biased. But I take some comfort from the fact that the inconvenient legal principle of "innocent until proved guilty" displays this same bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:24 PM

Bill D,
Alas, when I said a while ago in a couple of threads that wishful thinking is what faith is---plain and simple---some here felt it negated everything decent I'd ever done in my whole life.

So watch out, guy. They'll peg you, and there seems to be no redemption from them depths. ;-)

Art

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Sparker
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:26 PM

Oh Dear, just lost my ear - Can you send me the lyrics My Mom used to sing it to me and I have tried to look it up and all I am finding doen't ring true.
"there goes my ear into my beer", "there goes my eyeball into my highball". Do you rememer a song called "I'm Big Girl now"? Want to be treated like a big girl now.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:41 PM

Don said:

There is something to be said for the idea that religious freedom should, in fact must, be the freedom to make choices only for oneself.

I know that this idea will spark a storm of protest, but I really feel that children should be educated in morals, and ethics, (right and wrong) until they are old enough to make their own informed choice as to whether they will follow a religion, and which religion they will choose.

As to you suggesting that I said you don't have a right to express an opinion, where the hell did you get that? I was responding to what you wrote. So aside from the fact that I simply protested as you predicted, the clear implication from your second paragraph is that I should simply be allowed to teach morals and ethics, but not religion and then when they are old enough they can choose to follow my religion if they so choose. I repeat ..... with emphasis ....... and I don't give a damn if you like it .... that is ludicrous.

As to whether you believe in religion or not, how the hell would I know what you believe in? I will admit to making an incorrect assumption, as I thought from your comments that you were taking a stand against the right to practice religion. So I apologize for that unreservedly.

As to jumping in before I know what I am talking about, I suggest you practice what you preach, Obi Wan. If you follow the posts down from where you jumped like a maniac, you will see that I clearly believe that agencies should be jumping in and intervening when life and death decisions involving minors are being made. So you can bite me on that smart ass comment.

Back to the very important discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Big Mick
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:49 PM

Art, you are one of the most moral, ethical, honorable people I know. Anyone who would suggest otherwise, no matter who they are, is an idiot. This is one guy whose belief system includes faith, and I understand your comment and don't think it negates a thing. You are a decent, wonderful man who shares the wisdom and learning of a lifetime with folks. If I am right about what comes next, my friend, you don't have a thing to worry about.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:09 PM

Kat, I had the privilege of meeting Lame Deer at Cal State, Bakersfield; a very interesting and wise man. He performed the Lakota naming ceremony for one of the prof's newborn son and gave him the name "Peace pipe".

This tragic story reminds me of a story that was going around several years ago about a devout believer who was facing rising flood waters on his small farm in the Midwest. The sheriff deputy came by and knock on his door and told him that he would have to evacuate his home until the flood receded. "No sir, Sonny!" replies the farmer. "You can't make me leave and besides, I am a Christian and God will deliver me from any danger." The flood kept rising and after a while he was sitting at an upstairs window when some people came to him in a rowboat and offered him a trip to safety. " Not a chance! Thank you just the same but God will deliver me from the flood waters." Finally the farmer is standing on the peak of his roof when a helicopter hovers in and the Coast Guard lowers a harness and over a bullhorn tells him how to slip it on. "No Sir! I ain't a gonna do it! God is my savior and He will save me!" After pleading and begging with the man the Guard 'Copter moves on to find others in need of help. And the man drowns.

The scene shifts to Heaven as the old farmer is ushered into the presence of the Lord. Astounded and yet angry the farmer manages to ask the Lord why he didn't save him. God answers, "Well, first I sent the deputy sheriff by...!"

I don't know if there is a category in the law titled "Criminal Stupidity" but there should be because these willfully ignorant people would be convicted under such a law. God gave us feet so we could walk for ourselves. And hands so we could feed and take care of ourselves. He gave us hearts capable of love so we could care for ourselves and others and the helpless. And He gave us a modicum of brains so we could figure out the right things to do.

I called this couple "willfully ignorant" because it was a pride in THEIR idea of faith that lead to their daughter's demise. The Bible tells us that anyone who doesn't provide for their own (children) is worse than an infidel (I Tim 5:8). Apparently they missed this verse.

There are situation where a medical procedure may be intolerably offensive to some one's ESTABLISHED faith or there are real questions that may lead to an INFORMED decision to reject certain procedure (eg. having a pig's valve implanted in one's heart if that person was a Muslim). Reason MUST be a part of the decision. This little girl's condition could have easily been taken care of by normal medical practices. There is no excuse for these parents allowing their daughter to die. They should be prosecuted and published everywhere to hopefully dissuade other self-appointed exegetes from making such horrendous errors in judgement.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:52 PM

You raise an important and interesting question, Slag. How does this "willful ignorance" get started, and what is its mechanism?

Maybe more important, how can it be defused or opened up so it becomes honest willingness to look, think and exchange ideas?

It seems to me we would have to see clearly the answer to the first, before we culd reasonably answer the second.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:54 PM

Slag, that must've been quite an honour. I imagine the ceremony was beautiful.

Your story about pride in one's faith is a good lesson. I guess some folks never heard of god helps those who help themselves!

Artdarlin', ditto what Mick said. You are a Shining Example of what it means to be a good, kind, and just person in the world we live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Greg B
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 10:56 PM

It's possible to reduce any idea to absurdity.

The notion of religious freedom can be pushed to the point where
one group claims the right to enforce its beliefs upon others on
pain of injury or death.

Or where a young girl's right to reasonable and rational medical
treatment might be denied her at the hands of parents with absurd
beliefs.

How about waiting until she's of age and can decide for herself
whether to take insulin or not.

Unlike Joe, however, this veteran of 12-years of Catholic education
is not quite so sanguine about the supposedly benign nature of the
latter.

My education took place from 1965 through 1977; I emerged as a
serious candidate for a religious order and very active in Campus
Ministry.

Now, in 1965, religion was certainly 'shoved down our throats.'

By the time I got close to high school, around 1972 or so, the
Church of Rome was favoring a more seductive approach (and I
don't use that term inadvisedly) to evangelization. Those were
the days of the 'touchy feely' Youth Ministry. Carl Rogers and
Fritz Perls meet St. Augustine.

We were urged to become self-actualized and find ourselves--- while
the pregnant girl in our Senior class was made to go away before she
began to 'show.' My own spiritual advisor and mentor of the time,
a Christian Brother, probably belongs in San Quentin for the young
men he abused and attempted to abuse, rather than being coddled
with the other 'Ancients' at Mont La Salle. Oh, in between abusing
a few others, he helped a bunch of others feel good about ourselves
and evolve into decent young men. It was a pretty good 'business' one
which gave him both social standing and a position where he could
locate a series of victims for his warped and destructive sexuality.

At the age of 16-22, the Christian Brothers taught me about real
spirituality. And how to drink like a sailor on shore-leave. Hey,
and only one of them tried to have his way with me just once, and
then not successfully (not enough Meloso Cream Sherry as a moral lubricant, I guess).

The fact is, however, that 'Catholic Education' is and has been a
big business that supports quite a few people in a rather posh
lifestyle. Fewer all the time--- it seems it doesn't appeal quite
as much as it did. Then again, there is now a generation of
surprisingly well-compensated laity (executive salaries in Catholic
education are good--- must be competitive you know) rising up to
continue the industry.

The Jesuits in particular have made it big business, about power and
money. And look at some of those prolific examples--- Fr. Donald
McGuire "the most dangerous priest in America" and former confessor
of Mother Teresa. John Powell SJ--- author and icon of the 'feel good'
religious movement, darling of the speaker's circuit, scion of the
'right-to-life' crusade, and notorious ephebophile. Charmed his way
right into any number of young girls' beds.

In the mean-time, Catholic schools in areas where mom and dad can't
afford the now-exorbitant tuition are closing right and left. I think
when I was in elementary school, tuition was something like $120 a
year. In high school, it was still under a thousand. Now it's tens
of thousands per annum.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a hateful diatribe--- it's not meant
to be that. It's serious, experience-based criticism. These days
it's difficult for me to see Catholic Education as anything more
than the self-interest of the Catholic Educator. Compounded
generationally.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: freightdawg
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:17 PM

It would appear that some here in 'Catville would have everyone, regardless of philosphical persuasion, turn over all offspring to the state for "proper" upbringing, thus eliminating any chance whatsoever that a mistake in a child's development might be made.

OR

We can allow parents (and all others) the constitutionally protected right to the freedom of religious expression. If we allow this we as a culture recognize that mistakes will be made (and what parent has not made a myriad of them) and that some parents will make decisions that are contrary to our own personal code of ethics.

So we have a Hitleresque or Stalinesque state run totalinarian brainwashing, or we have the occasional death attributed to parents who honestly and sincerely (but obviously incorrectly) that their prayers will reverse a serious health concern.

What middle way is there? Hindsight is 20/20.

From what I've learned from raising a toddler is that real life is one **** of a lot muddier. And that goes from deciding when to challenge a temper tantrum AND deciding when to go to the emergency room for what might be an ear infection or what might be teething pain. Life just ain't that clear cut.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:42 PM

Yeah, you can't hardly charge somebody with murder for the crime of just being stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:15 AM

Those parents had a month of a sick child. How long would you wait before it had been long enough and you sought help? Two days? Four? Ten? Would you wait 30 days?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM

The parents who prayed over their daughter didn't beat her, but the outcome was the same. The state needed to intervene. Part of the problem is the funding priority--it's often so low that the caseworkers that are hired are minimally trained and not professionals in the field. But I daresay even a caseworker trainee would have recognized this child's need for medical attention. The distant family didn't know where the parents were living, it took many days and several calls to narrow the information down. Her death, and making themselves difficult to find, could serve as the prima facie evidence that they knew they were doing something that wasn't quite kosher.

Perhaps the courts have more money for prosecuting than the CPS folks have for caseworkers.

Eli Creekmore. New York Times story here.

Jan. 1, 1988

Child Abuse Cases Draw New Attention

The swollen eyes of a 3-year-old boy, bruised and battered repeatedly by his father despite intervention from state social workers, stare out from a snapshot that continues to haunt people in the Pacific Northwest.

The boy, Matthew Eli Creekmore, was kicked to death by his father, Darren Creekmore, more than a year ago. But the case is just beginning to have national repercussions as legislatures around the country study a sweeping overhaul of the child welfare laws in the State of Washington that came about as a result of the clamor over the child's death.

The rumblings of change come in the aftermath of a 200 percent increase nationally in reported cases of child abuse in the last decade, and they follow public outrage over cases like the Creekmore killing here and the fatal beating of 6-year-old Elizabeth Steinberg in Manhattan last November.

It's a long article, but I'll stop there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:16 AM

Certainly no one can defend any of these people, and the father who kicked the child to death could very well be charged with murder.
             The people who just stood around and prayed were stupid enough to think that religion had value, but to make the technical charge of murder, it seems to me, given their delusional state, one would have to prove that they were praying for the child to die.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:52 AM

How about "depraved indifference?"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:00 AM

Would parents be treated differently (legally or by the press) if they had treated the child with, say, homeopathy or aromatherapy, or if they had sacrificed a black cock to Aesclepius? If they were Muslim or Satanist? And if ethnic/ religious belief can justify allowing the death of a child, could it also allow damage that is non- lethal, such as lip- plates, neck- rings, clitorectomy, severing of fingers etc? What about people with extreme eugenecist beliefs, who might believe that an imperfect child is unworthy of survival, and so whether the child lives or dies is an expression of its fitness as an Aryan?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:10 AM

Why should religious belief or freedom be a defense against a killing?

If I stomp you to death because my church says yours is a depraved, child-molesting bunch I am just as guilty of the killing as I would be if we sat in the same pew. If I burn hundreds of "heretics" to death on a huge pyre after they surrender to me, I am guilty of murder. If I cause the death by starvation of thousands who won't convert to my religion before I give them a bowl of soup I am guilty of murder. If I kill the food source for an entire people so I can force them under my control, I am guilty of murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:20 AM

With all of the talk about religion being crammed down the throats of children I have to ask: Does anyone here still conform in whole to the theology they were taught as a child? I suspect not. If I'm wrong please let me know. But my guess is that most of us use it as a starting point and then - as we grow older and more independent - decide for ourselves based on our own experience.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:23 AM

A good point, Wes! :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:02 AM

My beliefs are far more liberal than what I was taught by Sister Mary in grade school. And to me - part of the process of coming to a belief system is having something to reject. I did and I'll bet that's true for most of us here.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:31 AM

It might help to acknolwedge the difference between "education" or "indoctrination." Some would define any religion that isn't mainstream or that disagrees with their own as a "cult," but that term is more useful when it is applied to groups like the Jonestown colony (poison Koolaid) and Branch Davidians. Groups that allow litle or no chance to escape alive. And this girl didn't get out alive.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:37 AM

Who was the cult at Montserrat? The Roman church or the Albigensians?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: freightdawg
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:00 PM

Imagine a 20 year old woman. She discovers much to her displeasure that she is pregnant. She is firmly committed to the secular humanist view that she is in control of her life and her body, and so she decides to end the pregnancy, thus saving her from the burden of caring for a child while she finishes her schooling.

Five years later and now married, she discovers that she is once again pregnant, and almost simultaneously, experiences the near death and "miraculous" recovery of her father from injuries sustained in a car accident. She and her husband have a profound spiritual awakening and conversion. She develops a deep religious faith.

Five years later she and her husband cradle their dying daughter. Medical science offers a glimpse at recovery, but the procedure violates the faith of the family. Laying aside the secular mantra that what "might" be done "must" be done, the family places itself in the care of their God, knowing that death might very well occur, but that even if it should occur, death is not the ultimate end. They know that if death ensues their little girl will be safe in the arms of God, warm and secure and no longer subject to the inhumane place this world has become.

Now, as a 20 year old this woman would be cheered and blessed by the social liberals as the sole arbiter of her own truth. Even though a human life is extinguished there is no repercussion, in fact the government will pay for the procedure due to the woman's financial situation. Get your ideology out of my personal life, they cry. Three cheers for the modern self-made woman.

As a 30 year old the woman is made to wear a black hat as the modern Salemites parade her before the town square on their way to the dungeon, or worse, the gallows. "Murder, murder MURDER", they cry. Its the states responsibility to impose our ideology on your private life, they scream. How dare you have the brazen attitude that you can make your own mind about your own private life?

What is the difference? Is the ending of a human life through abortion somehow more sacred than allowing a life to end because a parent has a profound and deeply held religious disagreement with the high priest of modern science?

Who is to be the judge and jury of such moral equivalence? Are you so morally perfect that you can impose your ideology on someone whose worldview is 180 degrees opposite of yours?

Just because a medical procedure is possible, does it thereby become mandatory? Upon whose decision? And based upon what authority?

I, for one, disagree with the decision of the parents. My faith informs me that God can work through the hands of a skilled physician just as surely as he can through the hands of a spiritual leader. But just as my faith informs me that these parents are wrong, my faith also informs me that I cannot use the sword to impose my beliefs upon them through coercion and punishment. I am called upon to teach, to encourage, to inspire and to set an example; but in no way am I authorized to persecute those who disagree with me.

It seems to me that those who are calling for the prosecution of these parents sit at the feet of a far more vengeful god than my God has ever been accused of being. And that says quite a bit about their god.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:20 PM

Well, Greg B, all I can say is that my experience of Catholic education was different from yours. In 16 years of Catholic education, I had only two teachers that I considered to be oppressive. Most of the others were remarkably good people, and most were good teachers. I didn't get the feeling of wealth or exclusivity in Catholic schools in Wisconsin, although I have to admit that the three Catholic high schools my kids attended in Sacramento had much more of a feeling of being "rich kids' schools."
In general, I have found the Catholic Church on the East and West Coast of the US, to be more conservative than what I grew up with in the Midwest. No place is immune to sex abuse, however - it's something that happens in every society and in every profession. It is especially appalling when it happens with clergy.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM

The assistant band director at the public high school near my house was just sent up for sex with a 14-year-old girl. Apparently it wasn't a first offense, but just the first that could be proven.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

"Just because a medical procedure is possible, does it thereby become mandatory? Upon whose decision? And based upon what authority?" Freightdawg

I had a bit of a talk with my doctor after I had undergone emergency surgery last month.

My contention was tha:

* just because a procedure was available I did not feel constrained to make use of it.
* I don't feel any particular attachment to a long life. I grant you that when it comes down to the crunch I will fight to stay alive- it is, after all, the nature of all living things. I don't feel that negates my essential belief.
* Above all, I do not want to spend the waning days of my life undergoing surgery after surgery, treatment after treatment, just to prolong my "life". Why should I choose to remain in pain and trauma just in order to extend my life?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM

My feelings exactly, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

Indeed, Utah has decided not to get a heart transplant. I fully understand that.

I would also understand it on some level (after living with the possibility for 40 years and growing acclimated to it) if my wife passed away as a result of her belief that getting blood is against her religion.

This is a matter of personal choice. It is not the legal systems chore to be involved.

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM

The choice an adult individual of sound mind makes for themself is a different matter than the choice these parents made for their minor child.

I reported what is a typical state response to this kind of behavior by the parents. All things being equal, it was irresponsible behavior that resulted in the death of the child. The mitigating circumstances would be if she was tortured or not, etc., so the penalty for the outwardly cruel "malice aforethought" parents with the 25-pound 12 year old boy would be bound to be harsher. Regardless of that, the parents should still not be allowed to continue to raise the rest of their children until the criminal case is completely resolved and they're found to either be unfit and permanently separated from the kids or found to be fit and the kids returned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM

Amos, I'll expand a little on the idea of "Willful Ignorance" or at least what I reckon it's cause may be. I touched upon it in that post. It is born of a sort of pride that most all of us have and which the aware resist. In the movie "Princess Bride" a fellow who imagines himself to be the brightest thing since the Sun manages to kidnap Princess Honeybuns (?) and he is pursued by Honeybun's husband-in-disguise, the dread pirate Bob. This guy is constantly be dumbfounded when he is anticipated and bested at every turn. His comment is always "Inconceivable". And THAT is the problem. When one sets their self up as the beginning and end of all wisdom and knowledge any other idea becomes "Inconceivable".

That we all do this to some degree is only natural for we live this life by the light that we have and it must do for us in any given situation. Sometimes I think life on Earth must be pretty safe most of the time because "evolution" should have wiped out a lot more stupidity than it has. And I am not excluding myself, mind you. I have done some pretty dumb things and yet have lived to tell of it. Point being, of course, that no human has cornered the market on intelligence or wisdom.

To truly be wise is to know the truth of that statement. And act accordingly. Never stop learning. Never stop listening. Benefit from the knowledge and wisdom of others. This is especially true in matters that effect life and death. The willfully ignorant person says (at least to himself) "No! I will NOT hear of it!" That's pride.

In times past when time and distant made the dissemination of knowledge an "iffy" thing we had wide diversity in cultures, mores and standards of reason and intellect. Today there is more of a global consensus on the basics of morality (maybe I am only dreaming in hope here) i.e. It is wrong to murder, it is wrong to steal, it is wrong to rig the lottery, well, you get the idea. So, herein, it is WRONG to allow another to come to harm by inaction, neglect, callous disregard, even trough inattention.

If the standard is "reasonableness" (God says in Isaiah 1:18 "Come now, and let us reason together...") then it is obvious, that is; anyone of normal rational abilities, should understand that to neglect diabetes, will lead to death. And that would be the standard applied to this couple.

As for punishment, if these folk are not psychopaths, they have been punished. I cannot imagine much worse than losing a child. Public spectacle (which is the by-product of the event) and probation would suffice.

"To see more clearly" you say. Yes, that is the thing to be desired by the wise. We DO see through "culture colored" glasses. There are also "pragmatic" colored glasses, "idealistic" glasses, etc. Paul said "We see through glass darkly..." and I believe him to be one of the brightest lights of history. No one sees "clearly". We all need a wing man, someone to watch our backs. Someone to let us know if we are straying far afield, or if we have a smudge on our nose. We need other people to provide focus and reflection, warning and intervention. We can't assume that we are always right.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Greg B
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 07:32 PM

Oh, Joe, don't get me wrong. I had a great time in Catholic school,
particularly my final two years in high school. And some of my teachers
I still count as friends, lo these many years later.

However, that doesn't mean that, in retrospect, I don't feel that I
was being manipulated by the Catholic School 'system' and by some
of the individuals in it. Nor that I don't believe that there was
an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty, especially around
'pelvic issues,' abortion in particular.

And I violently reject any attempt to minimize the impact (or scope)
of the sex abuse crisis in the Church of Rome with the tired old 'it
happens everywhere' argument. You can point to the John Jay study all
you want and declare that it was 'only' four percent; those of us
in advocacy know better. Both in terms of numbers of victims of that
alleged 'four percent' and in the harsh reality that, in my
experience of knowing personally and moving amongst the clergy, that
four percent number is just way too low. Four percent who got caught
by the public (as opposed to their fellows) perhaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM

The lesson to be drawn from this would seem to be that it's good to believe in religion but you can't believe in it too much. We want to be able to say things like "America is a Christian nation," or "one nation under God," or whatever, but if you really act like God is in fact (a) in existence, (b) all-knowing and (c) all-powerful, then ooops, you've crossed some kind of line. Like you're a witness in a court case and the bailiff hands you a Bible, and the judge says, "put your hand on the Bible, Bubba, and swear to tell the truth, so help you God." You do that, you're OK. You open that book and show the man where J.C. says, "Swear not at all" and everybody thinks you're a loony-toon. Oh, and we've separated church and state, but by all means let's ask the chaplain to give an invocation so we can open this session of Congress, from which the church has been separated.

I think Luther Blisset would agree that this is all double-think.

It's not that the parents didn't learn. It's that they weren't taught.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 01:25 AM

No C.C. I have to disagree. That is YOUR concept of God which you reject. Well, I reject your concept of God also! Yes, Jesus says "swear not at all" and "but let your 'yea' mean yea and your 'nay' mean nay!" So, did you not read what I wrote? God deferred. He gave US a will and freedom to choose. He gave US brains to figure things out and a heart with a potential for good: to do the right thing. All that is to say that WE are responsible for what goes on during this age. Jesus lead by example. Now go Thou, and do likewise!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 05:36 AM

I'm quite surprised how vehemently many people here seem to take their religions. I think of that as rather primitive.

Oh, Freightdawg - the first one was not a child or a life, merely a potential one. Your way lies humanae vitae.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:35 AM

I think I have said the following many times in many debates.

There is a vast difference between "Faith" and "Religion", and it is faith that tends to be inclusive, and religion which tends to be devisive.

Faith is the BELIEF in a power outside of, and greater than self. God, if you like, though what you call it is not that inportant. what IS important is that you believe.

Religion, on the other hand is a human construct, which determines how you choose to "communicate" with that greater power.

Religions, being man made can be very good, or very bad, or anything in between, and it is blind adherence to a particular religious organisation which can, on occasion lead to misery, pain, and even murder.

Religion can be, and indeed has been, used to initiate some of the most amazing acts of self sacrifice, and pure unadulterated goodness, and also some of the most inhuman, evil, and despicable acts, all considered by the "Faithful" of the time to be right and moral, according to the precepts of their particular religion.

Discussions such as this thread invariably polarize opinion along religious lines rather than on lines of pure faith, and since the devotees of each religion are invariably convinced that theirs is the "One True" way to heaven, such discussions are never fruitful.

At the end everybody still believes as he/she did before.

Sad for the millions who have died, do die, and will die, in the name of someone else's method of worshipping the same God.

People such as the little child we have been discussing, who never got the chance to express HER faith.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM

Oh, please. What's "killed" in an abortion is a blob of thlup, as James Thurber once described an oyster. That is not parallel to killing an actual, 11-year old girl.

But it's an interesting question if the parents had tried other remedies like sacrificing a black rooster, would that have been better than doing nothing but pray?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM

Ahh, Mrrzy. You were once such a blob, weren't you?

Don()T:

Faith, blind faith, irrational faith, is better than religion, how? You can argue "good fire" and "bad fire" just as you can "good gun" and "bad gun" when the variable that matters most is the person using the fire, the gun, the religion. I don't think I would every go quail hunting with Dick Cheney or play with fireworks with the Unabomber. I won't attend church with the likes of Jim Jones OR the Rev. Mr. Wright.

If we are to error, error on the side of caution, of good, of life.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: freightdawg
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:37 PM

In one operating room a team of specialists using micro-surgical procedures work feverishly to save the life of a human being in utero. A few floors above them an amazed and enchanted young couple watch an ultra sound of their developing baby. The technician points out little fingers, little ears, a beating heart.

In the operating room right next to the first one, an abortion ends the human life of another baby the exact same age as the other two babies.

The only difference, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE, between the babies is the decision of their parents. It is not a "potential life." That is so ignorant and barbaric.

I got to watch my little girl move her little hands and her little fingers and watch her heart beat at an age when thousands of little girls and little boys were being aborted because they were just "blobs of flesh" and "potential life."

I will not be able to change your minds. Fine. Just don't make such ridiculous statements without learning more about what you speak.

Freightdawg

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:40 PM

With you all the way, Freightdawg.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 08:54 PM

"I don't think I would ever go quail hunting with Dick Cheney or..."


                     That's an interesting thought. What if an 11 year old girl came down with an uncurable form of consumption, or something, and the parents sent her quail hunting with Dich Cheney.
Would that constitute murder?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:38 PM

What an awful thought, Rig. All it would likely end up being is quail, biscuits and gravy for dinner, with a little good luck.

I'm with you too, F-dawg, Peace.   Life, if anything, is a continuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:21 PM

Now THAT's funny! Or, you could get Ted Kennedy to drive her home?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

Yeah, that's good too.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 01:41 AM

Abstract art? Or just a bloody mess on a piece of canvas?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 08:37 PM

If you can get Cheney's quail hunting partner to stand in front of a canvas prior to the Vice-President pulling the trigger, we'll call it abstract art.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 09:15 PM

And possibly Dick would get that consumption as well!!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:41 PM

Actual penis enlargements guaranteed? Or just another bogus piece of spam?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:51 PM

I will not be able to change your minds. Fine. Just don't make such ridiculous statements without learning more about what you speak.

Then don't make such ridiculous statements that suggest she doesn't know what she's talking about. She's right. Dismissing someone else's perfectly valid, if inelegantly put, argument, is not a way to win or even call it a draw. It's the Israeli maneuver--one last sharp jab in the eye and quick call "okay, now we'll try a peace agreement."

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

I just thought I'd mention that I'm getting mellow in my old age.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

LH - I'm not sure if number 8 shot will enlarge the penis or not, but if Cheney won't try it, Elliot Spitzer probably will.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:17 PM

Bringing the thread back on track, it is sad to see there are other cases out there, right now, like this one. It is interesting to see what Oregon has done to try to settle the issues of religious belief and medical treatment for children:

March 29, 2008

A Clackamas County, Ore., couple are facing second degree manslaughter and criminal mistreatment charges after their 15-month-old daughter died from what the state medical examiner said were easily cured illnesses.

The infant girl, Ava Worthington, died March 2 from bacterial bronchial pneumonia and an infection, both of which could have been cured with common antibiotics, the medical examiner said.

But police say that instead of going to a doctor, 28-year-old Carl Worthington and his wife, Raylene, 25, opted to pray for their daughter.

The two surrendered to police at Calackamas County Jail Friday night. Bail was set at $250,000 apiece, and they were released hours later after each posted $25,000 bond, Clackamas County Sheriff's Office spokesman Det. Jim Strovink said.

They are scheduled to appear in Clackamas County Circuit Court on Monday.

A reporter from ABC News affiliate KATU-TV in Portland, Ore., went to the Worthington's home before they turned themselves in, but the couple declined to comment.

The Worthingtons are members of the Followers of Christ Church in Oregon City, that has a history of shunning medical care in favor of faith healing.

A decade ago the church received national attention after KATU reported that the state medical examiner believed approximately 20 children whose parents belonged to the church, had died from untreated illnesses that were curable.

After that story broke, the Oregon state legislature changed the law to bar defendants, in most cases, from claiming their religious beliefs prevented them from seeking medical help.

"Ten years ago I couldn't express my feelings for what was going on out there, but I can now," said Mark Hass, who as a KATU reporter worked on the story and is now a state senator. "This is child abuse. Pure and simple. There is no other way to say it."

Though the revised law removed the so-called "spiritual-healing defense," there is still a provision that allows judges to give parents a lighter sentence based on their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: George Papavgeris
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:08 AM

The way I see it, by denying their offspring a better chance of survival they simply prove/propagate the Darwinian theory which they no doubt despise.

It almost seems a shame to stop them. I said, "almost"... When they do the same for grown-ups we do not prosecute them, after all, do we? But I accept that there is material difference when the victim is a child, who may not know better and cannot defend him/herself.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:34 AM

Think you're right there George. The rights of a child must have priority over the rights of the parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:48 AM

Darwinism has a proper place in this discussion, like George says. For instance, if somebody with a measurable IQ of under 70 commits a crime, they are treated differently than ordinary folks.
                  It's the same was with people who are addicted to some looney religious conviction. Because we equate religious rights with civil rights, we tend to give those people a pass.

                  At the end of the day, if there were very many of them, ordinary criminals would be locked up, with criminals with low IQ's and looney religious convictions would be free to go forth and procreate. At some point in time, most people would have low IQ's and looney religious convictions.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:46 AM

It would be nice if everyone would get over the fact that some other people in the world think differently from them about various things, wouldn't it? ;-)

Now, let's see...

Vanilla this time? Or Chocolate?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:01 AM

LH - The larger problem seems to be people who simply don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM

Yes, there is an awful, Darwinian silver lining as the average intelligence of the species goes up...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

So where was the silver lining when bush got elected?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

There was no silver lining. It was cheap Mylar. People saw the ads on the box and ripped into too soon, before they read the small print:

This guy's a moron and is not looking out for your best interest. You have been warned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

No kidding, Maggie! And the google ads at the bottom say "How to defend yourself" and "Taser C2 Super Value Pack!"

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM

No, Riginslinger, the "problem" (as seen by you) is that they don't think the way YOU want them to.

But everybody thinks. Matter of fact, they can't seem to   stop thinking compulsively in every moment except when they go into deep sleep...or during sex...or if they can accomplish meditation successfully. (and very few people can do the latter...their minds and bodies are too restless) (everyone can "do" sex, though, so it's a very popular way to stop thinking for a short period of time...the bandaid approach to stress)

This is people's problem, generally...they can't STOP thinking. It drives them slowly crazy. It stresses them out and messes up their personality and their relations with other people. They drink and take drugs and acquire multiple addictions to try to get away from the stress their constant, aimless, restless, and combative thinking causes. They join cults to try to escape it. They become fanatics of one type or another (atheist? religious? political? gender issue? gay liberation? White supremacy? Black Power? whatever the hell...) They develop phobias and obsessions with certain specific issues to appease their obsessive and mostly negative thinking. And their "thinking" is normally nothing but the rerunning of a bunch of old and very tired stress tapes....such as your tape that sets you constantly in combat with "religion", for instance. You're a prisoner of your mental negativity tapes, just the same as the people you criticize...only it's a different set of tapes, that's all.

I'm waiting for you to shut the damn machine off, take the old tape out, and give it a rest. Try a new tape. A positive one. One that doesn't involve continually attacking people whom you see as different from you.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Megan L
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

Little hawk dear not everyone can and I am assured only men manage to stop thinking during the act but then we all know they never were any good at multitasking. hobbles oot the door as fast as these auld legs will go

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM

"The rights of a child must have priority over the rights of the parent."

I don't think this is what you are saying, Backwoodsman, but there was a time, not too long ago, when a woman in labor could be 'sacrificed' when the babe went into difficulties. I don't think it was only the Roman Catholics who specified that; it was evidently a fairly common mindset.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:58 PM

"I am assured only men manage to stop thinking during the act but then we all know they never were any good at multitasking"

If that's all you're expecting then that's all you will find.......

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:22 PM

LH - There is nothing negative about dealing with reality. Sure, it can be depressing at times, but the world would be a much better place if more people would do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:28 AM

Darwinism has nothing to do with intelligence. In fact it is the antithesis of intelligence. It only has to do with an organism's ability to adapt to its environment and survive. If this includes intelligence, so be it. If not, it is not necessary. You might even argue that the jury is still out on intelligence. Human "intelligence" seems to be about adapting the environment to our needs and wants and it seems to be having some disastrous effects upon nature (living, that is).

Re Loony religions or loony religious convictions. Are you defining this term by the end result of these stories? There are certain established religions which purport to deny medical science and refuse medical intervention.* Here, I would tend to agree with you. On the other hand are loons who have religious convictions. These are either individuals or small groups who believe that they alone have found the "True Faith". It is their thought processes which qualify for the appellation.


*Most notable would be the Christian Scientist religion. "Purport" because many of its practitioners do resort to the medical world when push comes to shove. I don't know what mental gyrations they must go through to arrive at this point but they do. It has been documented that Mary Baker Eddy (the Founder and author of "Health and Science") also visited her medical doctor.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 07:57 AM

"I don't think this is what you are saying, Backwoodsman, but there was a time, not too long ago, when a woman in labor could be 'sacrificed' when the babe went into difficulties."

Never heard that here Ebbie, maybe it's different on your side of the pond (and at your latitude!). When my first wife was giving birth to our No. 1 son in 1980, and there were quite severe complications, the doctor in attendance told me, "We never risk the life of the mother", which I took to mean that, if the chips were down, it was bye-bye to the baby.

And you're right, it wasn't what I meant - I was speaking specifically about parental decisions rather than those of the medical profession. Seems to me that the preservation of a child's life should be paramount, until the child is old enough to make its own decision - i.e. when he/she reaches the age of majority.

That's the way I feel.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:20 AM

Darwinism affects all traits, intelligence among them.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:53 AM

I have to agree with Slag for once- remember genetic evolution is a long term process, operating over many generations. The success of intelligence has been due to the fact that ideas (Dawkins' memes) can spread faster than adaptations (genes) because they can skip direct from one carrier to another.

And remember evolution is not progress- there's nothing in the rules that say it has to go towards intelligence, which in fact may be a bad idea. Both genes and memes, viewed as reproducers, look no further than the next generation*, even if the mutation that makes them successful also dooms them in a couple of generations' time. Perhaps the reason the aliens haven't visited us is that intelligence is inherently unstable, and almost always self- destructs.

In fact the original post is an example (if the parents don't have other children) of a meme- line destroying a gene- line, and perhaps damaging its own chance of replication in the process.


*In fact, they don't even look that far. They can't look at anything, as they are inanimate. All they do is exist. Extremely good at surviving, but completely without purpose, like New Labour politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:20 AM

The other side of the coin might be this: in a primordial society, a child with a problem like extreme anxiety or autism probably wouldn't survive. The more intelligent people would probably prosper the most, so intelligence, over time, would increase.
                In modern societies, we keep pre-born infants alive, knowing they'll have problems as adults, and continue to try to treat children with all kinds of problems. One can't help but wonder if these practices would trend overall intelligence the other way.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:26 AM

"In modern societies, we keep pre-born infants alive, knowing they'll have problems as adults, and continue to try to treat children with all kinds of problems. One can't help but wonder if these practices would trend overall intelligence the other way."

Yeah - Better we should just leave them by the side of the road so we don't mess up the quality of the gene pool.Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:56 AM

Absolutely not, Wesley. The only point I was making was this: if we are to look at human intelligence in a scientific forum, it would only make sense to look at it in its entirety.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:16 AM

No I understand completly. You feel the world would be a better place without the religious nuts, Mexican wetbacks and the autistic kids. You've made yourself very clear with your history of posts here.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 11:41 AM

Wesley - I think you are jumping to conclusions, unsupported.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:31 PM

Wesley, that is not a nice April Fool. Riginslinger has never posted anything that would imply, let alone state, that the world would be better without wetbacks or autistic kids.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 02:36 PM

Calm down, Slag. My concept of God is not in play here. That's because it has nothing to do with the subject being debated. I have not volunteered "my" concept of God. You are premature in rejecting it because you don't yet know what it is.

What I did was to give my understanding of a common 'American' understanding of religion, which is that "a little religion is a good thing," but if someone actually takes it seriously and wants to apply their literal understanding of not just Christianity but any religion, then they are likely to be perceived as a kook, or in your terms, as a psychopath.

You are assuming that the preservation of physical life should be a priority. The parents were assuming that the preservation of spiritual life, perhaps involving admission to some future life is the priority. We (you, me and them) won't know who's right until one of us dies. (After you, Alphonse.)

In the meantime, there is indeed a connection between what you said about God giving us dominion (again, I'm not giving you 'my' interpretation, I'm commenting on someone else's) and the idea that the parents could have exercised a lot more discretion. I would venture to suggest that that connection was not as clearly established in your post as you might think it was, but it's there, yes, you get points for that.

Just let me try to make my point again about how there are Biblical admonitions about fearing not those who can kill the body, but rather fearing those who can destroy both body and soul in hell. Regardless of whether or not I believe that, the statement is there, and it would seem to be pretty cut and dried from the standpoint of somebody who lacks your fine sense of discrimination.

As I said, It's not that the parents didn't learn. It's that they weren't taught.

Now, how 'bout dialing back on the preachiness and not trying to bite my ankles any more until you figure out where I'm coming from?? :)

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:28 PM

For those in the Darwin-and-intelligence aside, I'd like to toss in the finding that yes, with eyeglasses, dentistry, wheelchairs, epilepsy-warning dogs, we as a species ARE trashing our gene pool. That is the price of civilization, and one we pay willingly. Wesley S, it isn't that the world -or even the human species- would be "better off" if we let all the individuals who were sub-average on ANY scale die off instead of caring and loving them. But it is an undeniable reality that if we did, we would not be nearly as genetically prone to things like bad eyesight - when did you last see an open-ground predator of ungulates, like great cats and humans, who hunted by near-sightedness? Compare that to, When did you last meet an adult who didn't need glasses, contact lenses, or Lasik? We would be genetically stronger, or prone to other things less minor and treatable, but we'd be the kind of people I wouldn't want to be, and not the kind of people we ARE, who HAVE evolved not only the ability, but the DESIRE to care for and about people with diabetes and other treatable conditions that, in most futuristic (read: realistic, in many eyes, to the issue of population control) writings, are banned from reproducing.
Meanwhile, on the tower {anybody recognize that reference?}, it is also being discovered that being a CARRIER (of more and more things that are a bad thing to have) is often a good thing to be. Carriers of sickle-cell anemia, for instance, are resistant to malaria (which is why only peoples from malaria-ridden areas developed the gene which, when expressed as sickle-cell anemia, is a terrible thing to have - OR everybody had it but everybody ELSE lost it when we came out of Africa). But that is a simple one-allele thing; others are more complex and include more genes, so "carrier" becomes shorthand for "someone who has this in their family tree but doesn't suffer from it themselves" - not to imply that there is A gene for anything that follows:
Carriers of bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, which last is becoming associated with older *fathers*, and of other disorders including autism, are showing up as remarkably intelligent and/or creative. Kind of like the math geniuses who are so much more likely to be left-handed or stutter or both. So our caring for our subaverages may actually be HELPING us in weird, unintended and unimagined ways. And in fact the evolution OF disorders like bipolarity, schizophrenia, autism, dyslexia may actually signal interesting turning points in the evolution of our intelligence and emotional capabilities.
But again, just because someone acknowledges that many genetic deficits do exist in our society and are not only tolerated but cherished, does NOT mean that a) they think society would be a better place without those individuals, or that b) they are actually serious when they use the genetic metaphor for meme-disabilities like believing in fairy tales when you're a grown-up, or other religious lunacies.
Now, we don't know if carriers of diabetes, which is all the little girl had in the original thread, are stronger in some way - and I doubt it, diabetes is not a human disease, it's a mammal disease, sugar metabolism is an old and complex cycle that is multiple-y disruptable. So these people were, to quote a current writer, either dangerously stupid or equally if not more dangerously insane. Sure, they had a *reason* to believe that if they made mouth movements of a certain kind, the physical laws of the universe would be suspended in their case: they had been told so by a priest. Or by *their* parents, who'd been told so by a priest. Now, is that OK with anybody who isn't an American?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:31 PM

Just a reminder: if you are going to post long messages, please break it up into paragraphs. It saves the eyes and encourages reading.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:12 PM

Mrrzy - That's an interesting point you make about autism and dyslexia and other abnormalities. People very who were afflicted with these things very well might not have survived in a tribal/pre-tribal society, but today they might very well hold fellowships at places like MIT.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:51 AM

Strictly speaking anything that happens to an organism AFTER it has produced offspring is of no great consequence to evolution. So, if you get diabetes or cancer after you reproduce it's a big "So what?" However, in the case of humans and certain other "higher" order creatures, continued care and nurturing of offspring are of vital consequence and so a longer lifespan IS necessary to the continuation of the specie.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 09:24 AM

Yes, but diabetes develops in childhood, before you reproduce. Usually. It CAN appear in adulthood, but that wasn't the case in the child here.

And things that affect PARENTING in an altricial species such as our own can still affect the evolution, since the point is to become an ancestor, not just a parent.

And I thought I had broken it up into paragraphs, I see now that they were WAY too big, sorry!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:08 AM

Katlaughing--You actually READ this stuff?? ;^D

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 11:10 AM

Oh, and Slag, I forgot to say that I reject your concept of mince pie. I have no idea what that concept is, but I reject it. At least I have SEEN a mince pie.

CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:17 PM

Everyone deals with what they think of as "reality", Riginslinger. They do. Without exception. They deal with their version of "reality". They deal with it quite consciously, every single day of their lives. Again, you object specifically to people whose version of "reality" is noticeably different from yours in certain specific respects (of a religious sort).

Why not just get on happily with your own reality instead? Do you feel threatened by those who believe differently, Riginslinger? I think you must feel threatened, otherwise you would not keep bellyaching constantly on this forum about people who happen to believe in some things you don't believe in.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:59 PM

LH - I think people who are addicted to one thing or another definately have their own versions of reality.
                      People who are addicted to ancient superstitions do things like start wars, pervert society, and fly airplanes into buildings.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:12 PM

Little Hawk - reality is demonstrable. You can have your own version, but if it doesn't jibe with what is demonstrable, then you are wrong, whether you want to believe it or not.

And I certainly feel - and in reality AM- threatened by the credulously superstitious, and so are you, whether you wish to believe it or not. The war of Islamic terrorists on the rest of the world has been going on for decades; the war of Christianity against reason in the US is kind of new, but none the less threatening.

Believing Christians may not blow up embassies or airliners, yet, but they murder doctors, deny reality (not what they believe, but what actually IS), they are having a very good run at stifling reason when it contradicts their faith (their word for what I would call their dangerous and stupid superstitions), and (just to get back to the thread), this couple of them actually murdered, in many people's hearts, their child, by stupidly refusing to believe that she could possibly die if all they did for her as she got sicker and sicker and sicker was pray. The really sad thing is that in 40 states, if you allow a child to die because of your religion, that is legal, whereas if you let them die IN THE EXACT SAME NEGLECTFUL WAY

The believers in prayer are not living in their own reality. They are living in a delusion that is real to them. The same could be said of many mad people... except that there are no priests to say The voices you hear are the word of God, nowadays. Small favors.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:14 PM

ooops I was redoing that paragraph. I meant to say in those 40 states, it is a crime to allow a child to die by not taking them to a doctor when they get sick. Unless you can say that your god wanted you to, and then suddenly it's OK with the law.

I think it's time to take that allowance away to protect children from the stupidity -or, if you porefer, credulousness, of their parents. The OTHER 10 states seem reasonable to me: this is child neglect, and neglectful homicide.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 03:48 PM

Murder.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Art Thieme
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 09:02 PM

Bush proves that every silver lining has a dark cloud in the middle!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Apr 08 - 09:10 PM

Um - if the gubmint can take little girls away from their families to protect them (these children) from being married off to married old men [not a typo], shouldn't they (the gubmint) be protecting them (children in general) from death? Or is that another thread, rather than a refresh of this one?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 12:39 AM

Mrrzy - It all seems like the same thing to me. People hopelessly addicted to some superstition or another doing something that--if they were straight, they would know to be wrong--and in the process hurting children.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:14 AM

Mrrzy--

I need you to 'splain about how you demonstrate the reality of God not existing -- or existing, for that matter. I wish it could be demonstrated, but it seems to me that the believer can always say, "Of course I can't demonstrate God; He/She/It is a spirit and I just have to have faith in Him/Her/It," while the materialist has the hard task of proving the negative.

Any number of Third World rebels have said, "We can take our country back! Just believe and the White Man's bullets can't kill you. So they attacked the forces of the colonizing power, whichever one it was that day, and were shot dead. When their friends complained to the guru/witch doctor/mullah/medicine man/leopard priest, he just said, "You didn't believe hard enough."

I really, really want to come up with a foolproof way to DEMONSTRATE that there is no higher power playing April Fool jokes like that, but how do you do it???? You can't just say, "I don't believe it" cause then you walk right into the dude's trap. Whaaaa?


CC

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 01:59 AM

"an evil and adulterous generation that seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." (Mt 12:39,40)

"Then he said, 'I pray thee therefore father (the rich man in Hell to father Abraham) that thou wouldst send him (Lazarus the Beggar) to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that he may testify to them, lest they also come to this place of torment.' Abraham saith unto him, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'Nay father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.' And he said unto him, 'If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.'" (Lk 16: 27-31)

The proof has been given. It is up to you to either accept it or reject it.

However, in the case of this little child, it is hubris for the parents not to acknowledge that their faith was not sufficient and to have not availed themselves of proven medical procedure was criminal neglect. To quote another "A man's got to know his limitations." (Clint Eastwood as 'Dirty Harry')

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Apr 08 - 10:25 AM

There is no proof in the post above, period!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 10:27 AM

I need you to 'splain about how you demonstrate the reality of God not existing -- or existing, for that matter. I wish it could be demonstrated, but it seems to me that the believer can always say, "Of course I can't demonstrate God; He/She/It is a spirit and I just have to have faith in Him/Her/It," while the materialist has the hard task of proving the negative.
One cannot demonstrate the reality of no-gods. However, one *can* demonstrate that pretty much anything the faithful believe is god-based, isn't. And the point of faith is just what you said - it has no proof, needs no proof, you just gotta believe. Reality, in contrast, can be demonstrated, so there is no need of faith when you believe in the demonstrable.
The burden of extraordinary proof, furthermore, is on the people making the *supernatural* and thus extraordinary claims, not on the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: GUEST,Chicken Charlie
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 12:15 PM

Mrrzy--

I hear you.

Plato, Plotinus, Buddha and Lao Tzu would, however, disagree with the "What you see is what you get" approach. Oh, well. I guess that's why there are philosophy professors in the world. I think I'll go back to something demonstrable, like the strings on several of my instruments being worn out and in need of replacing. I hold THAT truth to be self-evident, so I guess that's a start.

Best wishes,
Chicken Charlie

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Apr 08 - 01:22 PM

Well, Plato, Buddha, etc., didn't have fMRI, now, did they (LOL!)?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 05:49 PM

http://www.livescience.com//health/080410-bad-prayer-kills.html is of interest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 07:38 PM

Amazing, ain't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 09:52 PM

Old Bob can't say for sure what happened here--but he does think that one ought to read up on a subject *before* coming to a conclusion about it. Link to News Stories about Kara Neumann

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Apr 08 - 10:25 PM

Though the key scientist in THIS, is not happy with it being dubbed the "God particle," scientists believe they may be able to now prove the existence of a force which gives mass to the universe and makes life possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 01:59 AM

Gee, I wonder where it came from?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Greg B
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 03:21 PM

But that's just an extension of the dozens of other creation myths, now isn't it Slag?

It's anthropologically arguable that virtually every society has
sought to extend the limits of their knowledge of their origins with
some sort of creation myth. Whether it's Yahweh saying "Let there be
light" or some great cosmic hippopotamus sneezing out a glob of
hippo-snot that became the world, the creation myths have always begun
where empirical or scientific knowledge has left off.

In latter days, Christianity (et al) have sought to prop up their
creation myths by shutting down science.

Other more enlightened spirtualists and theologians have sought either
to rationalize or or to mesh their creation myths with newly-acquired
scientific knowledge. Thus there continues to be a creator, but now
it's the one that set E=mc**2 as an immutable rule. Meanwhile, such
as Stephen Hawking continue to push the point where scientific
knowledge ends and creation myth begins further and further back
in time and space (which turn out to be two sides of the same
cosmic coin, after all).

The interesting thing is that the keepers of the creation myths, no
matter how absurd, have done pretty well for themselves in society.
Arguably by making it up as they go along. Which is a lot less work
than finding neutrinos.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Apr 08 - 03:29 PM

The problem with a creation myth is that it is superfluous. A materialist would argue that if you must posit a God that did not come from anywhere, and was simply a primal Cause uncaused, there is no earthly reason the Big Bang could not serve just as well as the primary Cause uncaused.

I don't wholly buy this, but the logic is pretty straightforwad.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:59 AM

Yes Amos, your argument has much more the force of logic. I hate to tell Greg B the E=mc2 is NOT immutable and is certainly not the finally answer in physics (hyper expansion at 10^-34) not to mention the broken symmetries.

Some folks cannot conceive of their God knowing anything beyond their own ken and when they get out of their league in things scientific they feel threatened in their faith. I would question whether their faith was really in God or in their own ability to understand! I love the sciences. It gives me insight into just how really powerful and beyond us God is! It is not WHAT you know. It's WHO you know!

Yup, big time thread drift. I looked back (again) to discover the point of departure from the topic. Somewhere around Mrrzy and Guest Charlie Chicken. I guess that it was inevitable that this would come up but it has been done to death in other threads. These people do not have a theological leg to stand on. They do not have a legal leg to stand on. What they did to their daughter, either through ignorance or pride or stupidity is inexcusable. They have to be made aware of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 01:33 PM

Love it, Amos - no *earthly* reason, indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 02:08 PM

"What they did to their daughter, either through ignorance or pride or stupidity is inexcusable. They have to be made aware of this."


                The really sad part of it is, there is probably no way in the world to actually make them aware of it. They are most likely too far gone. You might have been able to save the daughter, if she'd lived, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 06:17 PM

Well, praise The Big Bang, Mrrzy, Amos! It was IT that determined our anthropomorphic existence and the natures we enjoy- or suffer, depending on your point of view. Either way, we are hereby absolved of all responsibility for our actions. I mean, I'm only doing what comes naturally!

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Apr 08 - 10:47 PM

"...we are hereby absolved of all responsibility for our actions. I mean, I'm only doing what comes naturally!"


                         But how does that play in Peoria?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 02:44 PM

"A materialist would argue that if you must posit a God that did not come from anywhere, and was simply a primal Cause uncaused, ..."

I do belive in evolution (duh!) but that statement, Amos, is v e r y close to what science says about the universe. If I understand it correctly, they say: It (the void with its suns and planets, et al) was always there. (huh?)

Having matter -that has always been there - deteriorate and combine and then regrow into higher entities doesn't take a lot less faith than creationism.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 04:20 PM

Doncha just love this?

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 08:12 PM

The loss of a child is the most pain that a parent can feel. Some of you are so completely full of yourselves that you are oblivious to the human truths.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 09:24 PM

Thread drift, dear Ted. Any conversation can go astray. It does not mean that anyone is making light of the tragedy. Ease up a bit.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Apr 08 - 09:38 PM

It didn't drift--it started out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Slag
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 07:13 PM

Ahoy there! We're listing about 6 degrees of the Isles of Langerhans! (with all due apologies to Harlan Ellison).

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 07:24 PM

I'm surprised that no one gone the short step to say that "Religious Freedom is Murder"--

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 07:56 PM

Religious Freedom is not murder, Religious Conviction is murder, or can be, and that's the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: M.Ted
Date: 14 Apr 08 - 09:39 PM

Well, close enough, Riginslinger--and if you've got a conviction, you've got to do the time;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 15 Apr 08 - 07:06 PM

Um - you can't use "what comes naturally" as an excuse for bad behavior - that is the price of civilization. Or socialization, if you prefer. Only babies get to do what comes naturally, unfortunately...