 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
|
|
|
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: 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
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? |
