 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Religious freedom, or murder?
|
|
|
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 - 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: 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: 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: Mrrzy Date: 28 Mar 08 - 08:52 AM How about "depraved indifference?" |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:10 PM *******Roaring with laughter at Bill's comment******* |
|
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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 04:34 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 - 04:17 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. " |
