Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

I will answer both of your replies to me, in this single post. I will reiterate Percy's request, that you wait until you are calm before replying. There was no need for all of your anger. The above is a good example. I thought I made my position clear, but perhaps not enough. You could have left it at your initial question. The rant which followed clearly departs from anything I said.In a truly free and tolerant society, adults are treated as such. They have a right to do with themselves as they will. They have a right to act in accordance with their beliefs, no matter how ignorant and odious it may seem to others.As I mentioned in my first reply, children are being used as a very convenient tool to erode such protections. They are of course a very sticky subject in a free society. Are they individuals with full rights separate from their parents and the State? Or are they limited, being the offspring of parents, residing within a family that has protection from the State to follow their own belief system? Or are they limited, being the wards and produce of, by, and for the State? There may be more options but they likely boil down to these three.If the State has a right to interfere with a family's belief systems in order to protect the life of a child, where does this end? You can throw up "life of a child" all you want, but in a nation where the definitions of life and child are varied, and hardly agreed on, it is likely you are going to have to engage in much arbitrary argument to protect your own reproductive and family choices.Honestly, given that concept (children have a right to life protected by the State) then abortion should certainly be illegal. But we can leave that situation out. How does it decide upon inoculations? How does it decide upon treatment for cancer? How does it decide upon twins where one presents a potential risk for the other?Even this current example does not have a clear cut ending. Although I can agree that it is likely the girl would have survived with treatment, there is also a very real chance it would not have helped. People really do die, even with treatment, and with no malpractice.I do not believe the State, which is simply the collected opinion of voters, can make a good decision with respect to what a family should do regarding themselves in any particular situation. I think that mistake should be left up to the family, and so in the case of children, up to the parents. This isolates any tragedy to the people most concerned. Elevating the State to the role of uber-parent only increases the likelihood of ones own children falling under the ignorance of others. Because we have a Constitution which is supposed to keep people from imposing their worldviews on others. That is what I am arguing. That is what freedom and tolerance is about. If you had faith in a nonmedical procedure that would save the child, or a lack of faith in medical procedures, I don't think you would or should. However, if the issue is religious vs secular faiths, I am in favor of giving secular faith the same benefits of religious faith. Yes, it is a sad state of affairs that children are not fully autonomous beings capable of making individual choices, and that they have no contol of who ends up making important choices for them.I prefer children to suffer under the rare chance of having asshole parents, rather than both adults and children suffering under the certainty of every other person in the nation being an asshole. Using your vernacular.Parents have children. The State does not. Both make mistakes. The State tends to make larger ones, when it makes them. Have you read more recent interviews with them? You lose. I am overwhelmed by the clarity of your logic. Yes, parents cannot outright kill children to feed a god's desire. That is not what is being discussed here. I did not say it secured anything. That is your position. I said sacrificing freedom for security, one gets and deserves neither. They did not kill their child. Diabetes apparently killed the child. They chose what to their mind was the appropriate course of action for an illness. There is a vast difference between intentionally killing someone, and choosing the least efficient method for medical attention.Accusing people like randman or myself as asking for children to die is pure propaganda as neither of us want that. It seems we would even argue to such parents that they should seek treatment if they want the likely best outcome. We just won't invade their decision making on that point by force of law.In that way we ensure that the State cannot force us into activities we would not want for our families, which might also end in death (or suffering). My point was that GM avoided the fact that kids die either way. No, this is not true and entirely avoids the point I was making. That an inoculation kills a child, no one is held responsible. That a family decides to have a conjoined twin killed in order to give the other a better life, no one is held responsible. The question of medical intervention always carries risk, it is not all negligence.And I would further like to stake this line of argument in noting that suing someone does not bring the kid back. If a couple does what the State demands, and then their kid dies, suing means nothing. Yes, I can see the difference between these, as well as the difference between some further choices... people having different ideas of what constitutes help, and people overtly killing someone. Your stock dilemma does not capture the reality of the issue it is attempting to address. There was no murder in this case. The best one can argue for is criminal neglect. In any case, when is worldview able to trump murder? Abortion. Infanticide (to increase the value of life for a remaining twin). Not to mention any other medical decision for a child which does not involve potentially extending life to its maximum. These choices are very hard. It usually comes down to a family deciding what is right for their own worldview, though to some other group will often be seen as horrendous and... murder. I did not say GM said it, but she certainly implied it. To label my side as asking for it, inherently suggests that hers does not. One might check the subthread title she chose, if not her direct accusation. Check that argument again... calmly... and you should be able to spot the inconsistencies. You may also find why we would have a Constitution.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

By God (a metaphor), I wish I knew. It’s so much easier to know where the line shouldn’t be than where it should.But your question: is the meat of my opinion. As the fanatics did before, they will do again if ever they become the majority. You seem to neglect that the loonies don’t have stewardship over my children simply because they are out numbered by rational people such as you and me.As awful as reality sometimes is it is none the less the case that the primary steward of children are the parents, And unless the parents prove to be wantonly destructive of their children’s welfare. These parents are in both our opinions severely, horribly wrong, but do you believe their intent was the death and destruction of the child?I have to cringe at almost every last one of your questions. To reject any of them is almost more than I can bare, but there is a larger picture. It’s easy not to bother with that larger picture here and now because we live in countries where the government isn’t filled with religious fanatics.Look at how many (and why) children die in countries where the vicious hordes are the government. Not too long ago a number of school girls were allowed to burn to death in an Islamic country because they tried to run out of the burning building without their head scarves. And that wasn’t even to save the girls soul, but to not insult Allah. To characterize this as my thinking any of this is a good thing is simple and unfair.If I want what is best for my children I must give more than lip service to the sovereignty of others. Or become one of the vicious horde.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

Why do you say I neglect the very thing that is my main and pretty much only point?What I'm wondering is why you think the fact that rational people outnumber irrational people is cause to enforce some laws that protect children from harm, but ignore other cases where children come to easily-preventable harm?What is it about this one law for protecting children that you don't see as valid in persuing? I personally don't see this case of protecting children as different from any other law that protects children. What is the difference in your eyes?You said the difference was "the parents were trying to save the immortal soul of their child". I think it's obvious to everyone that this difference is found wanting. ...for the understatement of the month. No. But we have laws that protect against things like this already. Like my example of leaving the child in the forest because they believe God wants to lead the child home. We have laws protecting children from this destructive result even though the intent isn't destructive.So, again, why do you think this particular case is any different? Why is it okay to prevent destructive results when the intent is not destructive in one case, but here you think it should be okay? Why? Yes. My larger picture is to protect the individual rights of the child. As we do by outlawing dropping your children in the middle of a forest because you have grand-intentions of having God saving their immortal soul. In the same vein, I think it's only rational to outlaw the neglect of medical care to a child who is in need just becaue you have grand-intentions of having God save their immortal soul.If your larger picture does not include the protection of the child, what larger picture, specifically, are you trying to make me aware of? I apologize, do you retract your stance, then? I think that would be awfully decent of you. I only characterized you as thinking this was a good thing because you said so in your first post: (bolding is mine)"The proper course of action" to me is the same as "a good thing" or "the right thing to do". The same as "a good thing" and "the right thing to do" applies to your chosen analogy of yelling fire in a burning theatre.If you'd like to retract your statement that you think this is "the proper course of action", then I retract all my arguements. My point is that I do not think this is "the proper course of action". If I want what is best for my children, I will try everything I can to ensure they grow up in a society where ALL individuals are protected with the same rights. Including those very children.

SCOTUSThis was a case in which a guardian had a minor child distributing religious literature in violation to Massachusetts State law.

quote:

---

But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145; Davis v. Beason, 133 U. S. 333. And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation. Acting to guard the general interest in youth's wellbeing, the state, as parens patriae, may restrict the parent's control by requiring school attendance, [Footnote 9] regulating or prohibiting the child's labor [Footnote 10] and in many other ways. [Footnote 11] Its authority is not nullified merely because the parent grounds his claim to control the child's course of conduct on religion or conscience. Thus, he cannot claim freedom from compulsory vaccination for the child more than for himself on religious grounds. [Footnote 12] The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or the child
to communicable disease or the latter to ill health or death.

---

and

quote:

---

The zealous though lawful exercise of the right to engage in propagandizing the community, whether in religious, political or other matters, may, and at times does, create situations
difficult enough for adults to cope with and wholly inappropriate for children, especially of tender years, to face. Other harmful possibilities could be stated, of emotional excitement and psychological or physical injury. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.

---

This present case is not one of Religious Liberty but one of Religious Stupidity.This was the willful torture and murder of a young child, not out of malice, but out of sheer and utter religious stupidity.All the arguments about medical malpractice, vaccinations, parental rights and religious freedoms cannot hide the negligence and incompetence of the parents here. Nor can it hide the negligence and incompetence of the State for allowing such a thing to happen."Religious Liberty" is not a license to ignore the most basic responsibly this secular society places on a person, especially in regards to the welfare of a child.Society has not just a right, but an obligation, to protect a minor child from the zealous excess of the parent. Prince v. Massachusetts

Correct - prayer is a complete joker in the pack, the wild card. Its efficacy is beyond the edge of detectable. As such, and as I said, one is perfectly free to pray for the healing of the child that is in your care, but you should not be free to neglect other for more demonstrably effective methods of healing. The failings of capitalist healthcare is irrelevant to this topic. The defence that we are talking about isn't the "Buzsaw defence" whereby the defendant argues that the healthcare system does more harm than good. The defence in question is where the defendant argues that they didn't get medical treatment because they provided the child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. or 448.03 (6).

First, I want to shift this away from this couple in specific. It appears there are differing accounts of what happened, including the fact that they had no idea she was diabetic (which drastically changes the picture). Let's assume for sake of further argument we are discussing a family that knows a child has a particular illness, is made aware of medical treatments, and chooses their own method. It could just as well be a secular holistic concept as religious dogma. In either case, the modern medical treatment is avoided and death of the child is the result.I take exception to the claim I mangled Franklin's quote. I would argue that the term essential is a description of what liberty is, not what type of liberty is exempt from sacrifice. If I took the latter view, there is no liberty exempt for barter.But to answer the question of how essential treating seriously ill children with prayer is... it is as essential as any other choice a parent can make with regard to the health of their child. Flies' assertion that an atheist would be persecuted does not undermine my argument. If true, it only argues that atheists should have the same coverage, not less. I disagree with your homeopathy claim. This is a modern and fallacious argument. But taken as granted, I am still perplexed as to how the State gets to determine what is the common good on so personal a matter? That you argue the State ought to protect children from the delusions of their parents, delivers my exact line of rebuttal... lots of people think this and are delusional on many different matters. I don't want a bunch of people protecting my children from my delusions, and so I don't protect their children from their own. This segregates the delusions and any resulting tragedies to individual families. This is an opposing concept of what constitutes freedom, as well as medical necessity. No child ought to be given medical service simply because of its purported benefits to most, and treated as worthy sacrifices on the alter of medicine. This is an individual choice as to what is important, what risks and outcomes are desirable.There are plenty of circumstances where medicine also involves suffering and risk for longer term potential benefits. Should you decide what to do, or the State? Why?As long as a parent is making a conscious choice for what the believe is the betterment of their child, I do not believe they are acting neglectfully. Neglect is avoiding making such actions or decisions. The State has no role in telling people their belief about the afterlife (or spirits) is delusional and so such concerns should be thought as avoiding responsibility. Neither should the State be telling people what they should consider appropriate risk, or charge them with such avoidance. No, that is not obvious, though it is clear that many people have decided to make it a replacement for God and Church. Right and wrong is a religious concept and has no real concern in our republic. The question of laws is the balance of rights taken for onesself.I can grant you that children are a very sticky subject regarding rights. But this has nothing to do with right and wrong. This is clearly the case as there are so many different versions of such. Such parents are right according to their worldview and the State has no say on such matters, even if there is an open legal question whether their child has a individual right to modern medical care. That is your opinion. I happen to agree I would rather base my care on worldly materialist science, but that does not make it ethical. And I dare say science has no claim regarding their methods anyway. The point of prayer is not simply that divinity will provide a better material outcome, it is that reliance on materialist means to prolong corporal existence is itself harmful in some way. How would science begin to challenge that notion?I dread the concept that the State can tell them that their beliefs are wrong and delusional in some definitive sense. Where does that end? I feel most people arguing for control over such families, would not be making such claims if their own worldview was not in majority at this time. The right to abortion hinges on the State not deciding moral concepts for individuals. Prostitutes have no arguable similarity to children. The big issue here is the rights of children. Should the parents play the role of primary decision maker? Should the State? Or should the child? Most everyone agrees the latter is impossible, which leaves the other two. Leaving it to the parents, maximizes freedom and minimizes the very kinds of tragedies you are discussing. That is untrue. Clearly the death of any child from an inoculation could have been avoided, yet you have already argued those deaths should be thought okay based on some ultilitarian numbers concept (which is also delusional thinking). What about parents that decide not to have their child go through chemo or some other surgery, in order to avoid the pain or destructive effects?I might also add, that many anti-abortionists would agree with your statement. Clearly those could also be avoided. This gets back to my earlier discussion. Given that children are deemed too young to make such decisions, who makes the decisions for them. Unless you are going to argue that parents are too young to do so, then they should make the decision for their own child. I do not buy arguments that suggest any current majority of voters will inherently do better.You want such parents punished? Haven't they been punished enough? In any case, what I don't want to face is the State punishing me by forcing me to agree with all its ideas of what is good for my family, much less any follow up punishments when they turn out to be wrong.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Death is the ultimate form of parental wanton destruction.Your answer fails to address an important point that has been raised in this thread.When, for secular reasons (breastfeeding), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted of homicide.ErrorThis is not an isolated case.When, for secular reasons (vegan diet), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted as well.http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/6340470?sourc...When, for secular reasons (vegan diet), a couple starved their child to death, they were convicted of homicide and sentenced to life.MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosThe list goes on.Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos
Child abuse by vegan parents When, for religious reasons (Scientology), a mother starved her child to death, she was convicted.Page Not Found - HolySmoke!When, for religious reasons (exorcism), a mother killed her child , she was convicted.http://findarticles.com/...les/mi_m2843/is_6_27/ai_110575754When, for religious reasons (exorcism), a father killed his child , he was convicted. Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - The exorcism list is particularly long, so I will let these two links suffice.Is it your position that, for whatever reason, a parent has the right to kill his/her child?

First of all, without malice, this was not a case of willful torture or murder. For a person wanting to throw in legal arguments, that should be rather obvious.Second, an appeal to SCOTUS doesn't solve anything. The Supreme Court has upheld slavery and many other things we do not agree with today.I would agree with the decision where community health is the concern. However, a diabetic child, or decisions related to such personal health issues is not a threat to community health. I would also agree that a parent should not withhold treatment they would take for themselves, but this is not the case. I would agree that they are ignorant people, who are not taking advantages available to them by modern medicine. Then again I cannot say anything regarding how that might effect them spiritually. Children are not a license to ignore the most basic protections this secular society grants to citizens, especially in regards to decisions about the welfare of their child. And when that society decides that you are the zealous parent?I am always saddened when the new majority decides it is time to make their opinion the law of the land... even when I happen to agree with most of that opinion.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

What's the alternative?We can't just force them. That's a serious violation of civil rights as well as the basics of personal choice.Seeing your brother die because your parents wouldn't let him get a routine shot does change your mind.The ironic thing is, the very people who reject evolution will be acted upon by evolution in weeding them out.

Yes there are failures in medicine, but it's been proven to work in the majority of cases unlike your magic juju power. These parent's let their child ide cause they thought the magical sky man would heal her, they're idiots at the least.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This is hardly an important point. Yes, there should not be a disparity between atheists and theists regarding treatment of their children.You have not answered the more important point that if any of these types of people became the majority, then such activity can be pushed on you and other parents using the legal argument you have constructed.Given the rise of fundamentalism, that is particularly troublesome for the US. A parent has the right to live according their own beliefs and attend the wellbeing of their children within that system. Is it your position, that for whatever reason, a majority of voters gets to determine what is the best system of beliefs and institute them (and their corresponding mistakes) on all parents?

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

First, if you are the case where your kid dies, appeals to the majority of cases doesn't mean anything. Second, everyone keeps avoiding the fact that it is more than a claim prayer will work better. The point is that (for them) medical intervention causes a spiritual harm, which is totally beyond physical problems.I might totally disagree with that opinion, and argue against it vigorously. But my opinion ought to end at their door. I really cannot say what happens on the spiritual plane, and I should not force them by law to obey my opinions on that matter.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

A physician is not the steward of the patient. The physician is a service provider and has contractual obligations to the patient including the administration of vital medications and the following of standard procedure. The patient , or his steward, decides what the desired out come of said services should be. The physician either carries this out or decline the contract. At least in the United States. The parent as the steward of the child is therein responsible for the whole child, including the soul. The parent is not protecting his own right as steward but the right of the child to have a soul fit to appear before God. To not do so would be negligent.I swear to you that by my own standards this is grade A fruitcake, but I don’t get to make that call. Our government is also not the steward of the citizens. It is answerable to the governed. The equal protection of the laws that the government has a duty to uphold is the stewardship of the child by the parent. And again, it is not the religious right of the parent being protected, but that of the child. Agreed, the parent determining the religious out look of the child is problematic , but the alternative is more so.If the mother was acting in good faith she should not have been prosecuted. This country has become absurdly litigious in the last few decades. The vicious horde is gaining ground in the guise of public safety. That self same horde who will rear your children for you.
It doesn’t seem right . It doesn’t seem just. It doesn’t seem moral. But I don’t get to make that call.

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

Did you read the stats in my message? It is debatable that US modern methodology is demonstrably more effective than alternative options. Any laws prohibiting one's choice of methods including prayer would, of course, be the US conventional drug based methodology. All other alternatives would be inclusive with prayer as and alternative prohibited methodology. But you brought up the capitalist i.e. conventional methodology argument alleging that it is the methodology which the practitioner is held accountable. I'm saying that's not true and my cited stats show that to be the case.In a number of these failed conventional atrocities resulting in injury and death if the patient had resorted to prayer, having not taken the drug, they may still be alive and well regardless of whether the prayer worked or not, the prayer opton working like a placebo.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Sure it is if you ignore the word wanton, and neglect these parents had a responsibility to more than just the body of the child.Throw all the cases you want at me, but if they don’t answer to the parents belief that they are acting in the best interest of the child ” wrongly, I agree ” then they are not applicable. My position is irrelevant. The law should not be based on something as fickle as my position. The parent must be acting in the assumed best interests of the child as their stewardship demands.Would you care to drop the pretense that we respect the opinions of our fellow citizens?

---

KindlyWhen I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.