Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

I’m afraid I’d have to agree with Silent H on this.Yelling fire in a burning theater is the proper course of action. Likewise, denying ones child life saving medical intervention to save its immortal soul is also the proper course of action.I don’t believe that there is a soul in a living person, yet alone a dead one, but it’s not my call. To make it my call, I would have to assume that religious beliefs are actionable evidences of incompetence. And personally I likely would. I’d grab the kid and deliver up its soul to the nearest hospital in a heart beat. But by the same token, I know a number of folks who are tempted to (with much more at stake from their vantage) haul my kids off to the nearest scum filled font for baptism.Government should act to moderate personal behavior, not to enforce it. Where I have the luxury of claiming to respect the beliefs of others as a platitude, I surely don’t want my government to.Edited by lyx2no, : Grammar.

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am wholly unable to keep up. five posts appear for every post I read. I can give all of you the lynch pin in my argument and save you all having to argue points I have already considered.I contend that we, as a government, do not have the right to subvert the stewardship of the parents so long as they are faithfully executing their duty to the child. That as part of their duty to the child it is theirs to determine what is in the best interest of the child. And in that determination they may use their religious beliefs to the extent that they think applicable.I can be swayed from this position by an argument that would show that the parents are not of a right mind. That their beliefs are beyond those that could be held by a sane mind. And I assure you, I’m right on the edge of this one.And To molbiogirl:I’m far from a moral relativist. I think they are dead wrong. I’ve not the slightest bone in my body telling me that what they did is acceptable. I only believe I do not have the right to act.AbE: I don't have the slightest doubt that prayer is an utter waste of time in any circumstance. I have no religious tendencies of any kind.Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

---

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.

You are asserting that you have some stewardship over their children. Not that I have stewardship over mine.And I don’t think numbers are cause for anything. Only that I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.Ask and ask again, I don’t think it’s okay. I think it’s wrong. Only that I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others. I was not speaking from my point of view but from that of the misguided stewards. I think:

quote:

---

These parents are in both our opinions severely, horribly wrong, but do you believe their intent was the death and destruction of the child?

---

Do you retract your arguments? I would think you shouldn’t, actually, only reformulate them.I’d like to have a legitimate way out of a position I find regrettable but forced upon me. What if that is not in the best interest of your children?Edited by lyx2no, : Had to change that sub head.

---

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.

Sorry to burst you bubble, but that’s called “asserting that you have some stewardship over their children.” One: You wrongly assume it’s for this one instance.Two: I have stated plainly I think we shouldn’t.Three: I have answered the question several times.Four: The answer was not , "I don't think it's my place."I wrote, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”And yes, I’m sure I think this. That’s kind of why I wrote it.And no, you’ve provided examples of what you think should give you “some stewardship over their children”.I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.And I don’t develop the right because I don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really, really don’t like what they’re doing.And I don’t develop the right because I really, really, really don’t like what they’re doing. See #1 above. My augment is, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”I agree with the parents at no point. They are wrong. Horribly, terribly wrong. However, I don’t develop the right because I really, really, really, really don’t like what they’re doing.I understand completely. No part of my position states that any person does not have the right to live. It states, “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”

---

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.

Good morning Modulous:The physician is still not free to do as he pleases because there has been a standard of care in place that the non-competent patient was, hopefully, aware of when they were competent. If those standards include hauling one off to the faith healer after an auto wreck It would behoove said patient to make alternative arrangements before hand.If you don’t mind my cutting to the chase: I do not accept that society has the grant to unilaterally mold the social contract as it were. This country was formed in the not do distant past when parental authority was almost absolute. Those entering into this society did so under the terms that the government would not interfere with their religious beliefs. It was taken for granted that the rearing of ones children under ones own religion was part and parcel of the contract. That both sides acted accordingly confirmed the contract.If society wants to alter this contract they must do so up front. The nibbling away at it until it’s a fait accompli is not legitimate. The government needs to stand up, plead the necessity of restricting the stewardship of parents over their children, and ratify the 28^th amendment to our constitution. If they can get it done the problem is solved, and we’re all together again.For Utah to enter into this society in 1896 the Mormon population had to conform their religion to better fit the standards of the nation. They agreed to the terms and became the 45^th state.I would further agree that this very much does seem as if I’m standing on ceremony; but, when there are remedies to be had, I believe the onus is upon society to go the extra mile that they don’t eventually become a dictatorship. The problem I have with this statement is “get to”. I’d be having a real problem with this if there was an established religion that did openly profess such a stance and we had allowed them to enter into our society with that knowledge. As it is, the “Yeah, right.” offensive is more than is needed to over come such a defense. Who determines the religious beliefs of a three year old child?And where I would fully agree with you, if you were to make the objection that the beliefs of the nine year old in the instant case were the result of brain washing, I’d still bet you good money that her beliefs would conform to her parents.So who determines her beliefs then? Again we substantially agree. In the great majority of cases, so great that the other side can almost be ignored, that this will only apply to religion. But that is an artifact of religious folks being kooks. Shall we codify it into law that religious people are kooks?Let me make a clarification here: I do not support the parents expending their child to support their religious beliefs, but using their religious beliefs to ascertain the child's best interests, and then to act in accord with that ascertainment.As an aside to Stile: To your earlier example of a vegan’s child being malnourished as a direct result of the parents beliefs. After it became apparent that the child was malnourished the parents were no longer acting in accordance with their duty to act in the best interest of their child. They were acting in the best interests of their belief.But I do support secular good faith. These parents were protecting their child. They were protecting her ability to get into heaven. It is not mine nor yours to determine that which entails full extent of the protection of the child. Unless, of course, we take the hard road of establishing our right as a society to take over the stewardship of children we believe to be at risk. Establishing does not mean taking by might.

---

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.

Good mornig Stile: If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent. Until then they are blather. From the vantage of the parents you are attempting to violate the rights of their child. Who makes the call? You can objectively show to the limits of your standards that the parents are breaching the rights of the child. You ignore the standards of the parents which include an after life that is much more significant that this one.Because you don’t like the outcome of their analysis you feel you have some right to substitute your own. I contend that you don’t. In Soudi Arabia (any similarity to an actuall country is unintended) it is the law that a woman can be beheaded for juggling more than two varieties of citrus fruit at a monster truck rally. They are simply following the laws they already have in place.Again, It is the duty of the parents by their stewardship to ascertain and accomplish what is in the best interests of their child. Until such time that religious belief are declared illegitimate by constitutional law* we are stuck with that.*Because we would be changing a long established right.

---

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.

Good morning Son Goku;We in America must delegitimize religion. How that is to be done is another kettle of fish.

---

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.

Yes.

---

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.

Would it help if I typed slower?

---

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.

Unilaterally relative to the affected minority community. We have a standing tradition that minority communities be allowed to follow their religion within (nominally as often as not) agreed upon limits established before the fact. If we want to change those rules we need their consent in some fashion. But this piecemeal striping away of their current understanding of their rights is tyranny of the majority in slow motion.We can and should do it properly. That we haven't and aren't is to our shame.Edited by lyx2no, : Mistype.

---

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.

Good afternoon FliesOnly:Good faith would entail sincerity of intention.The duty of a steward is to act in the stead of the ward as that ward would act if able. The steward, if acting in the way they believe the ward would act if able, is acting in good faith. If the steward is acting to service any other interest not that of the ward while believing that the ward would act otherwise is acting in bad faith. This steward should recuse themselves, and failing to do so should be prosecuted.furthermore, it has long been established by law that the parent is the preferred steward of the child, and that it is not unreasonable that the parent assume that the child’s religious outlook is the same as the their own. And, therefore, the steward is obligated to act according to those beliefs or to recuse himself.A jury of the steward’s peers has the duty to decide if the the steward was in fact acting in good faith. It is not within the juries legal capacity to decide if the the ward’s beliefs are acceptable. This last would be a separate charge. From what I can tell, no matter how carefully or directly constructed, you don’t seem to be able a grasp my earlier statements. You’ve said a number of thing that would indicate to me that you’re having an argument with your own preconceived notions rather then with me.I would indeed consider letting my child die a slow miserable death as bad faith rearing. I would assume my child was an atheist and would want to have the best medical care available. But by the same token I’ve on more than one occasion woken to my ancient mother with a bottle of holy water trying to baptize me in my sleep so that I might get into heaven. As far as she is concerned I’m a Catholic. I’m truly glad she’s not an Aztec, else she’d be holding an obsidian blade.

---

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.

Good afternoon molbiogirl: These have not been practiced openly and with acceptance by the larger American society lending them, these practices, historical sanction. These would be introductions after the fact and likely banned. Let us hope forcefully.And once again, weather I personally accept or reject an idea is irrelevant. The rights of others should not be based on my whims.

---

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.