Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann

I didn't do a careful read through of the link.I googled site: silent h age of consent.You can do the same.Silent H has, in the past, argued that age of consent is a ridiculous idea. Better? Message 22

Lots of people came to the states with the understanding they would be allowed to keep slaves. They notoriously didn't consent to having that right removed, and free (to quote one early slave apologetic: "we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin"). Eventually the tyranny of the majority managed to strip away of those rights, also against their consent, gave those people the freedom to vote.

quote:

---

On the lawfulness of holding slaves, considering it in a moral and religious view, the Convention think it their duty to exhibit their sentiments, on the present occasion, before your Excellency, because they consider their duty to God, the peace of the State, the satisfaction of scrupulous consciences, and the welfare of the slaves themselves, as intimately connected with a right view of the subject. The rather, because certain writers on politics, morals and religion, and some of them highly respectable, have advanced positions, and inculcated sentiments, very unfriendly to the principle and practice of holding slaves; and by some these sentiments have been advanced among us, tending in their nature, directly to disturb the domestic peace of the State, to produce insubordination and rebellion among the slaves, and to infringe the rights of our citizens; and indirectly, to deprive the slaves of religious privileges, by awakening in the minds of their masters a fear, that acquaintance with the Scriptures, and the enjoyment of these privileges would naturally produce the aforementioned effects; because the sentiments in opposition to the holding of slaves have been attributed, by their advocates, to the Holy Scriptures, and to the genius of Christianity. These sentiments, the Convention, on whose behalf I address your Excellency, cannot think just, or well founded; for the right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example. In the Old Testament, the Israelites were directed to purchase their bond-men and bond-maids of the Heathen nations; except they were of the Canaanites, for these were to be destroyed. And it is declared, that the persons purchased were to be their bond-men forever;" and an "inheritance for them and their children." They were nor to go out free in the year of jubilee, as the Hebrews, who had been purchased, were; the line being clearly drawn between them...

---

So says Richard Furman, an influential community leader in the Southern Baptist Convention once upon a time, and possibly still is ("Clergyman, patriot, educator, and pioneer denominational stateman"). I suppose you would've stood up for his rights to put foreigners in bondage? No, I doubt you would. Taking away certain rights by pointing them out as immoral or abusive privileges, is not necessarily a bad thing even when the community feels their freedoms or religious rights are at stake.

No, it would help if you clarified the parts of your position that I'm asking you to clarify.What my arguement comes down to is this:All people have the same, identical right to life.
-I find this to be true for the simple reason that I cannot think of a valid, rational exception. If you have one, please offer it.According to this rule, the parents of this child neglected her right to life when they refused to give her the medical attention she needed, resulting in her death.What area(s) do you disagree with?1. Do you disagree that the parents neglected the child and that this neglect led to her death?2. Do you disagree that this neglect and subsequent death break the rule that "everyone has the same right to life"?3. Do you disagree that everyone should have the same right to life?I don't care what you think your right to interfere is, or what my right to interfere is. This is a debate board, we're not interefering in any way, what's done is done.I don't care if you think a long standing tradition should be upheld simply on it's religous merit. Such things have a historical precedent of falling away, regardless of your stance.What I'm wondering is why you think this scenario is acceptable in our current society.And the answer is one of three things:1. Perhaps you don't think that the parents neglected the child or that this neglect actually led to the child's death?
-This is trivially shown to be the very facts of this case2. Perhaps you don't think that this neglect and subsequent death break the rule that "everyone has the same right to life"?
-This is trivially shown to be irrational since a child is a part of "everyone"3. Perhaps you don't think that everyone should have the same right to life?
-If you have a better idea then "everyone should have the same right to life", I'd really like to hear about itHowever, if you do actually agree with all 3 of these points, then the arguement comes one of prioritization. That is, why would you prioitize some non-life-threatening idea over a very real, very definite, life-threatening one?This may be the case, and then your answer of "because eternal life is more important than this life" is a valid answer, when (and only when) you show that the possiblity of eternal life is actually valid in itself.Without showing that, you're simply putting hopeful wishes over the life of this child. Maybe you're okay with that. I find it woefully unbalanced.

Irrelevant. This girl received no medical treatment. That's the whole argument. Try to keep up. Strong evidence in favor? Look, Silent H, we live in the 21st Century. We have advanced medical technologies and diagnostic capabilities. These people did not live in a cave, and as such were more than aware of these medical advancements. You want to let them off the hook because they are religious and have their on Worldview (Man...I friggin HATE that term). But yet, there is no evidence to support their claim. There is no concrete evidence to support the notion that prayer cures people. They have to know this. Hell, it was being demonstrated right in front of them.In this day and age...religion should not get a free pass...ever. No it doesn't. If there was evidence of a soul, and that letting her die was important, then perhaps you'd have an argument. But again, religion should not get a free pass. They killed their child in the name of religion. Irrelevant. If we abide by this argument, no person that has a child should ever be incarcerated. Not true. All this shows is that none of their other children were unfortunate enough to have a serious illness requiring REAL medical attention. Admittedly however, if you can demonstrate that one of their other children did indeed, suffer a major, serious, fatal if left untreated, illness, and that the power of the parents prayer cured and saved this child...you might have a more valid argument. Which, to me is evidence that any remaining minors should be removed from the home. Hey, sorry...but that's just my "Worldview".

This is a curious position. Medicine is an ever evolving science. As such children are sometimes specifically used as guinea pigs for new treatments. Guess who has the call in that case? The parents. And if it fails they are not blamed.That said, I think your actual point was that parents should not rely on methods that have been outmoded by modern medicine, have no basis within it, or is not currently testable within that framework.Well I'd agree that I wouldn't and I wish others would not. But relying on such is not making guinea pigs of children. That statement means the parents are using the kids to test something before using it on themselves. That is wholly untrue. It is a reliance, not a testing, of a method they themselves would use on themselves just the same.I would add that there is no scientific way to deal with spiritual concerns. That we might heal a wound today, does not suggest what happens to a person's spirit from that treatment. That is part of the different worldview. They have different concerns than merely prolonging of life via a specific set of treatments. You need to heal your mind from this anger. It is doing neither of us any good. Logic is not mumble jumble. The value of tolerance is not mumble jumble.Wasn't it you and I against quite a number of people in an earlier thread, defending the use of physical punishment by parents in raising children? I am now facing the same arguments from you. Don't you see that? Let me be clear. I am not accusing you of using children as a tool. I stated that lately children have become a tool. I am not so much worried about how you would use it, but having set a precedent that concern for children allows the State to gain stewardship (as lyx put it), would allow people I do worry about to that same access.This is a problem the other poster and I have repeated and no one has dealt with, other than to laugh off that the majority can change.All this said, while I understand that you care for those children, the insulting part is to suggest that they do not. They have a different concept of the world than you, hence their methods will look offensive to you, like not caring. But to judge them that way is to judge religion, particularly when the state is employed. To start with, I did not understand your example. What difference would there be between truly believing letting a person lie there is a valid solution, and trusting in Jesus is a valid solution? Both would have had to be a faith oriented concept.If the question is that only allowing a particular brand of faith to care for children in their own way, then yes I would see the ridiculousness. Other than that, no.I do not believe I can tell another person what the correct view of the world is, nor impose that upon him or her. Since I view parents, rather than the State, the proper steward (I'll use lyx's term from now on) for children, then I cannot impose my system on them when it comes to deciding what form of medical and spiritual care to follow for their children.Do religious people seem ridiculous to me? Yes. That does not change the fact that I want their hands off me, when I do something ridiculous to them... say have an abortion, or let a conjoined twin die, or remove a feeding tube.As far as not infringing on religion or any way of life goes, it seems bizarre to say we'll allow you to say whatever you want, but you cannot practice the system you believe in when the majority disagrees. You cannot possibly use my position to advocate genocide. Oh wait, yes you can as I have heard countless times by anti-abortion advocates. Yes, if you view the fetuses as persons, in that case alone, you can view my position as able to support genocide.Legitimating State stewardship of children, means agreeing that should anti-abortion foes gain the majority, they can end all sorts of things, including modern medical work such as stem cell research. Which by the way is viewed as genocide as well, being just a further nazi-fication of abortion.Please do not treat me this harshly again. We may have opposing views on this issue, but I respect your person (and have for a long time). Please respect mine.

---

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

FYI. Sakti. Baiga. Page not found | The Association for PsychohistorySo.Given your line of "reasoning", incest is OK?

Funny...I was calm when I responded to you, Can you show me where it was that I hurt your feelings? Wow! You certainly make it difficult to remain calm...

Thank you molbio for making my position clear, and refuting your own claims... That is absolutely true. AoC came about as part of a progressive campaign during the late 1800s/early 1900s to institute a variety of laws against sex in general. It is one of the few still left on the books from that age, many others repealed based on their having no support in science. Currently science has undercut any support for AoC laws, just the same as the others.I'm not going to apologize for supporting science against State institution of anachronistic Victorian-religious-prudish dogma.That does not however, suggest that parents can pimp their children, which was your claim. I simply support different kinds of laws, based in reason and directed toward empowering families and children. Yes, that is a very good quote to select of mine. Clearly that is discussing laws to empower families to protect themselves against rapists and child molesters. How you can pull an advocacy of parents pimping their children, is a testament to some deep problem you have with understanding english.I wasn't planning on addressing sex issues within this thread, but that particular quote not only refuted your earlier claim, but underlined the consistency in my position across the board.I am for removing State parentalism. I am for supporting parents to protect and raise their children according to their own beliefs. Including anachronistic Victorian-religious prudish dogma.

---

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

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.

If I could elaborate on my earlier request to not post while too impassioned, on the flip side those with their fingers on other peoples' hot buttons should not try to turn administrative requests to their advantage. Exhibiting a cool rather than impassioned demeanor while making outrageous statements can also be highly inflammatory. I don't really care what style people employ in being inflammatory, it is merely the fact that they are being inflammatory that I care about.Hopefully this more complete statement will prove helpful.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What? Not even the freedom to kill anyone who annoys me, defecate wherever I please, shout fire in crowded rooms... Don't be silly. That some freedoms are restricted is a central part of any society which enjoys the rule of law. I find it hard too believe that Franklin was unaware of this obvious truism. So essentially, you are defending the right of parents to neglect their children, even if the consequences are fatal. You say you disagree with the homoeopathy example, but it seems pretty clear that without the protection of the specific exemption, anyone neglecting to provide medical treatment for a sick child in Wisconsin would be charged with negligent homicide. Please demonstrate how this is not the case. Clinical trials. That is how real medicine determines what works and what is just wishful thinking. Prayer tends to perform quite badly at clinical trial. As for your enjoying protection from having your own delusions challenged; you don't. This is a very specific exemption, which excuses the actions of religious fruitcakes, whilst offering no protection to anyone else. What would that even look like? It should be perfectly obvious that no child is deliberately sacrificed, and that every child undergoing treatment gets the best possible chance of a positive result. That's what this thread is about, not the occasional failings of medicine. I decide for myself. You decide for yourself. Parents decide for their children. But when the parents in question wish to pursue a course of action that is clearly going to lead to the death of the child, the state is forced to step in. The child's right to life trumps the parents "right" to force their child to go along with their wacky religious beliefs. Oh, so now we are bartering rights? I thought that none were up for barter. Right and wrong are not religious concepts, plenty of people with no religion still manage to maintain a system of moral values. It is not the place of science to make such judgements. It is up to the individual, and an eleven year old child is not old enough to make such judgements. Apart from being human beings with a right to life. But OK, let's assume that the parents of a child decide to directly kill a child, for its own good and because God told them to. Would that be wrong? Is it only causing death by omission of action which you excuse? This is not a case of sacrificing kids upon the altar of science, if it were I would reject it. No child is made to undergo treatment unless there is reason to believe said treatment is in their best interest. No. Well tough, because it already does.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

Mutate and Survive

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.

Last call... This will probably have to be my last post for the day. Sorry Modulous for not getting around to you. I'll probably start with yours next time around to be fair.I am answering this one of yours Flies, as it was not simply a mass of assertions and attempts to drag my position through the mud. If you want an example of why your earlier post was bad, recollect your question on beating your wife for burning dinner. If you cannot figure out why that would not be allowed under my position... what is the point in even answering you? But my guess is you really do know, yet are using emotion to make your case, no matter the cost. You have not understood the point of my comment. The argument has so far been that if the girl had been given X, she would be alive. Actually we cannot make that claim. While I can agree she would very well likely have, as far as I understand the case, there is no guarantee.What the parents did do, was use what they believe is an appropriate form of treatment. They may agree that it is not as effective physically as modern medicine, but mm does not treat all things and may cause other damage. You may laugh at those beliefs, but you cannot prove that is not true. If they have a right to look after their child's wellbeing according to their belief system, then applying prayer instead of medical treatment is valid. I'm sorry, you brushed aside my argument to create your own once again. My point was that they have three other kids who they have successfully raised. Hence, arguments that this one tragedy suggests the other children are in danger, is deeply flawed. There is counter evidence to such a position, the other... some much older... children.I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat that a belief in prayer, and denial of medicine is not just about physical efficacy of prayer. But in any case, are you suggesting that all their other children (and themselves) have never been ill in their lives? If they haven't then maybe there is something to this prayer stuff as that would be a near miracle. If they have, and they survived and are healthy, then they certainly did get evidence (for themselves) that prayer does work.That it may have been luck, or rather the sufficiency of bodily defenses, rather than prayer (from our point of view) is besides the point. Then let's be honest and outlaw religion. That is not true. The argument here is that these people should be punished with jail time. My first question is how that would solve anything, as one might think they have already been punished enough. My second was to point out that if care for children is our concern, then what good would tossing the remaining children into foster care be? That seems to be a rather faith based approach. How on earth would they or you distinguish such a thing? To them they would have likely viewed all illness as potentially life threatening, and prayer have been useful in solving such. That a family consists of several healthy children who agree with the actions of the parents, counts to you as evidence that they should be removed from that home and placed in another where evidence shows that abuse and psychological problems are more likely to occur?That sure is a worldview. Thankfully, my position on worldviews is that you do not get to impose them on others, via the state. I would hope that in one of these posts you would understand that, and so not attempt that rather errant reductio.Here's some ending questions for you.It is statistically true that people of faith (religious belief) have greater survival rates during illness/injury. Thus am I to believe the State should mandate all children be inducted into some faith in order to help them survive? If not, why not? If their survival is the mandate of the State, then I do not see how you would avoid that outcome without appealing to 1st amendment claims.Some religious communities choose to live without technology, including phones. which greatly increases the chance that their children will suffer and die due to lack of adequate medical response. Am I to assume that the State can then enter these communities, say the Amish, and install telephones or give them cars, so that their children can receive adequate medical care in emergencies?

---

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

I apologize for replying... I did see your request... but I need clarification. I understand I was the subject of your message, and I want to comply. Obviously I will not mention your comments in future posts, so as not to appear to be pulling you onto my "side". I apologize for my comments which would have seemed such. I recognize we are on opposing sides of this issue. I totally agree with this, yet I do not understand what outrageous statements I made, unless you are claiming my position itself is outrageous? If you can set some guidelines or explain where I crossed a line, that would be helpful for me. This request is sincere, and might be helpful for future posts by all.I personally view it as the opposing side with a finger on my hot button, and I am doing my best to keep things civil. This is despite repeated attacks on my person, as well as patently false claims regarding my position. I do not believe I have done this to anyone else. But if so I apologize.I happen to respect many people I am debating, especially the original poster. I think this is an important issue, and want to contribute to its discussion meaningfully. So again, please provide some guidance/examples? I will comply. Thank you.

---

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

See you in 24 hours.Please, no replies.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director