Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?

Yeah, funny that nobody notices the difference between an evolution accepter and a "nice" creo, yet there's clearly a huge gap between evolution accepters and "notnice" creos.I wonder what that gap could possibly be in?
_{Hint: intelligence, respect, tolerance, desire for actual understanding, humanity in general, ...}

---

arch, if you're not even going to try thinking sensibly about this, there' no point in explaining what we think. hell, we've already done that in the most simple terms we could think of.You were asked very simple questions -- do children have rights or not? can parents do whatever they like or not? -- which you refused to answer, because you know that either way you would be wrong or inconcistent.Face it, you aren't arguing in protecion of faith healing, you're arguing against what you see as a secular/atheist (which are not the same thing by the way) prosecution of religion. And you would be wrong, because it's a societal prosecution of stupidity and neglect.May your god help any children you ever have, because you certainly wouldn't.

Do you have children, Arch? Did you ever have to have a rebellious son stoned to death? Or a daughter put to death for getting raped somewhere in town? OF COURSE I reject barbaric insanity like that! I'd still reject it if it came from a secular source! And aside from that, where's chapter and verse on breastfeeding twins, or on changing diapers? Where does the Bible say how much TV a four-year-old should watch?The Bible as a child-rearing "rule book?" Ludicrous.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

As the parent of a mentally handicapped son, this is a very offensive term. Do you speak like this to people in your church? Do you know how painful it is to hear someone call him a retard? It is a term I would expect from a middleschooler, not an educated adult.You might try using adult language if you want to be taken seriously. Well it might help a little.

What the F#$K do Atheists have to do with this rant? They were prosecuted because they were accused of negligent homicide.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

you forget, i do not go your way, i go with God and His. if you do not like the answers then you have a choice to accept or reject them.it is clear that your side only prosecutes because it doesn't like religious beliefs and they use the death of a child to do an end run on the religious freedoms found in most nations.i do not see you listening to one thing i have pointed out and proven but i see a lot of avoidance. the parents did nothing wrong and should not be punished.

please do not quote the Bible when you do not understand it nor how it applies. the verses may not be worded as you would like but instructions are there.

oh puleeasse...grow up. have you ever heard that little ditty...'sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me...'?i am not politically correct nor want to be for such an attitude is not christian but secular. there is nothing wrong with me calling his comment 'retarded' for if that is what it was then that is what it needs to be called. here is the definition of the word 'retard(ed)': do you see any reference to a human's mental abilities? i do not.but let me tell you a story, we had two kids in our church growing up both were deficient mentally (one was the pastor's son) and one sunday the pastor's son sees the other one coming through the foyer and says 'here comes that retard _____'.retarded people are just that retarded, some thing has slowed their thinking ability and developement but if you are going to get upset over little things like that then i have no respect for you at all.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

everything. the parents committed no crime. ther crime was in the policy but cowardly prosecutors go after the weak.

i would like to move on to other areas of this discussion that have been avoided. i will list some of them--1. the example of mickey mantle2. the underbelly of medical care3. medical help doesn't guarantee success.4.discrimination in treatment--looks, money or lack of it...5. faith healing policies

You haven't GIVEN any fucking answers.Can the parents do whatever they like or not? Does the child have rights or not? Which side of the issue are you damn well on?You say we've avoided things? Then stop being a hypocrite and give us a clear single, unambiguous and uncluttered answer. What I want is just one word: yes or no. What I expect is more nonsense about us hating religion.

yet i did and even posted links to emancipation websites that spell out the LIMITED child's rights and the right of the parents to make decisions for their child.as far as I am concerned the parents have the right to determine their child's medical treatment. children certainly are not prepared to make such decisions. doctors and nurses certainly cannot make medical decisions for a child not their own.can parents choose faith healing--of course. such a decision is within their authority. are they being negligent-- no. should they choose faith healing--only if they know for sure it is the God of the Bible who directs them to do so and not some cultic policy or influence.

I'll ask you again if you think the jury were all atheists.Reckoning atheists at a generous 10% of the population, the odds against this are (other things being equal) are a trillion to one against. (I am presuming here that, as usual, a unanimous verdict is required for a murder conviction.) Religious people answer to the law. (Note that, like juries, legislative bodies are overwhelmingly made up of theists.) Moreover, the Bible says repeatedly (as I have detailed in another post) that Christians are obliged to obey the civil authority. In this particular case, the people who thought that God would heal their child were wrong. And then when they went on believing that God would raise their child from the dead, they were still wrong.If you'd asked me what was going to happen, I'd have been right.

I asked for one word that tells me exactly what your answer is, not several hundred that skip the point entirely.For around the fifth or sixth time:
Do children have rights, or not?
Can parents do whatever they like, or not?And I'll add the third specific one, because otherwise you'd accuse me of twisting your words:
Do children have the right to life and health, or do they not?

really do not care, the question i snot germane to the issue being discussed. still doesn't mean they neglected the medical needs of the child or that their request went unanswered. there are limitations on that but as usual you skip those parts.asked and answered. you are not going to badger me into saying something you can twist to fit your thinking. see my previous post.i would probably have a heart attack if an atheist or secularist was actually honest in their postings.

Hi Archy, Holy crap Archy! That's the complete opposite of what actually happened. You sure don't know much about history for someone who calls himself archaeologist.The Nazis were the ones who employed the "I was only obeying orders" defence, at Nuremberg. That's why it's popularly referred to as the"Nuremberg defence".It was not used against them, by the allies or anyone else, it was used by them.The defence failed, i.e. those Nazis who claimed that they could not be prosecuted because they were "Only obeying orders" were still prosecuted and found guilty.If you were a real archaeologist, you would know these things.You are the one employing the Nuremberg defence, not me. You are the one claiming that the parents could not be prosecuted because they were "only obeying orders" from their cult. You are basing your argument upon what is probably the most famous failed legal defence in the world. Nice going. This is nonsense. They were able to do anything they wanted; they chose not to. They were under great pressure, I understand that, but they were not insane, they were responsible adults. they must be treated in law as adults. that means they must face the same penalty as anyone else.As I've said, their extenuating circumstances could be taken into consideration at sentencing, but they do not constitute a legal defence; unless you consider that religious belief constitutes some sort of diminished responsibility, as insanity does.I notice as well that you continue to ignore my point about setting a dangerous legal precedent; I assume you have no answer. This is unproven hyperbole. More absurd hyperbole. All I want is for parents who stand by and allow their kids to die for want of a simple medical procedure, to be punished. That is far from totalitarian.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod