# Parents convicted of murder for using faith-healing on unconscious 11 year old daughter.



## arnisador (Aug 2, 2009)

*Wis. jury: Father guilty in prayer death case*



> A central Wisconsin man accused of killing his 11-year-old daughter by praying instead of seeking medical care was found guilty Saturday of second-degree reckless homicide.
> 
> Dale Neumann, 47, was convicted in the March 23, 2008, death of his daughter, Madeline, from undiagnosed diabetes. Prosecutors contended he should have rushed the girl to a hospital because she couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. Instead, Madeline died on the floor of the family's rural Weston home as people surrounded her and prayed. Someone called 911 when she stopped breathing.
> [...]
> Leilani Neumann, 41, was convicted on the same charge in the spring. Marathon County Circuit Judge Vincent Howard set Oct. 6 for sentencing for both parents, who face up to 25 years in prison.



I'm pleased to see this verdict. I don't doubt that the parents miss their daughter and feel very bad already, but a message has to be sent that minors are due a certain minimal standard of care by their guardians. A child who couldn't walk, talk, eat,or drink should have been given medical care--not Christian faith-healing, a witch doctor, voodoo, or any other nonmedical attention in lieu of it. Failure to do so is indeed manslaughter at the least.

Longer story here.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 2, 2009)

It's sad that in this day a child should die because of faith.  

I could go on but I'll save pissing off the religiousos on here.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 2, 2009)

So much for allowing people the freedom to act on their beliefs, huh.  I guess we should just go around telling everyone what to believe and how to act....

Oh, wait............


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 2, 2009)

Omar B said:


> It's sad that in this day a child should die because of faith.
> 
> I could go on but I'll save pissing off the religiousos on here.



I could call myself religious; I'm certainly a believer.  But I would agree with you that the parents should have sought medical treatment.  There was nothing stopping them taking the child to the doctor AND praying for her.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 2, 2009)

That's the point, they didn't take the child to the doctor, rather, they tried to wish her back to health.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 2, 2009)

Omar B said:


> That's the point, they didn't take the child to the doctor, rather, they tried to wish her back to health.



And my point is that prayer, whether it is real or imagined to work, would not hurt in addition to prompt medical attention.  Everyone's belief systems are different, but mine does not hold that medical attention is equivalent to not trusting God to heal.  There is nothing saying that God does not work through doctors and modern medicine.

I feel the parents erred, and using God as an excuse for it is horrible.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 2, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So much for allowing people the freedom to act on their beliefs, huh.  I guess we should just go around telling everyone what to believe and how to act....



I don't mind if a competent adult prays himself to death. This was an 11 year old kid who fell unconscious.



Bill Mattocks said:


> But I would agree with you that the parents should have sought medical treatment.  There was nothing stopping them taking the child to the doctor AND praying for her.



Yup.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Aug 3, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So much for allowing people the freedom to act on their beliefs, huh.  I guess we should just go around telling everyone what to believe and how to act....
> 
> Oh, wait............



If they had prayed in addition to providing actual care to someone in their charge who needed,
that would have been fine. Denying care in favor of praying is negligence and should be punished.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Aug 3, 2009)

I have no quarrel with the concept of a "higher power", it's the people claiming to be its "followers" that scare the **** outta me.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 3, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So much for allowing people the freedom to act on their beliefs, huh. I guess we should just go around telling everyone what to believe and how to act....
> 
> Oh, wait............


 
Your right to swing your fist around as you please ends at my nose.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 3, 2009)

The main issue is that a child was involved. Children are granted certain protections because under the law it's accepted that they are incapable of making certain decisions for themselves due to lack of experience and education. 

If you're an adult and want to die instead of seeking health care you can, but a minor can not throw their lives away so easily in the state's eyes; regardless of religeous beliefs. 

...perhaps not the place for a joke but in this case I think it applies:

_Man sitting on his rook during a flood when a man from the bank of the swollen river yells, "Hey! I have a rope I can toss you! You catch it and I'll pull you to safety!" _

_The man on the roof shakes his head, "No thanks! I have faith that the Lord will protect me!" _

_The water continues to rise and a man in a boat comes within distance and yells, "Hey! Climb down and I'll take you to safety in my boat!" _

_The man on the roof shakes his head, "No thanks! I have faith that the Lord will protect me!" _

_Hours pass and the water is now all the way up to the roof when a helicoptor comes by. A man with a megaphone yells, "Hey! I'll thow down a rope ladder so you can climb up! We'll fly you to safety!" _

_The man on the roof shakes his head, "No thanks! I have faith that the Lord will protect me!" _

_So...the helicoptor flys off and the man eventually drowns. _

_He wakes up in heaven and sees Jesus hanging out by the entrance near the pearly gates and yells, "Hey! Jesus! Why am I dead? I had faith that you would protect me from the flood! I don't understand!" _

_Jesus turns to the guy and says, "Dude! I sent you a rope, a boat, and a helicoptor! What else do you want from me?" _


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 3, 2009)

Came in here wondering how this could have been a "murder" case, unless the authorities determined that the parents wanted the girl to die and were using religion as a front.

Reading TFA, it appears that the conviction is "reckless homicide", which is what the case sounded like in the first place.

Reckless homicide != murder.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 3, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> So much for allowing people the freedom to act on their beliefs, huh. I guess we should just go around telling everyone what to believe and how to act....
> 
> Oh, wait............


 
If this happened in front of you, could you watch the child die? Can you put your money where your mouth is and allow the parents to follow their beliefs which will lead to the death of a child or is your argument purely made from a distance and the safety of knowing that you don't have to make any decisions about it?
A great many things are wonderful in theory, practice is a little different.


----------



## teekin (Aug 3, 2009)

Well Tez, it aint _His_ ( 5.0 Kenpo)  kid.
lori


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 4, 2009)

My point, to be quite honest, is that there are those making this argument who constantly contend that we should leave people alone, let them do whatever they want based on their personal beliefs.

But not in this case.  I just find it a tad hypocritical.  And for some reason, it always comes up when the discussion is in regards to religion.  

And would I stand by and watch it happen, absolutely not.  But neither is that my point.  I believe that sometimes butting into someone else's business is a good thing.


----------



## Frostbite (Aug 4, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> My point, to be quite honest, is that there are those making this argument who constantly contend that we should leave people alone, let them do whatever they want based on their personal beliefs.
> 
> But not in this case.  I just find it a tad hypocritical.  And for some reason, it always comes up when the discussion is in regards to religion.
> 
> And would I stand by and watch it happen, absolutely not.  But neither is that my point.  I believe that sometimes butting into someone else's business is a good thing.



Well, as I see it, the difference is that the child can't give consent.  When it comes to lifesaving measures and general child welfare, courts should be able to step in to mandate treatments that are in the child's best interest.  If we were to talk about adults who choose to pray instead of getting medical treatment, I'm sure most of us would agree that it might not be the best choice but that ultimately they should be able to choose.

If it weren't for courts stepping in and overruling parents' wishes, we'd probably see a lot fewer kids being taken out of meth labs or taken away from abusive parents.


----------



## teekin (Aug 4, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> ]My point, to be quite honest, is that there are those making this argument who constantly contend that we should leave people alone, let them do whatever they want based on their personal beliefs.[/B]
> 
> *But not in this case.*  I just find it a tad hypocritical.  And for some reason, it always comes up when the discussion is in regards to religion.
> 
> And would I stand by and watch it happen, absolutely not.  But neither is that my point.  I believe that sometimes butting into someone else's business is a good thing.



Perhaps I am just thick (a lot of people would heartily agree with this), but What is your point again? Perhaps I just misunderstood your 1st post, it wouldn't be that surprising if I did. Can you clarify for me please sir?
lori


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 4, 2009)

My point is that there are those that have posted here, that decry the government from getting involved in people's personal beliefs, even when it affects others, including children.  And yet it seems to me, that they have no problems with making their underlying beliefs "flexible" for when the government should become involved.  And this usually ends up happening when the issue affects their own belief system.    

So, as I see it, there are those here that are being hypocritical when it comes to this issue.  They have no problem with the government interfering with these people's belief system, but should the government try to affect theirs, stand by.  

Now understand, I am not making a legal argument, but more of a philosophical one.  If the state says that this is murder, then so be it.  

Hope this helps....


----------



## teekin (Aug 4, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> My point is that there are those that have posted here, that decry the government from getting involved in people's personal beliefs, even when it affects others, including children.  And yet it seems to me, that they have no problems with making their underlying beliefs "flexible" for when the government should become involved.  And this usually ends up happening when the issue affects their own belief system.
> 
> So, as I see it, there are those here that are being hypocritical when it comes to this issue.*  They have no problem with the government interfering with these people's belief system, but should the government try to affect theirs, stand by.  *
> 
> ...



Ahhhhh, now I get it. Charging these parents with some form of murder for not taking their child to a medical expert in time is within the governments mandate but providing information on how Not to catch a fatal STD is just an invasion of the Holy Grail of family structure, most not Ricky-tick .  And that is a hypocritical stance. ( Am I close? In the ballpark, near the stadium)
lori


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Aug 4, 2009)

The title of this thread is misleading. They did not use faith healing on her while she was unconscious. Second thing is noone knew she had Diabetes as stated here:



> The father testified that he thought Madeline had the flu or a fever, and several relatives and family friends said they also did not realize how sick she was.


 If you look at her symptoms they do not fit the symptoms of Diabetes:Excessive thirst,frequent urination,weight loss,vomiting,ab pain,acetone breath,rapid deep breathing.

The symptoms she displayed were: couldn't walk, talk, eat or drink. which could be just about anything. The article does not say how long she displayed the symptoms no how severe or other symptoms that may have hinted at Diabetes. My Mother displayed extreme excessive thirst that can not be quenched the first thought I had was Diabetes.
The father did not use faith healing on her with Diabetes as stated here:


> The father testified that he thought Madeline had the flu or a fever, and several relatives and family friends said they also did not realize how sick she was.


 Her symptoms as listed on the article fit more a stomach bug then they do Diabetes or Diabetic shock. When the girl stopped breathing someone did call 911. The question is did the girl display symptoms for a long period of time or just on that day? How severe were her symptoms what other symptoms did she display that may have hinted the girl was Diabetic? Many cases exist were a person shows signs of mild symptoms such as a stomach ache when in fact they could be having a heart attack,headache brain tumor you can see how easily a person can mistake symptoms and especially symptoms that are the opposite of the very disease the person has. Not wanting to drink or eat is the opposite symptom of Diabetes.


----------



## MJS (Aug 4, 2009)

The parents should be locked up for a long, long time.  Its one thing, if you have a sick or dying relative or friend, to pray. stay by their bedside and do your best to give them the will to keep on fighting.  But if we stop and think about it, while we may feel that by doing that, it's actually working, I would think that its the treatment from the docs that is what helps the person.  

Again, we want to believe that what we're praying for is really working, and that seems like the case here, but think about it...if someone got shot, its the medical team at the ER that is going to save that person, or attempt to save them, not prayer alone.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 4, 2009)

Im making the assumption that the prosecution and the legal system did their due diligence, and proved that the people involved had some clue as to the severity of the situation.

I dont think its different then the fights that pop up now and again with getting blood transfusions to children of jehovah witnesses.

Im an atheist, but I also believe and defend the rights of people to believe in what they want. You want to believe in a god, go ahead, in a parthenon of gods, go ahead, you want to worship Elvis, go ahead, but do not, ever, let your beliefs seep out and affect other folks. I dont have an issue with many things but do whatever you want, my taxes should not pay for, nor subsidize it and it can not affect others without their permission. 

When it comes to a child, as a parent, it is always best to err on the side of caution and take the child to see a Doctor. Most parents are not Doctors, how can they possibly know the severity of the situation? Im sure if this mans car was running not quite right, he would have taken his vehicle to a mechanic, somehow I doubt he would have prayed for his car to get better. Why the ****, would he not have taken his child to an expert? A Doctor? Its not much different from putting a gun to the poor girls head and pulling the trigger.

Fry the Bastard.

Sadly the story reminded me of this comedy video, http://richarddawkins.net/article,4057,Homeopathic-AampE,That-Mitchell-and-Webb-Look


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> The question is did the girl display symptoms for a long period of time or just on that day? How severe were her symptoms what other symptoms did she display that may have hinted the girl was Diabetic?



I think that any such circumstances were made moot by the statements made by the parents - they said they did not seek medical attention *BECAUSE* they felt that would be putting medicine before God.

They did *NOT* say _"Well, if we had known she was that sick, we would have gone against our religious principles and taken her to the doctor."_

That makes them liable for the consequences of their actions, in my opinion.

Whether they thought their daughter had the flu or diabetes or whatever is irrelevant.  They refused to get her medical treatment because of their religious beliefs, not because of what they thought was wrong with her.

I wonder what they will say to God when they see Him, and what He will say to them.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Aug 4, 2009)

Sorry I rather not argue with people.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 4, 2009)

Their religeous beliefs are irrelevant. All parents/gaurdians are responsible for the well-being of the children in their care. Any parent whose negligence resulted in the death of their child should be equally prosecuted under the law.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 4, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> Sorry I rather not argue with people.



You'd prefer their daughter died a preventable death than 'argue' with the parents?  Interesting.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 4, 2009)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> The title of this thread is misleading. They did not use faith healing on her while she was unconscious.



From the second article in the first post:
_Instead of calling a doctor when Kara lapsed into unconsciousness in her final hours of life, they prayed. They called family members and friends, asking for more prayers and even e-mailed a faith-healing minister asking for emergency prayers._



> If you look at her symptoms they do not fit the symptoms of Diabetes:Excessive thirst[...]weight loss


 
Don't forget fatigue. From the second article in the first post:
_[...]Kara, as the girl was known, grew increasingly tired and thirsty. Her appetite disappeared and she soon lost the ability to walk or talk. Prosecutors say her parents noticed the changes_



> Her symptoms as listed on the article fit more a stomach bug then they do Diabetes or Diabetic shock.



If your stomach bug renders you unable to walk, talk, eat, or _drink_, you need medical attention--an IV saline drip at the very least. If it renders you unconscious and unresponsive to attempts to wake you, you need immediate medical attention.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Aug 5, 2009)

> You'd prefer their daughter died a preventable death than 'argue' with the parents? Interesting.


 I rather not argue with you or anyone on this site. It is a waste of time.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Aug 5, 2009)

Arnisador I did not see the second article. I will not reply to your comments because I perfer not to argue with people on this site I have better things to do then that.


----------



## Carol (Aug 5, 2009)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_v._Twitchell

I don't agree with the practice.  However, I believe the law favors the parents.


----------



## stone_dragone (Aug 5, 2009)

It is a tragedy that a child died due to her parent's lack of action.

It is criminal that similar minded people around the world will view them as martyrs for their faith and be willing to do the same thing.

My question is this: 

If the person dying in their home was a 32 year old man who was sick and then couldn't talk, move, walk, etc, would they be guilty of negligent homicide?


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 5, 2009)

stone_dragone said:


> It is a tragedy that a child died due to her parent's lack of action.
> 
> It is criminal that similar minded people around the world will view them as martyrs for their faith and be willing to do the same thing.
> 
> ...


 
Could be, if they were legally responsible for that 32 year old man's care. 

That's the defining issue: being legally responisble for someone's care.


----------



## ginshun (Aug 5, 2009)

This case has literally almost happened in my back yard.  I am glad to see that it  has gotten national attention.

I personally agree with the verdict.  Pray for your kids all you want, but when it is obvious that they are gravely ill, take them to the damn doctor. 

Another unfortunate thing is that I am pretty sure the lawyers have said that both verdicts (the mothers and the fathers) will be appealed.  I have a feeling this is far from over.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 5, 2009)

ginshun said:


> I personally agree with the verdict. Pray for your kids all you want, but when it is obvious that they are gravely ill, take them to the damn doctor.


 
Outside of a few cuts and bruises, a runnie nose and a few other common, obvious illnesses, you should alway err on the side of caution with a child and take them to a Dr.. Kids can not always verbalize whats wrong with them and as adults we always tend to minimize our own illnesses.

I'd rather go to a Dr and get told its something simple and stupid, then to make a huge error in judgement and regret it forever.


----------



## jarrod (Aug 5, 2009)

i wonder if the christians who believe in withholding medical treatment from children are some of the same ones who think abortion is murder?  just a thought.

jf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 5, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i wonder if the christians who believe in withholding medical treatment from children are some of the same ones who think abortion is murder? just a thought.
> 
> jf


 
Isnt religious hypocrisy simply wonderful? Gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling all over.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 6, 2009)

Grendel308 said:


> Ahhhhh, now I get it. Charging these parents with some form of murder for not taking their child to a medical expert in time is within the governments mandate but providing information on how Not to catch a fatal STD is just an invasion of the Holy Grail of family structure, most not Ricky-tick . And that is a hypocritical stance. ( Am I close? In the ballpark, near the stadium)
> lori


 
Although not exactly the example that I would use, you are essentially correct.

It is interesting that children should be able to make medical decisions without the input of their parents, but we will hold parents responsible for not getting them "appropriate" medical attention.  How is a parent to know what they can and cannot do with their children when the government continues to give inconsistent messages to them?

So when a parent makes a decision based on their belief system, we judge them according to what standard?

But then again, we get the government that we deserve.  And if the people are inconsistent, how can we expect the government to be better.


----------



## Carol (Aug 6, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although not exactly the example that I would use, you are essentially correct.
> 
> It is interesting that children should be able to make medical decisions without the input of their parents, but we will hold parents responsible for not getting them "appropriate" medical attention.  How is a parent to know what they can and cannot do with their children when the government continues to give inconsistent messages to them?
> 
> ...



I was reading up on the case online, and it seems this case nearly resulted in a hung jury.  It was reported that one of the reasons why this was a difficult case to decide was because Wisconsin has conflicting laws on the issue.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Although not exactly the example that I would use, you are essentially correct.
> 
> It is interesting that children should be able to make medical decisions without the input of their parents, but we will hold parents responsible for not getting them "appropriate" medical attention. How is a parent to know what they can and cannot do with their children when the government continues to give inconsistent messages to them?
> 
> ...


 

At what age are children legally adult and allowed to make their own decisions?


In some countries such as France it's illegal not to aid someone who needs help so watching a 32 year old die without medical aid is an offence just as it would be watching a child die. The law is very clear and doesn't make allowances for religious beliefs. Someone needs help you have to get it full stop.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 6, 2009)

jarrod said:


> i wonder if the christians who believe in withholding medical treatment from children are some of the same ones who think abortion is murder? just a thought.
> 
> jf


Nice thought, but the unborn are even more vulnerable then the ones, in this case. Bill is right, pray, while seeking medical help. In the unborn, this, in many cases, is purely selfish. But, I digress.


----------



## jarrod (Aug 6, 2009)

seasoned said:


> Nice thought, but the unborn are even more vulnerable then the ones, in this case. Bill is right, pray, while seeking medical help. In the unborn, this, in many cases, is purely selfish. But, I digress.



i disagree, but it's a topic for another thread.  fetuses are not aware of their predicament.  

jf


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> At what age are children legally adult and allowed to make their own decisions?
> 
> 
> In some countries such as France it's illegal not to aid someone who needs help so watching a 32 year old die without medical aid is an offence just as it would be watching a child die. The law is very clear and doesn't make allowances for religious beliefs. Someone needs help you have to get it full stop.


 
Canadian case,

"A 14-year-old Jehovah Witness in Manitoba refused lifesaving medical treatment. Accordingly to the law in that province someone under 16 cannot decide to reject medical care. 
The provincial Supreme Court invoked child protection laws, and ordered treatment and saved the childs life. The case was appealed to the nations highest court. 
Instead of simply upholding the Manitoba law, the majority of justices adopted a subjective test. They said in fact that the 16- year age barrier was too strict and that the maturity of the individual needs to be assessed and considered. The Supreme Court in realty is really recommending that at future trials of this type, a judge in a law of court must inquire into not only the youngsters intellectual and moral maturity, but also determine to what extent that maturity is free of or governed by the beliefs and practices of the parents.
At first glance this decision is an endorsement of individual rights, specifically the rights of children. Seems appropriate in a modern country like, Canada. What will be the unintended consequence? Children under 16, who find themselves in similar situations as the 14-year-old kid in Manitoba, will much more likely to be allowed to refuse treatment and die, all because of an old-fashioned and ill-conceived religious interpretation of a few words in the Bible. Why? For one thing, childrens aid societies are no longer clear what the law is (under 16 is clear) and they will be reluctant to act. If a case does get to court, judges are more likely to twist and stretch and find maturity even if a kid is younger than 14.  The individualistic, subjective test will lead to a low standard of making life-and-death decisions.  That is wrong.  The result  and it should have been foreseeable  is an abdication of societys duty, through its judicial system, to protect young people."


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Canadian case,
> 
> "A 14-year-old Jehovah Witness in Manitoba refused lifesaving medical treatment. Accordingly to the law in that province someone under 16 cannot decide to reject medical care.
> The provincial Supreme Court invoked child protection laws, and ordered treatment and saved the childs life. The case was appealed to the nations highest court.
> ...


 


In societies such as ours it's always going to be hard balancing the rights of individuals with the needs of what we feel are people who due societies protection. I don't even think it's a political issue, I think everyone is doing what they think is best but it's ending up a mess. I don't know the answers as you will never get everyone to agree.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 6, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It is interesting that children should be able to make medical decisions without the input of their parents, but we will hold parents responsible for not getting them "appropriate" medical attention.



Children can get lunch for themselves, but their parents are still obligated to feed them.

My daughter got her ear pierced the other day (an "industrial piercing"). The shop demanded that her mother bring our daughter's birth certificate or the like as ID. Kids can't decide to get pierced or tattooed on their own, legally, without parental/guardian consent. They also must have that for most elective medical procedures but not for needed medical care--the reason being that it's needed medical care, provided by a licensed physician.



seasoned said:


> Nice thought, but the unborn are even more vulnerable then the ones, in this case.



She was unconscious...that's pretty vulnerable.

I think in some U.S. states there are laws about failing to summon help if it's not dangerous to you to do so (you can't be "indifferent" to human suffering)...essentially what got the Seinfeld crew.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> In societies such as ours it's always going to be hard balancing the rights of individuals with the needs of what we feel are people who due societies protection. I don't even think it's a political issue, I think everyone is doing what they think is best but it's ending up a mess. I don't know the answers as you will never get everyone to agree.


 

Agreed.

This is the 21st Century. Most of us on this forum live in modern, western societies, with all the benefits that go with it.

Of all the obligations we have taken on, looking out for others is the one that separates us from most of the animals. We look after children, the elderly, those who are emotional wreaks, those who are intoxicated, those who we know to be &#8220;not all there&#8221;, we do this because it is in our nature to do so. We are social primates, living in groups or tribes, and looking out for others is what keeps our groups viable. All for one and one for all.

You would never let your child cross the road without holding your hand, you would never let a drunk female friend be led off by some strange guy in a bar, you wouldn&#8217;t let someone with the mental capacity of a cucumber touch something dangerous, (Weapons, car). 

As a libertarian I dislike government involvement in our lives, but I understand and agree with why we need government. 

The State will routinely step in when it feels the young, the infirm or the elderly can not make an informed decision about their own care. If it hurts your religious beliefs, too ****ing bad. 

I find it so very disturbing that many people have no respect for science but find no issue with using items developed by science. 

Anti religious rant&#8230;.

I know the Great Pumpkin is not bringing me presents on Halloween, I know the tooth fairy isn&#8217;t going to leave a toonie under my pillow, I know Santa isn&#8217;t going to bring me presents on Christmas day, I know a giant friggn rabbit isn&#8217;t bringing me chocolate on Easter, I know Mars isn&#8217;t helping Allied troops in Afghanistan, why the F@*# would someone think that an imaginary, invisible man in the sky is going to cure his sick daughter???!! 

My daughter is sixteen, and the thought of someone treating their own daughter with such negligence makes my blood boil&#8230;.


----------



## Satt (Aug 6, 2009)

Since when did using the skills of a doctor equate to having no faith? I don't get it. I am a bible-believing Christian and I just don't remember reading that anywhere. These parents = warped.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Agreed.
> 
> This is the 21st Century. Most of us on this forum live in modern, western societies, with all the benefits that go with it.
> 
> ...


 

I agree with you though I do believe in a G-d but I also believe he gave us the brains, skills and intelligence to do the healing. If I were Him I think I'd despair at people who take the easy way out and want everything done for them and also blame G-d for poverty, starvation etc. For crying out loud it's up to us to do something about these problems. the onus is very much on us to do the helping and I believe it's G-ds will it's that way after all if He's the Father, doesn't every father want their children to be confident, independant adults? If we were supposed to sit there and pray every time we want something done G-d would have created us thick!


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> If we were supposed to sit there and pray every time we want something done G-d would have created us thick!


 
We'd still be sitting in a cave banging on rocks as we wait to have them answered.... man... I wish I had air conditioning in this cave...LOL


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 6, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> We'd still be sitting in a cave banging on rocks as we wait to have them answered.... man... I wish I had air conditioning in this cave...LOL


 
Absolutely. I think it's a crime against G-d if you like not to use your brains and not to do things for yourself. I always think it's arrogant to expect G-d to do things for you tbh. It's as if you are saying well I'm so bloody important you have to do this and this when I pray for it. In my religion we know that saying prayers is only beneficial for us, doesn't make the slightest bit of difference to G-d, just makes us feel better.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I agree with you though I do believe in a G-d but I also believe he gave us the brains, skills and intelligence to do the healing. If I were Him I think I'd despair at people who take the easy way out and want everything done for them and also blame G-d for poverty, starvation etc. For crying out loud it's up to us to do something about these problems. the onus is very much on us to do the helping and I believe it's G-ds will it's that way after all if He's the Father, doesn't every father want their children to be confident, independant adults? If we were supposed to sit there and pray every time we want something done G-d would have created us thick!


 

I know quite a number of very Orthodox Jews who, after Rabbinic ordination, went in to medical school and are practicing physicians. Religious beliefs does not preclude science.


----------



## thardey (Aug 6, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I agree with you though I do believe in a G-d but I also believe he gave us the brains, skills and intelligence to do the healing. If I were Him I think I'd despair at people who take the easy way out and want everything done for them and also blame G-d for poverty, starvation etc. For crying out loud it's up to us to do something about these problems. the onus is very much on us to do the helping and I believe it's G-ds will it's that way after all if He's the Father, doesn't every father want their children to be confident, independant adults? If we were supposed to sit there and pray every time we want something done G-d would have created us thick!


 
Absolutely! It's the abdication of responsibility and blaming everything that happens on "Fate" or God, or the Spaghetti monster or whatever. Anything but actually have to work for a living.

It also gives those born into prosperous situations the ability to develop a self-righteous feeling about those less fortunate. In their mind, their life is easy because God likes them, and they must be righteous people, but those less fortunate are not as well liked by God, so they must suffer. It's all in a selfish way to view life, using whatever is handy as an excuse not to better yourself.

Often, people with that mindset are easily sucked into following charismatic spiritual leaders who manipulate their flock for their own gain. They are trained not to take responsibility for themselves, but to turn over their lives/money/time etc. to their leader, and to never question him. By extension, whatever happens to someone, whether an unwanted pregnancy, a sickness, poverty, etc. must be the will of "God" and so they are not allowed to interfere by using scientific methods to "fight" against what they believe to be "God's will."

Thus, they can't do anything to fix a situation, other than sit there and pray that God changes his mind.

It's messed up, but it has more to do with the nature and excuses of selfish, lazy sheeple, who use the idea of religion to manipulate their own and other's emotions to duck personal responsibility, than the nature of real religion, itself.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 6, 2009)

Everything good happens it's from god, everything bad happens it's a failure in your faith.  You never own your victories but you do own your defeats.  "God helps those who helps themselves" serves to strip pride from human excellence and achievement and hands it over to nothing.


----------



## Satt (Aug 7, 2009)

Omar B said:


> "God helps those who helps themselves"


 

Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 7, 2009)

Satt said:


> Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.


 
"God helps those who help themselves." 

That quote is attributed to Sidney Algernon (1622-1683) in his "Discourses on Government." The similar quote, "God helps them that help themselves," is attributed to Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac of 1757. 

Earlier versions include:
"Help thyself, heaven will help thee." -LaFontaine, Book VI, fable 18
"Heaven ne'er helps the men who will not act." -Sophocles
"Help thyself and God will help thee." -George Herbert (1593-1633)

Regardless of the source, I think the meaning is pretty clear. If you sit around waiting for some supernatural source to help you out you're likely in for a long and unfruitful wait.


----------



## Satt (Aug 7, 2009)

Very true. I understand it is also a possible quote from Aesop's Fables. I just don't like when people try to quote the bible and are way off. If this is the case though, it makes perfect sense. I mean't no ill.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> "God helps those who help themselves."
> 
> That quote is attributed to Sidney Algernon (1622-1683) in his "Discourses on Government." The similar quote, "God helps them that help themselves," is attributed to Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac of 1757.
> 
> ...


 
Dammit you got in before me lol!

Well if you were a god who'd given his people everything they needed to make their way in the world you'd be pretty miffed to have them whinging at you everytime they wanted something!


----------



## Satt (Aug 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Well if you were a god who'd given his people everything they needed to make their way in the world you'd be pretty miffed to have them whinging at you everytime they wanted something!


 
Amen to the whinging part.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 7, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Dammit you got in before me lol!
> 
> Well if you were a god who'd given his people everything they needed to make their way in the world you'd be pretty miffed to have them whinging at you everytime they wanted something!


 
...assuming "god" is flawed by human characteristics and failings.  lol


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 7, 2009)

celtic_crippler said:


> ...assuming "god" is flawed by human characteristics and failings.  lol


 
Oh G-d's an Englishman, didn't you know lol?


----------



## girlbug2 (Aug 7, 2009)

"Trust God but tie your camel first"--an Arab proverb.

In other words, use the common sense He gave you.

A joke:

After Hurricane Katrina, a man was stranded on the roof of his house because the whole town was flooded. He hadn't seen another living soul for days. He was a faithful believer in God and knew that He could work miracles. He prayed for God to send him a miracle rescue.

Hours later a few people came rowing by in a small boat. "Get in! We have room". 

"No," he replied, "I'm waiting on God's divine rescue".  They rowed on by.

Another day went by and he noticed a guy on a raft floating his way."Climb aboard friend!" the stranger called out. The man refused politely. The rafter pushed off and away.

Several hours later, a helicopter hovered down over the man's house and let down a rope ladder. "Climb up!" somebody shouted from the helicopter. The man said, "No, I prayed to God and if I have faith I'm sure he'll deliver. Don't worry about me, God will take care of me."  The pilot had no choice but to leave and find somebody else to rescue.

The next morning, the man was so weakened from lack of food and exposure that he died on the roof of his house. When his soul was admitted into Heaven, the man found God and asked Him, "I prayed for Your help; why didn't You deliver me?"

God replied, "I sent you a boat, a raft and even a helicopter! What were you waiting for, the Ark?"


----------



## Omar B (Aug 7, 2009)

Satt said:


> Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.



I was not quoting the bible, I was pointing out one of the common tropes christians usually bandy about.


----------



## Satt (Aug 7, 2009)

Omar B said:


> I was not quoting the bible, I was pointing out one of the common tropes christians usually bandy about.


 
You are right. Many Christians do bandy about this, which is sad seeing as how the book they claim to believe in says quite the opposite. Nevertheless, it is silly to sit around letting your child die no matter what you believe.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 7, 2009)

Omar B said:


> "God helps those who helps themselves"





Satt said:


> Where is that quote from...because it's not in the bible if that is what is implied.



It's the result of applying the scientific method to study what happens when people pray for something. Such things only happen if the people praying do it for themselves.



girlbug2 said:


> "Trust God but tie your camel first"--an Arab proverb.
> 
> In other words, use the common sense He gave you.



More like an effort to make God's non-existence unprovable...the fact that God didn't help you can't be construed as evidence he isn't there.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 7, 2009)

Dearly B-lov-ed...

We are...gathered here....to-day....

To...mourn...the loss of a...

...good.....

...friend....

...ashes to ashes...

...dust to dust....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 9, 2009)

Just, WOW!

How ironic is it that some profess how self-righteous others are while condeming a culture that they don't even know.  To the point of calling them lazy, and that they blame people's problems on their lack of faith.  You know nothing about these particular people, and yet apparently you know all about their personal beliefs.  Amazing....

For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here, I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions.  You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped".  Why.  Because they have a different culture.  Well, what's good for the goose and all.......

And this whole argument about common sence.  Give me a break.  The concept of common sense is based on a shared cultural value system.  Do you honestly believe that what those in the Middle East, Africa, or even Europe would call common sense is the same as that in the United States?  And for those of you that advocate multi-culturalism, how then can you judge these people?  If we are to be accepting of different cultural values in this great system we call the United States, then how can we demean and belittle those that think differently then us?  That then is the height of hypocrisy.

And for those of you that have your version of Christianity, I applaud your confidence in your beliefs, I really do.  But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand), I find it arrogant and presumptuous that you feel that you completely understand the will of God.  How do you know that God would not feel that putting medicine before God is a sin?  Even if I agree with you, at least I am comfortable in the fact that there is no possible way that I could understand a being as omnipotent as God, and may possibly be wrong in my belief.  And having that understanding, still maintain my belief in the righteousness of my position, but not be arrogant enough that it MUST be the right way. 

I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition, the understanding of how you think.  I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand)


 
Judaism has rules for the disposal of anything that has the Names of G-d written on them. To prevent the accidental destruction of non-sacred textxs, we ae in the habit of writting G-d with an hyphen. Although there has been serious debates as to whether a computer display forms a permanent wtriting or not, and the usual consensus is that it does not, it is a habit that we find hard to break.


----------



## girlbug2 (Aug 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> More like an effort to make God's non-existence unprovable...the fact that God didn't help you can't be construed as evidence he isn't there.


 

Now here we have a catch 22. If I had written something to advocate blind faith, I would have been accused of being weak, needing faith as a crutch, or just plain stupidity. But since I wrote something advocating the use of common sense, I am accused of employing circular logic. 

There's just no winning with the Angry Agnostics!


----------



## jarrod (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here, I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions.  You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped".  Why.  Because they have a different culture.  Well, what's good for the goose and all.......



what do other countries have to do with this?  protecting it's own citizens is one of the primary functions of a nation.  i guess if i have a kid, i'll just pray that god puts milk in it's mouth, or pray that it doesn't drown while unsupervised in the bath tub.  this is just a case of simple negligence; attaching a religious doctrine to it doesn't change anything.  people should in fact be free to observe their faith as they see fit, until their practices start to hurt others, including their own children.  i've heard people use scripture to justify racisim, sexism, rape, & child abuse.  if you denied your child medical treatment for any other reason, you would be guilty of negligence.  jesus very clearly stated that christians are to obey the law of the land so long as they do not contradict god's law.  it's kind of like polygamy in the early morman church; i don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but it's illegal here.  so if your religion allows it, you have to practice it somewhere else.  

jf


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> For those of you who believe that the government should get involved here



...in the death of an 11 year old child...



> I suggest you stop decrying our involvement in other nations of the world in policing actions.  You argue that it is our responsiblity to stop this type of thing from happening, but yet most of you would argue that we have no right to protect, for instance, the women in other countries from being stoned for "getting themselves raped".  Why.



Because trying to enforce U.S. law on Iran would involve starting a war on a third front. Other countries aren't part of the U.S.--that's what makes them other countries.



> If we are to be accepting of different cultural values in this great system we call the United States, then how can we demean and belittle those that think differently then us?  That then is the height of hypocrisy.



We're a nation of laws. Neglecting to care for your children is against the law. The law is based on our cultural history but now it's the law. There are ways to change the laws.



> I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition



That's a concept of the science of psychology, not the medical discipline of psychiatry.



> the understanding of how you think.  I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.



Yes, paying attention to details seems like good advice.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 9, 2009)

Whether you believe in a deity or not, it's patently obvious to most of us that sitting on your backside waiting for others, human or spirit, to sort *your* life out for you and to expect medical care to fall out of the sky, is extremely stupid as well as lazy. 

Canuck, often when there's long posts or there's several posts I want to read I have to print it out as I find reading large tracts of print online difficult so I will use the hyphenated version as I have to shred the pages afterwards.


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

Word. Negligence. 


       It makes sense for that to happen though. If you believe snakes really talk, or people can live to be hundreds of years old, or that a man lived inside a big fish for 3 days, things like this are bound to happen.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 9, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Because trying to enforce U.S. law on Iran would involve starting a war on a third front. Other countries aren't part of the U.S.--that's what makes them other countries.


 
If people were making that argument, then I would accept it. But that's not what people are doing. They are saying that our government should not allow these things to occur. Or are you actually saying that some lives are more important than others, at least in the eyes of the government. Please say yes, because then I will show the lack of coherence in other positions.




> We're a nation of laws. Neglecting to care for your children is against the law. The law is based on our cultural history but now it's the law. There are ways to change the laws.


 
Again, that is why I said in the beginning that I was *not *making a legal argument, but a philosophical / moral one.




> That's a concept of the science of psychology, not the medical discipline of psychiatry.


 
Ok, so you are going to try to be pedantic with me. The fact of the matter is that psychiatrists do use the concept of meta-cognition, even though it is a concept of psychology. And they call it the same thing. Based on my phrasing, I was more than accurate enough. 



> Yes, paying attention to details seems like good advice.


 
So now you're making an attack based on the misspelling of one word. I have come to expect more from you then that. I can now see that I should lower them.  

Oh, and when you start showing people who agree with you their spelling and grammatical mistakes, then perhaps I'll start to take you seriously.  But until then, keep showing your true colors.....


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 9, 2009)

jarrod said:


> what do other countries have to do with this? protecting it's own citizens is one of the primary functions of a nation.


 
Again, now that is a new argument that people are bringing into the mix.  People were attacking these couple's religion and saying that we should interfere in their right to worship as they please, except under certain circumstances.  I brought that up to show the inconsistencies of that argument.



> i guess if i have a kid, i'll just pray that god puts milk in it's mouth, or pray that it doesn't drown while unsupervised in the bath tub. this is just a case of simple negligence; attaching a religious doctrine to it doesn't change anything


 
Ahhh... But there is the kicker.  This is only a story to bring up here only *because*  of the religious attachment to it.  I have a feeling that is why it was posted here in the first place.  People have continually attacked religion / Christianity in this thread, rather then just say that it was simply a sad situation.  



> people should in fact be free to observe their faith as they see fit, until their practices start to hurt others, including their own children.


 
I agree, to an extent.  Because then we have to define what is harmful.  And there is where we start to have a debate into the intrusion of government into the personal lives of individuals and groups.  And what I see here is that those who are always arguing the condemnation of the government for intrusions are saying that we can now get involved in the relationship between people and their religion, and the raising of children.  



> i've heard people use scripture to justify racisim, sexism, rape, & child abuse. if you denied your child medical treatment for any other reason, you would be guilty of negligence.


 
I have also seen science used to justify racism, sexism, rape, and child abuse.  But that is my point.  

Here is a question for you then:  If these people had taken their child to a naturopathic / Chinese medicine doctor, and the child had still died, would you still believe that they are guilty of negligence?



> jesus very clearly stated that christians are to obey the law of the land so long as they do not contradict god's law. it's kind of like polygamy in the early morman church; i don't have a problem with polygamy per se, but it's illegal here. so if your religion allows it, you have to practice it somewhere else.


 
Again, I am making a philosophical argument, not a legal one.  According to the law, if they are supposed to be in jail, then so be it.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 9, 2009)

DergaSmash said:


> Word. Negligence.
> 
> 
> It makes sense for that to happen though. If you believe snakes really talk, or people can live to be hundreds of years old, or that a man lived inside a big fish for 3 days, things like this are bound to happen.


 
Nope, nothing self-righteous there.....


But let's just keep attacking Christians for having the corner market on that....


----------



## jarrod (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Again, now that is a new argument that people are bringing into the mix.  People were attacking these couple's religion and saying that we should interfere in their right to worship as they please, except under certain circumstances.  I brought that up to show the inconsistencies of that argument.
> 
> *but protecting people in other nations shouldn't be a major concern for our government.  protecting our own should be, & that's why this is important.  maybe i'm missing something here; i don't really get who you're arguing with on this one.  *
> 
> ...





jf


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

Easy 5-0, I'm not trying to be self righteous. It just doesn't make sense to me that we can expect rational actions and thoughts from someone who's very beliefs are irrational. 

For me it all comes down to this. Sad or not, faith or not, stupid is stupid.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Ahhh... But there is the kicker.  This is only a story to bring up here only *because*  of the religious attachment to it.  I have a feeling that is why it was posted here in the first place.  People have continually attacked religion / Christianity in this thread, rather then just say that it was simply a sad situation.



But it's their belief system that made them not seek medical care for the child.  Should we attack something else when the plain cause of it is their irrational belief?  They didn't take the kid to the doctor because they thought their god would cure the child if they prayed, and that's why I'm attacking their religion.


----------



## DergaSmash (Aug 9, 2009)

I'm with Omar on this one. I'm all for people's individual liberty, but when it's killing children, then it's time for some intervention.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 9, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Or are you actually saying that some lives are more important than others, at least in the eyes of the government. Please say yes



In the eyes of the government, they have a duty to their citizens but not to the citizens of other countries. It's not a matter of importance--it's a matter of responsibility.



> So now you're making an attack based on the misspelling of one word. I have come to expect more from you then that. I can now see that I should lower them.
> 
> Oh, and when you start showing people who agree with you their spelling and grammatical mistakes



It was neither of the above. You're also confusing those concepts.


----------



## Carol (Aug 10, 2009)

I would have liked to hear the reasoning for both sides in this case.  I wasn't able to find anything official, so I did a bit of digging and tried to piece together my own reasoning.  

The commentary that I heard was that the laws in WI conflict, because parents who resort to faith healing have protection under the law.  

The strongest appears to be WI 948.03(6)   
_
Treatment through prayer. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a 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_ ["A determination that abuse or neglect has occurred may not be based solely on the fact that the child's parent, guardian, or legal custodian in good faith selects and relies on prayer or other religious means for treatment of disease or for remedial care of the child"]

_or

s. 448.03 (6) _["No law of this state regulating the practice of medicine and surgery may be construed to interfere with the practice of Christian Science."]

_in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.
_

From my armchair:

- The Neumanns were not Christian Scientists.  448.03 does not apply.

- 948.03 are all _child abuse_ statutes that address _harm_ to a child.  None of the statutes in that section address _death_ of a child.  Its my understanding that child abuse means that the child was harmed but survived.

- The Neumanns were not charged with crimes in the 948.03 section.  They were charged in 940.06.  These are the statutes for 2nd Degree Reckless Homicide.

Therefore....I think the Neumanns were within the law until Kara died.  I also think the conviction is sound.  

I think its due to this very high bar (death) that faith-healing practices have been able to enjoy certain protections under the law.  Hygiene, sanitation, and food preparation practices make it highly possible for a child to reach the age of 18 without dying.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Aug 10, 2009)

Omar B said:


> But it's their belief system that made them not seek medical care for the child.  Should we attack something else when the plain cause of it is their irrational belief?  They didn't take the kid to the doctor because they thought their god would cure the child if they prayed, and that's why I'm attacking their religion.



Technically, it's the their interpretation of that belief system. The bible is similar to the US constitution: it's all about interpretation.

The vast majority of christians would have sought medical help AND prayed. These nuts eschew medical help in favor of faith healing. It is their interpretation of the bible that caused their kid to die.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Aug 10, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> Judaism has rules for the disposal of anything that has the Names of G-d written on them. To prevent the accidental destruction of non-sacred textxs, we ae in the habit of writting G-d with an hyphen. Although there has been serious debates as to whether a computer display forms a permanent wtriting or not, and the usual consensus is that it does not, it is a habit that we find hard to break.



In understand the argument, but by the same token, one could argue that if you mean 'God' when you write 'G-d', then they are the same thing and should be treated the same.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> In understand the argument, but by the same token, one could argue that if you mean 'God' when you write 'G-d', then they are the same thing and should be treated the same.


 
It's not the meaning, it's the actual word, the letters that spell out the name that mustn't be destroyed.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Aug 10, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> It's not the meaning, it's the actual word, the letters that spell out the name that mustn't be destroyed.



Interesting. I didn't know that.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 10, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Therefore....I think the Neumanns were within the law until Kara died.  I also think the conviction is sound.
> 
> I think its due to this very high bar (death) that faith-healing practices have been able to enjoy certain protections under the law.



Sounds like it's a somewhat conflicting set of rules but ultimately a "no harm, no foul" system. Still, if your analysis is correct, I wonder what would happen if a child was needlessly paralyzed from the neck down, say, because of the parents using faith healing over medicine?


----------



## Omar B (Aug 10, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Technically, it's the their interpretation of that belief system. The bible is similar to the US constitution: it's all about interpretation.
> 
> The vast majority of christians would have sought medical help AND prayed. These nuts eschew medical help in favor of faith healing. It is their interpretation of the bible that caused their kid to die.



Doesn't change the fact that their flavor of belief led them to deny their child care.  I didn't say all christians are as such, but they are and they didn't treat the child because of their belifes.  Other christians had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 10, 2009)

What would have happened if the situation was a little bit different?

If the child had an ear infection, for arguments sake, and the parents did the same thing, and the child lost hearing in that ear, would they be held criminally negligent? I doubt it. 

I&#8217;m sure there are many other parents who use prayer, Voodoo, dandelion root and all other sorts of bizarre &#8220;cures&#8221; on their children, (and themselves), with potential criminal consequences. 

Several hundred years ago in our culture, and in some parts of the world today, what they did was and is acceptable. Believe in whatever god, gods, spirts, fairies you want, but never let those superstitions get in the way of saving a persons life.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Aug 10, 2009)

DergaSmash said:


> I'm with Omar on this one. I'm all for people's individual liberty, but when it's killing children, then it's time for some intervention.


 
Individual liberty has stops when "it" brings unwanted or undue harm to another. 

Letting your child die through negligence while using the excuse of religeous beliefs oversteps the bounds of individual liberty.


----------



## thardey (Aug 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Just, WOW!
> 
> How ironic is it that some profess how self-righteous others are while condeming a culture that they don't even know. To the point of calling them lazy, and that they blame people's problems on their lack of faith. You know nothing about these particular people, and yet apparently you know all about their personal beliefs. Amazing....


 
Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.

In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.

You can have all the personal beliefs you want, but when you claim that you performed certain actions _because_ of your belief in Christianity, then you are no longer representing your personal beliefs, but the beliefs of a large group of people, and are opening yourself up to "judgement" (not condemnation) about your actions. It becomes a "communal" belief at that point, and is accountable to the community.

It's not a legal principle, nor a "moral" one, but it is a part of the basic doctrines of Christianity, and how the Christian church is built. Similar to the rules of Judaism about the spelling of God, it's within their system, and it makes no real sense to apply the rules of other systems to determine its value. I don't believe that the Jewish people on this board are offended by my spelling of God, because they know that I'm not Jewish, and don't follow their spelling rules. 

(For those that care, check out some of the grammar rules about writitng modern Hebrew -- the letters that are often transilterated "Y" "H" and "W" -- those used in the spelling of the personal name of God -- have special spelling rules applied to them, as well as the words they are used in. Just omitting the "O" in God is just the tip of the iceberg.)

As far as my personal commentary on the situation -- yes, I do believe that these beliefs are interpreted by, and find their continued acceptance in the fundamentally lazy theology that enables people to avoid personal responsibility. When these beliefs are blindly followed, they lead to situations such as the one in question. I'm not saying that the parents did not take their children to the doctor because they were lazy -- that would make no sense. 

I am saying that people who are spiritually, and morally lazy are the architects of this kind of belief system, of which this family is a victim.

I'm "judging" the theology behind the rationale. And if you say that I have no place to judge such a thing, then you should know that I have been appointed to a place in leadership within Christianity where people request my judgement on theology, and consider me qualified to give it.

So, while according to some principles of American social doctrine, I do not have a right to weigh in on the personal beliefs of others, within the doctrines of Christianity, I do. In fact, I am complelled to.




> And for those of you that have your version of Christianity, I applaud your confidence in your beliefs, I really do. But, even though I may believe in a God (no hyphenated "O" by the way, which I really don't understand), I find it arrogant and presumptuous that you feel that you completely understand the will of God. How do you know that God would not feel that putting medicine before God is a sin? Even if I agree with you, at least I am comfortable in the fact that there is no possible way that I could understand a being as omnipotent as God, and may possibly be wrong in my belief. And having that understanding, still maintain my belief in the righteousness of my position, but not be arrogant enough that it MUST be the right way.
> 
> I really believe that rather that most of you have an emotional investment in the things that you believe, rather then understanding how you think, or what psychiatry would call, meta-cognition, the understanding of how you think. I think that if you would pay more attention to that, you would make more coherent arumenatations.


 
It's not an issue of determining the will of God in this particular circumstance, it's an issue of examining whether the actions of these people are in line with the will of God as expressed in the Bible they claim to follow. Was this action done with love? Was it done with responsiblity? Was this done with maturity, or immaturity? Did this cause a child of God to stumble? Was this done out of a personal faith in the goodness of God, or was it done out of the misplaced idea of faith in the power of belief alone?

It is by the "fruit" of actions that we should examine them in the light of scripture. The fruit of this action is that a little child needlessly died. The circumstances leading up to this "bad fuit" needs to be examined, brought into the open, and avoided in the future. 

If it was "God's will" that the child should die (for reasons which it is out of my authority to know) then taking her to the doctor would not have circumvented that will. She would have died anyway.

If these people were claiming their actions were justified because of their faith in another religion, then I would have nothing to say. But because they justify their actions through claiming the covering of our shared religion, then I have a right to comment on their interpretation of that system.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 11, 2009)

thardey said:


> Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.
> 
> In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.
> 
> ...


 

Rant.

So, as a christian expert, appointed to your position by other christain experts, how can you give your opinion on one lone branch of the tree and proclaim it to be wrong?

Christianity is an umbrella that has many interpretations encompassing it of what being a christian is truly about. Do you speak for the RCs? The eastern Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox? The various multiple sub branches of the Protestant movement? Do you have permission from all these groups to proclaim whats right and wrong within the family of the christain movement in the United States? Or do you speak solely for your own branch?

Whose interpretation of the bible are you using? Im sure you can find many multiple interpretations, whose is correct? Why dont we follow the rules of slavery being okay and stoning to death people anymore? There were hundreds of original commandments, why are we only following ten?

Do you really think these people are an isolated case? 

Why is it when something terrible happens, religious people suddenly stand up and proclaim, Thats not my version of XYZ, they have it wrong. Its really not like that.  

No, the fruit of their actions should not be examined through anothers interpretation of the bible, the fruit of their action should be examined by the judicial system, putting away these nut bars for a very long time.


----------



## donald (Aug 11, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I could call myself religious; I'm certainly a believer. But I would agree with you that the parents should have sought medical treatment. There was nothing stopping them taking the child to the doctor AND praying for her.


 
Amen Sir, amen...


----------



## thardey (Aug 11, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Rant.
> 
> So, as a christian expert, appointed to your position by other christain experts, how can you give your opinion on one lone branch of the tree and proclaim it to be wrong?


 
I call it as I see it. If you prefer, I could preface every single thought with "IMHO," but at the core, that's all anyone is doing. 

There are some things that other Christians believe that don't bother me if we disagree. There are some things that other Christians believe that I look at and say "it doesn't work" perhaps because I've tried it, perhaps because I've seen the results of the theology. In this case, I've tried it -- not to the point of another's death, thank God, but people tried to teach me that I don't have to take personal responsibility for my actions because everything is "up to God" and pre-ordained.

If we're in the Self-Defense forum, and someone recommends punching with thier thumb inside their fist, because their branch of karate says so, I can say, with fair certainty that no, I tried that -- I have to disagree, it's dangerous, and should be avoided.

I don't see any teaching in the Bible that says that taking your child to the doctor is a sin. I do see where, in Christian tradition, that the idea of attempting to treat a disease is seen as fighting against God. During the Black Plague, the Church condemned it as God's punishment. 

As Albert Camus pointed out in his book "The Plague" if you agree that the disease is from God, then you can't fight the disease without fighting God, which sets you up as an enemy of God. But this is based on a bad set of Theology that still has survived to this day.




> Christianity is an umbrella that has many interpretations encompassing it of what being a christian is truly about. Do you speak for the RCs? The eastern Orthodox? Oriental Orthodox? The various multiple sub branches of the Protestant movement? Do you have permission from all these groups to proclaim whats right and wrong within the family of the christain movement in the United States? Or do you speak solely for your own branch?


 
Do I need permission to voice an opinion? I speak solely for myself. Those who ask for my interpretation do so because they learn from what I say, and they have learned to respect it. I don't claim to be an "expert" but I am not, as others claimed, ignorant of Christianity, and passing judgement in my ignorance.




> Whose interpretation of the bible are you using? Im sure you can find many multiple interpretations, whose is correct? Why dont we follow the rules of slavery being okay and stoning to death people anymore? There were hundreds of original commandments, why are we only following ten?


 
I can only follow my own interpretation of the Bible. To follow anyone else's (IMHO) is lazy. However, that also means that I learn from others, but I take their teachings and interpretations, and make them my own, or reject them.




> Do you really think these people are an isolated case?


 
Nope, how do you think I formed an opinion on their theology? I know many people like this, and I've seen the damage caused by this sort of theological irresponsibility. It's ugly, and it is one of the reasons that I understand why people turn away from religion in general. The fundamental arguments behind the sort of thinking that caused this tragedy lead to other, horrible actions in the name of religion. I've personally seen families torn apart because of this type of thinking, and I refuse to condone or defend it.




> Why is it when something terrible happens, religious people suddenly stand up and proclaim, Thats not my version of XYZ, they have it wrong. Its really not like that.


 
It's the same reason Muslims condemn Jihadist terror attacks. It's the same reason Jews fight against various forms of anti-semitism. 

Because if other Christians say nothing, people will begin to believe that this sort of behavior is a core belief of Christianity. It is not. I am a Christian, and I refuse to be asssociated with this belief.

Because if a wide group of people allow themselves to be caricatured, they lose some of their identity, and it makes them easier to be villified.

Because it is in the indiviual's right to stand up and say "that's not me!" that allows whole groups of people to avoid condemnation for actions of a few.

Because people remember the worst of situations like this, and forget the good, and need to be reminded that this isn't standard.




> No, the fruit of their actions should not be examined through anothers interpretation of the bible, the fruit of their action should be examined by the judicial system, putting away these nut bars for a very long time.


 
We're talking about a different type of judgement. Yes, the judicial system is the proper place for judging punishment, and whether it is manslaughter, murder, etc.

I'm talking about judgment as far as whether this is a type, or interpretation of belief that should be encouraged or discouraged. Is it "judged" to have a positive outcome, or a negative one. Is it that they did the right thing, but it came out wrong? Or did they do the wrong thing based on bad teaching?

If you believe that they are "nut bars" and should be put away, why are you defending them? Or is it that you have a right to judge them based on the law, but I don't have a right to judge them based on religion?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 11, 2009)

thardey said:


> Christianity isn't limited to a person's set of personal beliefs. You can't simply claim the mantle of "Christianity" then believe whatever you want to, then cry "foul" when other Christians judge you.
> 
> In 1 Corinthians it makes it clear that Christians should exercise judgement over one another, over those who identify themselves with Christianity. Not judgement in the sense of "I judge you to hell" or "I judge you to not really be a Christian" but judgement in the sense of rightly dividing what actions are appropriate within the community, and what actions are appropriate within the doctrinal teaching.
> 
> ...


 
You have a very cogent position, although I do disagree with some of your positions, as stated.

It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se.  What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board.  For instance, there are those that argue that they see no problem with an 8 year old girl being forced to marry a 40(?) year old man.  Why?  Because that is their culture.  They see no harm to such a union.  But when it comes to these individual's culture, then stand by.  I will grant that the consequences of one may be more clear cut then another, but that still does not negate the argument.  

The point is that I was trying to make is that people are making inconsistent arguments, or, if nothing else, failing to flesh out their positions in debate.  Another example is this:  When it comes to abortion, there are those who say that it is a woman's right to do with their body what they want.  That is the position.  But when it comes to that same woman using crack cocaine, somehow their position no longer applies.  But yet somehow they still maintain that position, but add caveats to it.  This, to me, is disingenuous.




> It's not an issue of determining the will of God in this particular circumstance, it's an issue of examining whether the actions of these people are in line with the will of God as expressed in the Bible they claim to follow. Was this action done with love? Was it done with responsiblity? Was this done with maturity, or immaturity? Did this cause a child of God to stumble? Was this done out of a personal faith in the goodness of God, or was it done out of the misplaced idea of faith in the power of belief alone?
> 
> It is by the "fruit" of actions that we should examine them in the light of scripture. The fruit of this action is that a little child needlessly died. The circumstances leading up to this "bad fuit" needs to be examined, brought into the open, and avoided in the future.


 
I do believe that you have the right to judge it based on you understanding of your shared religion.  As I said, I have no problem with that.  However, I do take issue with examining things based on the "fruit".  For example, if I kill someone, the "fruit" is that they are dead.  The difference is did I do it with the intent to save mine or another's life, or was it malicious.  If I just look at the "fruit" of such action, I ignore process, which is just as important for understanding the totality of the circumstances as is the outcome.





> If it was "God's will" that the child should die (for reasons which it is out of my authority to know) then taking her to the doctor would not have circumvented that will. She would have died anyway.


 
I have nothing to disagree with here.

[/quote]
If these people were claiming their actions were justified because of their faith in another religion, then I would have nothing to say. But because they justify their actions through claiming the covering of our shared religion, then I have a right to comment on their interpretation of that system.[/quote]


I would disagree that you would have no basis to make a judgement.  You have every right to make a judgement based on your position.  Although, admittedly, you are not in a position to judge the rightness or wrongness or an action based on a religion/culture other then your own.


When it comes to judgement, however, someone brought up the point that they feel that these people were generally self-righteous.  My position is that they know nothing about these people.  They have no idea as to these peoples dispositions, how they treat others, or what they believe.  In fact, the condesension was to the point that they even disparage all people who believe in, for instance, Christianity.  After all, how can we expect rational thought out of people who believe that a man walked on water.  In fact, it seems to me that to them, rationality is the exception rather then the norm for religious people.  This is to judge a whole class of people based on their experience with an individual, whom they may only know from a news article.

For instance, if I see a Black man commit one crime once, but then I turn on the television and see/hear gangsta rap music/videos, Black women shaking thier asses in videos, I might walk away with the idea that all black people are criminals and hussies.  But does that image represent all Black people.  And that is the type of judgement that I condem here.  To me, I see no difference.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 11, 2009)

I've got a problem with this whole "god's will" thing being thrown about around here.  Am I to understand that god wanted this child to die simply because she ended up dead from her parent's inaction?  By that argument you can argue anything, rape, murder, child molestation, all to be god's will.  If that's his will I'm glad I don't bend a knee to those beliefs.

How do you know god's will anyways, does he call you up?  Does it come to you through some divine revelation?  Is anything that happens construed as god's will?


----------



## thardey (Aug 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> You have a very cogent position, although I do disagree with some of your positions, as stated.
> 
> It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se. What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board. *[snipped]* And that is the type of judgement that I condem here. To me, I see no difference.


 
Can't disagree with most of that! I see what you are saying, and point well taken.
:asian:


----------



## Ken Morgan (Aug 11, 2009)

thardey said:


> I call it as I see it. If you prefer, I could preface every single thought with "IMHO," but at the core, that's all anyone is doing.
> 
> There are some things that other Christians believe that don't bother me if we disagree. There are some things that other Christians believe that I look at and say "it doesn't work" perhaps because I've tried it, perhaps because I've seen the results of the theology. In this case, I've tried it -- not to the point of another's death, thank God, but people tried to teach me that I don't have to take personal responsibility for my actions because everything is "up to God" and pre-ordained.
> 
> ...


 
Actually reread my posts on this subject if you will, I've never defended them or their actions. 

Last time I looked, the multitude of christain religions did not have a consensus on what were acceptable interpretations of the compilation of stories and how they relate to guiding our lives. How are you so certain that your particular interpretation of christianity is the correct one?


----------



## Carol (Aug 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> It is not that I have a problem with judgements, per se.  What I was trying to point out, apparently unsuccessfully, is that a lot of people here form a philosophy, but then only apply it to positions that suit their purpose, rather then appy it across the board.  For instance, there are those that argue that they see no problem with an 8 year old girl being forced to marry a 40(?) year old man.  Why?  Because that is their culture.  They see no harm to such a union.  But when it comes to these individual's culture, then stand by.  I will grant that the consequences of one may be more clear cut then another, but that still does not negate the argument.



However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes.  One shows a practice that has been part of the Muslim world for as long as there has been a Muslim world (if not longer).   The other is a self-styled practitioner that does not adhere to an organized sect.  Had the Neumanns been Christian Scientists, they may have been afforded more protection under the law.

The undercurrent that I am reading in your post seems to be an outcry over how it is somehow OK to bash Christians (but not other faiths).  However, this case deals with a practice that is not prototypically Christian.  Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes.



Yup. It's a view that tries to make things simpler than they are, as in comparing abortion to drug abuse. One can start from the same core principles and reach different conclusions _in different situations_. In particular, with drug abuse there are larger societal issues and those also come into play--and perhaps conflict--with other principles. Real life is messy, and politics is the art of compromise.



> Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.


There may be no other major branches (but don't forget the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do refuse some modern medicine, though not because of a preference for faith healing), but that doesn't mean there aren't a fair number of small one-church-only sects or individual Christians who would do the like.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 11, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> However, that uses "culture" in very different scopes. One shows a practice that has been part of the Muslim world for as long as there has been a Muslim world (if not longer). The other is a self-styled practitioner that does not adhere to an organized sect. Had the Neumanns been Christian Scientists, they may have been afforded more protection under the law.
> 
> The undercurrent that I am reading in your post seems to be an outcry over how it is somehow OK to bash Christians (but not other faiths). However, this case deals with a practice that is not prototypically Christian. Other than the small Protestant sect of Christian Scientists, there are no significant branches of Christianity that eschew medical treatment, especially allopathic (Western) medicine, in lieu of faith healing.


 
Again, you're missing the point.  It is not about what those specific people believe.  Nor, in fact, the legality of what they did.

It is the discrepency between the philosophy in what people say in one instance, versus that same philosophy applying in another circumstance.  And this is regardless of whether it has occurred for a long time.  Those same people who uphold it would decry in other circumstancesy the logical fallacy of an appeal to tradition.  Look at the whole gay marriage debate that has waged here as an example.  

And even still, people also state that people should not be force to conform to anothers culture/tradition/religion.  By forcing these people to obtain conventional medical attention from a doctor, against their religious beliefs, we are forcing them to go against what they percieve are the tenets of their religion.  Make all the reasons that you want, it goes against other philosophies that they have espoused in other threads.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 11, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> By forcing these people to obtain conventional medical attention from a doctor, against their religious beliefs, we are forcing them to go against what they percieve are the tenets of their religion.  Make all the reasons that you want, it goes against other philosophies that they have espoused in other threads.



But the big difference here is between someone making such a decision on their own behalf, and on behalf of someone for whom they are the guardian. Did the child want to die rather than go to a hospital? Those parents can fight their own cancers with laetrile if they want, for all I care--but making the decision to pray only for an unconscious 11 year old child for whom they were responsible is different. If your religious beliefs allow you to kill your own children through inattention (or starvation or exposure on a mountainside or whatever), then I've got a problem with that. That's no longer a self-determination issue.

Also, as noted above, had it worked they would have faced no problems--indeed, who would have known? They made a bad choice--evidence that they did use a reasonable standard of care w.r.t. the child.

When God starts healing broken arms at the same rate that orthopedists do, or internal bleeding as well as a general surgeon, then we can reconsider the matter. Until then, it's really about the concept of an age of majority, and the care due a minor who is legally unable to obtain her own health insurance and too young to make informed decisions.


----------



## CanuckMA (Aug 12, 2009)

arnisador said:


> But the big difference here is between someone making such a decision on their own behalf, and on behalf of someone for whom they are the guardian. Did the child want to die rather than go to a hospital? Those parents can fight their own cancers with laetrile if they want, for all I care--but making the decision to pray only for an unconscious 11 year old child for whom they were responsible is different. If your religious beliefs allow you to kill your own children through inattention (or starvation or exposure on a mountainside or whatever), then I've got a problem with that. That's no longer a self-determination issue.
> 
> Also, as noted above, had it worked they would have faced no problems--indeed, who would have known? They made a bad choice--evidence that they did use a reasonable standard of care w.r.t. the child.
> 
> When God starts healing broken arms at the same rate that orthopedists do, or internal bleeding as well as a general surgeon, then we can reconsider the matter. Until then, it's really about the concept of an age of majority, and the care due a minor who is legally unable to obtain her own health insurance and too young to make informed decisions.


 

But it does open a slippery slope. What if some government official decides that I cna't have my boys circumsised at 8 days because they can't give consent? Or that I should use a specific treatment for a cold?

While I would have rushed my kid to the hospital, it is a hard thing to judge.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2009)

There are lots of borderline issues, sure...but death isn't one of them.


----------



## Carol (Aug 12, 2009)

CanuckMA said:


> But it does open a slippery slope. What if some government official decides that I cna't have my boys circumsised at 8 days because they can't give consent? Or that I should use a specific treatment for a cold?
> 
> While I would have rushed my kid to the hospital, it is a hard thing to judge.



I don't think the slope is slippery under WI law.  If they were Christian Scientists, they may not have been charged when Kara died.  They aren't followers of that path, so if Kara had survived, even with impaired health, chances are they may not have faced charges.  It seems their protection under the law stopped at death.  It is a high standard to meet.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 12, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yup. It's a view that tries to make things simpler than they are, as in comparing abortion to drug abuse. One can start from the same core principles and reach different conclusions _in different situations_. In particular, with drug abuse there are larger societal issues and those also come into play--and perhaps conflict--with other principles. Real life is messy, and politics is the art of compromise.


 
Not at all.  And I am not talking about politics, I am talking about *logic*.  If you state a premise, be ready to have it tested, especially if you are using it as a core principle.  Now if people were to say something along the lines of:

A person's body is there's to do with as they please, as long as........


Then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it.  But then expect to have that premise challenged for consistency across the spectrum also.  

If I say that the sky is blue, I am not making any allowance for it to be any other color.  So if someone were to challenge me and say that today, the sky is grey, that doesn't make what I said any less true, _but only in one context *which I failed to address.*_  Then the problem is mine, not there's as I have an premise which is inconsistent and incomplete with reality.

To bring it back to this case:

People should be allowed to have whatever beliefs they choose as long as those beliefs do not harm (submit your definition of harm here), and if they do harm others, then government the government has the right to intervene when both the victim and the suspect are citizens of said government.  

But to submit the mere premise, as is often done here, that the government has no right to interfere with the beliefs of others is incomplete and insincere.

And I will finish by saying that WI law apparently addresses it quite specifically:



> I don't think the slope is slippery under WI law. If they were Christian Scientists, they may not have been charged when Kara died.


 
They made a very specific allowance.  They articulated themselves, as many here do not.  Often, I believe, because they haven't thought everything through, or because they choose to have their cake and eat it too.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 12, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> If you state a premise, be ready to have it tested, especially if you are using it as a core principle.  Now if people were to say something along the lines of:
> 
> A person's body is there's to do with as they please, as long as........
> 
> ...


 
There are multiple premises in life, and since definitions are fuzzy, they can conflict at times. If I believe that you should have the freedom to do as you please and also that an orderly society is necessary, at some point one of those must give. This is fine, because I don't mean them as some sort of bizarrely absolute mathematical axioms--they apply via practical logic to real life. You're taking the Descartes' Dream approach, wherein no one needs judges because every ethical/legal question has an explicit, calculable answer. Life doesn't work that way--that's why human judges interpret conflicting principles like "hurting people is wrong" and "using violence self-defense is acceptable" and make decisions in grey areas.



> If I say that the sky is blue, I am not making any allowance for it to be any other color.



Physics is different. You can apply the logic much more strictly to 'blue' than to 'justice'.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 13, 2009)

arnisador said:


> There are multiple premises in life, and since definitions are fuzzy, they can conflict at times. If I believe that you should have the freedom to do as you please and also that an orderly society is necessary, at some point one of those must give. This is fine, because I don't mean them as some sort of bizarrely absolute mathematical axioms--they apply via practical logic to real life. You're taking the Descartes' Dream approach, wherein no one needs judges because every ethical/legal question has an explicit, calculable answer. Life doesn't work that way--that's why human judges interpret conflicting principles like "hurting people is wrong" and "using violence self-defense is acceptable" and make decisions in grey areas.


 
Once again, not at all.  If you take your second premise to be true, it *necessarily* negates the first one.  How can you not see that?  By stating the second, you obviously feel that there are times when it is allowable to hurt someone.  Therefore the first can't be true as a *core *principle.

Your true premise would then fall along these lines:  It is only acceptable to hurt someone in self-defense.  The only thing left to do then is to define "hurt" and "self-defense" in order to solidfy one's position.  However, when one states the first in one instance, and in a completely separate argument uses the second, how can you not see that one is, in essence, contradicting oneself.

And judges are there because the laws are made by *multiple *people using different standards.  Because the conflicting laws are made by different people at different time period using differing standards, conflict usually arise.  Therefore, they are not, strictly speaking, core principles of an individual, which is what I am arguing here.  The law, in fact, defines no core principles, only what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviours.  And, legally speaking, judges do not define what is moral or not.  I have ready many a judicial opinion where a judge morally disagrees with the judgement that the law forces them to make.

I don't take one person's principle and apply it to anothers and then say there is a conflict.  I take the principles that a single person has espoused, and show the contradiction in what that person says.   It is certainly possible to clean it up, as I have shown.  But most people, usually due to ego, and emotional attachment to a particular argument, or not understanding the principles of reasoning and logic, usually cling to a position that is not longer tenable.




> Physics is different. You can apply the logic much more strictly to 'blue' than to 'justice'.


 
Agreed.  I was trying to simplfy an argument to make a point.  Apparently it was lost on you.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 13, 2009)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> Once again, not at all.  If you take your second premise to be true, it *necessarily* negates the first one.  How can you not see that?



Because I believe that real life doesn't allow an axiomatic formulation a la geometry. The words don't have the same strict meaning. Life is fuzzy.



> The only thing left to do then is to define "hurt" and "self-defense" in order to solidfy one's position. However, when one states the first in one instance, and in a completely separate argument uses the second, how can you not see that one is, in essence, contradicting oneself.


 
Given that one can't (or at last shouldn't) define "point" and "line" in geometry, this seems a difficult goal to achieve. Why can two judges reach different decisions based on the same sets of facts and laws?



> And judges are there because the laws are made by *multiple *people using different standards.


 
Different standards--there you go. 



> I don't take one person's principle and apply it to anothers and then say there is a conflict.  I take the principles that a single person has espoused, and show the contradiction in what that person says.



You seem to think this can always be done, then? Find a contradiction?



> But most people, usually due to ego, and emotional attachment to a particular argument, or not understanding the principles of reasoning and logic, usually cling to a position that is not longer tenable.



I think it is you who assigns too much value to a strict logic in a realm in which it is inapplicable. We don't know if arithmetic is free of contradictions, or even whether it's reasonable to ask whether it is--how can we hope for more from human thought?


----------



## Carol (Aug 13, 2009)

I can see what you're saying 5-0.  The trouble that I'm having with it is that it takes a principle that is an absolute, but giving it an application that not absolute (people, and their opinions).


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 13, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> I can see what you're saying 5-0. The trouble that I'm having with it is that it takes a principle that is an absolute, but giving it an application that not absolute (people, and their opinions).


 
I understand that.  But I don't have a problem with exceptions to rules.  Hell, they exist all the time.  As Arnisador's example shows, there are exceptions to the "rule" that "it is wrong to harm someone".

All I am saying is that when you express yourself, say what you really mean in such a way as that argument can't come back to bite you in the behind later.  In my opinion, most people can't do that because they are unable to see logical extensions to what they are saying.  I can even accept that in a given argument, they are being simplistic so that they don't have to convey every single exception that they feel exists to that argument.  *But*, when called on it, they better be able to explain it, or expect that they will be labeled as irrelevant to the discussion for lack of congruity.


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Aug 14, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Because I believe that real life doesn't allow an axiomatic formulation a la geometry. The words don't have the same strict meaning. Life is fuzzy.


 
Physical theories have exceptions. Geometric formulas have exceptions. We don't choose to ignore, or label as wrong, those formulas because they have exceptions, do we?

And, you are right, words don't have the some strict, universal meaning. As I pointed out in my reply to your example, one would have to define "hurt" and self-defense", because the meaning is not the same to everyone. But, based on your reasoning here, because we can't strictly define words, apparently even internally within our own mind, there is no point to having even the simplest of debates.




> Given that one can't (or at last shouldn't) define "point" and "line" in geometry, this seems a difficult goal to achieve. Why can two judges reach different decisions based on the same sets of facts and laws?


 
1. Because they are attempting to interpreting the intent of legislators whom they have never met, nor to whom they have spoken.

2. Because they have experiential biases. 




> Different standards--there you go.


 
Yes, but do they have different standards in *their own minds*. What I stated was that they are trying to interpret the standards of different people. As an example, my position is not that I am trying to apply Carol's argument to yours, and then show how it is contradictory. I am trying to show how your own positions on various issues are contradictory. 




> You seem to think this can always be done, then? Find a contradiction?


 
Can you always find a contradiction within the thought process of a single individual? Of course not. Some people have very logically consistent argument. Maybe there is a contradiction that exist that I haven't heard of, but then, I wouldn't be bringing it up. 




> I think it is you who assigns too much value to a strict logic in a realm in which it is inapplicable. We don't know if arithmetic is free of contradictions, or even whether it's reasonable to ask whether it is--how can we hope for more from human thought?


 
Here is another area which I think you misunderstand me. Logic will not always be applied to an individual's argument. For instance, a Christian may say that homosexuality is against God's commands. There is not logical argument for that. It is a faith based position. As another example, someone being in love with a murderer, even though they believe that murder is wrong. That is an emotion based position.

I am not saying that human beings are, or even should always be, logical. But, when they give an argument that is not, they should say as much, or again, be relegated to the realm of irrelavency. To bring it back to the OP:

These people believe that God does not wish them to use modern medicine because it would be placing medicine before God. There is no argument against that. That is simply what they believe. Of course you might use the Bible to try to convince them otherwise, but using logic is not going to solve your purpose. And even then, it still does not negate that the government in which the live has enacted legislation which provides a punishment for their behavior.

But when someone who says *simply* that people should be allowed to believe and practice whatever religion they choose, and then turns around and condems these people who are practicing the religion that they choose, I find that disingenuous. *Unless* they then provide an exception to their rule. However, what was done here, in my opinion, was to state that they still believed their original premise without *changing* it to include the exception. What was said was that "I still believe that people should be able to practice whatever religion they choose", but then also state that these people were wrong to use their religion the way that they chose.


----------

