Freedom to practice your religion -

[pegwinn]

Save the childs life. The parents freedom of religion is just that, the parents. They can no more inflict religion on a child than I can on any of you. If the child dies, then place the parents into the meanest prison you can find. We will see then if God intervenes.

As to the question about taxes. Pay the taxes. We don't allow the rasta's to smoke ganja while wearing a uniform. We don't allow the voodoo/hoodoos to try to publically raise the dead. There are clear limits on social disobedience in the name of religion.

 

[dilloduck]

Thats the problem with fundamentalism----you got a lot of words and every one thinks they know what they mean and condemn others for not "seeing the light". Boulder-Log--- point is You can't see

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by NewGuy
See above.

Doesn't imply falsehood. Medical science is, however, beginning to rediscover the medical benefits of many traditional remedies. It has long been known that garlic extracts have anti-biotic properties, for example.

While your logic is impeccable, your conclusion is flawed...Which is the problem with deductive reasoning.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
There is a court fight over religion and a child's life. The child is in need of a blood transfusion but the parents, due to religious reasons (their interpretation of the Old Testament) oppose their child's receiving of another's blood. Your thoughts -

Do you know where that passage is in the old testament that the parents are concerned with?

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Pale Rider
Do you know where that passage is in the old testament that the parents are concerned with?

Leviticus 17:14

"...'You must not eat the blood of any creature ... anyone who eats it must be cut off'".

Deuteronomy 12:16

"But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water".

(New International Version)

 

[dilloduck]

I believe the original question is, and I paraphrase--Should our government be allowed to interfere with a persond religious beliefs? The answers so far appear to be either "yes" or "it depends". Since the government obviously does step in in cases involving religion my question is who decides which religious practices should be stopped. Does this not give the courts the right to establish the "ok" and the "not ok" religious practices? The freedom to worship without governmental oversight was a basic principal in establishing our government. If we start picking away at one religion, whats to stop it from telling everyone how to worship in a manner that is accepted by the state?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Leviticus 17:14

"...'You must not eat the blood of any creature ... anyone who eats it must be cut off'".

Deuteronomy 12:16

"But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water".

(New International Version)

So...they're basing their decision to refuse transfusions on a passage in the bible which clearly says "...You must not eat the blood..."

A blood tranfusion does not, in any way, involve the alimentary canal. The tranfusion enters circulation directly, either through a peripheral IV or a central line. Their premise, and thus their conclusion, are flawed.

This also highlights the fallacy of religious dogma...Since it claims no basis in this world, since it is rooted in no objective phenomena or consequences, it may be interpreted however one wishes to interpret it

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by dilloduck
I believe the original question is, and I paraphrase--Should our government be allowed to interfere with a persond religious beliefs? The answers so far appear to be either "yes" or "it depends". Since the government obviously does step in in cases involving religion my question is who decides which religious practices should be stopped. Does this not give the courts the right to establish the "ok" and the "not ok" religious practices? The freedom to worship without governmental oversight was a basic principal in establishing our government. If we start picking away at one religion, whats to stop it from telling everyone how to worship in a manner that is accepted by the state?

Where religious practices can, and sometime do, result in harm to oneself, another, or both, the government is obliged to intervene to prevent such harm. If religious practices do no harm to oneself, another, or both, and often they don't, it is nobody's business. The criteria is specific, and does not involve government favoring one religion over another.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
So...they're basing their decision to refuse transfusions on a passage in the bible which clearly says "...You must not eat the blood..."

A blood tranfusion does not, in any way, involve the alimentary canal. The tranfusion enters circulation directly, either through a peripheral IV or a central line. Their premise, and thus their conclusion, are flawed.

This also highlights the fallacy of religious dogma...Since it claims no basis in this world, since it is rooted in no objective phenomena or consequences, it may be interpreted however one wishes to interpret it

Biblical interpretation aside, I'm not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination but doesn't the liquid we consume travel throughout the body? Doesn't it reach each organ to at least a small degree?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Biblical interpretation aside, I'm not a doctor by any stretch of the imagination but doesn't the liquid we consume travel throughout the body? Doesn't it reach each organ to at least a small degree?

Blood during a tranfusion is not "consumed". It is infused directly into the blood system, and never passes through the digestive tract. The closest it gets is in blood flow to and from the stomach and intestines.

 

[007]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Leviticus 17:14

"...'You must not eat the blood of any creature ... anyone who eats it must be cut off'".

Deuteronomy 12:16

"But you must not eat the blood; pour it out on the ground like water".

(New International Version)

Just what I thought. The passages are about something OTHER than a transfussion.

I'd say the parents are a little off their rocker and there needs to be intervention in this case.

 

[acludem]

As someone who has had ear problems my entire life (six operations and numerous infections), I agree sometimes they do go away, other times antibiotics are necessary, I have always been prescribed some form of penicillin or other. This case was one where doctors agreed that penicillin or a for thereof would've saved this kid's life.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by acludem
As someone who has had ear problems my entire life (six operations and numerous infections), I agree sometimes they do go away, other times antibiotics are necessary, I have always been prescribed some form of penicillin or other. This case was one where doctors agreed that penicillin or a for thereof would've saved this kid's life.

acludem

Sorry to hear about your problem. I am just so glad i dont have that cause im allergic to pennicilian