Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

[Ravi]

I'm having trouble following that, too.

What happens normally when two amendments collide?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I'm having trouble following that, too.

What happens normally when two amendments collide?

No Two Amendments do collide. To remove a power or right granted in the Constitution ( whether original or amended) an Amendment must address the issue and be clear as to what it does or does not allow. Any Amendment approved later is binding so if it removes some of an earlier right or power it does not conflict at all.

 

[Shogun]

No Two Amendments do collide. To remove a power or right granted in the Constitution ( whether original or amended) an Amendment must address the issue and be clear as to what it does or does not allow. Any Amendment approved later is binding so if it removes some of an earlier right or power it does not conflict at all.

so.. did you want to tell me how it is a restriction of my first amendment right when Im not allowed to blow myself up in a crowded abortion clinic for jesus? I mean, freedom of religion, dude!

 

[Paulie]

prayer is not a natural remedy. wishful thinking is not alternative medicine. Christians are not usually into neato new age healing methods using crystals and chakras.

Would this be any different if I let my kid die because sprinkling chicken blood on her head after the ritual sacrifice didn't, in fact, cure her cancer?

But I never said prayer was a natural remedy, did I?

Re-read what I said. I mostly agree with YOU, unless you think there should always be a legal mandate to take your kid to an MD. Thats where I draw the line.

I'm not arguing that chicken blood cures what ails you. There are many different ways to naturally heal oneself without the need to see an MD, so that he or she can prescribe you the latest greatest wonder drug from Pfizer.

There's a huge difference between performing wacked out religious rituals in the hopes of a "miracle", and using tried, proven, and documented methods of natural home healing.

The religious part is where we are both in agreement, believe me. I just don't agree with forcing someone to go to a doctor. Maybe that's the libertarian in me, who knows.

 

[Shogun]

would you remove three living babies from a pair of jahovas witness after they let two from a set of sextuplets die?

Babies seized after Jehovah’s Witness mother refuses blood for sextuplets
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1426576.ece


B.C. intervened to save 3 sextuplets after 2 died
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/01/31/bc-sextuplets.html


listen.. im all for religious freedom. Im all for the maximin liberty allowed by the constitution. But i'm just not buying some hokey bullshit about religious tolerance when kids have to die to fulfill the dogma of their parents. What other personal philosophical ideal allows a parent to neglect their kid to death without the state making a visit? This isn't about doctors versus midwives. But, if a diabetic kid dies from neglect due to parents who think prayer works better than insulin then the parents must be held accountable.

 

[Ravi]

No Two Amendments do collide. To remove a power or right granted in the Constitution ( whether original or amended) an Amendment must address the issue and be clear as to what it does or does not allow. Any Amendment approved later is binding so if it removes some of an earlier right or power it does not conflict at all.

Okay, but how do you justify denying someone's life? That's what it seems on the face of it these people did.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Okay, but how do you justify denying someone's life? That's what it seems on the face of it these people did.

So if your child gets sick and you do not take them to a doctor your guilty of murder if they die? I guess our prisons should be full of parents then.

 

[Ravi]

Uh, no. This seemed rather specific. She was diabetic, she didn't have the flu.

 

[Diuretic]

I'd like to see an indictment for manslaughter.

 

[Diuretic]

You are aware religion can be used to prevent transfusions?

Depends on your jurisdiction. Where I am parents are not permitted to refuse medical treatment for a child (under 18 yrs). If someone chooses not to accept a treatment and they're an adult, that's their business.

 

[Diuretic]

This is just another example that, in my opinion, supports my moderate, relativistic, situational ethics and philosophy. There are very few, if any, absolutes. The question is not whether or not to draw the line, but where to draw the line.

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The Constitution states no exception. It seems pretty absolutist to me. Yet, situations like this might come up from time to time.

Do you think that there should be limits to the first amendment for cases like the one of an 11-year-old child? If so, do we need a constitutional amendment? Without an amendment, it looks as though Wisconsin law protecting such a child is unconstitutional in some instances.

I don't think that would be a good defence. What if human sacrifice were required as part of someone's religion? That wouldn't be a defence to a charge of murder. The secular law must be more authoritative than religious laws or customs.

 

[Ravi]

That's an excellent point and really yet one other reason that the separation of church and state should exist.

 

[mattskramer]

So murder is OK as long as I am a follower of a death cult? Are my religious rights being violated if I am not allowed to blow myself up in public in the name of Allah?

sorry, that logic doesn't fly.

According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.

 

[mattskramer]

I don't think that would be a good defence. What if human sacrifice were required as part of someone's religion? That wouldn't be a defence to a charge of murder. The secular law must be more authoritative than religious laws or customs.

According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.

 

[mattskramer]

That's an excellent point and really yet one other reason that the separation of church and state should exist.

In a manner of speaking, separation does exist. According to the Bill of Rights, the congress does not have the right to interfere with the practice of your religion (apparently no matter what that practice involves).

 

[Diuretic]

According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.

But I think not and this is my reasoning. Murder is a state crime (I know there are federal variants but I'm not talking about the murder of an FBI Agent for example). The prohibition against murder in the state statutes isn't unconstitutional.

As far as I'm aware no state has made religious conviction a defence against a charge of murder. Of course, as always, I'll stand corrected.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

But I think not and this is my reasoning. Murder is a state crime (I know there are federal variants but I'm not talking about the murder of an FBI Agent for example). The prohibition against murder in the state statutes isn't unconstitutional.

As far as I'm aware no state has made religious conviction a defence against a charge of murder. Of course, as always, I'll stand corrected.

Well except that since the Civil war the Constitution is now viewed as applying to State Laws as well. And the argument is not that the State nor the Fed can not charge people with murder, the argument is that the parents did NOT commit murder at all.

 

[Diuretic]

I was looking at the suggestion that the First Amendment would allow such behaviour. I know the parents would never be convicted of murder but depending on the statute wording it might be manslaughter (negligence).

But it depends on the law in Wisconsin.

 

[Shogun]

So if your child gets sick and you do not take them to a doctor your guilty of murder if they die? I guess our prisons should be full of parents then.

yes.

NEGLECT THAT RESULTS IN DEATH is a Wisconsin class D FELONY.


Did you both reading that or does it take a ghost in the sky to make a law relevant?

 

[Shogun]

According to a cold literal wording of the first amendment, you are allowed to do those things.

bullshit. Freedom of religion from the first amendment doesn't allow murder.


the first amendment is not going to allow some nutty fucking muslim to blow up civilians just because some goofy islamic douchebag thinks that its a tennant of his religion.

Do we allow christians to blow up abortion clinics in the name of their religious freedom?

no.