Where freedom of religion ends

[9Westy9]

Because children are raised to believe in religion, nonhumans aren't. I think if a child believes it themselves, then it's alright. If the parents told them to believe it, then no.

It's a little bit harder than that. I was an avid believer till I was 18 but eventually rejected it after looking at the evidence from a non-bias standpoint. Also it'd be pretty hard to tell if a child genuinely believes or not.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What on earth are you talking about? Why are you bringing up stuff that has absolutely no bearing on the topic whatsoever?

Look, it's actually very simple.

If someone were to refuse to take their 7y/o asthmatic child to a doctor or clinic because they flat out were too lazy to bother, or for some reason believed that evil spirits lived in inhalers and were shot into a person using them, then DHS would step in and claim neglect and see to it that the child was medically taken care of. What is the difference between that and refusing to take the child because the parent believes if they put their hands together and beg that the child will magically get better on their own? Nothing. The options and the laws already exist. What is wrong is that they let religious reasoning slide as an excuse when if anyone else did the exact same thing the law would step in and act on the child's behalf. The laws already exist, they just need to be implemented across the board and stop going soft on religious beliefs as excuses to not take care of people's kids.

Well, as much as I'm against it also, you can't really deny what you believe, because you believe it will work, you believe it has more of a chance, what people believe is what people believe.

There's also a fine line between believing in something like curing your kid with prayers and think it is possible.


I think the only way we could curtail this part of freedom of religion is kinda similar to how China treats religion.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's a little bit harder than that. I was an avid believer till I was 18 but eventually rejected it after looking at the evidence from a non-bias standpoint. Also it'd be pretty hard to tell if a child genuinely believes or not.

It doesn't matter if you're destined to change your beliefs though because if the child decides it is better to pray for him instead of medical treatment then he would be dead so he can't change his beliefs then, it's too late.


Yes, it is hard, that's why parents are responsible for THEIR children.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Partly because of tradition. We traditionally allow parents total control over their children and to remove any aspect of that right is something that must be done carefully. In order to implement what you are suggesting we would have to create a legal structure to do so. First we would have to determine when a parents legal rights to make decisions for their children should be taken away and put in the hands of others. The line must be very clearly defined so that there will be no legal reprocussions. Also, who makes the decision to terminate parental rights? A doctor? A judge? Social services? All of these questions must be answered and new laws put into place.

Now, it may sound simple enough to create these laws but the trick it to create them in a manner that minimises abuse by the system itself. The example I gave before of the vegetarian family not being able to raise their children as vegetarians is a valid scenario. History shows us time and time again how the government will step in to dictate beliefs to its citizens. French catholics in Louisiana had to send their children to public schools where they were beaten for speaking French. Native Americans had it much worse. Things like that are not that far in our past and could easily be part of our future. That is why we must choose our solutions with great care.

A year or two ago, I read a story about a vegan couple who decided that because of their veganism (and dangerous stupidity, apparently) they would feed their newborn baby soy milk instead of breast milk. After the child died of extreme malnutrition, the parents were found guilty of various child neglect-type crimes and went to jail... and rightly so, IMO.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

A year or two ago, I read a story about a vegan couple who decided that because of their veganism (and dangerous stupidity, apparently) they would feed their newborn baby soy milk instead of breast milk. After the child died of extreme malnutrition, the parents were found guilty of various child neglect-type crimes and went to jail... and rightly so, IMO.

Vegans can't drink breastmilk?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I really don't see any reason why such decisions should be any different when they are based in a parent's religious beliefs than when they are made for whatever other philosophical reasons or social reasons or no reason at all.

Given your defense of religious circumcision in other threads, I have to say I'm surprised to see you say this.

 

[9Westy9]

It doesn't matter if you're destined to change your beliefs though because if the child decides it is better to pray for him instead of medical treatment then he would be dead so he can't change his beliefs then, it's too late.

I disagree. I feel medical attention should be compulsory until you're 18. Then you can make a decision.

Yes, it is hard, that's why parents are responsible for THEIR children.

and it's also why they get jailed when the child dies

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Vegans can't drink breastmilk?

That's where the "dangerous stupidity" part kicks in.

Vegans normally avoid animal products (e.g. milk) because they object to things like the suffering that the animal had to endure for us to obtain them, or out of some idea that we shouldn't keep animals for our own use. None of this applies to breast milk provided by a willing human mother.

Nevertheless, in their form of veganism, human breast milk was off-limits, too.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Look, it's actually very simple.

But it's not simple. You can not like the fact that religion complicates things but you can't deny that it does. If someone truly believes that this is the only way to raise their child and you refuse to allow them to raise their child in that manner then you are opening a very big can of worms with ramifications far beyond the health care of the children involved. You don't want your religious rights to be taken away anymore than they want theirs taken away. Like it or not, the slope is slippery.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I disagree. I feel medical attention should be compulsory until you're 18. Then you can make a decision.

Yes, I think medical attention works best as well, it's pretty obvious, but some people think it is just as obvious that God saves them. It's not possible to change their mind.

and it's also why they get jailed when the child dies

Yep, that'd be fair. Doesn't mean they'll think it's safer to have medical attention though.

If the child dies they should go to jail, but if they feel it's more likely for them to be treated by god or an angel, then it's their choice, they're facing the chances of a god saving them or them going to jail.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But it's not simple. You can not like the fact that religion complicates things but you can't deny that it does. If someone truly believes that this is the only way to raise their child and you refuse to allow them to raise their child in that manner then you are opening a very big can of worms with ramifications far beyond the health care of the children involved. You don't want your religious rights to be taken away anymore than they want theirs taken away. Like it or not, the slope is slippery.

So it's okay to turn a blind eye to child abuse when it's committed in the name of religion? If you don't want us to start down the "slippery slope" at all, then that's what you're arguing for.

But personally, I think it can be that simple: we already make distinctions between acceptable and non-acceptable ways to raise children now and it hasn't led to a rash of, say, parents having their kids taken away because of their political beliefs. Simply removing religious exemptions from these normal standards doesn't have to be any harder than saying "religion no longer gets a free pass".

 

[Draka]

But it's not simple. You can not like the fact that religion complicates things but you can't deny that it does. If someone truly believes that this is the only way to raise their child and you refuse to allow them to raise their child in that manner then you are opening a very big can of worms with ramifications far beyond the health care of the children involved. You don't want your religious rights to be taken away anymore than they want theirs taken away. Like it or not, the slope is slippery.

No, really, it's not. Like I've said time and time again, the laws already exist. Some states in the US uphold them better than others. We are talking strictly medically speaking here. Laws already provide what is and is not considered abuse and neglect. It is most definitely already considered neglect for a parent to not seek medical care for an ailing child. Shoot man, it is considered animal cruelty and neglect to not do so for a dog. And for some reason some people think it's suddenly ok to neglect a child if they start talking about "god"?

 

[9Westy9]

Yes, I think medical attention works best as well, it's pretty obvious, but some people think it is just as obvious that God saves them. It's not possible to change their mind.

You can change anyone's mind if you're convincing enough.

Yep, that'd be fair. Doesn't mean they'll think it's safer to have medical attention though.

If the child dies they should go to jail, but if they feel it's more likely for them to be treated by god or an angel, then it's their choice, they're facing the chances of a god saving them or them going to jail.

They should really check the statistics

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So it's okay to turn a blind eye to child abuse when it's committed in the name of religion? If you don't want us to start down the "slippery slope" at all, then that's what you're arguing for.

Not at all. I was merely pointing the slippery slope out, not suggesting we shouldn't do something about the situation.

We are talking strictly medically speaking here.

No we aren't. We are talking about religion and when its ok to deny someone the right to their religious beliefs. Just because you can look at the situation from a scientific viewpoint doesn't mean everyone will. You look on their beliefs and see nothing but superstition. But remember, they look at you and see one of the brides of Satan who has sold her soul in exchange for magical powers. Would you like someone who thinks like her dictating what you are allowed to believe and even worse, what you are allowed to teach your children? Then why would you expect them to enjoy your dictating what they can believe and how hey can raise their children? Once you cross that line and make the declaration that their religion is meaningless in the eyes of the law and they have no right to raise their children in the faith that they believe you open the door to so many other things.

Medically male circumcision is more harmful than beneficial. Would you tell the entire Jewish population they can no longer perform circumcision. We have done so for female circumcision, why not the male version as well? What do you do when the line is more gray instead of black and white like you want it to be?

Understand, I think we should try and come up with a solution but it would be foolish to think it will be a simple one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Medically male circumcision is more harmful than beneficial. Would you tell the entire Jewish population they can no longer perform circumcision. We have done so for female circumcision, why not the male version as well? What do you do when the line is more gray instead of black and white like you want it to be?

Something that has to be kept in mind - and I think that this is especially the case with male circumcision - is that the harm prevented by banning a harmful practice has to be balance against any harm that results from enforcing the ban. I think this is probably the case for male circumcision: while, IMO, it's definitely a harmful practice, a ban wouldn't actually stop the harm but just drive it underground, while trying to enforce a ban would have pretty major implications for people's freedom and privacy.

Edit: in the case of female circumcision, I think the harm is so great that it warrants tougher measures for enforcement. Also, I think in practical terms, it's much more acheivable to eliminate it... at least in the West.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Something that has to be kept in mind - and I think that this is especially the case with male circumcision - is that the harm prevented by banning a harmful practice has to be balance against any harm that results from enforcing the ban. I think this is probably the case for male circumcision: while, IMO, it's definitely a harmful practice, a ban wouldn't actually stop the harm but just drive it underground, while trying to enforce a ban would have pretty major implications for people's freedom and privacy.

Edit: in the case of female circumcision, I think the harm is so great that it warrants tougher measures for enforcement. Also, I think in practical terms, it's much more acheivable to eliminate it... at least in the West.

In otherwords, the solution is more complicated that it would appear on the surface. That's been my point from the beginning.

The only disagreement I have with you is that female circumcision should be eliminated everywhere, not just in the West.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In otherwords, the solution is more complicated that it would appear on the surface. That's been my point from the beginning.

But not in the way you suggested... or at least not in the way I think you're suggesting. We may need to take into account that people are likely to try to work around a ban, for instance, but we don't need to take into account that a practice is religious.

The only disagreement I have with you is that female circumcision should be eliminated everywhere, not just in the West.

I don't think we disagree. My point was just that the practical obstacles to eliminating it are less in the West than other areas.

 

[Draka]

No we aren't. We are talking about religion and when its ok to deny someone the right to their religious beliefs. Just because you can look at the situation from a scientific viewpoint doesn't mean everyone will. You look on their beliefs and see nothing but superstition. But remember, they look at you and see one of the brides of Satan who has sold her soul in exchange for magical powers. Would you like someone who thinks like her dictating what you are allowed to believe and even worse, what you are allowed to teach your children? Then why would you expect them to enjoy your dictating what they can believe and how hey can raise their children? Once you cross that line and make the declaration that their religion is meaningless in the eyes of the law and they have no right to raise their children in the faith that they believe you open the door to so many other things.

Medically male circumcision is more harmful than beneficial. Would you tell the entire Jewish population they can no longer perform circumcision. We have done so for female circumcision, why not the male version as well? What do you do when the line is more gray instead of black and white like you want it to be?

Understand, I think we should try and come up with a solution but it would be foolish to think it will be a simple one.

You seem to want to throw everything possible at the wall and see if anything will stick. I am speaking medically. I am saying that the right to believe as you wish ends at the medical decisions of someone else. I am saying that that includes your own child. You can teach your child what it is you believe. You can explain to them why. You can personally adhere to your own beliefs as well. However, what cannot be done is to use your religion as a scapegoat for child abuse and neglect.

I fail to see what is so hard to understand on this point. Why should Betty and Joan be treated differently in regards to their children if they both refuse to take their fever-stricken children to the hospital? Should it matter that Betty happens to believe that god will save her child and Joan doesn't want to miss a marathon of Desperate Housewives? Should Betty get a pass and Joan get in trouble? No.

 

[Quiddity]

You seem to want to throw everything possible at the wall and see if anything will stick. I am speaking medically. I am saying that the right to believe as you wish ends at the medical decisions of someone else. I am saying that that includes your own child. You can teach your child what it is you believe. You can explain to them why. You can personally adhere to your own beliefs as well. However, what cannot be done is to use your religion as a scapegoat for child abuse and neglect.

I fail to see what is so hard to understand on this point. Why should Betty and Joan be treated differently in regards to their children if they both refuse to take their fever-stricken children to the hospital? Should it matter that Betty happens to believe that god will save her child and Joan doesn't want to miss a marathon of Desperate Housewives? Should Betty get a pass and Joan get in trouble? No.

Medical decisions that lead to death? Or all medical decisions?

 

[Levite]

Given your defense of religious circumcision in other threads, I have to say I'm surprised to see you say this.

What I meant by that was that, just as with decisions that parents make from their personal or cultural philosophies, from their personal or cultural perceptions, or for whatever reasons encourage them to make the decisions, government or other elements of social control should not have free rein to come in and gainsay the decisions unless there is some measurable and immanent threat of serious harm to the child. And that means more than the usual issues everyone ends up with, good parenting or bad, given that even the best parents can sometimes be wrong or make mistakes. But that's the prerogative of parenting, unless we intend to take all children from their parents and raise them in state institutions, which should result in a whole different slew of errors and accidents, and a whole new crop of dysfunctions in such children when grown.

I said when I defended circumcision that my defense was purely that of the right of Jewish or Muslim parents to circumcise their own children, provided such circumcision is done in a safe way by someone qualified to do the circumcising. And that part and parcel of my feeling that it was no one's business but that of the parents, the child, and the culture of the Jews or Muslims, is that the medical community overwhelmingly says that properly done circumcision causes no harm, and if anything might provide some slight health benefits. Whereas those who claim it does harm have little compelling medical and ethical evidence to support the notion that it is either harmful at all, or so harmful that government should step in to prevent parents from exercising their rights as parents to have this procedure done to their sons.

And in any case, I presumed that the OP was mostly in reference to major medical issues, like withholding blood transfusions or refusing antibiotics, or suchlike; and was not meant to refer to minor ritual procedures that, if properly done, never come close to threatening the life and health of the child.