Where freedom of religion ends

[waitasec]

No arguements here.

My point has only been that the situation is complex and does not have an easy solution.

as religion makes it complex. and to me that is sheer nonsense.

The laws in place are not enough and new laws which clearly define when the government should step in for the rights of the child in cases where religious freedom are involved need to be created. Also, it should be understood that creating such laws is dangerous and opens us up to abuse by the authorities should those laws be expanded to cover more than the original abuse they were written for. So when those laws are created, they need to be done so with great caution.

the law says the gov't should step in period. we have social services that take children away from abusive parents who do not hide behind the religious card so when a parent abuses their child in the form of neglect the child should be taken away because of neglect. easy. and i'll say it again, religion makes this complex when it doesn't have to be.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

The issue becomes simple when one reduces it to the only relevant question: which is more important, the life and well-being of a child, or the parents' religion?

If one still finds the issue confusing, then I hope they don't have any children.

 

[Draka]

The issue becomes simple when one reduces it to the only relevant question: which is more important, the life and well-being of a child, or the parents' religion?

If one still finds the issue confusing, then I hope they don't have any children.

Apparently I must go spread some frubals around.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

and i'll say it again, religion makes this complex when it doesn't have to be.

I understand you and Draka's desire for this to be true, (the "doesn't have to be" part), but what I don't understand is why you would think the world will operate this way? I assume you have been living in the same world as I have, with all the same people. So why would you ever suggest that religion doesn't have to make the world complex?

 

[waitasec]

I understand you and Draka's desire for this to be true, (the "doesn't have to be" part), but what I don't understand is why you would think the world will operate this way? I assume you have been living in the same world as I have, with all the same people. So why would you ever suggest that religion doesn't have to make the world complex?

Faith Healing Deaths in Oregon: New Law will Lift Protection of Religious Child Abusers : Greg Laden's Blog

notice the date of this blog...

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The issue becomes simple when one reduces it to the only relevant question: which is more important, the life and well-being of a child, or the parents' religion?

*sigh*

Why do people think that taking away the religious freedom of a parent should be simple? I understand that for you, determining the well being of a child is a simple thing but for the parents, who truly believe that the child's soul is at risk, your simple solution is harmful to the child. Why do you get to choose? Because of science? These people reject your science and consider it harmful. Imposing your belief structure on them without there consent is an attack on their freedom. Simple is not a part of this equation.

If one still finds the issue confusing, then I hope they don't have any children.

The issue is not confusing, only complex. And I have a 9 year old daughter.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Faith Healing Deaths in Oregon: New Law will Lift Protection of Religious Child Abusers : Greg Laden's Blog

notice the date of this blog...

I noticed the timeline in a linked article.

.
1995: Lobbied by the Christian Science Church, legislators introduce a religious defense to Oregon's homicide statutes, protecting parents who try to heal their children solely with prayer and faith-healing rituals. Parents who could prove to a judge or jury that faith governed their actions become immune from criminal liability, just as others can assert a claim of self-defense or extreme emotional disturbance.

1997: Again at the behest of Christian Scientists, Oregon legislators add religious shields to the state's first- and second-degree manslaughter statutes.

1998: Citing legal immunities for faith-healers, Clackamas County District Attorney Terry Gustafson declines to prosecute Followers of Christ church members whose 11-year-old son, Bo Phillips, died from untreated diabetes. As he suffered for days, his parents withheld medical treatment in favor of prayer. The boy's death sparks a statewide controversy and calls for changes in Oregon law.

1999: After months of debate, legislators reform Oregon's faith-healing laws, eliminating religious protections in cases of first- and second-degree criminal mistreatment and second-degree manslaughter. In a compromise with advocates of religious freedom and parental rights, legislators also approve a faith-healing exemption to mandatory minimum sentences.


2009: Raylene and Carl Brent Worthington of Oregon City become the first parents prosecuted under the 1999 reforms after their 15-month-old daughter dies from untreated bronchial pneumonia and a blood infection. A Clackamas County jury acquits the mother and convicts the father on a single count of criminal mistreatment. Since then, charges have been brought against several more Followers, including Raylene Worthington's parents, Jeffrey and Marci Beagley, who were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide in the death of their teenage son.


2011: Lawmakers consider eliminating the last remnants of Oregon's religious-defense statutes.

It appears that the bill was signed into law in June of 2011

Kitzhaber signs bill to eliminate religious defense for faith-healing parents | OregonLive.com

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What Oregon has done needs to be done on a national level.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

So then you're calling for a general relaxation of these sorts of laws? I mean, there's another thread here on RF about a case where a woman has gotten into trouble for allowing her 10-year-old son to be tattooed; you would have these sorts of laws repealed?

My main point is just that under the status quo, things don't generally work the way you suggest... except when it comes to religious practices, so it seems like you're advocating a rather marked change from the current state of things.

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.

The OP talked about medical decisions. I consider any decision about whether or not to have surgery - even minor cosmetic surgery - to be a medical decision.

 

[Draka]

*sigh*

Why do people think that taking away the religious freedom of a parent should be simple? I understand that for you, determining the well being of a child is a simple thing but for the parents, who truly believe that the child's soul is at risk, your simple solution is harmful to the child. Why do you get to choose? Because of science? These people reject your science and consider it harmful. Imposing your belief structure on them without there consent is an attack on their freedom. Simple is not a part of this equation.



The issue is not confusing, only complex. And I have a 9 year old daughter.

I still have to wonder whether they think they are saving their children or themselves. As I see it, the choices are that they believe in such a cruel and heartless god that it would punish an innocent child for someone else caring enough to save their life OR they fear for their own soul if they love their child enough to save them. So either their god is so cruel it would punish an innocent child for their life being saved or their god is so cruel they would punish a parent for loving their child enough to want it to live. If anyone was to have any compassion for the parents it should be that they believe in such a ******* of a god and live in fear their whole lives. Regardless, neither should be an excuse to be accepted for medically neglecting their children to the point of death.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I still have to wonder whether they think they are saving their children or themselves. As I see it, the choices are that they believe in such a cruel and heartless god that it would punish an innocent child for someone else caring enough to save their life OR they fear for their own soul if they love their child enough to save them. So either their god is so cruel it would punish an innocent child for their life being saved or their god is so cruel they would punish a parent for loving their child enough to want it to live. If anyone was to have any compassion for the parents it should be that they believe in such a ******* of a god and live in fear their whole lives.

It is the children themselves for certain. It is easy to assume they are selfish in this situation but I don't believe that to be the case. I agree that it is a cold and heartless God they believe in and not one I would care to follow. In fact, I rejected him entirely while still in Jr High. But I do believe in compassion for others, even if their beliefs are completely alien to me. Without that compassion, I don't think I could have rejected the God of my forefathers in favor of my current beliefs.

 

[waitasec]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What Oregon has done needs to be done on a national level.

but why has it takes so long?

here's another article

Faith Healing and the Law - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

 

[Draka]

It is the children themselves for certain. It is easy to assume they are selfish in this situation but I don't believe that to be the case. I agree that it is a cold and heartless God they believe in and not one I would care to follow. In fact, I rejected him entirely while still in Jr High. But I do believe in compassion for others, even if their beliefs are completely alien to me. Without that compassion, I don't think I could have rejected the God of my forefathers in favor of my current beliefs.

How do you know for certain that all parents who do such things are honestly doing so for what they believe is the sake of the child? You don't think that there are any who fear displeasing god themselves and so do not want to even save their child because they fear they are the ones who will be punished? I doubt that very much. In fact, I know of a case where a JW woman refused a blood transfusion required for surgery for her son and the doctor on the case went through a court proceeding to push for the transfusion and the judge came down on the side of the doctor and the hospital, and the boy had the transfusion and survived. Afterwards...get this...the mother actually thanked the doctor for pushing the issue because it took the decision out of her hands and saved her son. That is...the reason she refused was it would be a blemish against her...not her son. So the noble idea that such people refuse certain treatments do so because they are looking out for their children's souls is not exactly right. They fear for themselves more than their children.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

but why has it takes so long?

Because religion creates complexity. An unfortunate fact of life.

We like to say that we are a country that offers total religious freedom but we don't actually do so. The very act of limiting a religions freedom is hard for us to take, even if it is a necessary one.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

So the noble idea that such people refuse certain treatments do so because they are looking out for their children's souls is not exactly right. They fear for themselves more than their children.

Nothing noble about either situation and surely you know that individual motivations are going to be different person to person? Are there people who fear only for their childrens soul? Sure. Are there people who are more afraid for their own souls than their childrens? Sure. Are there people who are simply afraid of God period and dow what ever their minister tells them too? Sure. This isn't something you can hold an example up and say see, they are all selfish and uncaring about their children. Lets not fall into the trap of sterotypes and generalizations.

 

[Draka]

Nothing noble about either situation and surely you know that individual motivations are going to be different person to person? Are there people who fear only for their childrens soul? Sure. Are there people who are more afraid for their own souls than their childrens? Sure. Are there people who are simply afraid of God period and dow what ever their minister tells them too? Sure. This isn't something you can hold an example up and say see, they are all selfish and uncaring about their children. Lets not fall into the trap of sterotypes and generalizations.

I wasn't doing that. I was pointing out that your generalization was faulty. I pointed out earlier that it could go either way. You were the one who said "It is the children themselves for certain. It is easy to assume they are selfish in this situation but I don't believe that to be the case." I wanted you to know that that isn't always the case. For all we know, that could be the rare case. Either way, neither case should be excused as a valid reason to medically neglect a child.

 

[waitasec]

Because religion creates complexity. An unfortunate fact of life.

We like to say that we are a country that offers total religious freedom but we don't actually do so. The very act of limiting a religions freedom is hard for us to take, even if it is a necessary one.

indeed.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I wasn't doing that. I was pointing out that your generalization was faulty. I pointed out earlier that it could go either way. You were the one who said "It is the children themselves for certain. It is easy to assume they are selfish in this situation but I don't believe that to be the case." I wanted you to know that that isn't always the case. For all we know, that could be the rare case. Either way, neither case should be excused as a valid reason to medically neglect a child.

I said that because I believe that to be the case the majority of the time. I think a parent naturally has the best interest of the child at heart. Will there be exceptions? Sure, but I believe them to be exceptions rather than the rule. This comes from my feelings as a parent rather than any statistical info so I guess you could say its wishful thinking but it is still what I believe.

I agree that it shouldn't matter one way or the other.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Why do people think that taking away the religious freedom of a parent should be simple? I understand that for you, determining the well being of a child is a simple thing but for the parents, who truly believe that the child's soul is at risk, your simple solution is harmful to the child. Why do you get to choose? Because of science? These people reject your science and consider it harmful. Imposing your belief structure on them without there consent is an attack on their freedom. Simple is not a part of this equation.

Sometimes children need to be protected from stupid parents.

Simple.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Sometimes children need to be protected from stupid parents.

Simple.

Its the how that is complex.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Its the how that is complex.

Not any more complex than when religion isn't a factor.