Where freedom of religion ends

[Draka]

People seem to want to use the claim that they are free to believe however they want and should be able to practice their beliefs without any infringement. However, the freedom to believe and practice as you wish ends the moment it affects anyone else. Or at least it should. This specifically includes children. Even your own. When a person's religious beliefs affect the health and safety of others then their right to believe as they wish has just overstepped another's right to their own life. Just like a smoker affects the health and life-expectancy of those around them, those who feel that medical decisions should be based upon beliefs affect the health and life-expectancy of family members and others perhaps in their care. If a person wants to make medical decisions for themselves based upon their beliefs then they have every right to do so, but they should not have the right to make medical decisions for others based upon those beliefs. This includes their own children. It is my opinion and stance that anyone who attempts to deny proper medical treatment to their children based upon their own personal religious beliefs should have their legal rights to make medical decisions for their children denied and the child be declared a ward of the state in regards to medical care so that they can receive proper treatment.

The right to a person's religious beliefs ends the moment it physically affects another person's life.

 

[Levite]

Parents make decisions for their kids. That's the way it goes. They make all kinds of fundamental decisions with far-reaching ramifications for their kids, because they are parents, and the kids are their children.

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.

Medical decisions are no different. Different parents have different ideas about medical treatment and care; that will result in different ways they demand their kids be treated. As long as the medical treatment is ethical by the standards of the AMA, I don't see the problem.

Parents can't just try and keep kids in a vacuum until they're 18.

In the end, we all do what we think is best for our kids. And if you don't agree with how someone else raises their kid, then raise yours differently.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, hon, but I agree with Levite. It's just not that cut and dry.

 

[Quintessence]

1) Why limit the discussion to physical health? Health constitutes more than physical well-being, but also emotional and social well-being (among other things). Why aren't these included?

2) "The freedom to believe and practice as you wish ends the moment it affects anyone else" seems unrealistic. Is there ever a case where someone else's beliefs and practices don't affect someone else (directly or indirectly)?

I don't necessarily disagree with where you're coming from, Draka, but there are a few problems I see with the position. I'm also somewhat sympathetic to parents who wish to deny certain treatments because of their beliefs (religious or otherwise) even if I wouldn't personally do so.

 

[Me Myself]

Are we talking about denying blood transfutions?

I say the parents should decide....

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The medical aspects get a bit hairy but you can't dictate parents in the raising of their children. You would have to create a creche system where the government raises all children and parents merely donate eggs and sperm. The results would not be pretty in my opinion.

 

[connermt]

People seem to want to use the claim that they are free to believe however they want and should be able to practice their beliefs without any infringement. However, the freedom to believe and practice as you wish ends the moment it affects anyone else. Or at least it should. This specifically includes children. Even your own. When a person's religious beliefs affect the health and safety of others then their right to believe as they wish has just overstepped another's right to their own life. Just like a smoker affects the health and life-expectancy of those around them, those who feel that medical decisions should be based upon beliefs affect the health and life-expectancy of family members and others perhaps in their care. If a person wants to make medical decisions for themselves based upon their beliefs then they have every right to do so, but they should not have the right to make medical decisions for others based upon those beliefs. This includes their own children. It is my opinion and stance that anyone who attempts to deny proper medical treatment to their children based upon their own personal religious beliefs should have their legal rights to make medical decisions for their children denied and the child be declared a ward of the state in regards to medical care so that they can receive proper treatment.

The right to a person's religious beliefs ends the moment it physically affects another person's life.

Religion is like a smokescreen - using it to hide the negative things people do: abuse, stealing, controlling others, forcing view politically, etc.
This is one reason why so many people flock to religious institutions/groups; they use it as a smokescreen to hide the negative/bad/evil things they do.
And a lot of times, when they're caught, they revert to the supernatural defense (I was doing god's will, the devil made me do it, etc) as no one can really 100% disagree without sounding like a religious bigot.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Kinda hard to avoid, because everyone believes they're most likely right out of anyone else. It'd be like saying the freedom of religion ends at the point where Wicca can't exist, you feel it is true and don't understand why it shouldn't exist.

 

[Storm]

Religion is like a smokescreen - using it to hide the negative things people do: abuse, stealing, controlling others, forcing view politically, etc.
This is one reason why so many people flock to religious institutions/groups; they use it as a smokescreen to hide the negative/bad/evil things they do.
And a lot of times, when they're caught, they revert to the supernatural defense (I was doing god's will, the devil made me do it, etc) as no one can really 100% disagree without sounding like a religious bigot.

That's nice, dear. Would you like to actually address the topic?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The right to a person's religious beliefs ends the moment it physically affects another person's life.

You should clarify this statement. Most everything affects a person's life physically. Eating too much fat. Vegetarian diets. Wearing high heels. etc. I know that you mean affects in a negative way but that is subjective as well. So be specific and tell us where you think the line should be drawn.

 

[9Westy9]

What about stories like:

Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help | Fox News
Son dies slowly as parents pray – In Session - CNN.com Blogs

 

[gnomon]

Simply put, the laws regarding child neglect, child abuse, etc. should apply to all people regardless of one's religious beliefs. Just as people have differing philosophical opinions in regards to income taxes we still apply the same law (supposedly) to them regardless of the nature of those beliefs. No need to elevate a supernatural belief to a level of respect simiply for being traditional or spiritual over other philosophical and cultural beliefs held just as passionately by their adherents.

They should all be given over to rational scrutiny.

 

[Draka]

When people would rather let their 8 year old or 6 month old die believing that their prayers are enough to save them from a treatable injury or disease rather than take them for proper medical care then their religion and their beliefs are the direct cause of their child's death. People who refuse to seek proper medical treatment of their pets can have their pets taken away and have legal charges brought against them for animal neglect and abuse. Why should children be treated differently just because a religion is involved?

 

[9Westy9]

When people would rather let their 8 year old or 6 month old die believing that their prayers are enough to save them from a treatable injury or disease rather than take them for proper medical care then their religion and their beliefs are the direct cause of their child's death. People who refuse to seek proper medical treatment of their pets can have their pets taken away and have legal charges brought against them for animal neglect and abuse. Why should children be treated differently just because a religion is involved?

When there is enough foreknowledge then yes we should step in. However, if you don't find out until after the child's death then prison/ legal action is the only alternative

 

[Koldo]

Medical decisions are no different. Different parents have different ideas about medical treatment and care; that will result in different ways they demand their kids be treated. As long as the medical treatment is ethical by the standards of the AMA, I don't see the problem.

More than ethical, in case of danger of death, if there is a mainstream medical treatment available that is proven to be effective it must be used.

 

[connermt]

That's nice, dear. Would you like to actually address the topic?

I did, in an indirect manner. It's your problem if you don't understand it.

 

[Draka]

When there is enough foreknowledge then yes we should step in. However, if you don't find out until after the child's death then prison/ legal action is the only alternative

Exactly. When someone knows a child is being denied care by parents, even if it is because of religious reasons (which seem to get a pass a lot of the time) then social services and a hospital should be contacted and legal efforts should be made. If care was withheld for any other reason then these steps would be taken, however...all too often if religion is brought into the picture then no one seems to want to get involved. Why should it matter why care is being denied? Just because religion is involved it shouldn't be a free pass to neglect your kids' welfare.

 

[Alex_G]

People seem to want to use the claim that they are free to believe however they want and should be able to practice their beliefs without any infringement. However, the freedom to believe and practice as you wish ends the moment it affects anyone else. Or at least it should. This specifically includes children. Even your own. When a person's religious beliefs affect the health and safety of others then their right to believe as they wish has just overstepped another's right to their own life. Just like a smoker affects the health and life-expectancy of those around them, those who feel that medical decisions should be based upon beliefs affect the health and life-expectancy of family members and others perhaps in their care. If a person wants to make medical decisions for themselves based upon their beliefs then they have every right to do so, but they should not have the right to make medical decisions for others based upon those beliefs. This includes their own children. It is my opinion and stance that anyone who attempts to deny proper medical treatment to their children based upon their own personal religious beliefs should have their legal rights to make medical decisions for their children denied and the child be declared a ward of the state in regards to medical care so that they can receive proper treatment.

The right to a person's religious beliefs ends the moment it physically affects another person's life.

I for one agree with you. Even though i can see how this is something that is difficult to define rigorously (especially 'affecting other people'), i still think you have a powerful point and a legitimate concern.

In general i think its a sensible and morally defendable position to fully allow the freedom of expression of people as much as possible, but in saying that when similar freedoms of others are imposed upon by the former's actions and behaviours, its not to be tolerated.

In the example of medical care, parental responsibility and religious belief, i don’t think parents have a right to make life altering decisions for a vulnerable party based on religious ideology.
The role and virtue of being a parent is to be the protector and carer for a fully vulnerable person. There’s a duty to act in the best interests of that child, and to be frank, a decision is made on their behalf based on personal religious skews, such as the withholding of life saving blood transfusions, is far from acting in their best interest, and shouldn’t be tolerated.

Simply being a parent doesn’t mean you are a good parent because you define the rules when it comes to your own kids. There are real facts to know regarding the wellbeing and flourishing of human life, and real harm can come from making big decisions based on unfounded information, it is irresponsible, and a clear example of how problematic religious belief can be when it significantly interferes with the life of somebody else, especially that of a vulnerable and innocent child.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

When people would rather let their 8 year old or 6 month old die believing that their prayers are enough to save them from a treatable injury or disease rather than take them for proper medical care then their religion and their beliefs are the direct cause of their child's death. People who refuse to seek proper medical treatment of their pets can have their pets taken away and have legal charges brought against them for animal neglect and abuse. Why should children be treated differently just because a religion is involved?

Because its a fine line we walk. Children are considered to be in the care of their parents and they government should only step in when the child is endangered by the actions of the parent. The issue of not accepting medical attention due to religious beliefs is a tough one and to be honest I agree with you that it could be considered abuse and the government would be correct to step in. But I also acknowledge the slippery slope and how important it is to be very careful setting precidents in this kind of situation. It could open the door to abuse by the government as well.

 

[Quiddity]

When people would rather let their 8 year old or 6 month old die believing that their prayers are enough to save them from a treatable injury or disease rather than take them for proper medical care then their religion and their beliefs are the direct cause of their child's death. People who refuse to seek proper medical treatment of their pets can have their pets taken away and have legal charges brought against them for animal neglect and abuse. Why should children be treated differently just because a religion is involved?

That's one example where I'd agree with you. The problem is that it doesn't even have to be death to intervene. There are some people that think teaching them your faith in general is a form of abuse. What do you do with that?