Faith Healers Get 16 Months for Son's Death

[Drachen]

I am a big believer in God healing people who are sick or have some sort of disease. I have known and have seen God do some awesome work in peoples lives when it comes to healing.

However, I also believe God gave wisdom to doctors and pharmacists to help His people when it comes to being sick. I will go to the doctor when I feel I have a sinus infection, a broken bone, a stomach problem, or whatever so that he can examine me, prescribe me something that will help me because I believe God intended it to be that way. I would not let my child suffer like that and die.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it seems that their belief system doesn't agree with us, which is why I have asked the question. My persistance in this thread is really less about the situation in the OP, and more about a long standing question I have had about how one defines a religion whose practice is protected by the cons ution. The original post is just an example that brought this question back to the forefront.

[boutons_deux]

"big believer in God healing people"

You should switch to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Works just as well.

God made rules about how Nature works, including how placebos work.

I "believe" God ain't gonna screw with the His own rules. It looks to me like the universe is following His Plan.

[Drachen]

"big believer in God healing people"

You should switch to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Works just as well.

God made rules about how Nature works, including how placebos work.

I "believe" God ain't gonna screw with the His own rules. It looks to me like the universe is following His Plan.

Cool, and others don't believe the same way you do.

[xellos88330]

Unbelievable. If you believe so much at least cover your ass by seeking medical attention. Second opinion never hurts.

[Creepn]

Unbelievable. If you believe so much at least cover your ass by seeking medical attention. Second opinion never hurts.

That would be blasphemy against God. Rather go to another lowly human being than seek help from the AWESOMENESS of God's power?? Very insulting.

[sabar]

I wholeheartedly agree with you, but it seems that their belief system doesn't agree with us, which is why I have asked the question. My persistance in this thread is really less about the situation in the OP, and more about a long standing question I have had about how one defines a religion whose practice is protected by the cons ution. The original post is just an example that brought this question back to the forefront.

Personal liberty trumps religious freedom. The rights of the child preside over the religious rights of the parents who are a 3rd party to the child. The same reason that I can't murder people because my god commands me to do so. This is simple.

But what if you didn't believe that? What if you believed - and I mean really, truly, to the depths of your soul knew this to be true - that seeking medical treatment, or certain kinds of medical treatment would result in the eternal damnation of your soul and was in direct contradiction to God's will?

You are free to not seek medical attention and die. You are also free to kill yourself. You are not free to make these choices for others, especially if it is against their best interests.

It would seem like people could organize to do illegal things under the au es of a "religion."

Remember the history of the united states. The law is to prevent the state from enacting a state religion and oppressing the people as was done in europe. It was never intended for religion to be some safe haven from all belief. Otherwise every murderer would claim religious freedom and walk away. The context of the cons ution is important!

The two basic natural rights are the right to life and the right to liberty. Law that is written, even in the cons ution, can't overrule these rights!

[easjer]

But parents are the ones who legally get to decide what is in the best interests of their child.

And the state has a right and duty to protect the children when the parents don't exercise that right correctly.

But my point is that there is a fine line in some of these areas. The obvious cases are obvious for a reason - children being beaten, clear neglect of a medical condition that obviously requires treatment (say a severed appendage or broken limb).

But the less obvious cases - where is the line? The parents claim that they thought their son had the flu. My parents didn't always take me to the doctor when I had the flu. What is the difference? Solely that I didn't die? Should my parents be prosecuted for not taking me to the doctor? Were they being neglectful?

Again - I don't agree with these people. At all. But the ruling makes me uncomfortable, because I'm not sure where the line is being drawn. If it's clear that the parents were lying or that there is no way they could legitimately mistake organ failure with the flu, then that's different. But it seemed like it was less a case of clear neglect under existing laws and more a case of a judge deciding that the situation can't continue.

Which may be the case, but is not for the judiciary to decide - that is for legislators to change.

I am uncomfortable with the possible ramifications of the legal decision. And it's entirely possible that I don't have a good understanding of the case - it's not like I've read anything more than this article.