RE: Religious couple do it again

RE: Religious couple do it again (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LookieNoNookie -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/25/2013 8:30:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/2nd-child-of-Pa-couple-dies-after-only-praying-4455524.php At what point does religion start becoming worried about these children? Honey...for once, I not only agree with you...I'd stand beside you for weeks on end and demand signatures. (Don't get a fat head now).

DomKen -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 2:44:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 quote: Well, I think charging the church and its ministers with the death would be a damn good way to bring it home. Yes, it can be a slippery slope of sorts, however this isn't listening to a rock and roll singer. A reasonable person expects to be able to get guidance from their priest, pastor, minister, reverend, rabbi, whichever your religion has. A reasonable person doesn't expect to get guidance from a rock band, athlete or celebrity. So there IS a difference. Let's see if those church authorities can continue to preach no medical intervention when they are facing murder charges. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in sentiment, but there are a lot of problems with doing that. First is causation. No matter what the pastor/minister/reverend taught, the parents made the decision to take it to such an extreme. While they received the spiritual guidance that led them to that conclusion from the minister, the minister did not make that decision for them, which means that the minister (arguably) wasn't the proximate cause of the child's death. Next up is freedom of speech. Like it or not, he does have a right to preach those teachings. We should expect adults to be able to listen to him and realize that "Don't take your children to the doctor when they're sick" is a stupid idea, and to ignore it. Punishing the minister because somebody listened to his idiotic ideas opens up all kinds of potentially unwanted legal results. There's also a problem with the freedom of religion. He has a right to refuse medical treatment because of his religious beliefs. The adults in his church have a right to do the same. It's a valid (though ridiculous) religious belief. Again, people need to use common sense, and we have to give them the chance to do that. The parents should be punished here, but I wouldn't go after the minister. While you're right about all of that, could he not be prosecuted for his actions? In a previous case like this the preacher went to the child's home and exhorted the parents to "stay strong in their faith" and led prayers over the child as she died. Is that still free speech and assembly? It strikes me as awfully close to the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" type of speech. If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) I would. They're endangering both their own children and those people who cannot be vaccinated.

GotSteel -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:03:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) Your argument is logically fallacious, it consists of what's known as a slippery slop fallacy. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/ Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible.

tazzygirl -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:13:23 AM)
quote: If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) And yet states, like Arizona, include the clergy in their duty to report A member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest who has received a confidential communication or a confession in that person's role as a member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or a priest in the course of the discipline enjoined by the church to which the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest belongs may withhold reporting of the communication or confession if the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest determines that it is reasonable and necessary within the concepts of the religion. This exemption applies only to the communication or confession and not to personal observations the member of the clergy, christian science practitioner or priest may otherwise make of the minor. http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03620.htm I realize this isnt Arizona, but states have specified conditions. Maybe I am reaching here, but if a member of the clergy is in the home and leading the parents in prayer over the child, I dont see the exemption being applied. Since this is PA, I took a look at the laws here. Pennsylvania Mandatory Reporting Requirements Regarding Children Christian Science practitioners; Members of the clergy; Standard of Knowledge Reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of the reporter’s medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child under the care, supervision, guidance or training of that person or of an agency, institution, organization or other entity with which that person is affiliated is a victim of child abuse, including child abuse by an individual who is not a perpetrator (as defined in 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6303). http://www.rainn.org/pdf-files-and-other-documents/Public-Policy/Legal-resources/2009-Mandatory-Report/Pennsylvania09C.pdf Im not really seeing an out here for the religious leader here.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:13:24 AM)
quote: If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) Depends. Some vaccines pose various risks, and it is merely medically recommended not required as it is up to the patient. In this case the kid was dying, it needed medical attention. Even though there wasn't a true 100% chance a doctor could have saved the child, there was a 0% chance praying would save the child. Anything a medical professional did would have been better with 100% certainty. Even if it simply relieved the child's suffering. This is not a slippery slope, it is a clear cut and dry case with no risk of setting a dangerous precident.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:14:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: muhly22222 quote: Well, I think charging the church and its ministers with the death would be a damn good way to bring it home. Yes, it can be a slippery slope of sorts, however this isn't listening to a rock and roll singer. A reasonable person expects to be able to get guidance from their priest, pastor, minister, reverend, rabbi, whichever your religion has. A reasonable person doesn't expect to get guidance from a rock band, athlete or celebrity. So there IS a difference. Let's see if those church authorities can continue to preach no medical intervention when they are facing murder charges. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you in sentiment, but there are a lot of problems with doing that. First is causation. No matter what the pastor/minister/reverend taught, the parents made the decision to take it to such an extreme. While they received the spiritual guidance that led them to that conclusion from the minister, the minister did not make that decision for them, which means that the minister (arguably) wasn't the proximate cause of the child's death. Next up is freedom of speech. Like it or not, he does have a right to preach those teachings. We should expect adults to be able to listen to him and realize that "Don't take your children to the doctor when they're sick" is a stupid idea, and to ignore it. Punishing the minister because somebody listened to his idiotic ideas opens up all kinds of potentially unwanted legal results. There's also a problem with the freedom of religion. He has a right to refuse medical treatment because of his religious beliefs. The adults in his church have a right to do the same. It's a valid (though ridiculous) religious belief. Again, people need to use common sense, and we have to give them the chance to do that. The parents should be punished here, but I wouldn't go after the minister. I do understand what you are saying. However, should they investigate the minister in all of this, I'm sure that we would find that the parents sought out his advice regarding their sick child. I'm also relatively sure that he encouraged them to continue with the path of no intervention, which does make him culpable. I do think it would be possible to show that he had a part in the causation. At the very least, it might scare him enough to get him to stop. Religious leaders have an immense amount of influence over the devout.

LafayetteLady -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:20:05 AM)
I don't remember where, but I recently read that because of parents choosing not to vaccinate their children, we are starting to see a reoccurance of illnesses that were thought to have been wiped out. Polio, small pox, scarlet fever and tuberculosis pose a health hazard not simply to the child the parents ignorantly refused to vaccinate, but to the people those children come in contact with. There is a reason that schools expect children to be vaccinated. It is to protect the student population as a whole. College student need vaccines to live on campus as well, and they aren't negotiable.

FunCouple5280 -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 9:22:52 AM)
I only said for some vaccines....for polio and others I would completely agree with you Hep C, not so much. I know that one is particularly risky

LafayetteLady -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 12:21:23 PM)
The Hep C started because a problem developed.

Aylee -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 2:52:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) Your argument is logically fallacious, it consists of what's known as a slippery slop fallacy. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/ Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. Interesting that you see it that way. I see the requirement of vaccines as much more relevant to "general welfare," than things like banning large soda pops and trans fats.

Aylee -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 2:57:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I would. They're endangering both their own children and those people who cannot be vaccinated. That is pretty much how I see it. I suppose if things like iron lungs become more familiar then perhaps people will wake-up to the danger. Until that time though. . . Of course then again you have the whole issue of parental rights and religious freedom and all of that. It really is a tough call.

DomKen -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 3:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I would. They're endangering both their own children and those people who cannot be vaccinated. That is pretty much how I see it. I suppose if things like iron lungs become more familiar then perhaps people will wake-up to the danger. Until that time though. . . Of course then again you have the whole issue of parental rights and religious freedom and all of that. It really is a tough call. We don't allow human sacrifice as a religious practice. Why should we allow the sacrifice of the health of the entire community due to the religious beliefs of some small part of it? If some religion forbade sewage treatment would we allow them to dump their waste into the rest of our drinking water?

Aylee -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 5:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I would. They're endangering both their own children and those people who cannot be vaccinated. That is pretty much how I see it. I suppose if things like iron lungs become more familiar then perhaps people will wake-up to the danger. Until that time though. . . Of course then again you have the whole issue of parental rights and religious freedom and all of that. It really is a tough call. We don't allow human sacrifice as a religious practice. Why should we allow the sacrifice of the health of the entire community due to the religious beliefs of some small part of it? If some religion forbade sewage treatment would we allow them to dump their waste into the rest of our drinking water? I completely understand what you are saying. I, personally, find it difficult to reconcile the two. Although, I do think that it can be done under the idea of "general welfare." Just because I believe something to be the right and correct thing to do, does not also mean that it should be the law for everyone.

GotSteel -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 5:46:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee If we (the state) do prosecute the parents and the preacher, are we also going to start prosecuting parents, and those who advocate it, that fail to vaccinate their children? (Exceptions for those who are not able to be vaccinated.) Your argument is logically fallacious, it consists of what's known as a slippery slop fallacy. quote: ORIGINAL: http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/slippery-slope/ Slippery slope arguments falsely assume that one thing must lead to another. They begin by suggesting that if we do one thing then that will lead to another, and before we know it we’ll be doing something that we don’t want to do. They conclude that we therefore shouldn’t do the first thing. The problem with these arguments is that it is possible to do the first thing that they mention without going on to do the other things; restraint is possible. Interesting that you see it that way. I see the requirement of vaccines as much more relevant to "general welfare," than things like banning large soda pops and trans fats. That looks like yet another fallacy, a red herring. The rest of us are talking about this religious couple who withheld basic medical care from their child while they watched him slowly die. I think they should go to jail, how about you?

Kirata -> RE: Religious couple do it again (4/26/2013 5:51:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Your argument is logically fallacious, it consists of what's known as a slippery slop fallacy. Interesting that you see it that way. I see the requirement of vaccines as much more relevant to "general welfare," than things like banning large soda pops and trans fats. Kinda proves it wasn't a slippery slope fallacy when you find yourself sliding down it, eh? [:)] K.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875