|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2018 14:36:56 GMT
Just recently, a toddler died of pneumonia because her parents, members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation did not seek medical treatment, in accord with the teachings of their church. But this article shows that this kind of thing is part of this church's history: www.ldnews.com/story/news/local/2017/03/10/ldn-investigates-children-have-died-lebanons-faith-tabernacle-100-years/98858590/ The parents have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. But is the state really confined to pursuing individual prosecutions? If the church promotes a crime (withholding medical treatment from children), could that be construed as operating a criminal enterprise? If so, the state could go after the church itself with the goal of shutting them down. I don't think a claim of religious freedom would be a successful defense for them.
Obviously, it's a stretch to go after a church in the way you would go after a mafia crime family. But I'm wondering if a prosecutor with some imagination and nerve could make plausible legal argument to do so.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 15:57:44 GMT
The government can determine any level of danger from a religion they see fit.
A religion can be completely harmless and the government can decide it's a danger, so a religion that encourages a dangerous behavior can likely lose religious exemption status.
The criminal portion would be difficult since they are not obligated to preach in contradiction to their teachings and they likely are not preventing a person from taking their child to be treated except by the teaching which the parents would clearly have faith in.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 26, 2018 16:23:58 GMT
The government can determine any level of danger from a religion they see fit. A religion can be completely harmless and the government can decide it's a danger, so... Uh, no it can’t (according to the US Constitution) so your premise is faulty from the beginning! ...a religion that encourages a dangerous behavior can likely lose religious exemption status. You would hope so. But this statement and the accuracy of it does not tie to, nor is dependent of the legitimacy of the preceding nonsensical statement. It’s an ad hominem!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 16:29:04 GMT
The government can determine any level of danger from a religion they see fit. A religion can be completely harmless and the government can decide it's a danger, so... Uh, no it can’t (according to the US Constitution) so your premise is faulty from the beginning! ...a religion that encourages a dangerous behavior can likely lose religious exemption status. You would hope so. But this statement and the accuracy of it does not tie to, nor is dependent of the legitimacy of the preceding nonsensical statement. It’s an ad hominem! The US Constitution doesn't protect freedom of religion when there is a perceived danger in the religion.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 26, 2018 16:31:04 GMT
Just recently, a toddler died of pneumonia because her parents, members of the Faith Tabernacle Congregation did not seek medical treatment, in accord with the teachings of their church. But this article shows that this kind of thing is part of this church's history: www.ldnews.com/story/news/local/2017/03/10/ldn-investigates-children-have-died-lebanons-faith-tabernacle-100-years/98858590/ The parents have been convicted of involuntary manslaughter. But is the state really confined to pursuing individual prosecutions? If the church promotes a crime (withholding medical treatment from children), could that be construed as operating a criminal enterprise? No it couldn’t because “promoting withholding medical treatment” is not a crime! It’s an interpretation of religion that people are free to follow or ignore. If so, the state could go after the church itself with the goal of shutting them down. I don't think a claim of religious freedom would be a successful defense for them. Jewish babies contract herpes from mohels performing circumcisions on them all the time. The government hasn’t shut down the Jewish synagogues! So no, the government can’t shut down a church unless it is actually a cult that’s doing something like holding people against their will, or sexually abusing people (according to how the law defines it). Christian scientists and Jehovah’s Witnesses both believe in withholding certain medical treatments from their children, and neither has ever been shut down as a result. Obviously, it's a stretch to go after a church in the way you would go after a mafia crime family. But I'm wondering if a prosecutor with some imagination and nerve could make plausible legal argument to do so. The Constitution would not be on his side!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 26, 2018 16:42:29 GMT
Uh, no it can’t (according to the US Constitution) so your premise is faulty from the beginning! You would hope so. But this statement and the accuracy of it does not tie to, nor is dependent of the legitimacy of the preceding nonsensical statement. It’s an ad hominem! The US Constitution doesn't protect freedom of religion when there is a perceived danger in the religion. Sure it does! I just gave an example in my previous response to the OP. More to the point, that’s NOT what you said! You said a religion can be completely harmless and the government can decide its a danger. The danger has to be perceived as real, credible, and objective! Danger and harm are subjective terms, meaning they have to be demonstrably dangerous and harmful in a court of law. Danger doesn’t suddenly exist because “the government” one day decides that it exists. There has to be actual evidence of the danger or harm, and even then it has to be litigated! And unless you can prove that there has ever been a case where the government shut down a church without social influence (the people actually complaining about the danger), then your statement wouldn’t be demonstrably valid. People like you tend to just throw this term around “the government” as though it’s some secret evil, shadow entity that just does what IT wants without any oversight. That’s not how it works! The government (in the US) is responsible to the people, and usually decisions made by the government are driven by demand of the constituency who elects members of the government. The government has no stake in whether or not a church gets shut down, CITIZENS DO.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2018 16:59:38 GMT
Withholding it from children IS a crime, and then the state steps in, as it did in this case. After all, the parents were convicted, so the state is not powerless. The argument may be shaky, but it COULD be argued that this church is promoting a crime.I recognize that there seems to be no legal precedent for what I am suggesting. But I think that there is an unexplored area between the individual prosecution of a parent and the untouchable status of a church. Do we just ASSUME that this particular church, with its history, cannot be the target of a prosecution, or is some groundbreaking legal theory possible that renders this church culpable while still respecting freedom of religion (remembering that protecting children is a legitimate state interest).
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 26, 2018 18:50:42 GMT
Withholding it from children IS a crime, and then the state steps in, as it did in this case. After all, the parents were convicted, so the state is not powerless. The argument may be shaky, but it COULD be argued that this church is promoting a crime. ”Argued” yes, but not successful without substantial evidence. Having religious beliefs that seem immoral to an irreligious person (or person of a different faith) does not amount to “promoting a crime”, even if you personally feel that the practice amounts to abuse. It would be up to the state to prove that the Church somehow forced or coerced the parents into harming their child, and that’s a tough ask. I recognize that there seems to be no legal precedent for what I am suggesting. But I think that there is an unexplored area between the individual prosecution of a parent and the untouchable status of a church. Do we just ASSUME that this particular church, with its history, cannot be the target of a prosecution, or is some groundbreaking legal theory possible that renders this church culpable while still respecting freedom of religion (remembering that protecting children is a legitimate state interest).
The assumption is based on precedents previously established. And any attempt to prosecute a church in this regard is a slippery slope. I have heard of individual practitioners of a religion being prosecuted for religious practices deemed harmful to other people, but never a Church or religious organization held accountable for specific teachings. That’s more along the lines of crossing the first amendment.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 18:54:48 GMT
captainbryceYour examples don't apply to what I said (Not to mention the harm exaggerated). They may apply to something you clearly agree with me on though.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 26, 2018 18:59:59 GMT
Yes they do. The fact that we have a disagreement over what constitutes harm is irrelevant, and if anything only supports my argument. Can’t have it both ways knucklehead. Either they apply or they don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose for the sake of convenience.
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Mar 26, 2018 19:03:02 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line Suppose a medical procedure has a 60% cure rate but the procedure itself has a 5% chance of causing death, while the probability of death is 70% without the procedure.
Courts have generally sided with parental choice, or, "let nature take its course". I tend to side with the courts on this. On the other hand, evolution will kick in here. If the kid survives, he passes on his stronger genes to his offspring. If he doesn't, he won't pass on his weak genes.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 19:05:46 GMT
Yes they do. The fact that we have a disagreement over what constitutes harm is irrelevant, and if anything only supports my argument. Can’t have it both ways knucklehead. Either they apply or they don’t. You don’t get to pick and choose for the sake of convenience. We are not in any way discussing what we think constitutes harm. Are you wanting to change the topic? Anyway, we already agree with the notion that the examples you provide are probably not going to be considered criminal based on the willing participation of the parent, but you can pretend that we don't.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 19:08:27 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line Suppose a medical procedure has a 60% cure rate but the procedure itself has a 5% chance of causing death, while the probability of death is 70% without the procedure. Courts have generally sided with parental choice, or, "let nature take its course". I tend to side with the courts on this. On the other hand, evolution will kick in here. If the kid survives, he passes on his stronger genes to his offspring. If he doesn't, he won't pass on his weak genes. I don't think they decide on things based on the parents choice. If the government thinks a child is in danger, not only will they almost always force the procedure, but they could take the kid. They will often not even pay attentio to the choice a kid themselves make ...unless it's an abortion of course.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2018 19:10:04 GMT
captainbryce
That's the hazard to avoid, but I'm not convinced that it's unavoidable. What if it's possible, in theory, to build a legal case against that particular church, and still not breach the first amendment? I don't know if anything of this sort has ever been attempted in the U.S. against any church. What I need is some expert on the topic.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2018 19:20:00 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line In this recent case, the parents were convicted. Wherever that line is reasonably drawn, the state had no problem seeing that the parents were on the wrong side of that line. But can a church that has been teaching a doctrine that has long been demonstrably harmful to children (see my link) also be held criminally responsible, and not just the parents? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 26, 2018 19:29:27 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line In this recent case, the parents were convicted. Wherever that line is reasonably drawn, the state had no problem seeing that the parents were on the wrong side of that line. But can a church that has been teaching a doctrine that has long been demonstrably harmful to children (see my link) also be held criminally responsible, and not just the parents? That's what I'm trying to figure out.
Are you wanting to know if the building should be handcuffed?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 26, 2018 19:58:10 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line Suppose a medical procedure has a 60% cure rate but the procedure itself has a 5% chance of causing death, while the probability of death is 70% without the procedure. Courts have generally sided with parental choice, or, "let nature take its course". I tend to side with the courts on this. On the other hand, evolution will kick in here. If the kid survives, he passes on his stronger genes to his offspring. If he doesn't, he won't pass on his weak genes. Not to derail the thread, but it can be argued that advances in medical science is allowing people to reproduce that normally wouldn't have survived to reproduce. I was one of those people with a genetic predisposition to cancer; I was diagnosed at age 35, extreme treatment put me into remission, but I chose to not reproduce, for a variety of reasons. I stayed out of the gene pool, and am glad I did. I'm not aware of what others in my situation think. Any opinions out there?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 26, 2018 20:08:28 GMT
Freedom of religion; Freedom of choice; where do you draw the line Suppose a medical procedure has a 60% cure rate but the procedure itself has a 5% chance of causing death, while the probability of death is 70% without the procedure. Courts have generally sided with parental choice, or, "let nature take its course". I tend to side with the courts on this. On the other hand, evolution will kick in here. If the kid survives, he passes on his stronger genes to his offspring. If he doesn't, he won't pass on his weak genes. Not to derail the thread, but it can be argued that advances in medical science is allowing people to reproduce that normally wouldn't have survived to reproduce. I was one of those people with a genetic predisposition to cancer; I was diagnosed at age 35, extreme treatment put me into remission, but I chose to not reproduce, for a variety of reasons. I stayed out of the gene pool, and am glad I did. I'm not aware of what others in my situation think. Any opinions out there? I'm not in your position, but surely this is your own choice to make, and it's no one's place to criticize any choice you might have made.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2018 10:50:13 GMT
You seem to believe the government is especially fit to make any medical decisions. I think most people would agree. The reason for that is rather interesting. Most people dislike taking personal responsibility for anything. As slaves people never have to take much blame as long as they follow the plain and simple instructions of their masters. If the crop goes bad, it's the master's fault as long as the slaves followed those instructions.
If government is made master of everything, even things it should not, that makes a convenient place to dump all blame. Except there is no blame because the government is right by definition. When something goes wrong, there was nothing that could have been done better, by definition anyway, if not actual fact. Voilà, all blame is gone, or so it seems.
I believe you'll find that the government is not the perfect representative of all medical truth you have begun to imagine. Catching and dying from pneumonia has a rather complicated list of contributing factors that a hospital would not likely fully access. Your confidence in their ability to save the day after the fact is misplaced.
I'm not encouraging anyone to disobey the government. I would encourage everyone to place reasonable legal limits on the reach of government though. When you have obviously retarded people forcing their views over parents' natural rights, no wonder confidence in government is shaken and disorder abounds.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 29, 2018 12:05:15 GMT
You seem to believe the government is especially fit to make any medical decisions. So, supporting a law requiring parents to bring their toddler to a doctor before she dies translates to you as believing that "the government is especially fit to make any medical decisions."
If you haven't already done so, please, PLEASE, put it in your will that you are leaving your brain to science.
|
|