Religion exempt from Child Neglect Laws?

[isaone]

Yes I recognize the infammatory nature of my title but it only hints at the boiling rage I feel toward people who kill their children through neglect because of their insane beliefs. Right here in my state there is a trial for one of these deaths taking place . Also disturbing is the fact that according to the article there appears to be some sort of exemption in the TN law to normal child neglect laws as long as the parents are in a "recognized" church headed by a "duly accredited practitioner." . I had no idea this was the case . I am trying to get the detail on the law and to avoid any rash acts (such as storming the state capitol) until I see the actual language of the law.


My questions are

• Is there anyone here who feels that a parent should be able to withold reasonable generally accepted medical care from a child sue to the parent's religious beliefs. If so why the &$(*#&$( do you think that is any different at all from allowing the parent to starve the child or use a knife to carve messages into the child's skin for similar beliefs.
• Are y'all aware of any similar laws in your locations ? Apparently these exemptions are common.

PS I have found a group dedicated to eliminating these kinds of laws. I have just contributed to their support and I would recommend everyone else do the same .

[TrashBagBandit]

Yes I recognize the infammatory nature of my title but it only hints at the boiling rage I feel toward people who kill their children through neglect because of their insane beliefs. Right here in my state there is a trial for one of these deaths taking place . Also disturbing is the fact that according to the article there appears to be some sort of exemption in the TN law to normal child neglect laws as long as the parents are in a "recognized" church headed by a "duly accredited practitioner." . I had no idea this was the case . I am trying to get the detail on the law and to avoid any rash acts (such as storming the state capitol) until I see the actual language of the law.



My questions are

• Is there anyone here who feels that a parent should be able to withold reasonable generally accepted medical care from a child sue to the parent's religious beliefs. If so why the &$(*#&$( do you think that is any different at all from allowing the parent to starve the child or use a knife to carve messages into the child's skin for similar beliefs.
• Are y'all aware of any similar laws in your locations ? Apparently these exemptions are common.

PS I have found a group dedicated to eliminating these kinds of laws. I have just contributed to their support and I would recommend everyone else do the same .

I suggest you rename this thread "idiocy kill again", it would be more accurate.

[Matt W]

Ahem.

No inaccurate thread titles

Don't do this again.

[do not respond]

[brisbane buddy]

Yes Isaone it is not only inflamatory, it is outright abuse and based on power of negative suggestion.

When I remove all the abuse from the OP I find there is nothing to answer.

Cheers.

[mirutsa]

What if we removed the religion from the scenario? Should parents be legally required to follow the advice of clinicians regarding their children? What if a parent simply didn't think the doctor knew what he was talking about?

[isaone]

Brisbane as usual I would love to respond to your point but I really do not know what to say since you have addressed none of the points I raised. I asked two specific questions so it might be useful is you answered them please.

[isaone]

mirutsa, The point is that religion has specifically put itself into the picture. Normal legal interpretations are in place for accidents, lack of knowledge and just plain mistakes. You are right such things do happen and our legal system does it's best to handle them in a 'fair' manner.

Religions have specifically had the law changed in many States including TN

The thing is parents are required to follow the instructions of medical professionals concerning their children in all other cases. A parent who chooses to take actions which endanger or harm a child can be legally forced to take said action or have the child removed from their custody. Only religion has had the law changed to protect their right to hurt their children.

Think of it, the activity that creates the damage to the children in this particular area has exempted itself from the laws which would cover a non believer who happened to take the same actions for non religious reasons.

It is also incredibly bizarre that the statute exempts only when the person doing it is .

...recognized church or religious denomination by a duly accredited practitioner

Recognized by whom ? accredited by whom ? So it is alright to allow your child to die from lack of treatment if you are a Jehovah's witness but not if you are Realian ?. It is no problem if you were advised to not treat your child by the minister of your church but not a deacon ? If a person was to allow their child to die because the channeled soul of Ramu told them to not trust their doctor would be prosecuted whereas the Jehovah's witness who did so is protected.

Please someone tell me why such a law can possibly be considered to be appropriate .

[mirutsa]

mirutsa, The point is that religion has specifically put itself into the picture. Normal legal interpretations are in place for accidents, lack of knowledge and just plain mistakes. You are right such things do happen and our legal system does it's best to handle them in a 'fair' manner.

Religions have specifically had the law changed in many States including TN

The thing is parents are required to follow the instructions of medical professionals concerning their children in all other cases. A parent who chooses to take actions which endanger or harm a child can be legally forced to take said action or have the child removed from their custody. Only religion has had the law changed to protect their right to hurt their children.

Think of it, the activity that creates the damage to the children in this particular area has exempted itself from the laws which would cover a non believer who happened to take the same actions for non religious reasons.

It is also incredibly bizarre that the statute exempts only when the person doing it is .

Recognized by whom ? accredited by whom ? So it is alright to allow your child to die from lack of treatment if you are a Jehovah's witness but not if you are Realian ?. It is no problem if you were advised to not treat your child by the minister of your church but not a deacon ? If a person was to allow their child to die because the channeled soul of Ramu told them to not trust their doctor would be prosecuted whereas the Jehovah's witness who did so is protected.

Please someone tell me why such a law can possibly be considered to be appropriate .

I get what you're saying. The scope and spirit of the law should be addressed as a whole, and primarily secular, body. It does seem like a silly exemption. Under this philosophy, hoodoo magic and ancient pagan talismans should also be exempted, but it doesn't seem that they are.

My initial recoil was based on my strong feeling that child protection has gone way too far in America. I would challenge the statement about the legal system doing its best to be fair, but that's off topic.

For the time being, I'll agree that it smacks of theocratic law.

[brisbane buddy]

Yes I recognize the infammatory nature of my title but it only hints at the boiling rage I feel toward people who kill their children through neglect because of their insane beliefs. Right here in my state there is a trial for one of these deaths taking place . Also disturbing is the fact that according to the article there appears to be some sort of exemption in the TN law to normal child neglect laws as long as the parents are in a "recognized" church headed by a "duly accredited practitioner." . I had no idea this was the case . I am trying to get the detail on the law and to avoid any rash acts (such as storming the state capitol) until I see the actual language of the law.



My questions are

• Is there anyone here who feels that a parent should be able to withold reasonable generally accepted medical care from a child sue to the parent's religious beliefs. If so why the &$(*#&$( do you think that is any different at all from allowing the parent to starve the child or use a knife to carve messages into the child's skin for similar beliefs.
• Are y'all aware of any similar laws in your locations ? Apparently these exemptions are common.

PS I have found a group dedicated to eliminating these kinds of laws. I have just contributed to their support and I would recommend everyone else do the same .

In this world there are all sorts of groups who would try to enforce their Will over others. The OP mentions two such groups each as bad as each other, but each with their own right. The first group the OP refers to in very abusive terms really condemning them with symbols which suggest obscene words of profanity. The second group the OP tries to convert followers to and encouraging people to follow as it offers candy and flowers.

Either forcing your will over another person is Wrong, or else it is Right. The OP suggests and implies that it is not okay for one group to enforce the Will over others then heralds another group for doing the same thing. The OP paints a picture of negative association against one group (The terrorist) and paints a picture of positive association for the other repressive group (The freedom fighter). In my books none are the Freedom Fighter. One group just wants the right to live in peace and abide by the laws of the day, and the other group wants to declare war on them and disturb the peace in society and humanity.

I feel confident in saying that the same laws would be applicable to Atheists as they are to theists, if an atheist wanted to take the same path as the Christian familiy in the OP has taken. I find the OP very misleading and provacative in the applied inference that these laws are only for people of religious sects.

In times of medical stress, families are already under enough pressure without unnecessary and heartless attacks from other groups trying to enforce their will over them like the group the OP recommends people join. Many families everyday have to make the decision of whether to continue medical treatment or not, it is a hard, heart breaking decision. How long can anybody stay on life support and when should the body be able to survive or die on its own. Extreme decisions which I hope nobody ever has to make, and if they do, I hope they can do it in peace without extremist groups intervening and labelling them murderers.

Cheers.

[brisbane buddy]

Brisbane as usual I would love to respond to your point but I really do not know what to say since you have addressed none of the points I raised. I asked two specific questions so it might be useful is you answered them please.

I addressed all of the points Isaone in my first post. A more detailed account given in my second posting.

Cheers.

[shawmutt]

Are y'all aware of any similar laws in your locations ? Apparently these exemptions are common.

Due to wacky beliefs parents do all sorts of wacky things with their kids. One example is the "religious" exemption for pediatric vaccines. Another is the case of Christine Maggiore, who gave her baby AIDS by refusing to take antiretroviral drugs and breastfeeding.

It should be classified as child abuse when the child is harmed by the parent's action or inaction. This is yet another unfortunate story for the What's the Harm website.

As an aside, what a fitting name for an unfit mother.

[mirutsa]

It should be classified as child abuse when the child is harmed by the parent's action or inaction.

Unless the above meant to imply "intentionally, knowingly harmed," I cannot possibly agree. All parents fail their children in some way; as parents we do our best and hope it turns out well. Many well-intentioned decisions simply turn out to be bad ones.

Most children's injuries and deaths would have been prevented by a parent, had the parent known what to do and when. If not knowing were illegal, there wouldn't be a single free parent.