Does faith healing infringe on fundamental liberties?

[brendand]

They were charged because the faith healing resulted in the child being harmed, not because they were attempting to faith heal the child - as I have said repeatedly, when a faith healing fails and the child actually comes to harm, then the parents and/or faith healer should be charged with the appropriate crime.

Right! And Russian Roulette is just a game unless the cylinder turns out to be full.

Medical neglect is a serious form of child abuse and is defined as a "failure to provide or to allow needed care as recommended by a competent health care professional for a physical injury, illness, medical condition, or impairment" (source: www.childwelfare.gov). Last time I checked, religious or faith "healers" do not fall under the category of a "competent health care professional". It is even a form of abuse to delay the treatment.

So yes. Faith "healing" is both a form of child abuse, and an infringement on a child's fundamental liberties.

[notthecheatr]

Of course. Some adult somewhere must always make decisions for children, whether or not it is the parent. In America, parents have such rights.

Yes, but to the extent of neglect and abuse?

Your use of the terms "neglect and abuse" presupposes that the thing in question (faith healing, in this case) is "neglect and abuse".

You haven't answered my question. This is not a presupposition, it's a fact. I don't care what someone might claim their intentions are, if children are dying, suffering, and committing suicide because of faith healing, it is neglect and abuse. A parent might honestly believe that beating their child will prepare them to be good, disciplined adults, but beating a child is still abuse.

I've never claimed to be morally superior

Haven't you? Seems like we've had multiple discussions where you claimed that atheists lack a valid basis for morality while theists possessed such a thing.

and that last bit is a personal attack.

I didn't mean it as one and if it was perceived that way then I apologize. I don't blame people who are insane for being insane, and so to me questioning someone's sanity (which is not an accusation, either) is not really a personal attack so much as an observation that something is not right. However, to be honest it was probably unfair to make such an assessment on the basis of your morality alone - as disgusting as I might personally find such morality to be.

[Apeman81]

The child was killed because the car crushed their skull not because the drunk who was driving fell asleep.

Based on your comment above you would absolve the drunk of any responsibility. Really?

Specious argument.

The act of driving while intoxicated is an existing crime. Should it be? Does the behavior of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated present a reasonable threat to the general welfare? Is has been so adjudicate.

Thus, in your scenario, the child was injured during the commission of a crime.

Back to the actual discussion.

Does the behavior of a parent deciding to eschew medical treatment for his child, preferring to trust in his faith in his god, present a reasonable threat to the general welfare?

No. The general welfare of the people is not directly affected, as it is by the presence of an unsafe driver. No passerby can be hurt by the presence of a faith healing advocate.

Lacking a general welfare argument, the question then becomes whether or not the state's interest to act "en loco parentis" supersedes the individual's right to 'the free exercise thereof" their religious beliefs. I rarely favor a "state interest" over an "individual right."

[Peter]

I rarely favor a "state interest" over an "individual right."

Specious my ass. Your argument that it was the sickness that killed the child not the parent by withholding treatment is ludicrous. You seem to believe the parent has the right to abuse or kill their children by withholding professional medical care. An adult has the right to abuse themselves but not their children.

Where would you draw the line between religious rights and states rights? If a religion wanted to perform child sacrifice would you allow it? After all, it's their religion and they really really believe it. We have to respect that right??

[Meleagar]

Yes, but to the extent of neglect and abuse?

There is no state or federal law that defines faith healing as "neglect" or "abuse", so your question is irrelevant.

You haven't answered my question. This is not a presupposition, it's a fact. I don't care what someone might claim their intentions are, if children are dying, suffering, and committing suicide because of faith healing, it is neglect and abuse.

The law states otherwise. Faith healing in and of itself is not a crime, nor defined as "neglect" or "abuse" anywhere in the USA that I can find.

A parent might honestly believe that beating their child will prepare them to be good, disciplined adults, but beating a child is still abuse.

Depends on how you define "beating".

Haven't you?

No.

It is even a form of abuse to delay the treatment.

Not in cases involving faith healing - not legally, anyway.

So yes. Faith "healing" is both a form of child abuse, and an infringement on a child's fundamental liberties.

The law contradicts you.

[Apeman81]

Peter;820570]Specious my ass

.

It was as demonstrated.

Your argument that it was the sickness that killed the child not the parent by withholding treatment is ludicrous.

Not at all. An act of omission is not the same as an act of omission. I cannot be charged should I happen upon you wounded and merely walk on by etc.

You seem to believe the parent has the right to abuse or kill their children by withholding professional medical care. An adult has the right to abuse themselves but not their children

.

Not quite. I believe that the people of this nation have denied their federal government the power to control their religious beliefs and exercises. The adults who ensured this lack of federal interference was firmly in place were well aware that with this freedom to the people come the responsibility of allowing a multitude of religious beliefs to be exercised.

Where would you draw the line between religious rights and states rights?

A sound question, but misstated. Individual rights versus states powers is the proper comparison.

All rights belong to the individual first. Individuals only cede their rights to the collective by granting the governance of the collective the power to control, read govern, their individual freedoms for the sake of the general welfare of the collective. We disallow driving while intoxicated because enough of the individuals that form the collective agree that such behavior presents enough of a potential danger to the general welfare.

The state, federal or local, has no rights. It has powers. It is granted powers by the people in order to establish a civil society promoting the peace and general welfare of the people.

If a religion wanted to perform child sacrifice would you allow it? After all, it's their religion and they really really believe it.

A conundrum, you believe? Unlike the act of omission. denying medical care in favor of faith, the act of commission, sacrificing the child, is covered by a point brought up earlier. No one shall be denied their right to life without due process of the law.

The act of selecting healing by faith is not an act which, by design, a) has as its intention the death of another human, or b) the singular outcome of the death of another human. The act of human sacrifice has both.

Thus the comparison fails. The individual right of religious practice conflicts with the right to life. Life wins.

We have to respect that right??

No.

[Peter]

Not at all. An act of omission is not the same as an act of omission. I cannot be charged should I happen upon you wounded and merely walk on by etc.

Specious argument. Unlike a parent/child relationship I am not a minor and you are not my parent or guardian.

Not quite. I believe that the people of this nation have denied their federal government the power to control their religious beliefs and exercises. The adults who ensured this lack of federal interference was firmly in place were well aware that with this freedom to the people come the responsibility of allowing a multitude of religious beliefs to be exercised.

Nonsense. Can you quote any law where the state cedes responsibility for the lives of children of religious lunatics?

A sound question, but misstated. Individual rights versus states powers is the proper comparison.

Don't be coy. We're talking about religious freedom here.

All rights belong to the individual first. Individuals only cede their rights to the collective by granting the governance of the collective the power to control, read govern, their individual freedoms for the sake of the general welfare of the collective. We disallow driving while intoxicated because enough of the individuals that form the collective agree that such behavior presents enough of a potential danger to the general welfare.

So because religious child abuse doesn't "present a potential danger to the general welfare," it's OK?

A conundrum, you believe?

No, just trying to parse your limits.

[notthecheatr]

There is no state or federal law that defines faith healing as "neglect" or "abuse", so your question is irrelevant.

So I suppose if cons weren't illegal then they would automatically be morally correct to perform and never should be made illegal? The entire reason for a discussion like this is that faith healing should be made illegal. We aren't asking whether it is, we're saying it should be. How can you use the fact that X isn't illegal in support of the claim that X shouldn't be illegal?

The law states otherwise. Faith healing in and of itself is not a crime, nor defined as "neglect" or "abuse" anywhere in the USA that I can find.

Scamming people is illegal. Religion should have no bearing on that.

Depends on how you define "beating".

No, it doesn't. Beating is beating.

No.

I note that your answer, which is merely a repetition of what you already said, does not address the point that I made.

Not in cases involving faith healing - not legally, anyway.

The law contradicts you.

Because it isn't like unjust laws shouldn't be repealed, or things that shouldn't be legal shouldn't be made illegal.

Besides, there have been cases where parents have been charged with neglect for this type of scenario, so you are clearly wrong.

[notthecheatr]

Not quite. I believe that the people of this nation have denied their federal government the power to control their religious beliefs and exercises. The adults who ensured this lack of federal interference was firmly in place were well aware that with this freedom to the people come the responsibility of allowing a multitude of religious beliefs to be exercised.

That free exercise does have limits. You aren't allowed to kill people, rape people, steal from people, etc. by claiming that it is within your religious rights to do so. You aren't allowed to use illegal drugs for religious reasons. There are numerous things people aren't allowed to do under the claim of "religious freedom." Why should child abuse be any different?

All rights belong to the individual first. Individuals only cede their rights to the collective by granting the governance of the collective the power to control, read govern, their individual freedoms for the sake of the general welfare of the collective. We disallow driving while intoxicated because enough of the individuals that form the collective agree that such behavior presents enough of a potential danger to the general welfare.

And no amount of pleading that driving intoxicated is part of one's religion, or that they don't "intend" to hurt anyone by doing so, will be accepted in a court of law as making their actions legally acceptable, let alone morally.

[Meleagar]

So I suppose if cons weren't illegal then they would automatically be morally correct to perform and never should be made illegal? The entire reason for a discussion like this is that faith healing should be made illegal. We aren't asking whether it is, we're saying it should be. How can you use the fact that X isn't illegal in support of the claim that X shouldn't be illegal?

I'm not. I'm using the fact that X is legal, and has never been defined by any significant source as as abuse or neglect, to rebut arguments that assume it is neglect and abuse in order to claim it should be illegal.

Scamming people is illegal. Religion should have no bearing on that.

Sincere faith healing has not been determined by any court to be an inherent scam.

No, it doesn't. Beating is beating.

Then we disagree. I - and many others, including most state laws - do not consider corporeal punishment to necessarily be abuse.

I note that your answer, which is merely a repetition of what you already said, does not address the point that I made.

Sure it address it; it answers it directly. I never stated or implied such a thing (that I am morally superior to others), and if you have inferred it, then your inference is in error.

Because it isn't like unjust laws shouldn't be repealed, or things that shouldn't be legal shouldn't be made illegal.

Then you have to make the case first that faith healing is inherently a scam, abuse, or neglect, and not just assume it for the sake of your desire to criminalize it. I sincerely doubt you can make that case.

Besides, there have been cases where parents have been charged with neglect for this type of scenario, so you are clearly wrong.

Charging parents with neglect has no bearing on faith healing, just as charging a doctor with malpractice has no bearing on medical practice in general.

[Apeman81]

notthecheatr;820625]That free exercise does have limits. You aren't allowed to kill people, rape people, steal from people, etc. by claiming that it is within your religious rights to do so. You aren't allowed to use illegal drugs for religious reasons. There are numerous things people aren't allowed to do under the claim of "religious freedom." Why should child abuse be any different?

Indeed it does. But I posit to you that refusing to access "traditional medicine" is not neglect. The parents recognize the illness, and seeks alternative means of a cure.

Just like parents who employ only holistic approaches, acupuncture, herbalism, meditation, etc. The same argument could be made against parents who seek out untested, experimental cures.

And no amount of pleading that driving intoxicated is part of one's religion, or that they don't "intend" to hurt anyone by doing so, will be accepted in a court of law as making their actions legally acceptable, let alone morally.

Quite right. You invoke earlier thoughts on the subject. I once held that in order to invoke "religious belief" one had to demonstrate that the belief was a generally accepted tenet of widely practiced religion.

As you can readily see, such conditions lend themselves to state abuse of power to control. Like "freedom of speech", freedom of religion should be given the widest interpretation possible.

As for me, I believe that faith healing is an incorrect application of religious belief, But I can only offer an informed opinion of Biblical religious teachings. Freedom of religion goes much farther than that.

[Muckraker]

Charging parents with neglect has no bearing on faith healing, just as charging a doctor with malpractice has no bearing on medical practice in general.

Other parents considering faith healing may look at this as an example of failure of faith healing and be forced to acknowledge the punishment they may receive if it fails for them as well. This may decrease the number of people relying on faith healing just like the banning of polygamy decreased the number of people practicing polygamy - even in hiding. So parents may not rely on faith healing because it has failed for others and they would be punished if it fails for them.

Doctors are not going to avoid accidentally performing the wrong operation or accidentally leaving sponges in a patient because another doctor did and was hit with malpractice or criminal charges. The analogy doesn't work here.


I'm also still interested to hear how legislating parenting in order to extend individual liberties to people under 18 is fascist yet the establishment of a clear age where an individual becomes individual enough to receive all adult liberties is not fascist or overstepping by the government.

How do Americans come to the conclusion that someone should have full rights at 18? How do other countries come to the conclusion that full rights come earlier or later?

If we have an actual metric for such determination then how can we not also have a metric for parenting? And if we don't have a metric then how can we ground something as fundamental as individual rights in such an arbitrary age?

I don't understand how Americans can happily go along with the notion that an individual receives most of his/her rights from his inexperienced, unmonitored, potentially unqualified, and potentially dangerous parents until the magic age of 18 when the individual then receives individual rights from the government and any further application of the parents' parenting rights can be immediately punished by law.

If you lock me in my bedroom a day before my 18th birthday then it's simply your application of the liberties you granted me by your parenting liberties. And yet if you tried the same thing the day after my 18th birthday I could have you arrested for kidnapping.


Is there a logical reason and metric by which we came to age 18?
YES - Then why aren't similar reasons and metrics used on potential parents, existing parents, and their methods of parenting?
NO - Then how can we assign fundamental human liberties based on an arbitrary and unsupported number?