NationStates Jolt Archive

Okie dokie!

I've done my bit on the 2nd Amendment, now I will tackle the 1st. As some of you may have seen, any argument into the 2nd will degenerate into partisan politicking, name calling, and assumptive allegations. Let's see what the 1st will yield. Yes ... I will get to the 3rd, 12th, 20th, etc in subsequent posts, however the Patriot Act has proven that nobody cares about any Amendments except the 2nd ... but I digress.

My specific is this: The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in that it specifies that Congress shall pass no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. Can we accept that this includes people who would not seek medical treatment for their children?

There are groups in the Unites States that believe our health and well being is up to the Lord Jesus and to seek medical attention for any illness or injury would be blasphemous in that it would deny God's provenance in our day to day lives.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.
I've had some experience with this, as I was raised a Jehovah's Witness, and they have a belief that disallows the use of blood, even in order to save a life. Now, this isn't the same as refusing medical care, as they're very much in favor of using any medical technology up to the use of blood, but that's where they take a stand--no blood.

As to the Constitutional Amendment, it's important to realize that no Amendment is absolute in the freedom it guarantees. When the First guarantees freedom of speech, it doesn't protect slander or the incitement of a riot. In the case of religion, it prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, and by extension, from inserting religious dictates into the federal government as law, but it doesn't stop Congress from legislating in the fuzzy outer areas surrounding religion.

There's a reason for this. If the separation between Congress and religion were absolute, then all any criminal enterprise would need to do is dress their activity up as part of a religious ceremony and claim immunity from prosecution. The courts have long recognized that as a bogus argument.

But the scenario you raise is a different one, because it involves behavior that is not criminal, and in fact can be an expression of one of the most deeply held religious beliefs a person can have. The courts, when they get involved in cases like this, have to weigh the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children against the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens, and to be quite frank, there's no easy answer. Do we want a one-size-fits-all policy put together by Congress that completely eviscerates a parent's ability to make medical decisions, which could eventually lead to a parent being charged with negligence if he/she forgets to give his/her kid the Robitussin on time? Do we want that level of personal intrusion? I don't.

The fact is that there is no easy way to make policy, other than on a case by case basis, which is the way it happens now. In many cases, judges will ask for testimony from the child where it's appropriate, especially if the child is closer to adulthood, and the judge can make a decision based on how life-threatening the situation is and how closely-held the beliefs are by the child. The reality is that while some parents are perhaps overzealous, some doctors also get touchy when parents question their treatment plans, and this makes for a lot of friction.

The fact is that there is no easy way to make policy, other than on a case by case basis, which is the way it happens now.

Yet, and this is somewhat the point of this thread, that is it easy to give immutable, across the board, right to firearm ownership, but that religious beliefs must be taken on a "case by case" basis?

How can the 1st be mutable, but the 2nd be carved in stone?

What about the 9th or 14th or 20th? Which is mutable and which carved in stone?

I submit that a religious belief denying your own child medical care is as important, if not more important, than your right to own an armor piercing shotgun.

As to the Constitutional Amendment, it's important to realize that no Amendment is absolute in the freedom it guarantees.

Oh, and I did see this ... I'm just playing devil's advocate. :D

Yet, and this is somewhat the point of this thread, that is it easy to give immutable, across the board, right to firearm ownership, but that religious beliefs must be taken on a "case by case" basis?

How can the 1st be mutable, but the 2nd be carved in stone?

What about the 9th or 14th or 20th? Which is mutable and which carved in stone?

I submit that a religious belief denying your own child medical care is as important, if not more important, than your right to own an armor piercing shotgun.
Well, you'll never catch me saying that there's an immutable, across the board, right to firearm ownership. :D

And so far, neither have the courts--they've given Congress the right to limit firearm ownership for decades now. The same is the case here--when does the right to practice one's religion come up against the responsibility of the government to protect the life and welfare of those least able to protect themselves? It's a touchy question, and not one that legislation is the best was to handle--that's why I think it's a case-by-case situation.

As to your question about which Amendments are mutable and which are carved in stone, I can only say this--any of the amendments with abstract language included in them are mutable and open to interpretation. It's hard to argue for more than one interpretation of the 13th Amendment, for instance, but it's even more difficult to argue for an immutable reading of the 9th.

I wouldnt under a federal law because congress doesnt have the right to make such laws, thus they are unconstitutional. The state, however, is free to make such laws. Under a state law, yes I would force them to get medical attention.

I wouldnt under a federal law because congress doesnt have the right to make such laws, thus they are unconstitutional. The state, however, is free to make such laws. Under a state law, yes I would force them to get medical attention.
Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute--under what reasoning would this be a state's rights issue? Seems to me that any legislation Congress could pass (poorly constructed as it might be) would be affected by the same Constitutional strictures that state legislation would be. If anything, I'd think the conflict here would come down to one between the powers reserved to the government (federal or state) and the powers reserved for the people.

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute--under what reasoning would this be a state's rights issue? Seems to me that any legislation Congress could pass (poorly constructed as it might be) would be affected by the same Constitutional strictures that state legislation would be. If anything, I'd think the conflict here would come down to one between the powers reserved to the government (federal or state) and the powers reserved for the people.

Because the first amendment, unlike all others, applies only to congress. It says "Congress shall make no law...". Religion was reserved for the states to legislate. They often had official state churches. The first amendment sought to ban a national religion, not the adoption of religion by states. It was meant to stop the creation of a "Church of the United States" (like the Church of England the settlers were escaping). But there was a church of Maryland for example.

Because the first amendment, unlike all others, applies only to congress. It says "Congress shall make no law...". Religion was reserved for the states to legislate. They often had official state churches. The first amendment sought to ban a national religion, not the adoption of religion by states.
So you're saying that (to pull an example out of my ass) Louisiana could declare the First Church of the Sacred Gumbo to be the state religion and neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court could stop it? Or more importantly, that a state could outlaw a free press or the ability to express oneself?

Even if that were the case, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment trumps that: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So you're saying that (to pull an example out of my ass) Louisiana could declare the First Church of the Sacred Gumbo to be the state religion and neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court could stop it? Or more importantly, that a state could outlaw a free press or the ability to express oneself?

When the constitution was originally written, yes. Today? no. That part of the constitution no longer means what it was originally meant to mean. Back when the constitution was written, the authors had a great deal of faith in the electorate and they were sure that the electorate would not elect people who would do such things and would respond to such surprise legislations with a massive withdrawal of support leading to the failure of that administration and the repeal of the offensive laws. Fe people trust the electorate anymore.

Even if that were the case, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment trumps that:

You are right, that would apply to the freedom of speech issue (it falls under "liberty"), it would also mean that they cannot force you to worship the God of the Church of Gumbo (once again, that would go against your liberty), but it does mean they could make a Church of Gumbo if they felt like it (though attendance wouldnt be compulsory).


Edit: On second thought, no it probably wouldnt apply to either issue because the 14th is about the state being unable to take away any of your constitutional rights. The constitution does not give you a right to be free from state religions or censorship to begin with.

My specific is this: The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in that it specifies that Congress shall pass no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. Can we accept that this includes people who would not seek medical treatment for their children?
Is religious sacrifice of infants allowed by the 1st amendment? I'm not very knowledgable about this, but doesn't people's right to live unmolested override this?

I think a more interesting question is whether or not the 1st amendment guarantees people's right to freedom from religion.

When the constitution was originally written, yes. Today? no. That part of the constitution no longer means what it was originally meant to mean. Back when the constitution was written, the authors had a great deal of faith in the electorate and they were sure that the electorate would not elect people who would do such things and would respond to such surprise legislations with a massive withdrawal of support leading to the failure of that administration and the repeal of the offensive laws. Fe people trust the electorate anymore.


You are right, that would apply to the freedom of speech issue (it falls under "liberty"), it would also mean that they cannot force you to worship the God of the Church of Gumbo (once again, that would go against your liberty), but it does mean they could make a Church of Gumbo if they felt like it (though attendance wouldnt be compulsory).


Edit: On second thought, no it probably wouldnt apply to either issue because the 14th is about the state being unable to take away any of your constitutional rights. The constitution does not give you a right to be free from state religions or censorship to begin with.
See, the way I read the 14th, it means that whatever rights are provided to citizens (or conversely, whatever restrictions are placed on Congress as regards those rights) are now protected from invasion by state legislatures as well, and I think the Court has read it that way as well.

See, the way I read the 14th, it means that whatever rights are provided to citizens (or conversely, whatever restrictions are placed on Congress as regards those rights) are now protected from invasion by state legislatures as well, and I think the Court has read it that way as well.

No, it does not mean that and the court has not read it that way. People have attempted to force private companies into following federal labor laws using that reasoning and failed. It only means that the rights granted to citizens of the US cannot be taken away by states. The constitution does not grant you any religious rights, it simply prevents Congress from passing laws regarding religion because they didnt want another Church of England situation. The founders had no problem with state churches like the Church of Maryland, but the Church of the United States of America? that, they would not stand for.

Okie dokie!

I've done my bit on the 2nd Amendment, now I will tackle the 1st. As some of you may have seen, any argument into the 2nd will degenerate into partisan politicking, name calling, and assumptive allegations. Let's see what the 1st will yield. Yes ... I will get to the 3rd, 12th, 20th, etc in subsequent posts, however the Patriot Act has proven that nobody cares about any Amendments except the 2nd ... but I digress.

My specific is this: The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in that it specifies that Congress shall pass no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. Can we accept that this includes people who would not seek medical treatment for their children?

There are groups in the Unites States that believe our health and well being is up to the Lord Jesus and to seek medical attention for any illness or injury would be blasphemous in that it would deny God's provenance in our day to day lives.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.

There are probably people in the world who believe that butchering a virgin and setting her corpse on fire will cure cancer. I'm not about to grant them leeway to practice their religion in that manner. Religious belief does not give a person the right to violate civil law, and I believe this should extend to child abuse or negligence. Parents should not be granted the right to harm their children and get away with it by saying, "The Sky Fairy told me to do it!"

Put it another way: religious beliefs should not be given higher status than secular beliefs. A secular parent is not permitted to abuse their child for secular reasons, so religious parents shouldn't be allowed to abuse their children for religious reasons. If we are prepared to allow ALL parents to deny life-saving medical care for their kids, regardless of whether their motivation is religious or secular, then religious excuses would be acceptable right along with secular ones. However, if we're not prepared to grant such rights to secular parents then we should not even remotely entertain the notion of granting them to religious parents. Our expectations for parental responsibility should not contain an exemption for superstitious yahoos.

No, it does not mean that and the court has not read it that way. People have attempted to force private companies into following federal labor laws using that reasoning and failed. It only means that the rights granted to citizens of the US cannot be taken away by states. The constitution does not grant you any religious rights, it simply prevents Congress from passing laws regarding religion because they didnt want another Church of England situation. The founders had no problem with state churches like the Church of Maryland, but the Church of the United States of America? that, they would not stand for.What are you talking about? Companies are forced to follow federal labor laws all the time--minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, discrimination laws, and that's just for starters. There are some few exceptions for family owned businesses, but for the most part, companies are bound by federal law on all sorts of levels. I get the feeling we're talking past each other here, that there's some vital level of understanding where we're not meeting.

As to religious rights, there was a case some years ago where a Native American group won a case where their right to use peyote in some ceremonies was upheld in contravention of state law--to me that counts as religious rights belonging to the individual rather than to the state.

I've had some experience with this, as I was raised a Jehovah's Witness ... it's important to realize that no Amendment is absolute in the freedom it guarantees. The fact is that there is no easy way to make policy, other than on a case by case basis, which is the way it happens now.
That sums it up rather nicely, IMHO. Excellent post! :)

What are you talking about? Companies are forced to follow federal labor laws all the time--minimum wage laws, workplace safety laws, discrimination laws, and that's just for starters. There are some few exceptions for family owned businesses, but for the most part, companies are bound by federal law on all sorts of levels. I get the feeling we're talking past each other here, that there's some vital level of understanding where we're not meeting.


Im reffering to the labor laws that apply to federal government and contractors but not to private companies not working for the government. Federal affirmative action laws for example.

The constitution does not grant you any religious rights, it simply prevents Congress from passing laws regarding religion because they didnt want another Church of England situation. The founders had no problem with state churches like the Church of Maryland, but the Church of the United States of America? that, they would not stand for.

Wait, you are saying that if a state wanted to pass laws starting religious prosecution that would be constitutoinal? So if a group like Christian Exodus (http://christianexodus.org/)succeeded, they could start burning pagans in the state they take over? This does not seem good to me.

As to the original question, I'll take a stab at it. As I understand it, the freedoms of the consitution are not set immutable. One example is the yelling fire in a crowded theater. Another example is that some arms (such as machine guns) are strongly regulated or just plain illegal. For the first ammenmant, there is a thin line I draw: You have the right to refuse medical attention for yourself for religious reasons. However, I don't think you should have the right to refuse for another person. With (most) adults this isn't an issue, but with children it can be, and I don't think that parrents should have that right. People are not allowed to harm their children for religious rituals (You can't force them to fast for a long time for instance), and I believe that withholding medical treatment is harmful.

Getting back to the original question, should parents be allowed to deny their children medical treatment based on religious beliefs, this has already been answered. The courts jailed a couple back about 15 or 20 years ago for that reason. Everyone is entitled to individual religious freedom, but when that freedom takes someone else's life, that's where your religious freedom ends. I believe it was George Carlin who, during a performance, carried on about religion, said "Hey, I just ran over the kid in the driveway, no problem--God's will!"

Getting back to the original question, should parents be allowed to deny their children medical treatment based on religious beliefs, this has already been answered. The courts jailed a couple back about 15 or 20 years ago for that reason. Everyone is entitled to individual religious freedom, but when that freedom takes someone else's life, that's where your religious freedom ends. I believe it was George Carlin who, during a performance, carried on about religion, said "Hey, I just ran over the kid in the driveway, no problem--God's will!" If God didn't want it to happen it wouldn't, in other words.
Bingo. There was a recent case about a couple who refused to let their daughter's meningitis be treated with anything other than prayer because they believed that's how Jesus would have wanted it. The child died a painful and needless death because her parents refused basic, life-saving medical care.

For some reason, some people suggested we should "respect their decision" because they claim a magical being told them to do it...would we do the same if they told us Odin commanded them to do so? What if they said beings from another dimension communcated with them telepathically and told them the child would be fine without treatment? What if they simply said that their secular, personal beliefs stated that medical treatment for meningitis is morally wrong? If we allow religious excuses but not secular ones, or certain religious excuses but not others, then how the hell does that work with the First Amendment?

Test--test--When I try to post, I get taken to some gambling site. This is a test.

Ok, this seems to be working today.
My feeling is: Religious freedom, like all freedom is limited. If your local coven wants to sacrifice dogs and cats, ok. If your local coven wants to sacrifice a baby, not ok. If Robertson and Falwell want to distort the Bible and rant and rave, ok. If they start advocating burning witches at the stake, not ok.

Now as far as parents choice. More difficult. 95% of the time a parent should have the say. I think I would feel that if the parent were causing pain, or if the child requested normal medicine against the parents wishes, then I would overrule the parents. But if the child wasn't in pain and believed as his/her parents, I would allow for their beliefs.

Bumped because I'm not satisfied that this discussion is so minimal, but when questioning the 2nd it goes on for pages and pages ...

Come on, folks ... this is important.

Great stuff, by the way, Nazz!

Perhaps what we should look at here is the rights guaranteed by the 1st amendent as long as they do not infringe upon other constitutional guarantees. e.g.--If parents refuse medical treatment on the basis of religious beliefs, that right is sacrosanct UNTIL it begins to infringe upon the baby's right to health/life/ et cetera,.

Perhaps what we should look at here is the rights guaranteed by the 1st amendent as long as they do not infringe upon other constitutional guarantees. e.g.--If parents refuse medical treatment on the basis of religious beliefs, that right is sacrosanct UNTIL it begins to infringe upon the baby's right to health/life/ et cetera,.

To be utterly technical, there is no right to life stated in the Constitution.

My specific is this: The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in that it specifies that Congress shall pass no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. Can we accept that this includes people who would not seek medical treatment for their children?

There are groups in the Unites States that believe our health and well being is up to the Lord Jesus and to seek medical attention for any illness or injury would be blasphemous in that it would deny God's provenance in our day to day lives.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.

Since we are not speaking specifically about Religions--but directly about Christian Sects(As there are other Religions that do not subscribe to the Judeo-Christian mythos who hold to not attending a physician) I must confess I do not know how to argue it legally.

I have debated it from the Religious position.
There is no Scriptural support (in context) that provides for shunning a physcian. A hungry man does not shun a fisherman, or a butcher.

A man being rained on does not shun a thatcher, or a brick builder.

I say that an ignorant does not shun the teacher.

So where is it that a sick man should shun a healer?

No doctrine supports the position in the Christian faith.

SO I suppose that if one is arguing that AS A CHRISTIAN they can not accept medical care--they do not have a leg to stand on---Now this would reach the point where you enter Cannon Law, or Gospel.
I myself do not recognize anything outside of Scripture as Christian-but thats me.
If the court recognizes the texts of say...Christian Science Canon---then NO,
you can not hold the parents responsible.

If the Court holds that all Christian Religions can have have protection under Bilical Law--then YES--they failed to provide sufficient care.


I am not explaining myself well---and by the nature of the original post--we are dealing specifically with Christianity---I am uncertain as to why that is --but if that is the pigeon hold then so be it.

I still say that since the concept can not be supported in the most fundamental of Christian sources for tenets of faith--under the parameters of this post, the parents are criminals.

Okie dokie!

I've done my bit on the 2nd Amendment, now I will tackle the 1st. As some of you may have seen, any argument into the 2nd will degenerate into partisan politicking, name calling, and assumptive allegations. Let's see what the 1st will yield. Yes ... I will get to the 3rd, 12th, 20th, etc in subsequent posts, however the Patriot Act has proven that nobody cares about any Amendments except the 2nd ... but I digress.

My specific is this: The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in that it specifies that Congress shall pass no law pertaining to the establishment of religion. Can we accept that this includes people who would not seek medical treatment for their children?

There are groups in the Unites States that believe our health and well being is up to the Lord Jesus and to seek medical attention for any illness or injury would be blasphemous in that it would deny God's provenance in our day to day lives.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.
I think that since the child isn't old enough to make his/her own decisions about religion and medicine that the government should step in and err on the side of caution and require medical treatment. The right of a child to medical care outweighs the rights of parents to force him or her to follow the family religion.

To be utterly technical, there is no right to life stated in the Constitution.
Nope... it is a preexisting Natural Right as defined in the Declaration of Independence.

As to why the 2nd gets more debate than the 1st... it's because Blogging will never compare to THIS (http://img.military.com/Shock/videos.do;jsessionid=348A54F9472FE0D4F33B91A4EE8D2909?displayContent=73557) ;) :D

we are dealing specifically with Christianity---I am uncertain as to why that is

Because we're discussing the United States, which is 75% Christian. The parents that have come to court over this have been Christian. No Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist would even conceive of not going to a doctor when sick.

Nope... it is a preexisting Natural Right as defined in the Declaration of Independence.

As to why the 2nd gets more debate than the 1st... it's because Blogging will never compare to THIS (http://img.military.com/Shock/videos.do;jsessionid=348A54F9472FE0D4F33B91A4EE8D2909?displayContent=78936) ;) :D

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's words have no sway in the American courts.

Bumped because I'm not satisfied that this discussion is so minimal, but when questioning the 2nd it goes on for pages and pages ...

Come on, folks ... this is important.

Great stuff, by the way, Nazz!
Thanks. Perhaps part of the issue here is that the groups you're talking about are small in number and probably not well-represented here on NS, so you're getting a one-sided discussion, and that can only go on so long before it gets boring.

Let me tell a story that sort of deals with this situation. When I was very young, I had a friend named Gina--I'm talking about when I was 7 and she was 5, very young. About a year later, after I had moved to Louisiana, Gina got kicked in the head by a horse and was airlifted to a hospital. Her parents were Jehovah's Witnesses as well, and so, as per their beliefs, they told the doctors that they wanted no blood transfusions. The doctors took her parents to court and sued for the right to give her blood, and won--Gina was given the blood and was made a ward of the court. She died anyway. Chances are that she was going to die regardless--the brain damage was too great.

Now, in this situation, would it have been so terrible for the doctors to just respect the wishes of the parents? It wasn't like they were denying her medical care--just excluding one particular type of treatment--and their daughter's prospects were grim at best.

The meningitis example cited above is completely different, because those parents refused any type of medical care whatsoever, and meningitis is very treatable. In that case, I have no qualms about taking the kid away--save the life. But in the case I described, it's a little sketchier I think. How intrusive do we want the courts to be? That's why I think this has to be done on a case by case basis.

When the constitution was originally written, yes. Today? no. That part of the constitution no longer means what it was originally meant to mean. Back when the constitution was written, the authors had a great deal of faith in the electorate and they were sure that the electorate would not elect people who would do such things and would respond to such surprise legislations with a massive withdrawal of support leading to the failure of that administration and the repeal of the offensive laws. Fe people trust the electorate anymore.


You are right, that would apply to the freedom of speech issue (it falls under "liberty"), it would also mean that they cannot force you to worship the God of the Church of Gumbo (once again, that would go against your liberty), but it does mean they could make a Church of Gumbo if they felt like it (though attendance wouldnt be compulsory).


Edit: On second thought, no it probably wouldnt apply to either issue because the 14th is about the state being unable to take away any of your constitutional rights. The constitution does not give you a right to be free from state religions or censorship to begin with.

Under the SCOTUS doctrine of Selective Incorporation, most of the Bill of Rights has been ruled applicable to the states. This includes the prohibition against establishment of religion. No state may have an official, legally sanctioned religion.

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's words have no sway in the American courts.
Not exactly true.

In 1878 Congress enacted a revised version of the United States Code that included a new first section entitled "The Organic Laws of the United States." The story behind the 1878 revision of the Code is told in the introduction to political scientist Richard Cox's valuable book Four Pillars of Constitutionalism: The Organic Laws of the United States. (Cox credits the idea for the book to Professor Harry Jaffa, Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute.)

The Code is Congress's official compilation of federal law; the organic laws of the United States are the country's foundational laws. First and foremost of the four organic laws of the United States is the Declaration of Independence. Following the Declaration among the organic laws are the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

So there. PTHBLTH! :p

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's words have no sway in the American courts.

The United States was founded upon the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence. It is this first document of a newly formed country, and as such sets out the standards the Constitution was designed to uphold. The earlier attempt at this, the Articles of Confederation, failed miserably.

Ok, this seems to be working today.
My feeling is: Religious freedom, like all freedom is limited. If your local coven wants to sacrifice dogs and cats, ok. If your local coven wants to sacrifice a baby, not ok. If Robertson and Falwell want to distort the Bible and rant and rave, ok. If they start advocating burning witches at the stake, not ok.

Now as far as parents choice. More difficult. 95% of the time a parent should have the say. I think I would feel that if the parent were causing pain, or if the child requested normal medicine against the parents wishes, then I would overrule the parents. But if the child wasn't in pain and believed as his/her parents, I would allow for their beliefs.
I think this is key to the question. The difference is whether the religious beliefs are the parents' or the child's.

If the child wishes to reject medical treatment, then the argument becomes whether a child is competent to make such a decision. I don't have an answer for that.

If the child wants medical treatment but the parents don't want it because of their religious beliefs, then doctors should be able to overrule the parents and provide treatment -- their patient is the child, not the parents. Any attempt by the parents to deny treatment to the child would be a violation of the child's civil and human rights. (And even if a child is deemed incompetent and unable to exercise civil rights in some way, it still has human rights.)

If for any reason, the child cannot express a wish to receive or reject treatment, then I think the doctors should err on the side of civil/human rights and give treatment to the child. If it turns out later that the child would not have wanted such treatment due to religious beliefs, maybe the family could sue to not have pay the bill, or something.

I think this is key to the question. The difference is whether the religious beliefs are the parents' or the child's.

If the child wishes to reject medical treatment, then the argument becomes whether a child is competent to make such a decision. I don't have an answer for that.<snip>.
I think there is enough case law to develop that... probably at the same age a court would normally find that a child has the capacity to take reasond decisions on their own behalf (which parent do you want to live with, and why?)

See, the way I read the 14th, it means that whatever rights are provided to citizens (or conversely, whatever restrictions are placed on Congress as regards those rights) are now protected from invasion by state legislatures as well, and I think the Court has read it that way as well.

That was exactly the intent of the amendment and the way it was interpreted by the courts as well. It was intended to guarantee all rights guaranteed in the Constitution to not be abridged by the federal government would also not be permitted to be abridged by more local governments. It gave the protection of these rights teeth.

No, it does not mean that and the court has not read it that way. People have attempted to force private companies into following federal labor laws using that reasoning and failed. It only means that the rights granted to citizens of the US cannot be taken away by states. The constitution does not grant you any religious rights, it simply prevents Congress from passing laws regarding religion because they didnt want another Church of England situation. The founders had no problem with state churches like the Church of Maryland, but the Church of the United States of America? that, they would not stand for.

Yes, but they Constitution was amended so the intent of the founders matters about as much as my tonsils do (they were removed).

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. It's words have no sway in the American courts.

But the tenth amendment does have sway. It says that just because a right is enumerated in the USC doesn't mean it's not a right. The right to life has been upheld by the courts several times.

But the tenth amendment does have sway. It says that just because a right is enumerated in the USC doesn't mean it's not a right. The right to life has been upheld by the courts several times.

9th

9th

Crap. Yes. I was debating in another thread about the fourteenth violating the tenth and just didn't think about it. Thank you.

Crap. Yes. I was debating in another thread about the fourteenth violating the tenth and just didn't think about it. Thank you.

No problem. I was just looking through the Constitution again, and got a laugh from the long journey of the 27th Amendment (which was originally supposed to be part of the Bill of Rights.)

No problem. I was just looking through the Constitution again, and got a laugh from the long journey of the 27th Amendment (which was originally supposed to be part of the Bill of Rights.)When Michigan finally relented.... :rolleyes:

When Michigan finally relented.... :rolleyes:

Well, Michigan was the last to ratify it...that means 1/3 of the states still lagged behind Michigan.

Well, Michigan was the last to ratify it...that means 1/3 of the states still lagged behind Michigan.
Unfortunately.

So, I ask you (the viewer): Would you hold a mother and/or father criminaly negligent if they refused to seek proper medical care for their child based on their religious beliefs? Keep in mind that this strikes at the very core of religious freedom - the right to believe differently than you.
It is illegal to endanger a child's welfare on the basis of the religion. They have every right to sit around claiming the Lord Jesus will heal them while dieing a slow death, but once they claim their children can't have medical attention because their religion says so, they have crossed the line. The law agrees.

People are liable if a person dependent on them dies due to their own religious beliefs. This is why legislating morality is bad.

Why does it matter what a bunch of dead white guys wrote down hundreds of years ago? It has no moral authority in America. Political arguements should be over the real value of such freedoms, and not the fact that they are guarunteed by a document.

It is illegal to endanger a child's welfare on the basis of the religion. They have every right to sit around claiming the Lord Jesus will heal them while dieing a slow death, but once they claim their children can't have medical attention because their religion says so, they have crossed the line. The law agrees.

People are liable if a person dependent on them dies due to their own religious beliefs. This is why legislating morality is bad.

Actually, there is quite a bit of debate there. It's not always black and white. Jehovah's witnesses required doctors not to give blood to their children, but they offered a number of alternatives some of which where found to be safer and are now in widespread use (I'm not that versed on them, admittedly). They believe that it protects their children from bloodborn illnesses and that the Bible supports this, like it supports washing your hands before you eat. Their belief has a scientific founding and aligns with their belief. They should have every right to deny blood transfusions particularly when they've provided viable alternatives.

More extreme cases should be handled differently. As another poster posited, it should be taken on a case by case basis. It is near impossible to make a blanket ruling on such things.

Your scenario reminds me of the Exorcism of Emily Rose, or rather, the true story of Annelise Michel. I know I murdered that poor girls name, please forgive me.

Her parents and the priest were charged criminally for negligent homicide I believe, because they refused to seek medical attention after they were convinced she was possessed.

If I were in any position to change this, I wouldn't. Jesus does not and will not save. Medicine perhaps will not save, but it has and the chances that it will are much greater. These are personal opinions. "Jesus does not and will not save" is a personal feeling, please don't try to rip the post apart based on that one quote. You'll get nowhere.

Bottom line, to answer the question: Yes. I would hold the parents responsible.

Why does it matter what a bunch of dead white guys wrote down hundreds of years ago? It has no moral authority in America. Political arguements should be over the real value of such freedoms, and not the fact that they are guarunteed by a document.

YEAH! We should rewrite all of our laws every generation. Why bother creating a maleable document that can be applied to protect us as a country throughout the life of the country? I mean, how much time could it possibly take to start over every generation? If we throw out the constitution and claim that there should be a 'moral authority' in America the populace becomes subject to tyranny by majority. The Constitution helps to protect us from that, thank goodness.

So where is it that a sick man should shun a healer?

No doctrine supports the position in the Christian faith.

SO I suppose that if one is arguing that AS A CHRISTIAN they can not accept medical care--they do not have a leg to stand on---Now this would reach the point where you enter Cannon Law, or Gospel.
I myself do not recognize anything outside of Scripture as Christian-but thats me

I still say that since the concept can not be supported in the most fundamental of Christian sources for tenets of faith--under the parameters of this post, the parents are criminals.
Gen 9:4 Lev 17:10 Deut 12:23

Some sects use these to say that they are not allowed to take anything that contains blood. That takes in a lot of medicine since many inoculations are made in animals or with animal blood, or eggs that are producing a chick to the point where there is blood.

I don't believe this but it is the explanation I've been given.

They believe that it protects their children from bloodborn illnesses
Technically medical reasons are not religious reasons. You are using the wrong example to defend your position. I don't want to have to call you on it again.

I think there is enough case law to develop that... probably at the same age a court would normally find that a child has the capacity to take reasond decisions on their own behalf (which parent do you want to live with, and why?)
It seems to be pretty debatable, case by case. In the US, we have no one "age of majority" that covers everything -- driving, drinking, voting, having sex, getting married, getting a job, signing contracts, inheriting money, joining the army, etc. They're all different ages and vary state to state. Also, with juvenile criminal cases, defense attorneys will argue incompetence because of age while prosecutors argue the exact opposite.

In such an environment, it's difficult to say when a child can be considered competent to decide to reject medical treatment for themselves. And if the child is judged not competent, do the parents have the right to decide to reject treatment on its behalf? That's the issue right there.

Personally, I think, once the kid is out of the womb and breathing on its own, then the parents don't have unlimited power over its existence anymore. They can act as healthcare proxies only to the extent that they could do so for their elderly parents. So here's a hypothetical:

Let's say the parents are Catholics (for example), but their kid marries a Jehovah's Witness and converts. Now the kid and kid-in-law stick to the rule against medical intervention. Then the elderly parents get seriously ill or injured, need medical care, but are unconscious and can't give instructions to their doctor. The JW kid has been their healthcare proxy since before the conversion. Does the JW kid have the right to reject medical care for the parents because of the kid's religious beliefs?

I say, obviously not, since it's not the parents' religion. By that same token, can a child be considered competent to join a religion, understand its beliefs, and make decisions according to those beliefs? If yes, then the argument is over. If not, then do the parents have the right to make such decisions for an individual (the child) who is presumed not to be a member of their religion? Can they claim such a right merely on their status as parents?

In my opinion, the answer would be no, but I can see how the opposite argument can be made.

Technically medical reasons are not religious reasons. You are using the wrong example to defend your position. I don't want to have to call you on it again.

Yes, they have medical reasons but they make the choices on religious grounds and made them long before there was medical support for their views. It's a sticky subject and they are a perfect example of why. Some parents believe that the Bible, or whatever their religious document is, offers insight into what is best for us and in some cases it has been shown to be correct, as in the examples I gave earlier. They held this belief long before there was anything other than anecdotal evidence to support those beliefs. That some have panned out is evidence to them that all will. They are entitled to such beliefs.

If we start down the path of medical decisions, what's next schooling decisions? Teaching children about Creation obscures their understanding of science and thus injures them and their ability to get jobs, etc.? And so on. It's a dangerous path to tread. You can't legislate religion as a whole.

I don't want to have to call you on it again.



There is evidence that some medical 'cures' actually weaken the immune system. Some doctors are far to eager to prescribe such 'cures'. I had a doctor tell me up front that he didn't really think I needed the medication but he was just being careful.

Parents can have the knowledge for all medical decisions to be based on all available science, hell, many of the doctors don't. As long as doctors are fallible, they are, and they are financially encouraged to push pills (have you ever seen pharmaceutical seminars?), there is strong reasons why we can't force parents to put the lives of their children into the hands of doctors in every case. Again, this is why it must be addressed case by case.

Yes, they have medical reasons but they make the choices on religious grounds and made them long before there was medical support for their views.
Make up your mind. Do they oppose it because of their religion, or because of medical reasons. There is no "sticky" situation. It is black or white, one or the other. If medical, it might be ok. If religious, no.

Make up your mind. Do they oppose it because of their religion, or because of medical reasons. There is no "sticky" situation. It is black or white, one or the other. If medical, it might be ok. If religious, no.

The constitution disagrees with you. It's not my mind to make up. They disagree for both reasons, but religious trumps. You don't have a right to across the board decide the medical treatment of children. Our medical system simply isn't that reliable. And it doesn't matter if one comes to a decision for medical reasons or religious reasons or financial reasons, if it's negligent they are going to get pwned. That's what the constitution protects and should protect.

The constitution disagrees with you. It's not my mind to make up. They disagree for both reasons, but religious trumps. You don't have a right to across the board decide the medical treatment of children. Our medical system simply isn't that reliable. And it doesn't matter if one comes to a decision for medical reasons or religious reasons or financial reasons, if it's negligent they are going to get pwned. That's what the constitution protects and should protect.
Religious opinions are trumped when a dependent's life is at stake.

Religious opinions are trumped when a dependent's life is at stake.

On a case by case basis, and it's very difficult to do, by design. And they aren't trumped any more than any other reasoning for the decision, so your point isn't supported by this. It doesn't matter if I endanger my child for what I or someone else says are medical reasons, or if I endanger them for political reasons, or philosophical, or religious, or financial or any other reason. If I endangered them when they could have been reasonably saved people are held liable and should be. However, that has nothing to do with religion or the first amendment.

On a case by case basis, and it's very difficult to do, by design. And they aren't trumped any more than any other reasoning for the decision, so your point isn't supported by this. It doesn't matter if I endanger my child for what I or someone else says are medical reasons, or if I endanger them for political reasons, or philosophical, or religious, or financial or any other reason. If I endangered them when they could have been reasonably saved people are held liable and should be. However, that has nothing to do with religion or the first amendment.
For me, the bolded part there really is the crux of the matter--can the child be reasonably saved, and by reasonably, I'm not talking about "they're going to die either way and this treatment will mean a matter of hours or days more of life." I'm talking about save the life for the foreseeable future here. But if it's a matter of making hours of life into days of life, then respect the religious beliefs of the parents.

Wait, you are saying that if a state wanted to pass laws starting religious prosecution that would be constitutoinal? So if a group like Christian Exodus (http://christianexodus.org/)succeeded, they could start burning pagans in the state they take over? This does not seem good to me.


No, it is doubtful they could start burning pagans because this would be cruel punishment which is outlawed by the 8th amendment. But as long as they followed due process (charged them with a crime and allowed them a trial by jury followed by an adequate appeals process), they could arrest and charge pagans with whatever anti-pagan laws they have passed.

Such laws actually did exist, and still do in some parts of the United States. They are now, of course, unenforceable due to the new meaning given to the first amendment by the supreme court, but they havent been taken out of the law books in some places. Massachussetts for example:

Section 36. Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, and may also be bound to good behavior.


Whether that is good or not is irrelevant. I am not arguing that the constitution shouldn't protect people against religious persecution or government censorship. I am only arguing that it doesnt do so and wasnt meant to. Yes, I agree that it should do so, but as originally written and as interpreted until 1925, it does not. If people wanted it to, they shouldve amended the first amendment to replace the word "congress" with something else like "no government entity", or simply rephrase the whole thing to make it sound like a right that people have and not a prohibition against the government enacting certain laws. That is what should have happened instead of legislating from the bench. I doubt that making such changes to the constitution wouldve raised much protest, it couldve easily gathered the needed support for ratification.

Under the SCOTUS doctrine of Selective Incorporation, most of the Bill of Rights has been ruled applicable to the states. This includes the prohibition against establishment of religion. No state may have an official, legally sanctioned religion.

Sure, but that's basically what I said. Under the constitution as it was originally envisioned, written, and applied by the founders, the first amendment applied only to congress, not the states. But as currently interpreted, thanks to Gitlow v New York (1925) it now applies to states as well. Notice this is only 80 years of precedent.

For me, the bolded part there really is the crux of the matter--can the child be reasonably saved, and by reasonably, I'm not talking about "they're going to die either way and this treatment will mean a matter of hours or days more of life." I'm talking about save the life for the foreseeable future here. But if it's a matter of making hours of life into days of life, then respect the religious beliefs of the parents.

See, but I don't even use the word beliefs. Respect the wishes of the parent regardless of motivation, in the case you're talking about.

See, but I don't even use the word beliefs. Respect the wishes of the parent regardless of motivation, in the case you're talking about.
Hey, you know, you're right. You don't have to respect the beliefs in order to respect the wishes, and the wishes would be the important thing here. But I need to emphasize that I would set the bar very high for the parents in a situation like this, and would tend to defer to the doctors in most cases.

As far as judge made law is concerned, or "legislating from the bench" as it is now in vouge to call it, the system has worked well enough since the latter part of the 11th Century. Why change it now?

And before anybody gets confused and hostile to that, U.S. law (including the Constitution) is based on the British Common Law. This was created at the order of William the Conqueror. Up until the American Revolution, the British Common Law is still good precedent in the United States (little known fact).

Hey, you know, you're right. You don't have to respect the beliefs in order to respect the wishes, and the wishes would be the important thing here. But I need to emphasize that I would set the bar very high for the parents in a situation like this, and would tend to defer to the doctors in most cases.

My point is that if it objectively endangers the child (I would apply the same litmus test you would) then it should be considered child endangerment if it can reasonably be avoided. I don't care if their wishes are inspired by religion, Montel Williams, tight shoes, finances, eating twinkies, etc. It's simple. It's not a first amendment issue and it's not related to religion. If religious beliefs are treated like all other beliefs then one doesn't have to worry about violating that clause of the first amendment.