NationStates Jolt Archive

This Findlaw article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20090204.html) discusses the case of Kara Neumann and others like her who suffer and die because their parents choose prayer instead of medical treatment (see more facts below). I think I disagree with the article's defense of religious faith, but it is an interesting discussion.

Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1232542606-hojHq6sEeVhlb7JG60Quig)
By DIRK JOHNSON
New York Times, January 21, 2009
WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”

Another article with facts regarding Kara Neumann's death (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4536593).

The laws the law, and they seem to have broken it (the parents are also negligent idiots, obviously).

the more it is publicly understood that you cannot kill your child with your religious beliefs, the fewer children will die because their parents dont believe in medicine.

i dont like charging grieving parents with homicide but these sects cant be allowed to operate without consequences. since we cant stop them from preaching healing by faith alone all we can do is go after those who endanger their children with the practice.

The laws the law, and they seem to have broken it (the parents are also negligent idiots, obviously).

What a subtle, and nuanced approach to a very complex subject. Stunning.

Negligence is negligence. Paint it any colour you want and it's still the same thing. These people were wilful in their negligence by not taking their ill daughter to the hospital. If this was any other type of case involving abuse, there'd be people screaming for blood.

Negligence is negligence. Paint it any colour you want and it's still the same thing. These people were wilful in their negligence by not taking their ill daughter to the hospital. If this was any other type of case involving abuse, there'd be people screaming for blood.

And if they were treating her homeopathicly? Or using herbal remedies?

What a subtle, and nuanced approach to a very complex subject. Stunning.

It's nuanced if we're discussing the morality of what they did, but if we're discussing whether they should be charged, then doesn't it really come down to this?

"Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.”"

Unless this person is lying, it seems that they clearly broke this law.

People have the right to structure their families and raise their children as they see fit. However, religious devotion is a highly personal and serious commitment.

Although I am adamant in supporting religious freedom, I do not believe that anyone should be granted the power to commit someone else to a religious lifestyle. So I would have to say that parents who believe in faith healing should not be able to deny medical care for their chidren who are too young to understand the religion and commit to it and its beliefs for themselves.

Many religious people commit their children to their religions before their children are old enough to have a say-so. But baptizing a child or walking a child through, say, Catholic confirmation, etc, does not actually bind the child to the religion. The child is still free to find their own commitment or abandon the religion as he/she grows up. But involving children in religious practice to the point of denying them medical care can, as we see, cause irreparable harm before the child has any ability to understand what is being done, let alone protect themselves if they would not agree with it.

I believe that the right of parents to raise their children in their religion should be restricted in certain specific ways until the child is, say, 16 years old. If you're old enough to have sex, you should be old enough to make religious decisions, too.

And if they were treating her homeopathicly? Or using herbal remedies?

Would it have involved getting an opinion from someone who practices that kind of alternative medicine? The fact that there was no diagnosis suggests a problem to me.

And if they were treating her homeopathicly? Or using herbal remedies?
then they would go to jail.

and if they got the remedies from a professional who was directing their daughters treatment he would go to jail too.

then they would go to jail.

and if they got the remedies from a professional who was directing their daughters treatment he would go to jail too.And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?

then they would go to jail.

and if they got the remedies from a professional who was directing their daughters treatment he would go to jail too.

Or witchcraft, or crystals or just about anything else really.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?

Much of western medicine incorporates these styles of medicine.

And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?

Not if they work. But if they don't, perhaps a re-examination is in order.

And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?

If they got an opinion from a professional in the case of something like Chinese or homoeopathic medicine then I'd consider it differently than if they did nothing all, which appears to be the case. I do agree that it is unfair to totally restrict it, but the parents do have to ensure the child is well until the child has a legal capacity in which to make the judgement call.

Not if they work. But if they don't, perhaps a re-examination is in order.

Indeed. I mean, really the "Western Medicine/Alternative Medicine" distinction is not nearly as meaningful as the "Medicine that can be shown to work/medicine that cannot be shown to work" distinction.

And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?
heres the difference.

if i had a diabetic daughter and i decided to treat her with traditional chinese medicine and my daughter wasnt getting better, i would change treatment.

if you are using traditional cree treatments and it doesnt work, you dont go to hell if you decide to take her to a western doctor.

its not the trying prayer that killed their daughter, it was sticking to a "treatment" that obviously didnt work.

why do people reject medical science? i mean are they just mind a whole new breed of stupid?

why do people reject medical science? i mean are they just mind a whole new breed of stupid?
because they believe that god will heal them.

against all evidence to the contrary.

because they believe that god will heal them.

against all evidence to the contrary.

To be fair, you can't exactly prove that God can't or won't.

To be fair, you can't exactly prove that God can't or won't.

But there is evidence that his track record so far is pretty lousy.

To be fair, you can't exactly prove that God can't or won't.
you sure can show that he has failed uncounted numbers of the faithful in this regard.

whether or not that means he will also fail you cant be known until he does. but then you might get a spontaneous cure without prayer too.

But there is evidence that his track record so far is pretty lousy.

Well, occasionally prayer does seem to work (which, can be normally explained by placebo and other psychological effects).

What if the child expresses a similar religious conviction and refuses treatment? Should the parents be charged for not forcing that child to undergo treatment against his or her will?

What if the child expresses a similar religious conviction and refuses treatment? Should the parents be charged for not forcing that child to undergo treatment against his or her will?

I don't think there is an answer to this question. It's up to societies decided legal structure.

heres the difference.

if i had a diabetic daughter and i decided to treat her with traditional chinese medicine and my daughter wasnt getting better, i would change treatment.

if you are using traditional cree treatments and it doesnt work, you dont go to hell if you decide to take her to a western doctor.

its not the trying prayer that killed their daughter, it was sticking to a "treatment" that obviously didnt work.

Indeed.

To me, it would seem like if your child is seriously ill, you should be required at the very least to take them to someone with a medical degree. You can shop around as much as you like to find the "right" someone with a medical degree - so, for example, if you want someone who isn't opposed to trying eastern medicine, you could find such a doctor - or you can just pick the first name out of the phone book. You can also take your child to people without medical degrees if you like. What you cannot do is just sit at home and watch your child suffer and die.

What if the child expresses a similar religious conviction and refuses treatment? Should the parents be charged for not forcing that child to undergo treatment against his or her will?
the child should be forced unless he can convince the judge that he should be declared an emancipated minor--to show that he is the equivalent of an adult who understands the ramifications of his choice.

or whatever else is a viable way of showing that the minor involved should be treated like an adult.

Well, occasionally prayer does seem to work (which, can be normally explained by placebo and other psychological effects).

True enough, but it's usually done from a hospital bed. ;)

I would like more latitude to make medical decisions for my children than you people seem willing to give me. For example I did use the law to get around giving my children vaccines required by law, not all of them mind you, just the ones that would actually make them very sick. The law says unless you have a religious or philosophical reason not to, then those shots are to be given, so I said I had a philosophical reason to opt out of vaccines, so that my kids wouldn't be punished for their disease. I still get them all the other shots, even though I don't have to, and I wrote down my philosophical reason was "I philosophically disagree with making my kids sick".

I don't know where the line is, seriously, but the line can't be "it's not up to the parents at all, it's up to the legislators" because legislators don't know my kids issues or what would/wouldn't be harmful to them.

just the ones that would actually make them very sick.

Do you have a doctors note or any other kind of proof? I'm finding it hard to believe that they wouldn't allow exemption from these shots for medical reasons.

edit: I'm not saying you need to show any of the proof to me.

I would like more latitude to make medical decisions for my children than you people seem willing to give me. For example I did use the law to get around giving my children vaccines required by law, not all of them mind you, just the ones that would actually make them very sick. The law says unless you have a religious or philosophical reason not to, then those shots are to be given, so I said I had a philosophical reason to opt out of vaccines, so that my kids wouldn't be punished for their disease. I still get them all the other shots, even though I don't have to, and I wrote down my philosophical reason was "I philosophically disagree with making my kids sick".

I don't know where the line is, seriously, but the line can't be "it's not up to the parents at all, it's up to the legislators" because legislators don't know my kids issues or what would/wouldn't be harmful to them.
you followed the law. i might not agree with your judgement but i have no problem with allowing you to do it.

your kids arent dead after all.

Do you have a doctors note or any other kind of proof? I'm finding it hard to believe that they wouldn't allow exemption from these shots for medical reasons.

edit: I'm not saying you need to show any of the proof to me.

My doctor wasn't going to give them the shots, but if they ever wanted to enter a public school, daycare, camp, girl scouts, college, etc. they had to have an exemption, the disease they have is not listed under the approved medical exemptions in my state, not because it's not worthy, but because the legislators who made the list don't know anything about internal medicine.

The only legal way to get around the shots was to make up a philosophical or religious problem.

My doctor wasn't going to give them the shots, but if they ever wanted to enter a public school, daycare, camp, girl scouts, college, etc. they had to have an exemption, the disease they have is not listed under the approved medical exemptions in my state, not because it's not worthy, but because the legislators who made the list don't know anything about internal medicine.

The only legal way to get around the shots was to make up a philosophical or religious problem.

Can I ask what the disease is? If you don't mind sharing.

How many people die of needless medical treatment? Should we be throwing them in prison for murdering their kids? What is medicines don't work because people use too much antibacterial soap?

Lets face it. Medicine has enough problems that we shouldn't be throwing people in prison for not using it.

I think the line should be set to allow parents a wide latitude for their faith or their choice in alternate medication and/or traditional medication up to a certain line. That line, IMO, should be grievous harm or suffering and/or death of the child.

On one hand, yeah, children should not be made to suffer and die for the beliefs of their parents, but on the other hand, as a father, damned if I would let any legislature dictate how I raise my son or what I need to put into his body. It's a fine line and it's going to be hard to walk it, but I think demanding that everyone take their child to see the doctor for everything, even if it is against their beliefs or other issues, sets a very, very dangerous precedence.

How many people die of needless medical treatment? Should we be throwing them in prison for murdering their kids? What is medicines don't work because people use too much antibacterial soap?

Lets face it. Medicine has enough problems that we shouldn't be throwing people in prison for not using it.
diabetes responds well to treatment.

I think the line should be set to allow parents a wide latitude for their faith or their choice in alternate medication and/or traditional medication up to a certain line. That line, IMO, should be grievous harm or suffering and/or death of the child.

On one hand, yeah, children should not be made to suffer and die for the beliefs of their parents, but on the other hand, as a father, damned if I would let any legislature dictate how I raise my son or what I need to put into his body. It's a fine line and it's going to be hard to walk it, but I think demanding that everyone take their child to see the doctor for everything, even if it is against their beliefs or other issues, sets a very, very dangerous precedence.

This.

It's one thing if we have a parent that refuses a specific medical treatment due to religious reasons, or perhaps a certain group of medical treatments for religious reasons. However, they should be willing and even eager to explore alternatives to that single course of action.

"Praying for help" does not constitute an alternative. However, I have no objection if its used in addition to other treatment.

I think the line should be set to allow parents a wide latitude for their faith or their choice in alternate medication and/or traditional medication up to a certain line. That line, IMO, should be grievous harm or suffering and/or death of the child.

On one hand, yeah, children should not be made to suffer and die for the beliefs of their parents, but on the other hand, as a father, damned if I would let any legislature dictate how I raise my son or what I need to put into his body. It's a fine line and it's going to be hard to walk it, but I think demanding that everyone take their child to see the doctor for everything, even if it is against their beliefs or other issues, sets a very, very dangerous precedence.

I could live with "if your child will die" you have to seek and follow medical guidelines. Like I said I don't know where the line is. Someone I know wasn't following the doctors orders for her kids and they were suffering so CPS took them away, I think that's good because her kids were going to die if she continued neglecting them, like within weeks they would die. I don't have a problem with that, but this idea that every medical decision is up to the state, I don't like it.

I could live with "if your child will die" you have to seek and follow medical guidelines. Like I said I don't know where the line is. Someone I know wasn't following the doctors orders for her kids and they were suffering so CPS took them away, I think that's good because her kids were going to die if she continued neglecting them, like within weeks they would die. I don't have a problem with that, but this idea that every medical decision is up to the state, I don't like it.
i think that death or permanent disability is the line.

I could live with "if your child will die" you have to seek and follow medical guidelines. Like I said I don't know where the line is. Someone I know wasn't following the doctors orders for her kids and they were suffering so CPS took them away, I think that's good because her kids were going to die if she continued neglecting them, like within weeks they would die. I don't have a problem with that, but this idea that every medical decision is up to the state, I don't like it.

I would say it should be a touch harsher - not only "if your child would die" but "if your child is in serious pain" - because, honestly, I can't see any way in which forcing your child to be in serious pain isn't abuse.

I could live with "if your child will die" you have to seek and follow medical guidelines. Like I said I don't know where the line is. Someone I know wasn't following the doctors orders for her kids and they were suffering so CPS took them away, I think that's good because her kids were going to die if she continued neglecting them, like within weeks they would die. I don't have a problem with that, but this idea that every medical decision is up to the state, I don't like it.
Which is why I said the line is "grievous harm or suffering and/or death of the child". Deciding to not take your child to a doctor because he or she has a cold and you think that willow bark tea would be better for him or her is fine. That's not a problem. Not taking your child to the doctor because they have a sore throat and you think it should be prayed away, that is the right of parents.

Not taking your child to see the doctor because you read that traditional Chinese herbs can cure child diabetes and your child is lapsing into shock is NOT good and crosses the line.

My doctor wasn't going to give them the shots, but if they ever wanted to enter a public school, daycare, camp, girl scouts, college, etc. they had to have an exemption, the disease they have is not listed under the approved medical exemptions in my state, not because it's not worthy, but because the legislators who made the list don't know anything about internal medicine.

The only legal way to get around the shots was to make up a philosophical or religious problem.

Okay, Smunk, your case had a merit, and a practical one at that. But I assume you agree with me that, if a child is in mortal danger and the parent won't seek a doctor because "God will provide", then he should either find a way to raise the kid back from the dead or get jailed for negligent homicide, right?

Edit: And yes, I WOULD ask the parent to try and raise the kid from the dead with his prayer. Sadistic, yes, but negligent, stupid, slow and painful infanticide will have that effect on me.

It sounds like this is a 'reasonable person' test, what measures would the average man on the street likely take where their child was ill, that is the measure of negligence.

What would the reasonable person do in this case, take them to the doctor and, in not doing so, it's negligence.

Okay, Smunk, your case had a merit, and a practical one at that. But I assume you agree with me that, if a child is in mortal danger and the parent won't seek a doctor because "God will provide", then he should either find a way to raise the kid back from the dead or get jailed for negligent homicide, right?
there are other times when parents let their beliefs lead them to endangering their children.

the was a case of a vegan non breastfeeding couple who were trying to keep their baby on a vegan diet with disastrous results, for example

How many people die of needless medical treatment? Should we be throwing them in prison for murdering their kids? What is medicines don't work because people use too much antibacterial soap?

Lets face it. Medicine has enough problems that we shouldn't be throwing people in prison for not using it.

So, the moron let his kid die and you suggest he walks?

Not without raising the kid back from the dead, he won't!

there are other times when parents let their beliefs lead them to endangering their children.

the was a case of a vegan non breastfeeding couple who were trying to keep their baby on a vegan diet with disastrous results, for example

And do include those in what I said. Ask the parents - in the vegan case - if okra and carrots would resurrect their kid.

i think that death or permanent disability is the line.

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?
Whether we like it or not, we live in a world where we do not and cannot live in a vacuum anymore. Sometimes people are going to be called to account to strangers for things that are very personal and, perhaps, really none of the strangers' business. It cannot be avoided anymore, nor in my opinion should it.

Your child is severely sick, probably dying, and wants to stop going through horrific and painful treatments that are not having any effect. It is up to your child and you to make that decision, but you are not going to make it in 100% privacy, and you will very likely have to go through the humiliating process of convincing state officials that, in this case, this really is the best decision as well as one chosen by the child him/herself.

Your child perhaps shows up at school with bruises and often suffers broken bones. If she is a girl, perhaps, she is not developing physically, not getting her period, at the same time as her classmates. It may very well be up to you to have to go through humiliating process of convincing state officials that you are not abusing your child, but rather he/she is in training for Olympic level gymnastics, and this is the child's dearest wish, and you couldn't stop him/her if you tried. You may have to document for state review all the credentials of coaches and trainers and all the medical care your child is getting as an athlete. And you may have to do that again and again and again.

This is the world we live in. If we lived in a word where people did not beat their children to death, rape them, starve them, murder them for insurance money, etc., maybe you wouldn't have to put up with this. But we don't, so we do have to put up with it.

We can advocate for more flexibility from the state, but we cannot get the state completely out of our business. And when I think of the consequences of not being busy-bodies to some degree, I don't think we should resent the intrusions that much.

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?

Ooh, that does get tricky. I'd say that's where you go to court and ask for the kid to be judged mentally competent to make such a decision.

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?

This very case is up in courts already, I'll go look for it,

LONDON — A 13-year-old British girl who has undergone nearly a dozen surgeries in her young life has refused a heart transplant operation — a decision that may ultimately lead to her death.

Hannah Jones, who was diagnosed with leukemia and later a heart condition, told her parents and medical authorities that she would rather spend her remaining time at home than in the hospital. Health authorities have ceded to the decision after interviewing the girl.

“I’ve been in hospital too much — I’ve had too much trauma,” Hannah Jones told Sky News on Tuesday. “I don’t want this, and it’s my choice not to have it.”

Link (http://www.nursinglink.com/news/articles/6256-british-girl-wins-right-to-die)

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?
then you take it to a judge.

Freedom of religion should not preclude the right to individual happiness. Or the right to live if one so desires. Christian Science by definition denies that right to ailing children.

Some people's religions tell them that "bad" or "unmanageable" children are possessed by demons that can be exorcised out of them. Sometimes these "demons" are exorcised by beating children, sometimes to death. That's homicide. Withholding life-saving medical treatment from a child is, at the very least, gross negligence.

And yes, there is a difference in action versus inaction... but if medical treatment can be denied, what other basic rights can be denied because of religion? What about a child of parents who are "breatharians" and believe that human beings don't need food?

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

Negligence is negligence. Paint it any colour you want and it's still the same thing. These people were wilful in their negligence by not taking their ill daughter to the hospital. If this was any other type of case involving abuse, there'd be people screaming for blood.

BLOOD! I DEMAND THE PARENTS' BLOOD!

...oh, terribly sorry about that outburst, good chaps. Seriously, however, they're guilty of negligent homicide any way you cut it. And keep in mind that the only thing arguing that it's acceptable will do is get them AND jehovah convicted (hey, it's not like they've never done a posthumous trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_synod) before...).

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

Well, that depends. Do they actively seek medical alternatives making the best effort they can to preserve life, or do they sit at home and pray?

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

As long as they're not denying someone else the right to a transfusion I'm not bothered by it.

Part of the problem here is that I believe we still regard children as chattel. I am guilty of this myself at times. There is a possessory instinct that goes a little beyond simply loving and caring and wanting to protect those who are dear to us, and cannot necessarily fend for themselves. We aren't really socialised to treat children as people...not even people who are simply at different developmental levels than adults.

So quite often we discuss these issues in terms of the right of the parents versus the right of the state to make decisions for the child...some of that is rooted in the recognition that children are at a different developmental stage than adults, but part of it is also about who 'owns' the child. Taking the childen's actual needs and desires into account is a relatively new legal practice, and one that is still not very fleshed out.

Not really sure what that would look like, mind you...taking this from the child's perspective.

As long as they're not denying someone else the right to a transfusion I'm not bothered by it.

Quite often parents will not allow their children to have blood transfusions, even life saving ones. While it has been ruled permissible under the freedom of religion clause here in Canada, it has also been deemed child endangerment, and in many cases, children will become temporary 'wards of the state', get the treatment, and then be turned back over to their family.

It may be understandable to make this decision for very young children...but what about minors (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/jehovah_transfusion_080521?s_name=&no_ads=) who want to make that decision for themselves?

I could live with "if your child will die" you have to seek and follow medical guidelines. Like I said I don't know where the line is. Someone I know wasn't following the doctors orders for her kids and they were suffering so CPS took them away, I think that's good because her kids were going to die if she continued neglecting them, like within weeks they would die. I don't have a problem with that, but this idea that every medical decision is up to the state, I don't like it.

I am curious as to why you would allow your children to die from very preventable diseases? The inoculations of today are for a reason. It's not like they want to give your children malaria drugs for just in case.

The way of the global world today, your children have a chance of being introduced to more diseases then before. Unless of course your community is pretty well isolated....

It's interesting with this anti-shot movement where we are returning to having children die from things they died from a 100 years ago.

--------------------

Sorry I missed the part of the disease they already have.......

I didn't read all the posts, but I'm throwing my 2 cents in:

did they ask God whether He wanted her treated via medical intervention???

Cuz, based on the evidence -- He wasn't doing anything.

Faith that demands and requires God to operate the way we think He should isn't faith at all. In my mind, this kind of "faith" is self-serving and panders to their own intellect, not God's. It doesn't honor fullness of God's character (God created both the people and the intellect for medicine to develop, didn't He??? If He created it, it is a blessing if used properly); it doesn't take into consideration the entire testimony of Scripture (we are to endeavor to preserve life, to any reasonable cost - and sometimes unreasonable); and we are to be good stewards of the gifts God gives us - including children.

I am reminded of the parable of the good samaritan, who saw a man lying injured on the side of the road... Jesus said the two who passed by did the wrong thing. How much more so, then, parents who watch their children die because they're waiting for God to do something.

It seems to me He was waiting for them to do something more than just wait.

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

Adults? Sure. They can make a conscious choice.

Children? No not allowed. Especially if it will save their life.

Children? No not allowed. Especially if it will save their life.

It's very rarely cut and dried like that. It's generally more of a "This child has a 20% chance of death without a blood transfusion, but only a 10% chance with", or some such - being a doctor's opinion.

Different doctors also have differing opinions on the matter. For example, in Orlando, we actually have a hospital that is completely bloodless - does liver transplants (very bloody) and everything else without ever resorting to blood transfusions, and has a slightly-better-than-average survival rate, and a much lower complication rate.

It's easy to say "Well, they must have better doctors", and perhaps they do, but it decries the statement that blood is an absolute requirement for good health.

Quite often parents will not allow their children to have blood transfusions, even life saving ones. While it has been ruled permissible under the freedom of religion clause here in Canada, it has also been deemed child endangerment, and in many cases, children will become temporary 'wards of the state', get the treatment, and then be turned back over to their family.

It may be understandable to make this decision for very young children...but what about minors (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/jehovah_transfusion_080521?s_name=&no_ads=) who want to make that decision for themselves?

The law recognizes that there are differences between children in different stages of development, despite the fact that they are all "minors". In the U.S., children over 16 can operate a vehicle alone; children over 15 can engage in sexual acts with like-aged peers; there are other examples, but those two come immediately to mind. I don't think it's beyond reason to evaluate these things, which are really quite rare, on a case-by-case basis.

In situations where it is not the child's insistence on refusing medical care, however, I think the rights of the child to be adequately fed, sheltered, protected from harm and given an education need to be protected. There are always borderline cases; a child that dies of an easily treated UTI is not one of them.

there are other times when parents let their beliefs lead them to endangering their children.

the was a case of a vegan non breastfeeding couple who were trying to keep their baby on a vegan diet with disastrous results, for example

well, respectfully - that's all manner of dumb.

if the mom's diet was good, she should was able to breastfeed, she should have. A baby nearly triples in size in its first 18 months. That takes protein, and breastmilk is the best kind of protein for babies.

So, I gotta wonder -- what kind of protein did she think was better that breastmilk, more convenient, and less expensive???

Oh Lordy. I thought I recognized Unleavened Bread Ministries. They are one of the America's is in it's last days groups.

"Pastor Bob" if full of it. No where did Jesus say "don't go to a doctor"

http://www.americaslastdays.com/

"Pastor Bob" if full of it. No where did Jesus say "don't go to a doctor"

Luke was a physician.

I am curious as to why you would allow your children to die from very preventable diseases? The inoculations of today are for a reason. It's not like they want to give your children malaria drugs for just in case.

The way of the global world today, your children have a chance of being introduced to more diseases then before. Unless of course your community is pretty well isolated....

Her children have a medical condition which actually makes them susceptible to more problems if they get the vaccination, as opposed to the extremely low risk they run of catching whatever they're being inoculated against. And they're not dead or unhealthy, so she's not "letting them die". Would you give live vaccines to children that are HIV+?

I am curious as to why you would allow your children to die from very preventable diseases? The inoculations of today are for a reason. It's not like they want to give your children malaria drugs for just in case.

The way of the global world today, your children have a chance of being introduced to more diseases then before. Unless of course your community is pretty well isolated....

It's interesting with this anti-shot movement where we are returning to having children die from things they died from a 100 years ago.

--------------------

Sorry I missed the part of the disease they already have.......

It's okay, I'm really icked out by people who don't vaccinate their children. My kids are only missing two shots, one of which they will get this year anyway because I found a company that has a slightly different formulation that doesn't have the part that would make them ill. The other they are missing because it's a live vaccine and because of their own immune problems it could cause serious complications.

Sounds like a deal to me.......but what about if your kid has been through 3 liver transplants and 3 times of chemo and they don't want to do it anymore? Then what?

the question at that point isn't "should be intervene medically"; it becomes, "should we intervene again???" Very different parameters.

If an agressive medical treatment doesn't result in a success remission or eradication of an illness, then it's time to weigh the pros and cons of continuing. Hard choice - but trying the same thing over and over, especially chemo, doesn't exactly guarantee health. If the goal is "health," and health isn't being achieved, then the measure of the problem changes.

I am curious as to why you would allow your children to die from very preventable diseases? The inoculations of today are for a reason. It's not like they want to give your children malaria drugs for just in case.

The way of the global world today, your children have a chance of being introduced to more diseases then before. Unless of course your community is pretty well isolated....

It's interesting with this anti-shot movement where we are returning to having children die from things they died from a 100 years ago.

--------------------

Sorry I missed the part of the disease they already have.......

Smunk already answered your question. Because of the disease she and her children share, the vaccines as they are made would make her kids sick. Whether or not you agree with it, given the choice between risking your kids getting sick later and ensuring that they'd get sick now, you can presumably see the logic behind going with the former.

It's okay, I'm really icked out by people who don't vaccinate their children. My kids are only missing two shots, one of which they will get this year anyway because I found a company that has a slightly different formulation that doesn't have the part that would make them ill. The other they are missing because it's a live vaccine and because of their own immune problems it could cause serious complications.

where did you find this info??? We keep kosher, and I can't find a smidge of info regarding what vaccines are prepared in a manner that could be considered kosher. I would vaccinate my kids IF I could find vaccines that were guaranteed to not be in conflict w/ our chosen application of religion.

Could you please post how and/or where you found info re: how vaccines are made, and which companies use what kind of formula????

well, respectfully - that's all manner of dumb.

if the mom's diet was good, she should was able to breastfeed, she should have. A baby nearly triples in size in its first 18 months. That takes protein, and breastmilk is the best kind of protein for babies.

So, I gotta wonder -- what kind of protein did she think was better that breastmilk, more convenient, and less expensive???

Not all mothers can breastfeed, for an assortment of reasons. I'm not defending this particular vegan couple, who were negligent morons, but it's unreasonable to assume that breastfeeding is always an available option, let alone the best option.

The general lack of reading comprehension in this thread is making me ill.

where did you find this info??? We keep kosher, and I can't find a smidge of info regarding what vaccines are prepared in a manner that could be considered kosher. I would vaccinate my kids IF I could find vaccines that were guaranteed to not be in conflict w/ our chosen application of religion.

Could you please post how and/or where you found info re: how vaccines are made, and which companies use what kind of formula????

The package inserts with all the chemical information for every drug out there are both easily available online and easily available from your doctor or pharmacy. Just ask.

Adults? Sure. They can make a conscious choice.

Children? No not allowed. Especially if it will save their life.

What's the cut off? When is someone no longer a child?

What about developmentally delayed adults?

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

That and Christian Science.

I'd be rather surprised if there wasn't an already established body of case law on this...

where did you find this info??? We keep kosher, and I can't find a smidge of info regarding what vaccines are prepared in a manner that could be considered kosher. I would vaccinate my kids IF I could find vaccines that were guaranteed to not be in conflict w/ our chosen application of religion.

Could you please post how and/or where you found info re: how vaccines are made, and which companies use what kind of formula????

I have to call the companies and wade through 30K customer service drones to get to someone that knows anything and then they pull B.S. about it being "proprietary" and such, so then I wrote letters upon letters and then I hired a lawyer to write a scary letter and then they responded. I had to hold off of giving them any vaccines after the first one landed my kid in the hospital, because I was unsure of what serious badness would happen next.

If I were you I would try first to contact other groups of people who are Kosher who have kids and see if any of them have any information, then if that doesn't work call your local pediatrician and find out what drug company supplies the shots your kids are up for and then call that company and try to get answers, if not skip straight to the scary lawyer letter of doom.

The general lack of reading comprehension in this thread is making me ill.

You've been around here since 2005 and you're just now figuring out how bad the general reading skills are?

What's the cut off? When is someone no longer a child?

What about developmentally delayed adults?

They are either considered adult or have a legal guardian. In the former case, their will goes. If they are too underdeveloped and require a guardian, the guardian would get to make the decision, just as for a minor (and just as for a minor, could be challenged in court over it).

You've been around here since 2005 and you're just now figuring out how bad the general reading skills are?

I keep drifting away and then coming back. We're in the coming back phase, and I've just been reminded.

The package inserts with all the chemical information for every drug out there are both easily available online and easily available from your doctor or pharmacy. Just ask.

ask who?????? I tried getting the info from my pediatrician, and he wouldn't give it to me. I don't know what companies are out there that create vaccines, so I wouldn't have a clue where to start.

ask who?????? I tried getting the info from my pediatrician, and he wouldn't give it to me. I don't know what companies are out there that create vaccines, so I wouldn't have a clue where to start.

Change your pede. My sister had no problem getting the info from hers.

The general lack of reading comprehension in this thread is making me ill.

You are ill? You have the flu?

ask who?????? I tried getting the info from my pediatrician, and he wouldn't give it to me. I don't know what companies are out there that create vaccines, so I wouldn't have a clue where to start.

First step is to get the actual drug name from your doctor, along with the brand name of the version he/she uses. If the doctor won't tell you that, find another doctor, 'cause that's not okay.

Second step is to use the internet to find the manufacturer and the package insert and chemical info on the drug. That MAY tell you all you need to know, depending on the drug.

If not, third step is to call the manufacturer and explain in clear and concise terms exactly what you want to know, and keep nagging the hell out of them until they tell you.

Quite often parents will not allow their children to have blood transfusions, even life saving ones. While it has been ruled permissible under the freedom of religion clause here in Canada, it has also been deemed child endangerment, and in many cases, children will become temporary 'wards of the state', get the treatment, and then be turned back over to their family.

It may be understandable to make this decision for very young children...but what about minors (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080521/jehovah_transfusion_080521?s_name=&no_ads=) who want to make that decision for themselves?
Minors don't get to make all kinds of decisions for themselves at various ages. Some of the age limits are based on the stages of human cognitive development. Most are arbitrary, since they predate a lot of modern cognition research. But they exist, and even if they can and should be improved, we work with them. Basically, they mean that there are some things children are not permitted to decide for themselves until they get older or until a court decides their individual case is special and emancipates them or makes a special exemption for them, or the state provides some mechanism for a family to exempt themselves from some degree of regulation (like permits to allow minors to work). I really don't see a reason why religious practice should be different from other very personal issues that the state regulates for minors, such as sex or deciding to join the military.

Parental possessory instincts notwithstanding, the state must be ruled by law, not instinct. If the law is going to maintain that human persons are not chattel, then the state cannot allow parents to treat their children as if they are.

In the case of parents raising their children within their religion, if the state will not allow one adult to force another to practice a religion, then I see no reason why they should allow an adult to force a child to practice that religion just because of a familial relationship. For the most part, the state can hold back because the child will soon enough gain the power to leave a religion that does not suit them, but if the child is being actively harmed, I think there can be no question that the state should intervene and that "freedom of religion" should not be a justification for the parents harm to their child. If they would not be allowed to keep me in their home, sick, dying, and deny me medical care while they pray over me, I fail to see why they should be allowed to do that to a child -- any child, even their own offspring. Does the state believe that one person cannot own the life of another, or doesn't it?

But the flip side of that is that, although they are free beings, children are not adults, and at certain ages they are not yet fully mentally competent to make the critical judgments necessary to control their own destinies in a manner in keeping with their own best interests (even, and especially, to the point of deciding life or death).

In the case of a child deciding they want to engage in a religion that refuses medical care, it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the given child is competent to make such a decision. Do they really understand the consequences of such a decision? I would hazard that most children probably would not. Again, for the most part authorities do not need to concern themselves with such things until a problem arises and child becomes seriously sick. But what then? Do we tie down a resisting child and force treatment on them? Frankly, on rare occasions, that might be the right thing to do. Other times it might not. I have to say I disapprove of religions applying such rules to children too young to understand what they really mean. I personally think that the proper approach should be that no one should be iincorporated into a religion until they are old enough to make and understand such decisions themselves, and before that, the children of members of the religion should be exempt from its more potentially dangerous requirements.

It's one thing for someone who knows what they are doing to decide to throw their life away for a belief. It is another for someone who doesn't have any concept of what "throwing one's life away" means to do so. And it is something else altogether to allow someone (a parent) to throw away someone else's life (a child's).

Not all mothers can breastfeed, for an assortment of reasons. I'm not defending this particular vegan couple, who were negligent morons, but it's unreasonable to assume that breastfeeding is always an available option, let alone the best option.

true - I have known a few woman who didn't actually have enough milk ducts to breast feed effectively, if they did so exclusively (they usually breast fed, and then bottle fed afterwards).

In any case, though, if there is a REASON for not doing it - a good one, like "I am physically incapable" - that's something that can't be ignored, and it needs to be addressed. But if a woman is capable, and chooses to not do so, for the express reason of giving the infant a certain type of diet-- I'm sorry, that's just dumb. Hello - if mom's a vegan, baby isn't going to get any animal protein in mom's milk!!

What's the cut off? When is someone no longer a child?

What about developmentally delayed adults?

What ever the "legal" definition for informed decisions is allowed.

Those with mental problems would be considered in the same camp as children. They can't make an informed decision so aid must be given.

First step is to get the actual drug name from your doctor, along with the brand name of the version he/she uses. If the doctor won't tell you that, find another doctor, 'cause that's not okay.

Second step is to use the internet to find the manufacturer and the package insert and chemical info on the drug. That MAY tell you all you need to know, depending on the drug.

If not, third step is to call the manufacturer and explain in clear and concise terms exactly what you want to know, and keep nagging the hell out of them until they tell you.

:hail: I am deeply appreciative of your info.

I didn't even consider that my pediatrician was forestalling me; I kind of assumed it was standard practice, cuz I actually had 2 different doctors respond to me that they couldn't give me the information.

I'll just have to find one who will!!!

Mur'v thanks for the serious, and well thought out reply...I'm too damn drunk to read it, so I'll get to it tomorrow:)

Mur'v thanks for the serious, and well thought out reply...I'm too damn drunk to read it, so I'll get to it tomorrow:)
Read it before you take the morning painkillers. It will make it more meaningful. :tongue:

true - I have known a few woman who didn't actually have enough milk ducts to breast feed effectively, if they did so exclusively (they usually breast fed, and then bottle fed afterwards).

In any case, though, if there is a REASON for not doing it - a good one, like "I am physically incapable" - that's something that can't be ignored, and it needs to be addressed. But if a woman is capable, and chooses to not do so, for the express reason of giving the infant a certain type of diet-- I'm sorry, that's just dumb. Hello - if mom's a vegan, baby isn't going to get any animal protein in mom's milk!!

Well, there's also reasons like "I really need to go back on this medication to keep me healthy" or "my schedule just doesn't make it feasible" or "the freaking baby had formula once and now won't touch the boob." Point being, there's nothing fundamentally evil or terrible about parents choosing not to breast-feed, so long as they make sure the baby is still healthy. The problem comes when, as in the stupid vegan couple case, the baby is clearly NOT doing okay on their moronic made-up-by-them-and-not-a-doctor-or-nutritionist diet (which, if I recall correctly, was "apple juice" or something similarly insane), and they don't do anything about it.

Her children have a medical condition which actually makes them susceptible to more problems if they get the vaccination, as opposed to the extremely low risk they run of catching whatever they're being inoculated against. And they're not dead or unhealthy, so she's not "letting them die". Would you give live vaccines to children that are HIV+?

Smunk already answered your question. Because of the disease she and her children share, the vaccines as they are made would make her kids sick. Whether or not you agree with it, given the choice between risking your kids getting sick later and ensuring that they'd get sick now, you can presumably see the logic behind going with the former.

My crime was scanning instead of reading. Smucks situation changes things. Her children are most assuredly thrown into the situation of what is worst the cure or the sickness. I guess the choice centers on what sicknesses are local and the chances of them getting it. It's a shitty position to be in.

My comments are aimed at those with perfectly healthy children that don't get children inoculated. Especially with shots with a good track record.

Now in situations that are going on now like the case of so called vaccine for uterine cancer and how the schools advised little girls should get it? No. Children shouldn't be Guinea pigs on stuff that isn't communicable.

Well, there's also reasons like "I really need to go back on this medication to keep me healthy" or "my schedule just doesn't make it feasible" or "the freaking baby had formula once and now won't touch the boob." Point being, there's nothing fundamentally evil or terrible about parents choosing not to breast-feed, so long as they make sure the baby is still healthy. The problem comes when, as in the stupid vegan couple case, the baby is clearly NOT doing okay on their moronic made-up-by-them-and-not-a-doctor-or-nutritionist diet (which, if I recall correctly, was "apple juice" or something similarly insane), and they don't do anything about it.

I didn't mean to imply there is something "fundamentally evil" about not breastfeeding. Sorry if it came across that way.

I said what I said because I, not knowing the incident of you referencing, I thought she was giving the kid some vegan formula rather than breastfeeding because she thought it was healthier, or didn't want to use the commercial formula because it often uses cow's milk as a formula base.

I thought you were saying that, in order to guarantee this kid a vegan diet, she was foregoing breast milk because breast milk has "protein" in it.

Read it before you take the morning painkillers. It will make it more meaningful. :tongue:

I'm way past the stage of needing painkillers in the morning.

My comments are aimed at those with perfectly healthy children that don't get children inoculated. Especially with shots with a good track record.

Some of us have logical reasons for the choices we make - logical in that they are consistent w/ our religious beliefs, wherein our relgious beliefs would not normally cause illness (not eating pork or shellfish, for example).

We keep kosher, and IF I could find vaccines that I KNEW were not incubated in animals (some used to be, including monkeys, which would make them not kosher), I would use the shots.

I would like to mention: none of my kids were inoculated against chicken pox. They all got them - and 2 of them had cases so mild I didn't even know they were sick. Only one had a fever. So, sometimes, not inoculating is no big deal. (btw - we do use various homeopathic remedies, and we do use medicine when necessary).

I'm way past the stage of needing painkillers in the morning.

You are? Who is doing the typing? :)

Now in situations that are going on now like the case of so called vaccine about uterine cancer and how the schools advised little girls should get it? No. Children shouldn't be Guinea pigs on stuff that isn't communicable.

Er, you seem to be rather mixed-up about this.

The vaccine isn't for uterine cancer. It's for HPV, a virus, one strain of which seems to cause one variety of cervical cancer. Further, it's been very thoroughly tested before being offered to the public, so they are really not "guinea pigs." It is, quite frankly, a pretty fabulous thing, and the overwhelming majority of the opposition to it has been because the virus it vaccinates against is sexually transmitted, and thus apparently vaccinating your daughters will make them be sluts. Or something.

Er, you seem to be rather mixed-up about this.

The vaccine isn't for uterine cancer. It's for HPV, a virus, one strain of which seems to cause one variety of cervical cancer. Further, it's been very thoroughly tested before being offered to the public, so they are really not "guinea pigs." It is, quite frankly, a pretty fabulous thing, and the overwhelming majority of the opposition to it has been because the virus it vaccinates against is sexually transmitted, and thus apparently vaccinating your daughters will make them be sluts. Or something.
The HPV vaccine is one time I felt a strong urge towards "fuck religious freedom, scumbags, this is public health we're talking about!"

The HPV vaccine is one time I felt a strong urge towards "fuck religious freedom, scumbags, this is public health we're talking about!"

I mostly feel a strong urge towards taking kids away from anyone who honestly would prefer that their daughter be at risk for cancer if she dares to have sex with people. How the hell can you think that way and be fit to be a parent? I mean....gah!

Er, you seem to be rather mixed-up about this.

The vaccine isn't for uterine cancer. It's for HPV, a virus, one strain of which seems to cause one variety of cervical cancer. Further, it's been very thoroughly tested before being offered to the public, so they are really not "guinea pigs." It is, quite frankly, a pretty fabulous thing, and the overwhelming majority of the opposition to it has been because the virus it vaccinates against is sexually transmitted, and thus apparently vaccinating your daughters will make them be sluts. Or something.

Ahh you are correct. HPV is the one I am thinking about.

Thoroughly tested? Is that a guarantee these days? Wasn't what was that Viaxx?...thoroughly tested?

I can tell you I am not one of those who thinks it will turn my seven year old girl into a slut. I just found it rather odd when the school sent home a letter we should consider it and then received a letter that weakly asked "what is wrong with you?" It seemed rather odd that a first grader(we received it last year) needed to have this shot. The two families have no history of any type of cancer. So why should a six year old need this?

Now if she was in the age range for sex? Then it's something to consider. By then the track record will be established......

I mostly feel a strong urge towards taking kids away from anyone who honestly would prefer that their daughter be at risk for cancer if she dares to have sex with people. How the hell can you think that way and be fit to be a parent? I mean....gah!
Truly. See my earlier comments, the gist of which is that society should not be permitting some people to throw away other people's lives, just because they are "parents." Parents have been known to eat their young. I fail to see what magical magic being a parent confers on some asshat that makes them the master of some poor kid's destiny.

Ahh you are correct. HPV is the one I am thinking about.

Thoroughly tested? Is that a guarantee these days? Wasn't what was that Viaxx?...thoroughly tested?

I can tell you I am not one of those who thinks it will turn my seven year old girl into a slut. I just found it rather odd when the school sent home a letter we should consider it and then received a letter that weakly asked "what is wrong with you?" It seemed rather odd that a first grader(we received it last year) needed to have this shot. The two families have no history of any type of cancer. So why should a six year old need this?

Now if she was in the age range for sex? Then it's something to consider. By then the track record will be established......
Maybe you were just not informed of the fact that the HPV vaccine is only effective in girls who have never been sexually active. The reason to get them so young is to make as certain as medically possible that they will have the best chances for protection against the virus. That is why a first grader needed it. It's not a preparation for sex. It's a protection against a virus.

Ahh you are correct. HPV is the one I am thinking about.

Thoroughly tested? Is that a guarantee these days? Wasn't what was that Viaxx?...thoroughly tested?

I can tell you I am not one of those who thinks it will turn my seven year old girl into a slut. I just found it rather odd when the school sent home a letter we should consider it and then received a letter that weakly asked "what is wrong with you?" It seemed rather odd that a first grader(we received it last year) needed to have this shot. The two families have no history of any type of cancer. So why should a six year old need this?

Now if she was in the age range for sex? Then it's something to consider. By then the track record will be established......

I think the "what is wrong with you?" is mostly because of the aforementioned idiots who would rather their daughters die than have filthy dirty SEX. I don't know of any reason it would hurt to wait a few years, though. :)

ETA: To clarify, since Mur is also right, by "a few years" I mean "maybe until she is 9 or so," not "until she is 18" or something.

I think the "what is wrong with you?" is mostly because of the aforementioned idiots who would rather their daughters die than have filthy dirty SEX. I don't know of any reason it would hurt to wait a few years, though. :)

ETA: To clarify, since Mur is also right, by "a few years" I mean "maybe until she is 9 or so," not "until she is 18" or something.
Poli, I think the point of giving them the vaccine so early is take a drastic measure to minimize the chances that a girl will not get the virus protection.

EDIT: to acknowledge your edit. :)

Maybe you were just not informed of the fact that the HPV vaccine is only effective in girls who have never been sexually active. The reason to get them so young is to make as certain as medically possible that they will have the best chances for protection against the virus. That is why a first grader needed it. It's not a preparation for sex. It's a protection against a virus.

Problem is I haven't seen charts to see it's effectiveness. I have to admit not knowing much about HPV due to being a lowly male. The literature they sent basically painted a picture of she may or may not get it so just to be safe get this shot. There was no statement of you need to do this at a young age in order for things to build up, etc.

Now if there was a propensity of cervical cancer in the families? Then I would think different.

I talked to our pediatrician and she said basically if you are not comfortable with it, it's ok to wait a few years.

I still have time as she is starting to enter the boys are gross phase. ;)

Problem is I haven't seen charts to see it's effectiveness. I have to admit not knowing much about HPV due to being a lowly male. The literature they sent basically painted a picture of she may or may not get it so just to be safe get this shot. There was no statement of you need to do this at a young age in order for things to build up, etc.

Now if there was a propensity of cervical cancer in the families? Then I would think different.

I talked to our pediatrician and she said basically if you are not comfortable with it, it's ok to wait a few years.

I still have time as she is starting to enter the boys are gross phase. ;)
Do you understand that the cancer is caused by a virus? One that is transmitted by sexual contact? She doesn't need a family history to be at risk. All women are at risk. I'm bummed there is no vaccine for women who are not virgins, and you better believe a daughter of mine would be getting that vaccine.

I understand that schools are not very good at sharing all the information, but there is an internet, too, if you want better info. Do as your pediatrician says, but do not wait too long. Don't bother about what phase your daughter is in. For all you know, she might not have sex until she's 35. But whenever she starts, she should go into the game protected against cervical cancer.

This theology I will never fully understand, for I do not believe it. I do believe prayer can cause great changes. I've seen it happen in my own life, and I know no amount of attempts to prove it will satisfy many here for it is something I accept as faith. However, where I disagree is that if one prays to God, one should not expect miracles. Instead, more likely, God will give you the tools and put the right people in your life to make things happen, but one must still utilise the gifts God has entrusted to them for humans still have free will. This, at least, has been my experience. Thus it follows based upon my argumentation, that God provided doctors in the community, I presume, that could have treated the child. However it was still the parents' responsibility to use the God-given talents of the doctors to heal their child, thus I do find them guilty of neglect based upon the theological argument above.

Man, that sucks
I'm straight up christian, and I'll back up the Word with science, reason, and straight up with what God says.

James 2:17 - In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

I know people who haved been healed of epilepsy, cancer impotence etc.
Here is an example, I was having back problems, and when i prayed for it, in an hour my mom asked me, "Hey, you want to come to the acupuncture with me?"

BAM, had faith and acted upon it. Feel great. God isn't always going to cure the disease Himself, but He will give you the opportunity to deliver you from your problem in a natural way. :) God is awesome

Do you understand that the cancer is caused by a virus? One that is transmitted by sexual contact? She doesn't need a family history to be at risk. All women are at risk. I'm bummed there is no vaccine for women who are not virgins, and you better believe a daughter of mine would be getting that vaccine.

I understand that schools are not very good at sharing all the information, but there is an internet, too, if you want better info. Do as your pediatrician says, but do not wait too long. Don't bother about what phase your daughter is in. For all you know, she might not have sex until she's 35. But whenever she starts, she should go into the game protected against cervical cancer.

Ahh? The phase comment was a joke; hence the smiley.

A few years is not dangerous and it will get more time for proof as to the effectiveness.

I agree Jhapo, 100%. Faith without works is most certainly dead! That is what one must do sometimes. It is best if you ask God not merely to heal you, but to put the things in your life to help you through whatever it is you are going through, and to give you the courage and wisdom to use them! He tends to listen more if someone is open to what He has to teach them rather than a temporary fix.

Even the CDC doesn't push for first graders.

Who should get the HPV vaccine

The HPV vaccine is recommended for 11 and 12 year-old girls.1 It is also recommended for girls and women age 13 through 26 years of age who have not yet been vaccinated or completed the vaccine series.

1 Note: The vaccine can also be given to girls 9 or 10 years of age.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac1

Even the CDC doesn't push for first graders.

Who should get the HPV vaccine

The HPV vaccine is recommended for 11 and 12 year-old girls.1 It is also recommended for girls and women age 13 through 26 years of age who have not yet been vaccinated or completed the vaccine series.

1 Note: The vaccine can also be given to girls 9 or 10 years of age.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/Hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine.htm#hpvvac1
I am slightly mollified, but I'm in a mood to be skeptical and impatient with others. Just mentioning.

I am slightly mollified, but I'm in a mood to be skeptical and impatient with others. Just mentioning.

That's ok. I LOVE a tough, opinionated woman with a bit of a mean streak! ;)

That's why I married a Sicilian. :D

I agree Jhapo, 100%. Faith without works is most certainly dead! That is what one must do sometimes. It is best if you ask God not merely to heal you, but to put the things in your life to help you through whatever it is you are going through, and to give you the courage and wisdom to use them! He tends to listen more if someone is open to what He has to teach them rather than a temporary fix.

Right, people have that stereotypical view that God is supposed to do everything for us, or rather that He doesn't do anything at all when neither are true,

He wants the best for us, but you have to be willing to do it His way. He always teaches us through our experience, but people want it done their way, when they want whenever they want.

Not gonna happen.

my short answer to the topic question is not only no, but hell no. no matter what the belief in question might happen to be.

i can't claim to know the will of big, friendly and invisible, because i don't personally believe anybody else does either, other then those it chooses to be channeled by once every thousand years, give or take a few hundred, but here's what i go by, is its being left up to us to create and not destroy whatever kind of world we all or most of us together want to live in, so it doesn't seem very consistent that even through negligence it would want us to use common ignorant assumptions about any belief as an excuse to knowingly cause suffering, let alone kill.

now as to where the topic seems at this point to have wondered, about ama aproved preventive pharmacuticals, and judgement calls about THEM, that seems to me an entirely seperate topic.

in the one instance, 'we' (the 'royal'/'collective' we) started out taking about dealing with a known condition, with known therapies and the question of the legitimacy of withholding them on the basis of religeous belief. in the now current discussion, it seems to be about a matter of putting something into a child's body on the speculation that a condition that COULD developed later in life MIGHT be prevented by doing so.

i don't quite see how those situations came to be equated for any other reason then some sort of biased political spin. though for the life of my, its not entirely obvious WHAT spin of WHICH politics either for that mater.

other then i think maybe my first opinion answers THAT question.

I think the best way to cure this is from within the religion. Where does it say in the Bible that you can't go to a doctor? Sure try faith and prayer but if that doesn't work look for other methods.

What's worse is the perception that you are "cut off" from God by doing so. God does not cut people off, people cut themselves off from God.

A very sad case. What do we gain by throwing this Mother and/or Father in jail? We want to make sure we get the whole family. They were following the rules of thier faith.

This reminds me of Jehova's Witness and transfusion thingy. Can you refuse treatment for child if your fear he/she is going to hell by doing so? So far we have lost most of those cases.

The one[s] who should have to answer for this, is the one[s] who told them this was the way by that I mean faith healing is the only way.

Mur'v thanks for the serious, and well thought out reply...I'm too damn drunk to read it, so I'll get to it tomorrow:)

What about my well thought out reply?

No trip to Montreal for you.

Maybe you were just not informed of the fact that the HPV vaccine is only effective in girls who have never been sexually active. The reason to get them so young is to make as certain as medically possible that they will have the best chances for protection against the virus. That is why a first grader needed it. It's not a preparation for sex. It's a protection against a virus.

Well, it's not only effective in them, it's just guaranteed to be effective. There are women who are sexually active who just haven't contracted HPV yet. That's why they usually have a cut-off age.

And it is a wonderful vaccine. I wish it had been around when I was younger... before I got one of the strands that can lead to cancer. :(

I think the best way to cure this is from within the religion. Where does it say in the Bible that you can't go to a doctor? Sure try faith and prayer but if that doesn't work look for other methods.

You're confusing the Bible with religion again. Many things done in the name of Christianity had nothing to do with the bible.

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?
This is sort of a follow-up to this question:

Does anyone know if it's true that while blood transfusions with JWs are a no-no, organ transplantation is okay? And if so, why isn't blood considered an organ?

In the case of parents raising their children within their religion, if the state will not allow one adult to force another to practice a religion, then I see no reason why they should allow an adult to force a child to practice that religion just because of a familial relationship. For the most part, the state can hold back because the child will soon enough gain the power to leave a religion that does not suit them, but if the child is being actively harmed, I think there can be no question that the state should intervene and that "freedom of religion" should not be a justification for the parents harm to their child. If they would not be allowed to keep me in their home, sick, dying, and deny me medical care while they pray over me, I fail to see why they should be allowed to do that to a child -- any child, even their own offspring. Does the state believe that one person cannot own the life of another, or doesn't it?
I understand what you're getting at, and yet I balk at your idea because then it could be, and should be, applied to everything. If parents cannot teach their religion, why should they be allowed teach their values (ANY values now, including respect for the rule of law, equality, liberty, justice, and the like)? What about culture?* Language? We don't allow one adult to force another to eat healthy either, and yet I would assume you have no issues with a parent making sure a child eats his or her yukky peas, right?

*Which is quite applicable for me given that my son is a child of two different cultures and my wife and I want him to know and experience both of them.

And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?

The father of my best friend is a homeopath.
To be allowed to practice, he had to not only study homeopathy, but also converntional medicine to a point that now allows him to see which patients he can treat, and which patients he needs to refer on to a doctor, as their condition is life-threatening. If he fails to refer them on, and they die, he will be facing charges.

Alternative medicins are fine, but they do have their limitations. And those practicing them need to be aware of those limitations, and all other options available to the patient.

The father of my best friend is a homeopath.
To be allowed to practice, he had to not only study homeopathy, but also converntional medicine to a point that now allows him to see which patients he can treat, and which patients he needs to refer on to a doctor, as their condition is life-threatening. If he fails to refer them on, and they die, he will be facing charges.

Alternative medicins are fine, but they do have their limitations. And those practicing them need to be aware of those limitations, and all other options available to the patient.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. Homeopathy is the worst of the lot; to call it a scam is giving it too much credit.

I'm truly sorry to hear that. Homeopathy is the worst of the lot; to call it a scam is giving it too much credit.

Hey, I don't believe in it either, but I know a couple of people who do. And as long as they just use it to convince themselves that their aches and pains ache and pain a little less, why not?
I am rather happy about the legislation forcing homeopaths to refer seriously sick people to a normal GP or the hospital. I wouldn't want to see a case of a homeopath trying to cure an infected appendix...

Hey, I don't believe in it either, but I know a couple of people who do. And as long as they just use it to convince themselves that their aches and pains ache and pain a little less, why not?
I am rather happy about the legislation forcing homeopaths to refer seriously sick people to a normal GP or the hospital. I wouldn't want to see a case of a homeopath trying to cure an infected appendix...

I can see it as a placebo, I guess. I'm just sorry the poor guy had to waste so much time training for uselessness, when he could have been a real medical professional and actually helped people.

I can see it as a placebo, I guess. I'm just sorry the poor guy had to waste so much time training for uselessness, when he could have been a real medical professional and actually helped people.

*shurgs* His choice, and he is making good money with it...

No, religious faith doesn't justify people not giving treatment to a sick person. Religion doesn't justify killing in any way. These parents murdered their daughter.

And now you see why I have a wee bit of a problem with requiring that parents access western medicine OR ELSE.

I think the 'power of prayer' is a load of crap...but do we put chinese medicine in that same bucket of shit? Traditional native medicines?There are no such things as 'Western Medicine', 'Chinese Medicine', 'Traditional Native Medicine' or similar things. There are, exactly, three forms of medicine. Medicine that provides testable, positive results ('Medicine that works')
Medicine that provides testable, negative results ('Scams')
Medicine that hasn't been tested yet ('Will be moved to one of the above categories as soon as it has been')Everything else is ideologically-inspired bullshit.

People have the right to structure their families and raise their children as they see fit. However, religious devotion is a highly personal and serious commitment.

Although I am adamant in supporting religious freedom, I do not believe that anyone should be granted the power to commit someone else to a religious lifestyle. So I would have to say that parents who believe in faith healing should not be able to deny medical care for their chidren who are too young to understand the religion and commit to it and its beliefs for themselves.

Many religious people commit their children to their religions before their children are old enough to have a say-so. But baptizing a child or walking a child through, say, Catholic confirmation, etc, does not actually bind the child to the religion. The child is still free to find their own commitment or abandon the religion as he/she grows up. But involving children in religious practice to the point of denying them medical care can, as we see, cause irreparable harm before the child has any ability to understand what is being done, let alone protect themselves if they would not agree with it.

I believe that the right of parents to raise their children in their religion should be restricted in certain specific ways until the child is, say, 16 years old. If you're old enough to have sex, you should be old enough to make religious decisions, too.

*nod* Yep what you said.

That's ok. I LOVE a tough, opinionated woman with a bit of a mean streak! ;)

That's why I married a Sicilian. :D
O.o I'm Sicilian (part). *checks closets for any previously unnoticed husbands*

Throw the book at them.

I understand what you're getting at, and yet I balk at your idea because then it could be, and should be, applied to everything. If parents cannot teach their religion, why should they be allowed teach their values (ANY values now, including respect for the rule of law, equality, liberty, justice, and the like)? What about culture?* Language? We don't allow one adult to force another to eat healthy either, and yet I would assume you have no issues with a parent making sure a child eats his or her yukky peas, right?

*Which is quite applicable for me given that my son is a child of two different cultures and my wife and I want him to know and experience both of them.
Okay, first of all, I sincerely doubt that a state based on rule of law is going to object to parents teaching their children to respect rule of law. Let's try to keep our hypotheticals reasonable, eh?

Next: I have stated, but apparently not loudly enough, that in the vast majority of instances, there will be no call for the state to get involved or even to notice what is going on in people's lives. Generally nobody notices anything unless a problem arises -- such as a kid is showing up at school covered in bruises, or is dying of diabetes. So the specter of Big Brother passing judgment on every single parental decision is a slippery slope fallacy because it does not actually follow. It especially does not follow because I have not made any calls for government to supervise families. I have only called for government to take a certain kind of approach when called in on an existing problem. I have not called on anyone to assume that problems exist before they do.

My position is that, when presented with a problem, the government's stance should be that Person A is not the master of Person B. Person A may legitimately be in charge of teaching Person A fundamental life skills and values, but that does not give Person A the power or right to inflict suffering on Person B or put Person B at risk of losing their life. This applies even to parents and their children. It is not negated by religion or any other personal beliefs of Person A. There is no right of the citizen or the human being that will make one person the master of another.

Do you have a problem with such a standard?

And do you further have a problem with me asking that such a standard be applied to evaluating existing problems to see if they actually are problems?

Are those people retarded? Religious or not, when people are sick you give them medicine or take them to a hospital. That's your basic obligation as parents, not waiting around for your magical imaginary friend to suddenly heal your child. :mad:

This is sort of a follow-up to this question:

Does anyone know if it's true that while blood transfusions with JWs are a no-no, organ transplantation is okay? And if so, why isn't blood considered an organ?
i think there is a specific verse in the bible telling you not to "eat" blood.

Clearly God wanted the kid to die. We should press charges against him. *nods*

Where does it say in the Bible that you can't go to a doctor?

Well, for the JW's it's based on Biblical bans re blood:

Leviticus 17:10 (American Standard Version)

10 And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people.

Acts 15:29 (American Standard Version)

29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.

This is sort of a follow-up to this question:

Does anyone know if it's true that while blood transfusions with JWs are a no-no, organ transplantation is okay? And if so, why isn't blood considered an organ?

It's from the Biblical ban on consuming blood.

A very sad case. What do we gain by throwing this Mother and/or Father in jail? They were following the rules of thier faith.

It's called "justice".


The one[s] who should have to answer for this, is the one[s] who told them this was the way by that I mean faith healing is the only way.

So if someone told me it was ok to kill unbelievers (or gays, or hippies, or whoever), and I went and killed some, it's not my fault but the fault of the person who told me it was ok???
Have you ever heard the term "personal responsibility"?

All they did was say words to a magical sky fairy?

They are at the very least guilty of Neglect if not reckless endangerment, or worse.

where did you find this info??? We keep kosher, and I can't find a smidge of info regarding what vaccines are prepared in a manner that could be considered kosher. I would vaccinate my kids IF I could find vaccines that were guaranteed to not be in conflict w/ our chosen application of religion.

Could you please post how and/or where you found info re: how vaccines are made, and which companies use what kind of formula????

I've studied the laws in this case, and vaccines are not subject to kashrut. Get your kids vaccinated. Now.

On topic...

*injects parents with HIV*

That's my opinion of denying kids medical care for religious reasons.

Does anyone know if it's true that while blood transfusions with JWs are a no-no, organ transplantation is okay? And if so, why isn't blood considered an organ?

I used to work for an anesthesiologist who specialized in liver transplants. She actually worked on finding ways to safely carry out transplants for JW's. Apparently, JW pastors differ on exactly what is allowable. They all seem to allow organ transplants (since there's no specific Bible passage telling you not to do so)*, but they differ on which, if any, blood products can be used. Some allow plasma, but not actual blood cells, for instance.

*I would argue that, by that same logic, the Bible doesn't prohibit blood transplants either. It prohibits drinking human blood. But if taking someone's organ into your body doesn't count as cannibalism (also prohibited in the Bible), I would say that a blood transfusion doesn't count as drinking blood either.

She did have a horribly depressing story. Apparently, the law now allows parents to decide that you have to let their child die on the table (at least around here), but the rule used to be that you would try and follow their religious beliefs in surgery, but that you would save the child by any means necessary if things went wrong. They had a JW child receiving a transplant who would have died if not for a blood transfusion. As a result, her parents put her up for adoption, claiming that they did not want to raise a child that was going to Hell.

I used to work for an anesthesiologist who specialized in liver transplants. She actually worked on finding ways to safely carry out transplants for JW's. Apparently, JW pastors differ on exactly what is allowable. They all seem to allow organ transplants (since there's no specific Bible passage telling you not to do so)*, but they differ on which, if any, blood products can be used. Some allow plasma, but not actual blood cells, for instance.

*I would argue that, by that same logic, the Bible doesn't prohibit blood transplants either. It prohibits drinking human blood. But if taking someone's organ into your body doesn't count as cannibalism (also prohibited in the Bible), I would say that a blood transfusion doesn't count as drinking blood either.

She did have a horribly depressing story. Apparently, the law now allows parents to decide that you have to let their child die on the table (at least around here), but the rule used to be that you would try and follow their religious beliefs in surgery, but that you would save the child by any means necessary if things went wrong. They had a JW child receiving a transplant who would have died if not for a blood transfusion. As a result, her parents put her up for adoption, claiming that they did not want to raise a child that was going to Hell.
People can be some self-centered little shits, can't they?

She did have a horribly depressing story. Apparently, the law now allows parents to decide that you have to let their child die on the table (at least around here), but the rule used to be that you would try and follow their religious beliefs in surgery, but that you would save the child by any means necessary if things went wrong. They had a JW child receiving a transplant who would have died if not for a blood transfusion. As a result, her parents put her up for adoption, claiming that they did not want to raise a child that was going to Hell.

This story does not wash at all.

A) Usually in cases where blood was forced against the patient's (and parent's) will, a lawsuit is placed. Since the parents (and patient) did everything in their power to prevent the blood transfusion, then the doctor overrode their wishes and acted unethically (by legal standard).

B) Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a firey hell, so there is no way the parents would think that the child is going to a place they do not believe in.

People can be some self-centered little shits, can't they?

That story doesn't wash at all. See my response.

This story does not wash at all.

A) Usually in cases where blood was forced against the patient's (and parent's) will, a lawsuit is placed. Since the parents (and patient) did everything in their power to prevent the blood transfusion, then the doctor overrode their wishes and acted unethically (by legal standard).

The rule* at the time stated that the doctor had to try to follow the parent's wishes. However, if there was no other way, they would give a transfusion. This was explained to the parents before consent was obtained. These days, they're apparently just supposed to let the child die and the liver that could have actually saved someone's life go to waste.

*I don't know for certain if this was written into law (I think most of this has been decided by case law, rather than actual statutes) or just the accepted ethical standard.

B) Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a firey hell, so there is no way the parents would think that the child is going to a place they do not believe in.

I don't know what JW's do or do not believe in, but this is apparently what they told her. Maybe what they really said was that their child wouldn't be saved and she took it that way.

Either way, they were assholes.

The rule* at the time stated that the doctor had to try to follow the parent's wishes. However, if there was no other way, they would give a transfusion. This was explained to the parents before consent was obtained. These days, they're apparently just supposed to let the child die and the liver that could have actually saved someone's life go to waste.

*I don't know for certain if this was written into law (I think most of this has been decided by case law, rather than actual statutes) or just the accepted ethical standard.

Case law, of course. I apologize for implying differently. Also, if they applied consent to allow their child to have a blood transfusion if things went wrong, they have no case. In addition, they are now in trouble with their God for allowing such a thing to occur. The child is a pawn in this.

I don't know what JW's do or do not believe in, but this is apparently what they told her. Maybe what they really said was that their child wouldn't be saved and she took it that way.

Either way, they were assholes.

Still doesn't wash. They have a whole team of people in each region that deal with situations like this - some sort of hospital committee. It would also not make sense that you could be saved or unsaved by someone overriding your wishes and doing something beyond your ability to control.

Sorry, I think your friend made it up.

It's called "justice".



So if someone told me it was ok to kill unbelievers (or gays, or hippies, or whoever), and I went and killed some, it's not my fault but the fault of the person who told me it was ok???
Have you ever heard the term "personal responsibility"?

I see them as equally responsible. It not just if some told you "to kill unbelievers". It is more like someone told you to kill unbelievers and it is morally wrong to refuse and you will be rewarded by carrying it out at some later date.

The preacher is as much guilty as the person who pulled the trigger. This case is not violent as such but the idea behind the action is very similar.


You have sick child. You go to preacher for advice. Preacher says that you should use faith healing to cure child. You return home and follow the preachers instructions. When it doesn't work likely you return and ask something along the line how long should this take? The preacher says" be calm, the Lord move in mysterious ways. Show some patience and you will be rewarded and if you don't you will be "cut off" from God.

Those ideas don't just magically appear someone coaxed to these people to believe. That why to end this situation, it almost must come from inside that church.

I bet you that preacher would turn it back on these parents and say "Oh it is because you lacked faith"...

It is almost criminal. That preacher will have to answer for this but I am afraid not sufficient time for many of us.

If you are going to imprison the family I suggest imprisoning the preacher as well. Is Manson or someone like that any less guilty because they did not physically take part?

The problem comes when, as in the stupid vegan couple case, the baby is clearly NOT doing okay on their moronic made-up-by-them-and-not-a-doctor-or-nutritionist diet (which, if I recall correctly, was "apple juice" or something similarly insane), and they don't do anything about it.

IIRC, it was apple juice and soy milk (the latter specifically stated on the bottle that it was not for infants and the former is not good in very young infants).


I would like to mention: none of my kids were inoculated against chicken pox. They all got them - and 2 of them had cases so mild I didn't even know they were sick. Only one had a fever. So, sometimes, not inoculating is no big deal.

It depends. A very mild case may or may not provide future immunity. And, while chicken pox is generally rather harmless in children, it can be deadly in adults - particularly men. Even if it doesn't kill them, it can cause infertility.

If your children with the mild cases are boys, I would suggest getting their titers checked at some point. If they don't actually carry antibodies to chicken pox by the time they are approaching adulthood, the immunization is a good idea.


The vaccine isn't for uterine cancer. It's for HPV, a virus, one strain of which seems to cause one variety of cervical cancer. Further, it's been very thoroughly tested before being offered to the public, so they are really not "guinea pigs." It is, quite frankly, a pretty fabulous thing, and the overwhelming majority of the opposition to it has been because the virus it vaccinates against is sexually transmitted, and thus apparently vaccinating your daughters will make them be sluts. Or something.

Just a clarification: There are multiple strains of HPV that put one at risk for cervical cancer. The vaccine catches most of them.


Case law, of course. I apologize for implying differently. Also, if they applied consent to allow their child to have a blood transfusion if things went wrong, they have no case. In addition, they are now in trouble with their God for allowing such a thing to occur. The child is a pawn in this.

I never said that they sued. I agree that they had no case on which to sue.

Still doesn't wash.

Because you don't want to believe that there are parents that horrible?

They have a whole team of people in each region that deal with situations like this - some sort of hospital committee.

A hospital committee decides whether or not parents will retain custody of their child? I don't think so.

It would also not make sense that you could be saved or unsaved by someone overriding your wishes and doing something beyond your ability to control.

A lot of people have religious beliefs that don't make sense. The Calvinist form of Christianity is built upon such a contradiction.

Sorry, I think your friend made it up.

Highly unlikely. It isn't as if this is a person who disrespected the wishes of those with religious convictions. In fact, she was instrumental in finding procedures that would make a transplant without a blood transfusion more likely to succeed.

Because you don't want to believe that there are parents that horrible?

Because on the few cases that I have dealt with JW's, I've noted that they're reasonable by nature.

A hospital committee decides whether or not parents will retain custody of their child? I don't think so.

No, but they will officiate any papers that need to be signed, and if the parents signed away the blood transfusion refusal right, they would be removed as JW's, or at the very least disciplined. They don't mess around when it comes to blood.

A lot of people have religious beliefs that don't make sense. The Calvinist form of Christianity is built upon such a contradiction.

It is true that a lot of religious beliefs don't make sense. This I can't argue.

Highly unlikely. It isn't as if this is a person who disrespected the wishes of those with religious convictions. In fact, she was instrumental in finding procedures that would make a transplant without a blood transfusion more likely to succeed.

Well I'm glad. However, it still doesn't wash in any way. If you had JW parents that acted like this, they would be removed as JW's for the following offenses:

1) Allowing blood to be given to their child
2) Being neglectful parents by putting their children up for adoption when they are fully capable of caring for them.
3) Stumbling others by their actions
4) Bringing reproach onto the congregation

In short, even if they were JW's, they aren't anymore.

What do people feel about the refusal of Jehovah Witnesses to allow blood transfusions?

Well, that depends. Do they actively seek medical alternatives making the best effort they can to preserve life, or do they sit at home and pray?

The medical community looks for ways to save lives while still respecting their wishes. In transplants, for instance, the patient will be treated with erythropoeitin prior to the transplant in order to try and increase their blood count. This has its own risks, but not as bad as "you're going to bleed out if you don't do it". They're also placed on a cell saver machine (it's used for most people these days, but even more important when avoiding blood transfusions) in which the cells from the blood they lose is saved as much as possible and pumped back into them during the surgery.

Because on the few cases that I have dealt with JW's, I've noted that they're reasonable by nature.

Ah, anecdotes.

Shall I tell you about my friend who was a foster child in a JW household? Her parents sent her out in the cold without a jacket if she forgot to put it up when she got home, until she could pay to get it back. This, when she could do it, left her without lunch money.

There are assholes in every group.

Well I'm glad. However, it still doesn't wash in any way. If you had JW parents that acted like this, they would be removed as JW's for the following offenses:

1) Allowing blood to be given to their child

They specifically asked that it not be given to their child. They blamed the doctors for doing it anyways.

2) Being neglectful parents by putting their children up for adoption when they are fully capable of caring for them.
3) Stumbling others by their actions
4) Bringing reproach onto the congregation

*shrug*

Now your accusations of lying rely on the assumption that people completely follow your understanding of their religion? Or that what you currently understand to be the rules always have been, in every JW community?

Like I said, the doctor I'm talking about has interacted with multiple JW patients and their pastors. The pastors have differed in exactly what blood products are excluded. Some allow plasma. Some don't. I'm sure different pastors would respond to this sort of situation in different ways as well.

I am feeling passionate today, not romantically, easy everyone.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1

This is not what the constitution is for. This is not what was intended to be protected by Free Speech / Free Expression. This also not was intended by Freedom of Religion.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ability to speak your mind is a right that Americans take for granted. Imagine being too frightened by the possible consequences of speaking out to actually do so. Your opinion would not matter - even your vote would be corrupted. Even as important is the right to petition your government - not only can you have an opinion about your government, the government must listen to you (though it need not heed you - but that's what elections are for).

Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.


I submit the preacher is using this as a "bullet proof" vest. The constitution should offer no such protection.

Few people would agree that is okay to do human sacrifice as a part of your religion. If you look at it a certain way that is what this amounts to.

On the religious front God has said repeatedly that he does not want human sacrifices, although a few notable exceptions occurred in the Bible.

This amounts to human sacrifice through passive means. Refusing medical treatment is just as lethal as a sword in this case.

Because on the few cases that I have dealt with JW's, I've noted that they're reasonable by nature.



No, but they will officiate any papers that need to be signed, and if the parents signed away the blood transfusion refusal right, they would be removed as JW's, or at the very least disciplined. They don't mess around when it comes to blood.



It is true that a lot of religious beliefs don't make sense. This I can't argue.



Well I'm glad. However, it still doesn't wash in any way. If you had JW parents that acted like this, they would be removed as JW's for the following offenses:

1) Allowing blood to be given to their child
2) Being neglectful parents by putting their children up for adoption when they are fully capable of caring for them.
3) Stumbling others by their actions
4) Bringing reproach onto the congregation

In short, even if they were JW's, they aren't anymore.

Join a regular Christian church and beg for forgiveness IF you feel you have sinned. Forgiveness of sins is central theme in the whole Bible. There is no sin that is any worse than any other. This is also a sad situation.

The medical community looks for ways to save lives while still respecting their wishes. In transplants, for instance, the patient will be treated with erythropoeitin prior to the transplant in order to try and increase their blood count. This has its own risks, but not as bad as "you're going to bleed out if you don't do it". They're also placed on a cell saver machine (it's used for most people these days, but even more important when avoiding blood transfusions) in which the cells from the blood they lose is saved as much as possible and pumped back into them during the surgery.

Interesting technique. I'm not a doctor, but it sounds all good.

Shall I tell you about my friend who was a foster child in a JW household? Her parents sent her out in the cold without a jacket if she forgot to put it up when she got home, until she could pay to get it back. This, when she could do it, left her without lunch money.

She should inform the JW elders in that area about that arrangement. I'm sure it would definitely draw some attention.

There are assholes in every group.

I can't argue that. However, being that generally assholish in that group will get you expelled from that group. They don't fuck around.

They specifically asked that it not be given to their child. They blamed the doctors for doing it anyways.

You said they signed some sort of waiver that would allow it in an emergency, did you not?

Now your accusations of lying rely on the assumption that people completely follow your understanding of their religion? Or that what you currently understand to be the rules always have been, in every JW community?

They have publications that specifically state the rules, and the matters that are left up to conscience. The ones that state the rules are universal, and the ones that are up to conscience are up to individual conscience.

Like I said, the doctor I'm talking about has interacted with multiple JW patients and their pastors. The pastors have differed in exactly what blood products are excluded. Some allow plasma. Some don't. I'm sure different pastors would respond to this sort of situation in different ways as well.

Also, JW's don't have pastors, just for the record. They consider every member to be a minister.

In addition, there are specific guidelines when it comes to blood products - they even have what's called an "Advance Medical Directive" that they pass out to their members, which, once filled out by the individual, is a legally binding document. It outlines what treatments are and aren't acceptable to the individual in question.

At several accident scenes, I have been the first one there, and when a person is injured, the first thing that comes out - even before the paramedics arrive - is that advance directive, so we know what to tell the paramedics as they arrive.

She should inform the JW elders in that area about that arrangement. I'm sure it would definitely draw some attention.

This was years ago. But considering the fact that her foster-father was also her pastor, I don't know how much good it would have done. (She described him that way - as the leader of her church).

You said they signed some sort of waiver that would allow it in an emergency, did you not?

I said it was explained to them that blood would be given if there was no other alternative. Whether or not they listened or just assumed it wouldn't come up is a different story.

It unfortunately isn't unusual for patients/parents to have these things explained to them, but then get angry when the exact risks that were discussed actually come up.

They have publications that specifically state the rules, and the matters that are left up to conscience. The ones that state the rules are universal, and the ones that are up to conscience are up to individual conscience.

In my experience, even the most standardized religion has more variance than you might expect.

Also, JW's don't have pastors, just for the record. They consider every member to be a minister.[/qutoe]

*shrug* Every JW I've known has talked about their pastor.

[quote]In addition, there are specific guidelines when it comes to blood products - they even have what's called an "Advance Medical Directive" that they pass out to their members, which, once filled out by the individual, is a legally binding document. It outlines what treatments are and aren't acceptable to the individual in question.

Maybe they do now. Maybe there are some JW's who don't specifically follow it. They have, after all, long since grown beyond the 144,000 members that were supposed to be able to get into heaven. We're talking about experiences over a number of years - with varying restrictions.

One way or another, I don't think this doctor is a liar, nor do I see any reason she would have to lie about it.

This was years ago. But considering the fact that her foster-father was also her pastor, I don't know how much good it would have done.

There we go with this pastors thing again.

I said it was explained to them that blood would be given if there was no other alternative. Whether or not they listened or just assumed it wouldn't come up is a different story.

Ah well, this story still sounds like a load of crap. How many years ago was this supposedly to have occurred?

In my experience, even the most standardized religion has more variance than you might expect.

If you say so. They seem pretty standard.

*shrug* Every JW I've known has talked about their pastor.

Then I can only assume you haven't ever known any JWs. They have a body of elders which shares the responsibility, and there is no single elder that has authority over the others. I.E. - no pastor. They stopped using the term in like 1911.

Maybe they do now. Maybe there are some JW's who don't specifically follow it. They have, after all, long since grown beyond the 144,000 members that were supposed to be able to get into heaven. We're talking about experiences over a number of years - with varying restrictions.

Well, I assume the rules have been refined over the years. I only went religion hunting about 5 years ago. So, I know a lot about Catholics, Presbyterians, JWs, Southern Baptists (now there's a fun group), and a little bit about Mormons, but only in modern times.

One way or another, I don't think this doctor is a liar, nor do I see any reason she would have to lie about it.

Well, I suspect one of the following occurrences, in order of probability:

1) She has relied on another person for much of this information who is prejudiced and has a reason to lie.
2) She is simply mistaken.
3) The couple in question either weren't actually JW's and did not fully understand the rules, or they are no longer JW's because of their assholishness. Yes, I said assholishness.
4) She does have a reason to lie, and you just don't know what it is.

There we go with this pastors thing again.

*shrug* That's how she referred to him.

Ah well, this story still sounds like a load of crap. How many years ago was this supposedly to have occurred?

I don't know exactly. She's been an MD for a period of decades, though.

Then I can only assume you haven't ever known any JWs.

Because you define their religion?

Generally, I don't question someone when they tell me their religion is "X". I don't think the doctor I was talking about does either.

Well, I suspect one of the following occurrences, in order of probability:

The most probable occurrence is that it happened as she described. Could there have been more details that she wasn't privy to? Of course. She would have had all the relevant medical details, but not the religious ones. Could she have mistakenly used terms that the JW's don't - of course, she isn't a JW. Maybe when she was talking to someone on behalf of the patient about blood transfusion rules, they identified themselves as an "elder" and she translated that into "pastor".

But she isn't a liar.

Anyways, on the main topic, I do think these parents should be prosecuted. I was glad that the vegans who starved their child to death were prosecuted as well.

On the subject of JW blood transfusions, I believe that adults or even teens who demonstrate an understanding of the subject should be able to refuse them. I think that doctors should make an effort to respect the parents' wishes in the case of young children, but that a transfusion should be given if it is necessary to save the child's life.

The subject of alternative medicine is a bit more tricky. I think I agree with some of the other posters that it can certainly be tried at first, but that they need to move to more tested methods if there is no improvement.

I largely agree with Muravyets' position on this. I think freedom of religion is very important and any adult who wishes to forego treatment should be able to. But parents should only be allowed to force their religion on their children insofar as it does not harm them (and really shouldn't do it in the first place).

*shrug* That's how she referred to him.

Perhaps she was trying to use a term you would understand.

Because you define their religion?

Because I researched it, heavily, and have actually been to their meetings and conventions, and I have some idea what's going on.

Generally, I don't question someone when they tell me their religion is "X". I don't think the doctor I was talking about does either.

Ok.

The most probable occurrence is that it happened as she described. Could there have been more details that she wasn't privy to? Of course. She would have had all the relevant medical details, but not the religious ones. Could she have mistakenly used terms that the JW's don't - of course, she isn't a JW. Maybe when she was talking to someone on behalf of the patient about blood transfusion rules, they identified themselves as an "elder" and she translated that into "pastor".

But she isn't a liar.

Ok, I just question heavily as your story is made up of specifically 10% sense - the first part, where they didn't want their child to have blood transfusions.

From there, it spins off in a completely random and fantastic way that makes no sense whatsoever from everything that they teach and believe in.

I'm also unsure how the anesthesiologist of a specific operation comes across the detail that a child is being put up for adoption for a completely insensible, and fully actionable, reason. My suspicion is that someone in the hospital, who sought to cloud her mind, told her that the kids were being put up for adoption "since they're going to hell", and she believed it and added it to her story.

That's why I listed it as the most probable reason.

Anyways, on the main topic, I do think these parents should be prosecuted. I was glad that the vegans who starved their child to death were prosecuted as well.

I concur.

On the subject of JW blood transfusions, I believe that adults or even teens who demonstrate an understanding of the subject should be able to refuse them. I think that doctors should make an effort to respect the parents' wishes in the case of young children, but that a transfusion should be given if it is necessary to save the child's life.

I mostly concur. I just am a little hazy on the definition of "a young child".

The subject of alternative medicine is a bit more tricky. I think I agree with some of the other posters that it can certainly be tried at first, but that they need to move to more tested methods if there is no improvement.

We're in way too much agreement. One of us is sick.

I largely agree with Muravyets' position on this. I think freedom of religion is very important and any adult who wishes to forego treatment should be able to. But parents should only be allowed to force their religion on their children insofar as it does not harm them (and really shouldn't do it in the first place).

I agree, however, in the case of the child and parent agreeing - which is often the case - you cannot say for a certainty that the parent has "forced" any treatment method on them.

I'm also unsure how the anesthesiologist of a specific operation comes across the detail that a child is being put up for adoption for a completely insensible, and fully actionable, reason.

An anesthesiologist on a transplant team isn't someone who just comes in the day of the surgery and gives a few shots. She is involved in the process from the moment they start considering a transplant. She is actually often one of the main people deciding eligibility for a transplant.

During the surgery, she is responsible for keeping the patient alive, not just keeping them under. She monitors all sorts of things, including blood gases and urine production. Perhaps most importantly in this case, she is the one who determines what blood products the patient needs and when to give them.

I mostly concur. I just am a little hazy on the definition of "a young child".

That's because it is hazy. I don't think there's really a specific cut-off age at which any child will or will not be able to make these decisions for himself. Basically, I would say that a child who expresses a wish to forgo lifesaving treatment should be interviewed by a judge and/or psychologist. If those authorities determine that the child is aware of the consequences and competent enough to make that decision, then their decision should be honored.

We're in way too much agreement. One of us is sick.

hehe

I agree, however, in the case of the child and parent agreeing - which is often the case - you cannot say for a certainty that the parent has "forced" any treatment method on them.

Hence the reason that the child himself should be interviewed independently - to see how much he understands.

An anesthesiologist on a transplant team isn't someone who just comes in the day of the surgery and gives a few shots. She is involved in the process from the moment they start considering a transplant. She is actually often one of the main people deciding eligibility for a transplant.

During the surgery, she is responsible for keeping the patient alive, not just keeping them under. She monitors all sorts of things, including blood gases and urine production. Perhaps most importantly in this case, she is the one who determines what blood products the patient needs and when to give them.

I'm aware of the anesthesiologist's role. I still don't know how after the surgery she came upon this information. Did she come out and tell the parents that they had to give the child blood, and the parents said "Oh, well in that case the kid's going to hell. Do you know a good adoption service?"

Seems unlikely.

That's because it is hazy. Basically, I would say that a child who expresses a wish to forgo lifesaving treatment should be interviewed by a judge and/or psychologist. If those authorities determine that the child is aware of the consequences and competent enough to make that decision, then their decision should be honored.

Hence the reason that the child himself should be interviewed independently - to see how much he understands.

I have no problem with that.

I'm aware of the anesthesiologist's role. I still don't know how after the surgery she came upon this information.

Precisely? I don't know. But I do know that she does a lot of follow-up with her patients and monitors their progress at least until they leave the hospital.

I have no problem with that.

=)

It doesn't matter who or what you believe in, homicide is not justified by your faith.

For the sake of argument, an excerpt from the Findlaw article cited in the OP:

How Should the Law React?

We might have a variety of reactions to a case like this. One possibility would be to attack the legitimacy of religious exemptions in laws that prohibit child abuse or neglect. There is no justification for child abuse and neglect, no matter how sincere the parent's religious motivation. To take an example from the Bible, Abraham should not have prepared to kill his son Isaac, no matter what he believed the divine will to be. Though he may have "passed" the test of his faith, in other words, he would plainly fail the test of parenthood and of membership in any civilized modern community.

Alternatively, we could take a second position, more sympathetic to Kara's parents but nonetheless critical of their conduct. We could excuse or partially excuse the parent who fails to seek out medical care for his child because of a faith in prayer. To excuse from criminal responsibility (or to reduce the severity of the charge) is not to justify a parent's acting as he did.

Through the recognition of an excuse, we could condemn the behavior of the Neumanns, who prayed rather than take their daughter to a doctor, while simultaneously treating their belief in the supernatural power of prayer as a kind of disability or impairment that compromised their capacity to obey the law. Like Andrea Yates – who drowned her five children in the grip of delusions generated by post-partum psychosis – the parents here apparently loved their child and wanted to do right by her but felt compelled to act as they did by belief in the supernatural.

Though something short of insanity, one could argue that diminished capacity reduced the culpability of the defendants. I am most drawn to this way of viewing the facts of this case, as it tempers justice with mercy.

Third, we could argue that so long as people believe in good faith that they are carrying out the mandates of heaven, we should not punish them for doing what they do. To take the Abraham example again, many people study the test of Abraham's faith and admire his conduct. Though Abraham loved and treasured his son, he would do what his God required, no matter what.

For those who accept such total faith as right and proper, the only difference between Isaac's father Abraham and Kara's parents is that Abraham was "right" to trust in his vision of God and the Neumanns were "wrong" to trust in theirs. Such a distinction, of course, cannot ground the law in a society that values religious pluralism.

No matter how destructive or senseless it might seem to many secular people, religious liberty – on this view – requires an extremely high level of autonomy for practicing one's faith, regardless of how familiar or foreign that faith might be. Indeed, such practices might be deemed lawful and accepted if they were part of the majority's religious tradition, rather than a small minority's set of beliefs. Freedom of conscience should not, one might contend, depend on how many others follow the same religion.

The very skepticism that ordinarily animates secular thinking should perhaps curb the willingness to incarcerate people whose belief system – even including their supernatural belief system – differs, however drastically, from that of the group.

Religion, the Supernatural, and the Facts

The story of Kara Neumann is, without question, terribly sad. Furthermore, in considering Kara's plight, it is hard to avoid thinking about what the impact might be on other children if her parents are not punished for their conduct. Such an outcome could, for example, liberate some religious (and not-so-religious) people to use physical violence, in the name of the Bible, against their children for insubordination ("He who spares the rod, spoils the child"; "whoever curses father or mother shall be put to death"). And an acquittal might further reduce the pressure on everyone – religious and nonreligious alike – to conform their conduct to laws with which they disagree.

If our focus is on the future, it might seem most prudent to prosecute the Neumanns to the full extent of the law and send the message that parents must care for their children. The very existence of the Wisconsin prayer exception to the child abuse or neglect statute arguably invites what most of us would view as intolerable misconduct.

Consider, however, the perspective of Kara's parents. They – assuming the sincerity of their faith – honestly thought that praying would heal their daughter. While praying, the father's faith apparently wavered for a moment – one in which he asked the mother whether they should go to a doctor – but then their faith grew stronger. Once Kara died, her parents said that their faith must not have been strong enough.
When told there would later be an autopsy, their reaction was to say that Kara would be resurrected before any autopsy would take place. Leilani and Dale Neumann are suffering the loss of their child. It is perhaps unduly cruel to add to their loss with severe criminal punishment, when they never meant to harm her.

Maybe the Neumanns are like a person suffering from a delusional disorder who smothers his child, believing that he is actually rescuing him. To some, the Neumanns seem truly insane and thus deserving of pity, rather than punishment. If we view them as unable to have acted differently, however, it is difficult to justify leaving their other three children in their care. Though the children have apparently not been abused, it may not be in their best interests to live with people who are delusional enough to bring about the entirely avoidable death of their sibling through neglect.

To say that the Neumanns are "otherwise good parents," as some have said, is thus at odds with the theory that they are impaired and should therefore be excused or partially excused from the consequences of committing what would otherwise have been reckless homicide.

Another excuse for the Neumanns might be their ignorance. If they are not psychologically impaired, they do seem to be significantly uninformed about disease. They apparently believe (as most people on earth once believed) that disease can be cured through faith and prayer. Like the many parents in the 1970's who believed that antibiotics would cure their children's cold viruses (and who in the process bred a variety of resistant bacteria or "superbugs") and (perhaps) like the parents who believe that vaccines cause autism (and thus expose the vulnerable among the U.S. population to such diseases as whooping cough and measles), the Neumanns simply had the facts wrong. Ignorance in this case was tragic but perhaps should not be harshly punished.

There is, however, the third possibility – that religious motivation makes otherwise criminal conduct acceptable. This may be the most worrisome (to this writer) of the three exculpatory options, and the one that is disturbingly captured in the Wisconsin religious exemption from child abuse or neglect law. Rather than simply allow that mentally impaired and ignorant people might have an excuse for what is uncontroversially wrongful conduct, the Wisconsin law suggests, in advance of any abuse or neglect, that prayer could be a legitimate and legally-protected alternative to medical treatment or surgery. Such a law appears to embrace the notion that faith in the supernatural relieves people of their obligation to provide care to the children in their custody.

Though a case like Kara's may be relatively unusual, the collision between secular and scientifically-based knowledge, on the one hand, and religious faith, on the other, is not. Battles wage, for example, regarding whether children should learn about evolution in the public schools or whether they should be kept ignorant of the science and told instead of God's "intelligent design". And religiously-motivated practices like circumcision for boys and clitoridectomy for girls have increasingly struck people who reject the practices as barbaric mutilation in the service of supernatural delusion.

The violent reaction of some groups to women who terminate their pregnancies (and to the medical clinics where abortions take place) exemplify religious zealotry in a country where the law of many states explicitly equates the moral status of a one-celled fertilized egg with that of a fully-formed baby (with exceptions – for the moment – for abortion). And finally, much of the violence waged around the world as holy war proceeds from a belief that God has willed it.

At the same time, it is important to recognize the pro-social contributions of religiously-motivated individuals and groups. It was religious leaders who played a critical role in the fight to abolish slavery, the struggle to extend civil rights to people of color, and the modern movement to abolish the death penalty. The feelings of compulsion to which religion can give rise in its followers have accordingly represented a powerful force for good as well as for ill in our history. As such, it would be unfair – and at odds with the language of the First Amendment protection for the free exercise of religion – to be entirely unmoved by an actor's religious motivations.

A case like Kara Neumann's thus poses questions far more difficult than might be apparent at first glance. Religion is firmly entrenched in our midst, and there are those – here and elsewhere – who would do violence, kill, and die for what their faith tells them is right. There are, too, those who use religion as a platform for positive, humanitarian social change. Perhaps the most striking fact about the Neumanns, viewed in this way, is that they apparently did not mean for any harm to befall their daughter. They were not trying to discipline her, teach her a lesson, or deprive her of what she needed. They loved her and had, until this tragic episode, apparently taken good care of her. They thought that God would protect Kara, if only they prayed hard enough. By comparison to other, more aggressive zealots, their tragically misguided conduct might seem, in relative terms, far less malevolent. (some emphasis added in bold)

Precisely? I don't know. But I do know that she does a lot of follow-up with her patients and monitors their progress at least until they leave the hospital.

Next time you see her, could you ask her what they told her specifically regarding that? I'd like to hear the exact words. There's no hurry, but if you could and send me a TG or PM, I'd really like to know.

The story, as stated, makes no sense, and I don't like it when things make no sense. I want to get more information until it does.

I am feeling passionate today, not romantically, easy everyone.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constnotes.html#Am1

This is not what the constitution is for. This is not what was intended to be protected by Free Speech / Free Expression. This also not was intended by Freedom of Religion.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The ability to speak your mind is a right that Americans take for granted. Imagine being too frightened by the possible consequences of speaking out to actually do so. Your opinion would not matter - even your vote would be corrupted. Even as important is the right to petition your government - not only can you have an opinion about your government, the government must listen to you (though it need not heed you - but that's what elections are for).

Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution. The constitutions of several of the states prohibited public support of religion (though some did explicitly support or demand adherence to Christianity). Above all, the many varying sects of Christianity in America required that to be fair to all, there could be preference to none. It would have been disgraceful for anyone to wish to leave the United States because of religious persecution. So the authors decided it best to keep the government out of religion. This is not to say that the United States was not or is not a religious nation. Religion plays a big role in the everyday life of Americans, then and now. But what the authors were striving for is tolerance... something I fear contemporary Americans are lacking.

Um. One could well argue that tolerance for religion would include tolerance for religious views other than those held by the majority -- such as those held by the Neumanns. From what I just quoted:

Third, we could argue that so long as people believe in good faith that they are carrying out the mandates of heaven, we should not punish them for doing what they do. To take the Abraham example again, many people study the test of Abraham's faith and admire his conduct. Though Abraham loved and treasured his son, he would do what his God required, no matter what.

For those who accept such total faith as right and proper, the only difference between Isaac's father Abraham and Kara's parents is that Abraham was "right" to trust in his vision of God and the Neumanns were "wrong" to trust in theirs. Such a distinction, of course, cannot ground the law in a society that values religious pluralism.

No matter how destructive or senseless it might seem to many secular people, religious liberty – on this view – requires an extremely high level of autonomy for practicing one's faith, regardless of how familiar or foreign that faith might be. Indeed, such practices might be deemed lawful and accepted if they were part of the majority's religious tradition, rather than a small minority's set of beliefs. Freedom of conscience should not, one might contend, depend on how many others follow the same religion.

The very skepticism that ordinarily animates secular thinking should perhaps curb the willingness to incarcerate people whose belief system – even including their supernatural belief system – differs, however drastically, from that of the group.



I submit the preacher is using this as a "bullet proof" vest. The constitution should offer no such protection.

Few people would agree that is okay to do human sacrifice as a part of your religion. If you look at it a certain way that is what this amounts to.

On the religious front God has said repeatedly that he does not want human sacrifices, although a few notable exceptions occurred in the Bible.

This amounts to human sacrifice through passive means. Refusing medical treatment is just as lethal as a sword in this case.

You seem to be basing your opinion on what YOU THINK GOD WANTS. Why must we all conform to your opinion on that matter?

Um. One could well argue that tolerance for religion would include tolerance for religious views other than those held by the majority -- such as those held by the Neumanns. From what I just quoted:

Third, we could argue that so long as people believe in good faith that they are carrying out the mandates of heaven, we should not punish them for doing what they do. To take the Abraham example again, many people study the test of Abraham's faith and admire his conduct. Though Abraham loved and treasured his son, he would do what his God required, no matter what.

For those who accept such total faith as right and proper, the only difference between Isaac's father Abraham and Kara's parents is that Abraham was "right" to trust in his vision of God and the Neumanns were "wrong" to trust in theirs. Such a distinction, of course, cannot ground the law in a society that values religious pluralism.

No matter how destructive or senseless it might seem to many secular people, religious liberty – on this view – requires an extremely high level of autonomy for practicing one's faith, regardless of how familiar or foreign that faith might be. Indeed, such practices might be deemed lawful and accepted if they were part of the majority's religious tradition, rather than a small minority's set of beliefs. Freedom of conscience should not, one might contend, depend on how many others follow the same religion.

The very skepticism that ordinarily animates secular thinking should perhaps curb the willingness to incarcerate people whose belief system – even including their supernatural belief system – differs, however drastically, from that of the group.


All excellent questions and I thank you for letting me respond. The difference being in Abraham's case God himself spoke to him and asked him to do this as we already know in the story it worked out for the best. You should trust what God asks you to do. There was little question in Abraham case what God wanted him to do. In a Christian's life for example. The rule has been "Where God commands we must/should obey or risk the consequences such as Jonah or worse"

In this case we hear a human speaking from his/her opinion, not really based on the word of God but on a particular interpretation of the law. The preacher made reference to Jesus healing himself. Jesus never really healed himself, at least not as witnessed in the bible and I am aware of no command in the Bible where we are to attempt to heal ourselves exclusively.

You may say well that is a matter for the members of his church to decide. According to the current constitution you would likely be correct. Was that the purpose of the legislation in question to prevent members of the church for being brought to justice? To not have to answer for their mistakes? I think the purpose was to prevent unnecessary persecution of people of faith. Would we be persecuting the members of this church unnecessarily in this case? I think both parties would be equally well served by a least questioning them on the matter. Examining what they believe and why they believe?




You seem to be basing your opinion on what YOU THINK GOD WANTS. Why must we all conform to your opinion on that matter?

No one has to conform to my opinion. We "members of the faith" can determine what God wants in the Jewish and Christian tradition at least by examining the Bible. To at least show the rest of where they got the idea that you were only allowed to appeal to prayer? This would help us to understand these members of our community and reach out to them should they wish it.

We have to ask ourselves what is in the best interest of the public in this regard.


With regard to the following point


No matter how destructive or senseless it might seem to many secular people, religious liberty – on this view – requires an extremely high level of autonomy for practicing one's faith, regardless of how familiar or foreign that faith might be. Indeed, such practices might be deemed lawful and accepted if they were part of the majority's religious tradition, rather than a small minority's set of beliefs. Freedom of conscience should not, one might contend, depend on how many others follow the same religion.


I submit we would not allow them to sacrifice humans in the USA. This amounts to the same thing.

If they were Satanists, hanging people upside down and draining their blood into a big vat would we object?

If they were Satanists were having sex with children as part of a ritual would we not object?

If they tried to violently overthrow the government would we not object?

If they were to drive automobiles blindfolded would we not object?

While the above examples are extreme cases they show a pattern. Just because they say they believe in God does not give them carte-blanche.


Please,please let us bring common sense back to the USA?

[enter serious mode]
While I don't believe these parents' actions are necessarily protected from prosecution, I think it is monstrously arrogant that somebody would categorize someone's religious views as merely a "human speaking from his/her opinion, not really based on the word of God but on a particular interpretation of the law" right after having presented their own religious dogma, beliefs, and interpretations as somehow more categorically true.

I would also point out that Cat-Tribes makes a necessary and potent point about comparing the regard and frame of assessment given to majority religions as opposed to minority ones, which in no way claims that the additional vector of risk to the public should be excluded from the analysis.
[End Serious Mode]

Religious belief cannot justify homicide. And I speak as a very religious man.

Religious belief cannot justify homicide. And I speak as a very religious man.

Nacho Libre?

I think part of the concern is that the prosecution not be rendered in such a way that it would not have otherwise been pursued against those of a more prevalent religion.

From the information I've seen so far, I would support prosecution. What I wouldn't do is predicate that decision, at all or in any way, on a theological analysis of their beliefs, or on my view of the soundness of their religion itself.

Nacho Libre?

I think part of the concern is that the prosecution not be rendered in such a way that it would not have otherwise been pursued against those of a more prevalent religion.

From the information I've seen so far, I would support prosecution. What I wouldn't do is predicate that decision, at all or in any way, on a theological analysis of their beliefs, or on my view of the soundness of their religion itself.

I certainly agree with my esteemed colleague that prosecution if possible should be sought. I think part of the laws job is to prevent such things from happening in the future. The adage that an Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure may prove useful in this situation.

If we examine their belief system we may be able to affect changes that would prevent such occurrences from happening in the future instead of merely punishing the guilty. Which could be a benefit in many ways to the US as a whole. If we were to examine the beliefs we would try to show the utmost respects for their beliefs while searching for alternative ways for them to express their faith. Which may involve not sacrificing a child's life. I don't think it arrogance to suggest that there may be a better way to express your faith within your views.


The idea being we need a twofold plan one that looks at the issue from a prevention angle and one looking from a punishment/deterrent angle. All Americans share the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One can judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable. I submit to you all that children are the most vulnerable. Thank you.

I certainly agree with my esteemed colleague that prosecution if possible should be sought. I think part of the laws job is to prevent such things from happening in the future. The adage that an Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure may prove useful in this situation.

If we examine their belief system we may be able to affect changes that would prevent such occurrences from happening in the future instead of merely punishing the guilty.

You want to examine and change their belief system, not just for "the safety of children" but for theological reasons that you have founded on your own religious beliefs. That opinion is a clear subversion of the very premise of religious freedom. I am thankful, seriously, that this Constitution is there to limit people like you.

The reasons to prosecute these people should NOT include your theological views or your judgment of their beliefs, (as you have claimed), but solely on the balance of their effect (something that was already understood).


Which could be a benefit in many ways to the US as a whole. If we were to examine the beliefs we would try to show the utmost respects for their beliefs while searching for alternative ways for them to express their faith. Which may involve not sacrificing a child's life. I don't think it arrogance to suggest that there may be a better way to express your faith within your views.

It is the most definite arrogance. We can prosecute them for their actions and not hold their religious beliefs as a defense, certainly. But to suggest that we should "examine their beliefs" while "searching for alternative ways for them to express their faith" is the most disgusting disrepect for religious freedom that I have ever heard, made moreso by its ostensibly concern for "the children."


The idea being we need a twofold plan one that looks at the issue from a prevention angle and one looking from a punishment/deterrent angle. All Americans share the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One can judge a society by the way it treats its most vulnerable. I submit to you all that children are the most vulnerable. Thank you.

Wow, a naked appeal to the value and vulnerability of children (which was never at question) to obfuscate a blatant attempt at "preventing" this by subjecting the religious beliefs of others to a scrutiny that, thus far, you have based on your own religious beliefs.

Again, this can be prosecuted and their religious beliefs should not be a defense, but subjecting those beliefs to not only your examination (that you would couple with the weight of law) but to your religious interpretations is a vile violation of religious freedom. That isn't good for children either.

Damn I have to head up north. I will respond to your points tonight. I have to go up North again. Have safe weekend everyone.

Damn I have to head up north. I will respond to your points tonight. I have to go up North again. Have safe weekend everyone.

Safe trip. We know people have lives, if it takes you a while to get back to a thread, I don't think anybody thinks less of it.

Though something short of insanity, one could argue that diminished capacity reduced the culpability of the defendants. I am most drawn to this way of viewing the facts of this case, as it tempers justice with mercy.

(all quotes from the article, not TCT specifically)

I would argue that, should we accept this excuse, we would have to say that the "diminished capacity" also makes them unfit to be parents and, very possibly, unfit to make decisions for themselves.

The very skepticism that ordinarily animates secular thinking should perhaps curb the willingness to incarcerate people whose belief system – even including their supernatural belief system – differs, however drastically, from that of the group.

No one is arguing that they should be incarcerated for their belief system. Instead, it is being argued that they should be incarcerated for the harm they caused another by following their belief system.

Consider, however, the perspective of Kara's parents. They – assuming the sincerity of their faith – honestly thought that praying would heal their daughter. While praying, the father's faith apparently wavered for a moment – one in which he asked the mother whether they should go to a doctor – but then their faith grew stronger. Once Kara died, her parents said that their faith must not have been strong enough.

This wouldn't be the first crime to be committed because someone sincerely thought they were doing the right thing.

When told there would later be an autopsy, their reaction was to say that Kara would be resurrected before any autopsy would take place. Leilani and Dale Neumann are suffering the loss of their child. It is perhaps unduly cruel to add to their loss with severe criminal punishment, when they never meant to harm her.

They never meant to harm her. That's why the charge should be something like neglect or involuntary manslaughter, rather than outright murder.

Maybe the Neumanns are like a person suffering from a delusional disorder who smothers his child, believing that he is actually rescuing him. To some, the Neumanns seem truly insane and thus deserving of pity, rather than punishment. If we view them as unable to have acted differently, however, it is difficult to justify leaving their other three children in their care. Though the children have apparently not been abused, it may not be in their best interests to live with people who are delusional enough to bring about the entirely avoidable death of their sibling through neglect.

Ah, this matches what I said above. If we are going to treat the Neumanns as if their religion has caused some sort of defect - "diminished capacity", then we must, at the very least, remove their remaining children from their custody.

A case like Kara Neumann's thus poses questions far more difficult than might be apparent at first glance. Religion is firmly entrenched in our midst, and there are those – here and elsewhere – who would do violence, kill, and die for what their faith tells them is right. There are, too, those who use religion as a platform for positive, humanitarian social change. Perhaps the most striking fact about the Neumanns, viewed in this way, is that they apparently did not mean for any harm to befall their daughter. They were not trying to discipline her, teach her a lesson, or deprive her of what she needed. They loved her and had, until this tragic episode, apparently taken good care of her. They thought that God would protect Kara, if only they prayed hard enough. By comparison to other, more aggressive zealots, their tragically misguided conduct might seem, in relative terms, far less malevolent.[/INDENT] (some emphasis added in bold)

Again, the fact that it is less malevolent is the reason for using a lesser charge, rather than charging them with murder, as we would if they were intentionally killing her.

Um. One could well argue that tolerance for religion would include tolerance for religious views other than those held by the majority -- such as those held by the Neumanns.

(actually from TCT)

Tolerance does not mean allowing someone to use their beliefs as an excuse to harm another. I am tolerant of the parent's beliefs and, if either of them would rather sit and home, pray, and die rather than seek medical treatment, that is their prerogative.

I am not tolerant of any parent who neglects to take care of his children, however.

In this case we hear a human speaking from his/her opinion, not really based on the word of God but on a particular interpretation of the law. The preacher made reference to Jesus healing himself. Jesus never really healed himself, at least not as witnessed in the bible and I am aware of no command in the Bible where we are to attempt to heal ourselves exclusively.

I think you are misinterpreting the preacher here. He wasn't talking about Jesus healing himself. He was talking about Jesus himself healing.

In other words, he was talking about the fact that people came to Jesus in pain and, because of their faith in him, they were healed. They were healed by God through faith, rather than through any human actions.

Next time you see her, could you ask her what they told her specifically regarding that? I'd like to hear the exact words. There's no hurry, but if you could and send me a TG or PM, I'd really like to know.

The story, as stated, makes no sense, and I don't like it when things make no sense. I want to get more information until it does.

I think the next time I'll see her will be at my thesis proposal, but I'll try and remember.

Send me a TG about it so I have it in my inbox.

I think the next time I'll see her will be at my thesis proposal, but I'll try and remember.

Send me a TG about it so I have it in my inbox.

Done. It's in your inbox.

For the sake of argument, an excerpt from the Findlaw article cited in the OP:

[INDENT]How Should the Law React?

<snip for length>
I am not happy with the suggestions in this article. I do not believe it would be appropriate to argue that religious belief caused or is tantamount to diminished capacity. If in this one particular case, you wanted to argue that these two people suffered diminished capacity and that plus their religious belief led to this tragedy, that might be one thing. But as phrased it seems to suggest that religious belief or belief in something supernatural is diminished capacity. That is (a) not accurate, (b) derogatory towards religion, and (c) way too easy to abuse.

I believe there are already types of charges that acknowledge that a person is responsible for something even though they had no intention going in to cause harm, and I believe such would be appropriate for these parents.

I submit we would not allow them to sacrifice humans in the USA. This amounts to the same thing.

If they were Satanists, hanging people upside down and draining their blood into a big vat would we object?

If they were Satanists were having sex with children as part of a ritual would we not object?

If they tried to violently overthrow the government would we not object?

If they were to drive automobiles blindfolded would we not object?

While the above examples are extreme cases they show a pattern. Just because they say they believe in God does not give them carte-blanche.


Please,please let us bring common sense back to the USA?
Point of information: Satanists do not do those things. Fyi. Other than that, it is a good point.

<snip>

The reasons to prosecute these people should NOT include your theological views or your judgment of their beliefs, (as you have claimed), but solely on the balance of their effect (something that was already understood).

<snip>
This is an even better point.

It is reasonable to take these people's sincere religious belief into account in assessing degree of guilt, but NOT in assessing whether there is anything to prosecute them for. We don't judge people on the basis of what they believe in this country, only on the basis of the effects of their actions.

This is an even better point.

It is reasonable to take these people's sincere religious belief into account in assessing degree of guilt, but NOT in assessing whether there is anything to prosecute them for. We don't judge people on the basis of what they believe in this country, only on the basis of the effects of their actions.

Precisely. Prosecution will provide social commentary and deterrence on their actions.

For others to decide that we're going to "examine" and make "changes" to their faith, especially based on an evaluatory context of their own religion imposed upon the offenders, is frightening.

If you'd had our baby, Mur, I would've taken little Timmy to the doctor when got sick.

Precisely. Prosecution will provide social commentary and deterrence on their actions.

For others to decide that we're going to "examine" and make "changes" to their faith, especially based on an evaluatory context of their own religion imposed upon the offenders, is frightening.

If you'd had our baby, Mur, I would've taken little Timmy to the doctor when got sick.
Damn straight you would. I would have been too busy maintaining my career.

Precisely. Prosecution will provide social commentary and deterrence on their actions.

For others to decide that we're going to "examine" and make "changes" to their faith, especially based on an evaluatory context of their own religion imposed upon the offenders, is frightening.

I don't think he was talking about imposing on them so much as trying to change their minds - to try and convince them that they need not forgo medical treatment. Now, I don't think that's a job for the government, but I don't see it as a horrible goal in and of itself.

I don't think he was talking about imposing on them so much as trying to change their minds - to try and convince them that they need not forgo medical treatment. Now, I don't think that's a job for the government, but I don't see it as a horrible goal in and of itself.

Well, any are free to proselytize as they will, but when he blended it with talk about the public good and a two part approach.

As he said:

I certainly agree with my esteemed colleague that prosecution if possible should be sought. I think part of the laws job is to prevent such things from happening in the future. The adage that an Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure may prove useful in this situation.

If we examine their belief system we may be able to affect changes that would prevent such occurrences from happening in the future instead of merely punishing the guilty.

I think it clearly indicates he wanted to invoke weight of law in this "change" to their beliefs. Perhaps he was merely unclear.

The unfortunate thing is that we will never know whether Kara would have chosen to refuse medical treatment. Have Kara Neumann's rights to religious freedom, and mainly her right to life been irrevocably violated by her parents' choice?

If someone who believed as Kara's parents did kidnapped a fully grown adult and held them prisoner while praying over them, ostensibly to save their soul, and allowed them to die, there would be no argument. They would be tried, convicted and sentenced. Kara, as their child, was basically in that position. She was unable to escape to seek medical treatment on her own, was in their control totally, and they chose to violate her rights.

Where is Kara's voice in all this? Where is the condemnation of her violated rights? To me, it is not reckless homicide because the Neumann's used their position of absolute authority over their daughter to impose their rigid, dangerous and ultimately fatal belief system on a helpless, vulnerable person. Regardless of her age, Kara Neumann had the right to a chance at life, a chance to decide for herself whether she believed as her parents did, and a chance to have a say in her own treatment.

You want to examine and change their belief system, not just for "the safety of children" but for theological reasons that you have founded on your own religious beliefs. That opinion is a clear subversion of the very premise of religious freedom. I am thankful, seriously, that this Constitution is there to limit people like you.

What I am suggesting is that we look at both the religion and the law and see what can be done to accommodate both. While researching this issue further I found another article that basically describes the same event as described in the OP.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/article.php?article=22061

I was mistaken before apparently came upon these religious belief on their own somehow.

What I am seeking to prevent as I am sure you are is the following

Peters is referring to state statute 948.03(6), against failing to act to protect children from bodily harm. It contains an exemption for what it refers to as " Treatment through prayer." To wit: "A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing … in lieu of medical or surgical treatment."

That in fact seems to be what this couple did. There appears to be no evidence of malice.

The girl’s parents, Dale and Leilana Neumann, who do not belong to any organized faith, purportedly prayed over her, believing even after her death that she would be resurrected. They chalked up her death to their own lack of faith, said Vergin.

That is so sad in many ways.


Here is another one to illustrate my point

The statute drew some attention in 2003, when a two-year-old autistic child in Milwaukee was crushed to death during an attempted exorcism. The practitioner was convicted, albeit of a lesser offense than what some felt was appropriate. Afterwards, Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann urged state lawmakers to remove this exemption, lest it lead to what he called "mischief." Wisconsin’s do-little Legislature has not done so.

Again we have to work from within as well. We set a policy for example that it is okay to pray over your child night and day if you like. Instead of being substitute for Medical begin the process of making into Complimentary to medical treatment. This case poses many difficulties as they appear to arrive on these conclusion on thier own. So sensitively ask which passages in the Bible or faith book did you read that lead you to this course of action. We do nothing more than listen and record at first. If they can't point to passages then tell us how they arrived at this point. If it just came out of thin air, we have a problem.



The law alone will not I assure you solve this problem.


Blanchard outlines the high threshold such a case would have to meet: "In the criminal child neglect area, we look for evidence of criminal thinking, not just inattention or momentary lapses in judgment. So, for example, if we had a baby death due to failure to thrive or treatable illness, and there was a claim that religious belief prevented the caretaker from seeking treatment, we would certainly ask police to be alert to any facts suggesting that religion was being used only as an after the fact excuse or ruse. That would of course be criminal thinking.



Otherwise they are untouchable. The have what amounts to a bullet proof vest.



The reasons to prosecute these people should NOT include your theological views or your judgment of their beliefs, (as you have claimed), but solely on the balance of their effect (something that was already understood).

My beliefs are irrelevant to this issue I a merely suggesting a course of action for preventing such death. They are unnecessary and unacceptable.


It is the most definite arrogance. We can prosecute them for their actions and not hold their religious beliefs as a defense, certainly. But to suggest that we should "examine their beliefs" while "searching for alternative ways for them to express their faith" is the most disgusting disrepect for religious freedom that I have ever heard, made moreso by its ostensibly concern for "the children."

It is not arrogance. Most religions have some sort of hierarchy. For example if we had question on Catholic doctrine we could take the question as high as the Pope if we follow the correct procedures. In Protestant Churches it may be the Arch- Bishop of Cantebury. It may be a committee. The Dali Lama will also field questions on faith. With our Brothers and sister in Islam maybe an Ayatollah. Whomever speaks for that religion.

Sadly in this case there is not such hierarchy they appear to have come to this understanding on their own. We have no choice but to inquire how they came by it, if we seek to prevent these happening in the future. In a free and just society like the USA prevention is view in higher light than punishment.


Wow, a naked appeal to the value and vulnerability of children (which was never at question) to obfuscate a blatant attempt at "preventing" this by subjecting the religious beliefs of others to a scrutiny that, thus far, you have based on your own religious beliefs.

Not even veiled attempt. This is an emotional issue. Some parent will defend their children unto death. This issue is that important. We need to bring feeling back to government and to the law.


Again, this can be prosecuted and their religious beliefs should not be a defense, but subjecting those beliefs to not only your examination (that you would couple with the weight of law) but to your religious interpretations is a vile violation of religious freedom. That isn't good for children either.

My religious beliefs have not fully entered into this yet. I could spend pages and pages why this bad from a Biblical point of view.


Facts

FACTS

Denying your child health care IS a form of neglect

Physical neglect includes refusal of or delay in seeking health care, abandonment, expulsion from the home or refusal to allow a runaway to return home, and inadequate supervision.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8358


The Journal of the American Medical Association (22 September 1989) reported on a study of more than 5,500 "Christian Scientists" as compared to a "lay group" of almost 30,000.[11] The death rate among "Christian Scientists" from cancer was double the national average, and 6 percent of them died from causes considered preventable by doctors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science



http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/4/625



Just the important parts

Participants. One hundred seventy-two children who died between 1975 and 1995 and were identified by referral or record search. Criteria for inclusion were evidence that parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals and documentation sufficient to determine the cause of death.

Results. One hundred forty fatalities were from conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. Eighteen more had expected survival rates of >50%. All but 3 of the remainder would likely have had some benefit from clinical help.

Conclusions. When faith healing is used to the exclusion of medical treatment, the number of preventable child fatalities and the associated suffering are substantial and warrant public concern. Existing laws may be inadequate to protect children from this form of medical neglect.






Parents should NOT be legally allowed to deny their children medical care in favor of faith based healing. We should attempt to make faith based healing seen as complimentary to, not as an alternative to medical treatment.


We can not lay this totally on the doorstep of Supreme Court of the USA. Action must come from all sides to prevent another avoidable death.

Um. One could well argue that tolerance for religion would include tolerance for religious views other than those held by the majority -- such as those held by the Neumanns. From what I just quoted:

Third, we could argue that so long as people believe in good faith that they are carrying out the mandates of heaven, we should not punish them for doing what they do. To take the Abraham example again, many people study the test of Abraham's faith and admire his conduct. Though Abraham loved and treasured his son, he would do what his God required, no matter what.

For those who accept such total faith as right and proper, the only difference between Isaac's father Abraham and Kara's parents is that Abraham was "right" to trust in his vision of God and the Neumanns were "wrong" to trust in theirs. Such a distinction, of course, cannot ground the law in a society that values religious pluralism.

No matter how destructive or senseless it might seem to many secular people, religious liberty – on this view – requires an extremely high level of autonomy for practicing one's faith, regardless of how familiar or foreign that faith might be. Indeed, such practices might be deemed lawful and accepted if they were part of the majority's religious tradition, rather than a small minority's set of beliefs. Freedom of conscience should not, one might contend, depend on how many others follow the same religion.

The very skepticism that ordinarily animates secular thinking should perhaps curb the willingness to incarcerate people whose belief system – even including their supernatural belief system – differs, however drastically, from that of the group.




You seem to be basing your opinion on what YOU THINK GOD WANTS. Why must we all conform to your opinion on that matter?

Um. One could well argue that tolerance for religion would include tolerance for religious views other than those held by the majority -- such as those held by the Neumanns. From what I just quoted:


I just wanted to respond a little better to this issue. In a free and just society such as the USA, tolerance is a good ideal to strive for. We should make every reasonable effort to allow people of faith to practice their religion without interference from the state.

However just because my religion tells me abortion is wrong it does not give me the right to sit outside a clinic with a sniper rifle picking off doctors and women who go in. It does not give me the right to blow up topless bars because I object to naked dancer leading people astray.


Preventing child abuse and neglect can be achieved only with the active participation of communities -- and the people and organizations within those communities. We need to learn how to recognize and report child abuse and neglect. If we understand our own responsibility and realizing that we have the power to change a child's life.

Even if we somehow manage to throw these parents in jail it will not prevent the rest that are following close behind.

What I am suggesting is that we look at both the religion and the law and see what can be done to accommodate both.

The law should be neutral to religion, neither restricting nor favoring it.


Again we have to work from within as well. We set a policy for example that it is okay to pray over your child night and day if you like. Instead of being substitute for Medical begin the process of making into Complimentary to medical treatment. This case poses many difficulties as they appear to arrive on these conclusion on thier own. So sensitively ask which passages in the Bible or faith book did you read that lead you to this course of action. We do nothing more than listen and record at first. If they can't point to passages then tell us how they arrived at this point. If it just came out of thin air, we have a problem.

Who is "us"? That you would subject their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) to your scrutiny, interpretation, or approval is exactly why you are so damaging to religious freedom.

Prosecute their actions; their beliefs are none of your business and certainly not subject to your scriptural interpretation or approval.


My beliefs are irrelevant to this issue I a merely suggesting a course of action for preventing such death. They are unnecessary and unacceptable.

I agree completely. The problem is that at several points in the thread, you brought your beliefs to bare on this, including what you think God wants, and as recently as the very post I was responding to, you suggest making them "show you" what they believe from their scripture, as if they should be answerable to you on that matter. That is also unnecessary and unacceptable.

If you as a separate person want to go tell them they are wrong in their beliefs, go ahead. But you suggested earlier that this should be part of the "preventative" role of the law. This is a foul violation of religious freedom. We can prosecute and regulate their actions without subjecting their beliefs to our judgment or scrutiny.


It is not arrogance. Most religions have some sort of hierarchy. For example if we had question on Catholic doctrine we could take the question as high as the Pope if we follow the correct procedures. In Protestant Churches it may be the Arch- Bishop of Cantebury. It may be a committee. The Dali Lama will also field questions on faith. With our Brothers and sister in Islam maybe an Ayatollah. Whomever speaks for that religion.

Then go talk to them on your own, but your statements about "us" as a society and role of law in this show tremendous arrogance and disrespect for religious freedom.


Sadly in this case there is not such hierarchy they appear to have come to this understanding on their own.

Their organization or lack thereof is none of your or the law's business. Many religions may have a system or lack of system that you disapprove of. That you consider this "sad" is further evidence of your lack of regard for religious freedom.


We have no choice but to inquire how they came by it, if we seek to prevent these happening in the future. In a free and just society like the USA prevention is view in higher light than punishment.

Both must be balanced with religious freedom. As was explained before, prosecution and informing them about the law serves the role of deterant without violating their freedoms by making them theologically justify themselves to you.

They can believe whatever they want, whether you like their source or reasoning. Their actions are all society has a right to regulate. That you would sacrifice that to "prevention" shows persistent disrespect for religious freedom.



Not even veiled attempt. This is an emotional issue. Some parent will defend their children unto death. This issue is that important. We need to bring feeling back to government and to the law.

My religious beliefs have not fully entered into this yet. I could spend pages and pages why this bad from a Biblical point of view.

And likely be systematically refuted by GnI or any one else with basic knowledge of comparative religion. I've seen your attempts at theological dissertation. Its precisely why I would never want the beliefs of others subject to your approval.

snip of massive cut and pastes

As usual, you fail to recognize the conceptual borders of the issue. Nobody is arguing in favor of child neglect. Prosecution and continued legislation on the issue are not being opposed here. Thus, as usual, you emphatically use one part of the issue to co-opt weight to a different aspect of it, without drawing any cogent link between the two.

I'll say it again: by all means, prosecute and legislate against this kind of child neglect and others. But your suggestions of holding other religions theologically, scripturally, or doctrinally answerable to the law or society is unconstitutional, arrogant, and a massive assault on religious freedom.

Actions may come from beliefs, but to respect religious freedom, we may only regulate action. The law and society have no right to regulate beliefs. Its the price we pay for religious freedom.

If I was going after them I might look into this.

The courts have generally authorized the transfusions in cases of minors or mentally incompetent patients in recognition of the compelling government interest to protect the health and safety of people. However, the courts are divided as to whether they should order transfusions where the patient is a competent adult who steadfastly refuses to accept such treatment on religious grounds despite the understanding that her or his refusal could result in death.

*snip*

*snip*

First, let me note that I agree with those that say the Neumanns should be prosecuted for reckless homicide and I injected the OP article's arguments to the contrary purely for the sake of prompting discussion.

Second, I nonetheless share the Ghost of Ayn Rand's concerns about your willingness to judge/condemn other religious beliefs. I don't think it is our place as a society or a government to make people explain and justify their beliefs to us or for us to try to reform/rehabilitate their beliefs.

Third, the U.S. Supreme Court explained, in Employment Division v. Smith (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html), 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not entitle religious actors to an exemption from the even-handed application of generally applicable laws; it entitles them only to be free from discrimination based on religion. Thus, there is no need for special laws or actions against religous-based misconduct. If the conduct is illegal under generally applicable, neutral laws, then it can and should be prosecuted.

However, the courts are divided as to whether they should order transfusions where the patient is a competent adult who steadfastly refuses to accept such treatment on religious grounds despite the understanding that her or his refusal could result in death.

Actually, self-determination of medical care for adults is definitely protected here in the US. You can even sign orders that if your heart/breathing stops you can't be resuscitated. So called "Do Not Resuscitate" orders are getting more and more common.

I just wanted to respond a little better to this issue. In a free and just society such as the USA, tolerance is a good ideal to strive for. We should make every reasonable effort to allow people of faith to practice their religion without interference from the state.

Based on your statement:

I certainly agree with my esteemed colleague that prosecution if possible should be sought. I think part of the laws job is to prevent such things from happening in the future. The adage that an Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure may prove useful in this situation.

If we examine their belief system we may be able to affect changes that would prevent such occurrences from happening in the future instead of merely punishing the guilty.

It is clear you suggest using the law in this scrutiny and "changes" in the beliefs of religious organization. That is monstrously different than simply having community groups plea with religious organizations to change their doctrine or reporting child abuse.


However just because my religion tells me abortion is wrong it does not give me the right to sit outside a clinic with a sniper rifle picking off doctors and women who go in. It does not give me the right to blow up topless bars because I object to naked dancer leading people astray.

Preventing child abuse and neglect can be achieved only with the active participation of communities -- and the people and organizations within those communities. We need to learn how to recognize and report child abuse and neglect. If we understand our own responsibility and realizing that we have the power to change a child's life.

Even if we somehow manage to throw these parents in jail it will not prevent the rest that are following close behind.

See above. You've advocated using the law to examine and change the relgious beliefs of others. That is unconstitutional and horrifically arrogant.

If you want to advocate individuals or private groups exhorting various religious groups to change their beliefs, that's fine, go do it. But when you presented above that the law as an expression of society as a whole should do this, you were advocating something simultaneously illegal and tyranical.

Its clear from your responses that you don't really understand the objections being made to your position. Your replies are rife with cut and paste of facts that were either already understood or not relevant. That's precisely why to actually effect change on this matter and better protect children, a view that allows for challenge to their actions without violation of their beliefs is necessary.

Your trite, simplistic pleadings show that you don't grasp the part of your position that is problematic.

Its that utter absence of analytical acumen that exacerbates the premise of you having government power to "examine" and "change" the religious beliefs of others. Doing so on your own or with some private group is your own business, but based on the quotes above, you've advocated more than that.

However, now that you've voiced that you understand that your own religious beliefs are irrelevant to this matter, you can proceed to understand why subjecting their scriptural beliefs to your religious interpretation is equally irrelevant.

If I was going after them I might look into this.

The courts have generally authorized the transfusions in cases of minors or mentally incompetent patients in recognition of the compelling government interest to protect the health and safety of people. However, the courts are divided as to whether they should order transfusions where the patient is a competent adult who steadfastly refuses to accept such treatment on religious grounds despite the understanding that her or his refusal could result in death.

Considering that you've claimed juries have the power to "sense injustice", that cases are "not all about facts and evidence" but that "reasonable doubt comes into it too" (as if reasonable doubt were something separate from the facts as opposed to a function of them), and that some of what you've already advocated is overtly unconstitutional, I'm glad the actual prosecution will be in the hands of someone who has read a bit more case law.

Second, I nonetheless share the Ghost of Ayn Rand's concerns about your willingness to judge/condemn other religious beliefs.

You read my posts?

I thought you'd had my every incarnation on ignore since 2005.

EDIT: Shit, now I have to actually start attending class and doing the reading more. If Cat-Tribe is going to read my posts, I better brush the hell up. I'm going to go read.

Homeopathy, when done properly, is an excellent non-invasive medical option.

Throughout history, herbal remedies have been utilized for healing various non-life-threatening ailments (I have two 2" thick books on the subject - there is a fascinating science behind it). I would not recommend homeopathy for cancer, except as a supporting medicine - something to help deal with associated aspects of the disease, such as fatigue, weight gain or loss, nausea, etc.

A person should do their homework before they go to the doctor, to make sure they are able to communicate their situation accurately, and be able to make informed decisions. So, too, can homeopathy be researched, examined and compared. Don't rule it out simply because of the wonkos out there that don't know what they're doing.

The law should be neutral to religion, neither restricting nor favoring it.

We can not win this one from the courts alone. I submit we should not favor one religion over another. We do however restrict but only where it is a matter of public safety or some other higher matter is compromised. I think child welfare should be among those reason to restrict.


Who is "us"? That you would subject their beliefs (as opposed to their actions) to your scrutiny, interpretation, or approval is exactly why you are so damaging to religious freedom.

Us would be a Supreme court appointed designate. The police may be used to this task if it means it will be done quickly and correctly. We just learn what they believe and if possible why they believe it. It would be only be matters pertinent to this case. We are not going to ask on the Doctrine of Original Sin. The questions would be better formulated by a lawyer but something along the lines of "Why did you feel that God wanted you only to use prayer as a sole method of healing"? If they quote Bible passage write them down under no circumstqances comment at this point. "Do you believe that God forbid you from using medical help?". Did anyone push you to this decision or was it your own belief? How did you come to this realization?

We listen at first to all responses, we will record them on CD or video or whatever and then we will leave and we will analyze the results.


Prosecute their actions; their beliefs are none of your business and certainly not subject to your scriptural interpretation or approval.

They made our business when they killed their kid. If there is 1 there could be 1000s possibly more.


I agree completely. The problem is that at several points in the thread, you brought your beliefs to bare on this, including what you think God wants, and as recently as the very post I was responding to, you suggest making them "show you" what they believe from their scripture, as if they should be answerable to you on that matter. That is also unnecessary and unacceptable.

This would be voluntary. If we describe our purpose which is to prevent this from ever happening again to another couple they may agree. You have to reach out to them. The feel their faith was not strong enough that is why it didn't work. This I submit we need to change. If they refuse we are screwed and they will walk almost certainly.


If you as a separate person want to go tell them they are wrong in their beliefs, go ahead. But you suggested earlier that this should be part of the "preventative" role of the law. This is a foul violation of religious freedom. We can prosecute and regulate their actions without subjecting their beliefs to our judgment or scrutiny.

It is not. We have a duty, right, and responsibility to prevent as many accidents as we can. Just because religion is involved doesn't make it any less so. Why do we have speed limits? Why do we helath and safety regulation some enforce by law.


Then go talk to them on your own, but your statements about "us" as a society and role of law in this show tremendous arrogance and disrespect for religious freedom.

Us = the people of the United States

We need to everything reasonable possible to protect religious freedom



Their organization or lack thereof is none of your or the law's business. Many religions may have a system or lack of system that you disapprove of. That you consider this "sad" is further evidence of your lack of regard for religious freedom.

The sad part was they came to this on their own, we can not appeal to a higher member of the church. It should be the law business. What would it hurt if a Catholic was the one who did this to find out where this came from, to ask the Pope let's say for a ruling? Pope, is it okay with God if a person looks for medical help for a health issue? If he says yes which I am sure he will then we go back to the individual and find where this came from.


Both must be balanced with religious freedom. As was explained before, prosecution and informing them about the law serves the role of deterrent without violating their freedoms by making them theologically justify themselves to you.

It does not how many suicide bomber have there been? I quite sure that is against the law. They will do it over and over again if we don't work from all sides of the issue.


They can believe whatever they want, whether you like their source or reasoning. Their actions are all society has a right to regulate. That you would sacrifice that to "prevention" shows persistent disrespect for religious freedom.

It is better to prevent it from happening to another couple if we just reached out a little and stop being so afraid we are going to hurt someone feeling. We need the Supreme courts help with this right now as it stands I bet they walk.


And likely be systematically refuted by GnI or any one else with basic knowledge of comparative religion. I've seen your attempts at theological dissertation. Its precisely why I would never want the beliefs of others subject to your approval.

Not my approval the Courts approval.


As usual, you fail to recognize the conceptual borders of the issue. Nobody is arguing in favor of child neglect. Prosecution and continued legislation on the issue are not being opposed here. Thus, as usual, you emphatically use one part of the issue to co-opt weight to a different aspect of it, without drawing any cogent link between the two.

Just showing that Government does have a role in health and welfare of children and in fact all citizens of the USA. We just need to transfer a tiny bit of the weigh of the first amendment into other areas such as this one. Let's face it as rules go it is a 2000lb gorilla.


I'll say it again: by all means, prosecute and legislate against this kind of child neglect and others. But your suggestions of holding other religions theologically, scriptural, or doctrinally answerable to the law or society is unconstitutional, arrogant, and a massive assault on religious freedom.

It is not arrogance to ask what do you believe and why do you believe it? You can tell me to get stuffed but that is another matter.


Actions may come from beliefs, but to respect religious freedom, we may only regulate action. The law and society have no right to regulate beliefs. Its the price we pay for religious freedom.

Reasonable regulations should be permissible.

We can not win this one from the courts alone. I submit we should not favor one religion over another. We do however restrict but only where it is a matter of public safety or some other higher matter is compromised. I think child welfare should be among those reason to restrict.

Its been repeatedly explained that you can regulate child welfare and deter neglect by prosecuting actions, not by you or the government examing or changing any aspect of anyone's beliefs.


Us would be a Supreme court appointed designate. The police may be used to this task if it means it will be done quickly and correctly. We just learn what they believe and if possible why they believe it. It would be only be matters pertinent to this case. We are not going to ask on the Doctrine of Original Sin. The questions would be better formulated by a lawyer but something along the lines of "Why did you feel that God wanted you only to use prayer as a sole method of healing"? If they quote Bible passage write them down under no circumstqances comment at this point. "Do you believe that God forbid you from using medical help?". Did anyone push you to this decision or was it your own belief? How did you come to this realization?

As if your or the Supreme Courts' religious interpretations or questioning are relevant. You've already admitted yours are irrelevant. Legislate consequences for child neglect and let them know what the consequences are. Using the government to change their religious beliefs is completely AGAINST the 1st Amendment, a "2000 lbs gorilla" that you don't seem to understand.


They made our business when they killed their kid. If there is 1 there could be 1000s possibly more.

Yes, that's where prosecution comes in, for their actions. There beliefs are not a defense, and remain none of your business. That you can't get the distinction, or that you think "prevention" justifies violation of religious freedom is why you are so dangerous to religious freedom.


This would be voluntary. If we describe our purpose which is to prevent this from ever happening again to another couple they may agree. You have to reach out to them. The feel their faith was not strong enough that is why it didn't work. This I submit we need to change. If they refuse we are screwed and they will walk almost certainly.

This doctrinal questioning and "changes" would be voluntary? Then why did you above advocate involving the police and Courts?

If its voluntary, you don't need weight of law to do it. Go ask them yourself, communicate with them as long as they are willing to talk to you. If your theology and reasoning abilities are the same as you evinced here, we'll see how far you get.


It is not. We have a duty, right, and responsibility to prevent as many accidents as we can. Just because religion is involved doesn't make it any less so. Why do we have speed limits? Why do we helath and safety regulation some enforce by law.

So, you continue to fail to understand that nobody is saying this should be unprosecuted or that their religion should be a defense.

"Some" regulation is enforced by law? Do you understand what a regulation is when used in this context?

You still don't have a basic grasp of what part of your advocation is illegal and why.


Us = the people of the United States

We need to everything reasonable possible to protect religious freedom

I agree. Not everyone is reasonable, and your many unconstitutional proposals, like having the police and courts doctrinally challenge and change people's religions, as opposed to their actions which CAN AND SHOULD be challenged, makes you the biggest threat to religious freedom on this thread.


The sad part was they came to this on their own, we can not appeal to a higher member of the church.

What makes you think the authorities of a church will be more receptive to your police and court effected doctrinal changes than the rank and file? And if it was simply one person, or one family, what makes you think their religious beliefs are thus more subject to your approval?

Learn to distinguish the laws right to regulate actions from the protections given to people's beliefs.


It should be the law business. What would it hurt if a Catholic was the one who did this to find out where this came from, to ask the Pope let's say for a ruling? Pope, is it okay with God if a person looks for medical help for a health issue? If he says yes which I am sure he will then we go back to the individual and find where this came from.

So, to illustrate your premise that it is the "law business", you point out it wouldn't hurt if a private Catholic citizen went to the pope? Do you have a basic grasp of the difference between the law and a private citizen?

Again, as a private citizen, call whatever pope you want. Directing the government to change people's religious beliefs is a violation of religious freedom and in the US, its illegal.


It does not how many suicide bomber have there been? I quite sure that is against the law. They will do it over and over again if we don't work from all sides of the issue.

Have you considered that suicide bombing is not reflective of the organized belief of many groups, and those groups that espouse it likely aren't going to change because you ask them to? Do you seriously think the US goverment and police, if they just went to those groups that use suicide bombers, could just ask them to justify why they do it religiously, and they'd stop it?

"Working all sides of the issue" can be done while still respecting that the religious beliefs of others are not subject to your or the goverments approvals. Regulate ACTIONS, not beliefs. And if you can't regulate their actions, what makes you think you can change their beliefs?

You are Orwellian in your willingness to violate the beliefs of others.


It is better to prevent it from happening to another couple if we just reached out a little and stop being so afraid we are going to hurt someone feeling. We need the Supreme courts help with this right now as it stands I bet they walk.

The Supreme Court has actually studied the First Amendment and grasps its basic doctrines. Thus, they might be able to figure out that they can hold that their religion is not a defense from prosecution, providing the deterance of law against action, while still respecting that their beliefs themselves are not the courts business.


Not my approval the Courts approval.

Just showing that Government does have a role in health and welfare of children and in fact all citizens of the USA. We just need to transfer a tiny bit of the weigh of the first amendment into other areas such as this one. Let's face it as rules go it is a 2000lb gorilla.

That role can be accomplished through child neglect law, not by having police and courts effect "changes" in those beliefs that you don't like. You might want to learn about what the 2000lb gorilla actually says.


It is not arrogance to ask what do you believe and why do you believe it? You can tell me to get stuffed but that is another matter.

Reasonable regulations should be permissible.

If they can tell you to "get stuffed", then you don't need the police or courts to back it, as you've advocated. You can't even maintain a consistent cogent argument, and you want to excercise public power of the beliefs of others.

Your version of "reasonable" is thankfully prohibited by Constitution. This problem can be solved without your simplistic and arrogant disregard for religious freedom.

Granted, this may have been answered earlier in the thread, but I may have missed it.

Why is the religious freedom of Dale and Leilani more important than that of their daughter? If it was Leilani or Dale, I would not have a problem in the world with them choosing death over medical intervention. But they made that choice for their helpless young daughter. If she had been allowed to live, it is not certain that she would have chosen the same path as her parents. Why should they be allowed to make that choice for someone else?

As I said before, if they held someone against their will to prevent them accessing medical treatment, there would be no question, regardless of their religious beliefs. They had complete control over their daughter and refused medical treatment, possibly against her will and certainly where she was not in a position to be informed about or made aware of other choices.

First, let me note that I agree with those that say the Neumanns should be prosecuted for reckless homicide and I injected the OP article's arguments to the contrary purely for the sake of prompting discussion.

With respect, it is not homicide if they didn't stick a knife in the kid or something similar. It may be neglect but it always goes back why did they neglect? Because "God" told them to. I am not talking Son of Sam here I am talking deeply held religious conviction.


Second, I nonetheless share the Ghost of Ayn Rand's concerns about your willingness to judge/condemn other religious beliefs. I don't think it is our place as a society or a government to make people explain and justify their beliefs to us or for us to try to reform/rehabilitate their beliefs.


What about understand, question, examine? That is what the court does. You could say state of mind is judgment of a person's beliefs. We are not trying to condemn their beliefs, how about provide another alternative as to how they may want to handle things in the future. I realize the courts have to tread lightly but if we don't they will wrap themselves in 1ST Amendment like a big old fuzzy blanket. The beat goes on.


Third, the U.S. Supreme Court explained, in Employment Division v. Smith (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/494/872.html), 494 U.S. 872 (1990), that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not entitle religious actors to an exemption from the even-handed application of generally applicable laws; it entitles them only to be free from discrimination based on religion. Thus, there is no need for special laws or actions against religious-based misconduct. If the conduct is illegal under generally applicable, neutral laws, then it can and should be prosecuted.

It entitles them only to be free from discrimination based on religion. I like this part but the right to raise your children as you see fit. Bam, we are right back at the same place again. If we can't find another reason why this child may have died we are up against it. This would be great if we were trying to get a guy shooting at patients entering an abortion clinic.


The defense will likely come up with,

People have the right to raise there kids anyway they like. They can take them out of school, blah,blah,blah.

The reason this child died is their deeply held beliefs that Prayer would save their child. The is protected under the 1St Amendment.

I believe there is some rule about being able to refuse medical care for your children meant to protect them from vaccines etc.

Granted, this may have been answered earlier in the thread, but I may have missed it.

Why is the religious freedom of Dale and Leilani more important than that of their daughter? If it was Leilani or Dale, I would not have a problem in the world with them choosing death over medical intervention. But they made that choice for their helpless young daughter. If she had been allowed to live, it is not certain that she would have chosen the same path as her parents. Why should they be allowed to make that choice for someone else?

As I said before, if they held someone against their will to prevent them accessing medical treatment, there would be no question, regardless of their religious beliefs. They had complete control over their daughter and refused medical treatment, possibly against her will and certainly where she was not in a position to be informed about or made aware of other choices.

Well said. Don't let this happen in your country.

Homeopathy, when done properly, is an excellent non-invasive medical option.

Throughout history, herbal remedies have been utilized for healing various non-life-threatening ailments (I have two 2" thick books on the subject - there is a fascinating science behind it). I would not recommend homeopathy for cancer, except as a supporting medicine - something to help deal with associated aspects of the disease, such as fatigue, weight gain or loss, nausea, etc.

A person should do their homework before they go to the doctor, to make sure they are able to communicate their situation accurately, and be able to make informed decisions. So, too, can homeopathy be researched, examined and compared. Don't rule it out simply because of the wonkos out there that don't know what they're doing.

This is also well said. I think we should do this as well.

With respect, it is not homicide if they didn't stick a knife in the kid or something similar. It may be neglect but it always goes back why did they neglect? Because "God" told them to. I am not talking Son of Sam here I am talking deeply held religious conviction.

Oh really? Neglect cannot be construed as a reckless action sufficient to meet the legal standard of reckless homicide? You really think that without a "knife in the kid or something similar", it can't be reckless homicide?

Do you even realize you are lecturing a lawyer (Cat-Tribes) on the law, and doing a poor job of it?

Do you realize that even I, the worst student in my Law School, can easily see and prove that you have no idea what you're talking about?

In case you ever want to actually learn about the law before making uninformed assertions to others, reckless homicide is defined from state to state, and does not require "a knife or something similar". It only requires recklessness and the killing of another person. In some states, this case could well qualify.

Oh really? Neglect cannot be construed as a reckless action sufficient to meet the legal standard of reckless homicide? You really think that without a "knife in the kid or something similar", it can't be reckless homicide?

It goes back to why did they neglect? They did not just forget the baby on the doorstep or shoot up heroine while their kid starved.

They could have been good parents in every other regard. It can be consider reckless. I would turn it around and say what is reckless about defending or practicing your faith?


Do you even realize you are lecturing a lawyer (Cat-Tribes) on the law, and doing a poor job of it?

I am not lecturing anyone, I am merely stating an opinion. My opinion is the law should be changed and we need a more comprehensive approach. I know Cat-Tribe is a lawyer I was hoping he could show me how he would argue differently. I always try to treat him with respect. I am not trying to challenge him. I am no match for legal prowess.


Do you realize that even I, the worst student in my Law School, can easily see and prove that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Based on, so let's hear it? I am also trying to be respectful of you as well. I want to understand how you would argue differently?


In case you ever want to actually learn about the law before making uninformed assertions to others, reckless homicide is defined from state to state, and does not require "a knife or something similar". It only requires recklessness and the killing of another person. In some states, this case could well qualify.

No argument there but was this case reckless? If so, how so?

What about understand, question, examine? That is what the court does. You could say state of mind is judgment of a person's beliefs.

What a court can examine is limited by little details like the constitution. As for your understand of what "state of mind" means, as a term of art in the law, would you say your version reflects a strong understanding of how the law actually defines and uses it?


We are not trying to condemn their beliefs, how about provide another alternative as to how they may want to handle things in the future. I realize the courts have to tread lightly but if we don't they will wrap themselves in 1ST Amendment like a big old fuzzy blanket. The beat goes on.

What you are advocating is exactly the OPPOSITE of treading lightly, and saying that courts can or should effect their beliefs themselves (again, as opposed to their actions) is the surest way to be immediately thrown out of court.

Do you understand that the strategy you are advocating is unconstitutional, and would actually HELP the defense by getting the case thrown out on those grounds? That what you are suggesting makes prosecution HARDER?



It entitles them only to be free from discrimination based on religion. I like this part but the right to raise your children as you see fit. Bam, we are right back at the same place again. If we can't find another reason why this child may have died we are up against it. This would be great if we were trying to get a guy shooting at patients entering an abortion clinic.

Reckless disregard for the lives of their child is the "why this child may have died". There are better theories of prosecution than making up some other reason.

Who trained you in the law? What case law have you studied?


The defense will likely come up with,

People have the right to raise there kids anyway they like. They can take them out of school, blah,blah,blah.

The reason this child died is their deeply held beliefs that Prayer would save their child. The is protected under the 1St Amendment.

Not necessarily. There are times when religion is not a defense. That does not require changing their beliefs, just not holding them as a defense.

How much of the case law and history on this have you actually sat down and studied?

Granted, this may have been answered earlier in the thread, but I may have missed it.

Why is the religious freedom of Dale and Leilani more important than that of their daughter? If it was Leilani or Dale, I would not have a problem in the world with them choosing death over medical intervention. But they made that choice for their helpless young daughter. If she had been allowed to live, it is not certain that she would have chosen the same path as her parents. Why should they be allowed to make that choice for someone else?

As I said before, if they held someone against their will to prevent them accessing medical treatment, there would be no question, regardless of their religious beliefs. They had complete control over their daughter and refused medical treatment, possibly against her will and certainly where she was not in a position to be informed about or made aware of other choices.

I'm just quoting myself because I don't seem to be getting any responses. I actually am curious about the legal response to my initial question. Not looking to pick a fight, just curious about how the law views the balance between children's rights and those of parents?

It goes back to why did they neglect? They did not just forget the baby on the doorstep or shoot up heroine while their kid starved.

They could have been good parents in every other regard. It can be consider reckless. I would turn it around and say what is reckless about defending or practicing your faith?

That is the standard that would be argued in the case. An able prosecutor will be able to answer it cogently.


I am not lecturing anyone, I am merely stating an opinion. My opinion is the law should be changed and we need a more comprehensive approach.

You stated (actually misstated) what the law is (your incorrect belief that it requires a "knife or something similar"). Now you lie and claim you were only giving an opinion on how you think it should be. You may have done that in other statements, but that's not what you did ther.


I know Cat-Tribe is a lawyer I was hoping he could show me how he would argue differently. I always try to treat him with respect. I am not trying to challenge him. I am no match for legal prowess.

Which is exactly why your several statement so far on everything from juries, prosecution, free speech, freedom of religion, reckless homicide, reasonable doubt, and other claims you've made about the law represent a serious lack of basic legal knowledge. Yet you continue to make assertions about the law, and then backpedal when refuted.


Based on, so let's hear it? I am also trying to be respectful of you as well. I want to understand how you would argue differently?

First off, I would argue cogently after learning a lot more about the law. What you're advocating, having the courts and police try to change their religious beliefs, would be grossly illegal.


No argument there but was this case reckless? If so, how so?

In general, recklessness in a legal context sometimes comes down to "careless to the point of being heedless of the consequences." Denying medical care to the point where the child could and did die could be considered reckless.

If it fails to meet that standard, you find another one (EDIT: Prior to filing charges). What you DON'T do is make the prosecution instantly unconstitutional by trying to change their religious beliefs. You demonstrate, as a matter of law and facts, that their beliefs are not a defense for denying their child health care to the point of death.

I'm just quoting myself because I don't seem to be getting any responses. I actually am curious about the legal response to my initial question. Not looking to pick a fight, just curious about how the law views the balance between children's rights and those of parents?

I think you made a fairly sound point. The principle reason I support prosecution here is the violating of the child's rights.

I simply maintain that it can and should be prosecuted without one religious person, with police and courts in tow, trying to use their scriptural interpretations to change the beliefs of others.

The very juxtaposition of interests and rights that you advocate is a major theme in the law.

No argument there but was this case reckless? If so, how so?

You claimed that the reckless homicide citation that Cat-Tribes made was wrong because you claimed it required "a knife or something similar".

When I point out that this is completely incorrect, that your assertion is completely wrong, you say "no argument there."

Are you actually admitting that you were wrong or are you ignoring what you originally said?

With respect, it is not homicide if they didn't stick a knife in the kid or something similar.

The fuck? No.

What a court can examine is limited by little details like the constitution. As for your understand of what "state of mind" means, as a term of art in the law, would you say your version reflects a strong understanding of how the law actually defines and uses it?

I can look it up. I did not claim to be an expert. You are also deflecting, but here is a start. Did the couple in question show:

Many serious crimes require the proof of mens rea before a person can be convicted.

In other words, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused committed the offence (actus reus) but that he (or she) did it knowing that it was prohibited; that their act (or omission) was done with an intent to commit the crime.



What you are advocating is exactly the OPPOSITE of treading lightly, and saying that courts can or should effect their beliefs themselves (again, as opposed to their actions) is the surest way to be immediately thrown out of court.

I am advocating a whole policy change. Not just with the law. If it is done correctly it can be done treading lightly.


Do you understand that the strategy you are advocating is unconstitutional, and would actually HELP the defense by getting the case thrown out on those grounds? That what you are suggesting makes prosecution HARDER?

I don't think the defense needs any help. We need a better approach to this than let's just throw them in jail. The problem will not go away on it own.


Reckless disregard for the lives of their child is the "why this child may have died". There are better theories of prosecution than making up some other reason.


Who trained you in the law? What case law have you studied?

No one, I am a Software QA person. I do have an interest in law but only as an interest. You will likely say that I am uninformed or unqualified. That could be true but I have seen little to change my mind, from you.


Main Entry: reck·less
Pronunciation: \ˈre-kləs\
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2 : irresponsible <reckless charges>


They could say their prayer were proper caution.



Not necessarily. There are times when religion is not a defense. That does not require changing their beliefs, just not holding them as a defense.

How much of the case law and history on this have you actually sat down and studied?

Only stuff easily found on wiki or other sites. Do I have a legal mind and do I study the properly, probably not.

So you are saying I am an expert and I know better?

With my experience in QA, I can spot a flaw in a system better than most. This has descended in personal attacks. Which is fairly typical. If you can't criticize the argument you criticize the arguer. I proposing a slight change in the way we look at cases. To treat the root cause not just the symptoms. While this fact is easy to see in other areas it is difficult in law because it is so steadfast in being the "last bastion" of protection for the downtrodden. People make the law. People make mistakes. It is time we changed some of them.


With that I say Good night to you.

I can look it up. I did not claim to be an expert. You are also deflecting, but here is a start.

You don't claim to be an expert, you just make categorical and uninformed statements about the law.

Deflecting? I have directly addressed my comments to your claims. If you think that's deflecting, you don't know what it is.


Did the couple in question show:

Many serious crimes require the proof of mens rea before a person can be convicted.[

In other words, the prosecution must prove not only that the accused committed the offence (actus reus) but that he (or she) did it knowing that it was prohibited; that their act (or omission) was done with an intent to commit the crime.

And is this the standard that applies to reckless endangerment, neglect, and a similar array of crimes? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?


I am advocating a whole policy change. Not just with the law. If it is done correctly it can be done treading lightly.

So, destroying a central tenet of the constitution, and you think that's treading lightly?

And as far as what you advocated, you claimed that reckless homicide requires "a knife or something", which is completely incorrect. Its not just your policy change that is unconsitutional (and hardly "light"), but the several false claims you've made about the law as it stands.


I don't think the defense needs any help. We need a better approach to this than let's just throw them in jail. The problem will not go away on it own.

So, you don't understand the basic premise that you're unconstitutional approach DOES help the defense? That you are making the prosecution harder?

The problem will be even more intractable with people like you advocating unconstitutional government actions that will make it EASIER for the defense to hide behind the constitution.


No one, I am a Software QA person. I do have an interest in law but only as an interest. You will likely say that I am uninformed or unqualified. That could be true but I have seen little to change my mind, from you.


Main Entry: reck·less
Pronunciation: \ˈre-kləs\
Function: adjective
Date: before 12th century
1 : marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
2 : irresponsible <reckless charges>


They could say their prayer were proper caution.

In law, various terms are called "terms of art" and have very specific legal standards under the law. Using a basic dictionary won't help. Try Black's Law dictionary or something similar.


Only stuff easily found on wiki or other sites. Do I have a legal mind and do I study the properly, probably not.

Then perhaps you aren't the best person to be making broad and in most cases completely uninformed claims about the law. Its a credibility thing.

You seem frighteningly eager to exert power, political and religious, over others for someone who admits they have neither the "mind" nor the "study" for it.


So you are saying I am an expert and I know better?

If you think that's what a person is saying when they ask you how much of something you've studied, then you've shown that you don't have the rudimentary ability to communicate well.

I should have just kept ignoring you, but the things you advocate are so illegal and disrespectful of the rights of others, I couldn't hold my tongue.

My god...I don't...I don't even know where to begin. not only are your argument 90% near incoherent (and inconsistent) rambling, but the few points that can be teased out can be rejected out of hand as being blatantly unconstitutional, a fact you seem to ignore.

Frankly speaking, don't you dare, don't you fucking dare, presume that "with your experience in QA" that makes you remotely qualified to discuss the law. It's damned insulting to those of us who have worked in the field. I assure you, you're not nearly as qualified as you think, and your attempts to explain the law have been pitiful.

I think you made a fairly sound point. The principle reason I support prosecution here is the violating of the child's rights.

I simply maintain that it can and should be prosecuted without one religious person, with police and courts in tow, trying to use their scriptural interpretations to change the beliefs of others.

The very juxtaposition of interests and rights that you advocate is a major theme in the law.

And here I thought my post was too idiotic or repetitive to merit a response. ;)

I feel that an adult who refuses medical treatment for any reason is perfectly within their rights to do so. But when that extends to a child, the law must protect the child and their right to life. When someone is unable to as yet formulate their own opinions, its my belief that we should err on the side of caution in keeping them alive where practical. The law must ensure that those who have absolute control over another (i.e. parents) are not curtailing or ignoring their right to their own belief system. Where they are not yet of an age to make that decision, it should not be made for them to their detriment, as in this sad case.

And is this the standard that applies to reckless endangerment, neglect, and a similar array of crimes? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?

You know, some researchers posit that gorillas who can speak in sign language haven't really learned a LANGUAGE, but have committed by rote memorization, how to respond to one cue with another cue. Much like a dog doesn't understand the word "sit" but knows, with this sound, perform this action.

As such, the theory goes, some animals are essentially capable of mimicking language, but are incapable of a deeper understand of what it is they're saying.

This is TOTALLY irrelevant, I just felt like sharing...

With my experience in QA, I can spot a flaw in a system better than most.

Except for the several flaws in your own claims, apparently.


This has descended in personal attacks. Which is fairly typical. If you can't criticize the argument you criticize the arguer.

Anyone looking at this thread can see dozens of places where your argument has been refuted.

You are truly saying I'm unable to critize your argument? You don't see where I and others have done so, time and time again?

As for personal attacks, I've addressed your "arguments" and your "expertise", and the consequences thereof.


I proposing a slight change in the way we look at cases. To treat the root cause not just the symptoms. While this fact is easy to see in other areas it is difficult in law because it is so steadfast in being the "last bastion" of protection for the downtrodden.

A slight change? The utterly violating of one of the central themes of constitutional protections? Again, Orwellian.


People make the law. People make mistakes. It is time we changed some of them.

You might want to check a few of your own mistakes, in reasoning, in the law, and on the other subjects you've made broad claims on.

And here I thought my post was too idiotic or repetitive to merit a response. ;)

I feel that an adult who refuses medical treatment for any reason is perfectly within their rights to do so. But when that extends to a child, the law must protect the child and their right to life. When someone is unable to as yet formulate their own opinions, its my belief that we should err on the side of caution in keeping them alive where practical. The law must ensure that those who have absolute control over another (i.e. parents) are not curtailing or ignoring their right to their own belief system. Where they are not yet of an age to make that decision, it should not be made for them to their detriment, as in this sad case.

The boundary may fall closely between the region of parent's rights to govern the religious education of their children, and the government's power to intervene in those areas where religion is not a protection.

Certainly those instances where the death of the child is a foreseeable consequence, this invites much closer scrutiny.

You know, some researchers posit that gorillas who can speak in sign language haven't really learned a LANGUAGE, but have committed by rote memorization, how to respond to one cue with another cue. Much like a dog doesn't understand the word "sit" but knows, with this sound, perform this action.

As such, the theory goes, some animals are essentially capable of mimicking language, but are incapable of a deeper understand of what it is they're saying.

This is TOTALLY irrelevant, I just felt like sharing...

Quite all right, I enjoy the cognitive sciences, I just don't know enough about them to tell practicing experts what to do, or dictate that the police and courts mandate psychological exams based on belief rather than action, so we can effect "changes".

I did learn a bit of C++, though, so I can probably correct most people's minds. Better than most.

Quite all right, I enjoy the cognitive sciences, I just don't know enough about them to tell practicing experts what to do, or dictate that the police and courts mandate psychological exams based on belief rather than action, so we can effect "changes".

I did learn a bit of C++, though, so I can probably correct most people's minds. Better than most.

well, I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. So with that in mind, I'm quite positive that government mandated psychological conditioning in order to effectuate "change" in "undesirables" who "don't think correctly" has never, in the history of the world, ever ended horrifically badly.

The boundary may fall closely between the region of parent's rights to govern the religious education of their children, and the government's power to intervene in those areas where religion is not a protection.

Certainly those instances where the death of the child is a foreseeable consequence, this invites much closer scrutiny.

Mmm...there is a decided difference between educating your child about your beliefs, be they Freemason (I am aware this is not a religion), Muslim, Christian or atheist, and actually harming your child as a direct result of your beliefs. The US, as I understand it, does not allow clitoridectomy (please correct me if I am wrong) to be performed, although many Muslims believe this to be necessary for their child's health and wellbeing. Therefore, whilst every freedom should be provided in the teaching and development of the child's understanding, their physical health and wellbeing should not be compromised by their parents' beliefs. That is where I draw the line (and that is wholly and unashamedly my opinion. I would not necessarily expect this to be mandated by law in every case, since I am not a lawyer, or anything even half so qualified to make those judgments).

well, I may not be an expert, but I did stay at a holiday inn express last night. So with that in mind, I'm quite positive that government mandated psychological conditioning in order to effectuate "change" in "undesirables" who "don't think correctly" has never, in the history of the world, ever ended horrifically badly.

Too bad, because I'm about to rewrite your Harvard-compiled source code on Legal Prostitution, because it is on like that time we were driving through Utah after my wedding so you could drop me off at the airport to meet up with my wife who had to take her mom back home, and the groomsman had filled the car with breathmints and condoms as a joke, and we got pulled over, and the Utah trooper thought we were "packing" drugs up our asses in the condoms, and here you and I were, sitting in a 96 Celica covered with "Just Married", and from there it went so wrong.

Too bad, because I'm about to rewrite your Harvard-compiled source code on Legal Prostitution, because it is on like that time we were driving through Utah after my wedding so you could drop me off at the airport to meet up with my wife who had to take her mom back home, and the groomsman had filled the car with breathmints and condoms as a joke, and we got pulled over, and the Utah trooper thought we were "packing" drugs up our asses in the condoms, and here you and I were, sitting in a 96 Celica covered with "Just Married", and from there it went so wrong.

and then of course trying to explain that when it comes to drug smuggling, that's quite the wrong end, only made matters worse.

Frankly, I agree with you, the cop seemed a little disappointed about the news, but you didn't have to then go on and explain that it's a perfectly natural impulse and he shouldn't be ashamed of it.

And the pictures, my god man the pictures. Were illustrations really necessary?

Mmm...there is a decided difference between educating your child about your beliefs, be they Freemason (I am aware this is not a religion), Muslim, Christian or atheist, and actually harming your child as a direct result of your beliefs. The US, as I understand it, does not allow clitoridectomy (please correct me if I am wrong) to be performed, although many Muslims believe this to be necessary for their child's health and wellbeing.

I believe you are correct. A friend of mine in the Raelian religion believes that circumcision is a genital mutilation as well.


Therefore, whilst every freedom should be provided in the teaching and development of the child's understanding, their physical health and wellbeing should not be compromised by their parents' beliefs.

When denial of medical care results in foreseeable and easily preventable death, I think your position is even more supportable.


That is where I draw the line (and that is wholly and unashamedly my opinion. I would not necessarily expect this to be mandated by law in every case, since I am not a lawyer, or anything even half so qualified to make those judgments).

Many on this thread, including myself, support prosecution and would not hold the parent's religious beliefs as a defense.

As to future risk, refined legislation against and prosecution of actions will better address this than attempting to use the police and courts to enforce scriptural or doctrinal changes in the beliefs of others.

i think that already happened in the 80's or 90's with some Christian scientist and the parents were put in jail.

You don't claim to be an expert, you just make categorical and uninformed statements about the law.

Deflecting? I have directly addressed my comments to your claims. If you think that's deflecting, you don't know what it is.



And is this the standard that applies to reckless endangerment, neglect, and a similar array of crimes? Do you have any idea what you're talking about?



So, destroying a central tenet of the constitution, and you think that's treading lightly?

And as far as what you advocated, you claimed that reckless homicide requires "a knife or something", which is completely incorrect. Its not just your policy change that is unconsitutional (and hardly "light"), but the several false claims you've made about the law as it stands.



So, you don't understand the basic premise that you're unconstitutional approach DOES help the defense? That you are making the prosecution harder?

The problem will be even more intractable with people like you advocating unconstitutional government actions that will make it EASIER for the defense to hide behind the constitution.



In law, various terms are called "terms of art" and have very specific legal standards under the law. Using a basic dictionary won't help. Try Black's Law dictionary or something similar.



Then perhaps you aren't the best person to be making broad and in most cases completely uninformed claims about the law. Its a credibility thing.

You seem frighteningly eager to exert power, political and religious, over others for someone who admits they have neither the "mind" nor the "study" for it.



If you think that's what a person is saying when they ask you how much of something you've studied, then you've shown that you don't have the rudimentary ability to communicate well.

I should have just kept ignoring you, but the things you advocate are so illegal and disrespectful of the rights of others, I couldn't hold my tongue.



I submit to effectively solve this problem you must from inside/out and from the outside/in. In any event I am going to let this go. Let me just state again we need a comprehensive approach to this problem. We need to change the perception of prayer being used as substitute for medical care into a compliment to medical care. All the brilliant legal minds on this forum need to figure out a way we can do that within the limits of the law or change the law so that is permissible.

Thank you for your time and analysis of my arguments. I wish you all well in the future.

I submit to effectively solve this problem you must from inside/out and from the outside/in.

When your inside/outside approach includes having police and courts approach religious authorities to "change" their doctrinal beliefs (as opposed to prosecuting their actions and deterring through policy and child protection court orders), you make the problem worse by violating their religious freedoms in such as way as to make it EASIER for the parents to hide behind the constitution.


In any event I am going to let this go. Let me just state again we need a comprehensive approach to this problem.

And you think the discussion that was already being engaged in was monolithic somehow? Everyone wants a comprehensive solution, but your suggestions are a mix of the illegal, the tyrannical, and in the incoherently self-contradictory, for all the reasons that have been posted (that you've largely ignored). That isn't what is desired by the term "comprehensive".


We need to change the perception of prayer being used as substitute for medical care into a compliment to medical care. All the brilliant legal minds on this forum need to figure out a way we can do that within the limits of the law or change the law so that is permissible.

Again, since as have been shown in several responses , your suggestions aren't even consistent with themselves, and demonstrate no basic understanding of the law or how it operates, you may not be the best person to be dictating people's religious perceptions. You might notice that those who are brilliant legal minds (which does not include myself, but others here) have shown a reluctance to dictate, with police and courts in tow, the religious doctrines of others. Consider why that is.

There are ways to prosecute and prevent these events by establishing that religious belief is not a defense for any or all action. Once that is understood, you no longer have to take the arrogant (and illegal) step of trying to change people's religious beliefs.


Thank you for your time and analysis of my arguments. I wish you all well in the future.

Your thanks are disingenuous, since you have shown no willingness to address or respond to the many glaring errors in your knowledge, reasoning, and consistency that have been pointed out. If you want to be authentically grateful for analysis, try responding to it instead of ignoring it only making posts that utterly fail to address the analysis.

http://helptheneumanns.com/#The_Neumanns_and_the_Law

The Neumanns and the Law

Foundation for Constitutional Law and Government



On Sunday, March 23, 2008 the Neumann family lost their little girl, Kara. They had chosen prayer over medicine and God chose to take Kara home. There has been much debate over this issue and I would like to set the record straight from a legal prospective under both the Constitution and Wisconsin law.



Before I give my case and point, let me say this: If we are going to judge this family -- which we really have no right to do -- we need to understand completely what the Bible states about healing and prayer. In short, the Bible states that we should trust God for healing and use prayer to achieve that goal.



Also, equally as important, and which seemingly is being ignored is, what would Kara herself have done if she alone could choose? The answer can only be based on what Kara believed. Kara believed what the Bible teaches and had more faith than some of us reading this. From things I have personally read that Kara wrote, she would have chosen prayer over medical assistance because she loved and trusted God and His Word.



However, let’s say I am wrong. What then would give the parents the right to choose for their child? And do they have that right to choose for her? The Constitution says they had every right to choose for their daughter and Wisconsin law says they had the right to choose prayer over conventional medicine. Parental rights are special “fundamental rights” under the Constitution.



In the 1920s, the Court asserted that the right of parents to raise and educate their children was a “fundamental” type of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause. Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925).



Over the years, the courts have often asserted that parental rights are constitutionally protected such as a parent's “right to the care, custody, management and companionship of his or her minor children” which is an interest "far more precious than… property rights” (where a mother had her rights to custody jeopardized by a competing custody decree improperly obtained in another state). May v. Anderson, 345 US 528, 533 (1952).



In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 502 (1965), Justice White in his concurring opinion offered “this Court has had occasion to articulate that the liberty entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children," and "the liberty... to direct the upbringing and education of children," and that these are among "the basic civil rights of man." (Citations omitted).



These decisions affirm that there is a "realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without substantial justification. Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166. “Substantial justification.” In essence, this is NOT the case here.



The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Court has long recognized that the Due Process Clause “guarantees more than fair process.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 719 (1997).



It also includes a substantive component that “provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Id., at 720; see also Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 301-302 (1993).



Any denial of Due Process must be tested by the “totality of the facts” because a lack of Due Process may “constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice…” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 26 (1964) (quoting from Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 461-462 (1942) where it was noted that any violation of any of the first nine Amendments to the Constitution could also constitute a violation of Due Process).



“The court must be vigilant to scrutinize the attendant facts with an eye to detect and a hand to prevent violations of the Constitution by circuitous and indirect methods. Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property are to be liberally construed, and ‘it is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon.' Boyd v. United States and Gouled v. United States, 255 U. S. 304, 41 S. Ct. 261, supra." (As cited from Byars v. U.S., 273 US 28, 32).



And it is further established that any law impinging on an individual’s fundamental rights is subject to strict scrutiny (San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973). “In order to withstand strict scrutiny, the law must advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means available.” Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984) While most of the preceding laws are based on custodial issues, the point of custody does inherently include choices made by a parent in all areas, including medical treatment.



Wisconsin law states: Section 948.04 (6) TREATMENT THROUGH PRAYER. A person is not guilty of an offense under this section solely because he or she provides a child with treatment by spiritual means through prayer alone for healing in accordance with the religious method of healing permitted under s. 48.981 (3) (c) 4. Or 448.03 (6) in lieu of medical or surgical treatment.



The D.A. has chosen to file a “Reckless Homicide” charge. Second-degree reckless homicide is the reckless causing of the death of another human being or unborn child. But it involves other acts that must be proven.



In the criminal law, recklessness (sometimes also termed "willful blindness" which may have a different meaning in the United States) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind"). This would eliminate the Neumanns' actions since there was no unlawful intent to cause harm or death to their child.



To commit an offense of ordinary as opposed to strict liability, the prosecution must be able to prove both a mens rea and an actus reus, i.e., a person cannot be guilty for thoughts alone. Even if the Neumanns' knowledge had been that the possibility of death could have occurred, having that thought alone is not sufficient under the law to charge anyone with reckless homicide. Which, by the way, was NOT the case.



There must also be an appropriate intention (Did they intend on their daughter to die?), knowledge (The condition, or seriousness of that condition, would have to have been proven to be known.), recklessness or criminal negligence at the relevant time (see concurrence). Recklessness would mean with total disregard. In other words, the Neumanns' actions would have to be intent with disregard. They would have not only had to know the child would or could die, but act with such intentions that the child would die.



"Recklessness" may constitute an offense against property or involve significant danger to another person. However, regardless of anyone’s point of view, prayer for healing does not constitute reckless behavior. In point and fact, prayer over conventional medicine is a choice in treatment to an illness.



Because you or I may disagree with what we deem to be proper treatment of any illness, opinions or personal choice cannot nullify the law and/or the Constitution. Since this law protecting the right of prayer over conventional medicine does not conflict with, and in fact supports the constitutional position of parental rights, the law should remain intact and the charges against the Neumann family should be withdrawn.



I only pray that whoever represents them as an attorney in court have the same foresight to acknowledge their rights under the law, regardless of personal feelings, press coverage and public opinion polls.

The only way to change this rigid thinking is to work from within. Otherwise they have ironclad protection.

It is not arrogance to ask politely what a person believes, heck most will even tell you without asking. Most religion call it witnessing.

If we find out first what they believe and next why they believe it we can work with government agencies to reach out to people like this. To hopefully prevent another needless death. The law is badly handicapped in this case. They have an uphill battle to fight this case. The 2000lb gorilla squashes pretty much all who come near.

I think it is crazy to give it that much power.

The only way to change this rigid thinking is to work from within. Otherwise they have ironclad protection.

It is not arrogance to ask politely what a person believes, heck most will even tell you without asking. Most religion call it witnessing.

If we find out first what they believe and next why they believe it we can work with government agencies to reach out to people like this. To hopefully prevent another needless death. The law is badly handicapped in this case. They have an uphill battle to fight this case. The 2000lb gorilla squashes pretty much all who come near.

I think it is crazy to give it that much power.

I think you are giving too much credit to a "legal analysis" that comes from the Neumann's own website.

Given that the Neumanns are being prosecuted for reckless homicide and a judge has already overruled the argument that the prosecution violates the religious freedom of the Neumanns, it doesn't appear that the law can't handle this case.

I think you are giving too much credit to a "legal analysis" that comes from the Neumann's own website.

Given that the Neumanns are being prosecuted for reckless homicide and a judge has already overruled the argument that the prosecution violates the religious freedom of the Neumanns, it doesn't appear that the law can't handle this case.

I am frankly surprised. Thank you for that. Do you know when they will go to trial?

Truly Blessed, you are too polite, it's disturbing the NSG continuum, try to be a little more vitriolic. :P

I am frankly surprised. Thank you for that. Do you know when they will go to trial?

From the Opening Post:

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

Truly Blessed, you are too polite, it's disturbing the NSG continuum, try to be a little more vitriolic. :P

I concur.

Truly blessed, I demand that you start flaming someone immediately!

Truly Blessed, you are too polite, it's disturbing the NSG continuum, try to be a little more vitriolic. :P

Wow, that is first for a New Yorker. Thanks I will try to amp it up a bit. :)

From the Opening Post:

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.


What do you think their chances are of getting a conviction in this case? I think I might hear an appeal coming up.

I only pray that whoever represents them as an attorney in court have the same foresight to acknowledge their rights under the law, regardless of personal feelings, press coverage and public opinion polls.

You might further hope that the people involved don't think that reckless homicide requires "a knife or something".

The only way to change this rigid thinking is to work from within. Otherwise they have ironclad protection.

It is not arrogance to ask politely what a person believes, heck most will even tell you without asking. Most religion call it witnessing.

So you are again ignoring where you advocated using the courts and police to not only question, but also "change" their beliefs. I repeatedly explained that that is what is arrogant.


If we find out first what they believe and next why they believe it we can work with government agencies to reach out to people like this. To hopefully prevent another needless death. The law is badly handicapped in this case. They have an uphill battle to fight this case. The 2000lb gorilla squashes pretty much all who come near.

You mean like it hasn't done in this case? Do you know how the judge has rules do far?


I think it is crazy to give it that much power.

The First Amendment has that much power to protect religions from people who advocate using courts and police to "change" beliefs, like you did, and then turn around and pretend they just meant "witnessing".

It was repeatedly explained that you as a private person can say whatever you want to them. It was already repeatedly explained that when you called for the police and government to doctrinally question and attempt to change their beliefs, that is completely different.

You might further hope that the people involved don't think that reckless homicide requires "a knife or something".

Now now, Ayn Rand. Be nice. I brought cookies.

This Findlaw article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20090204.html) discusses the case of Kara Neumann and others like her who suffer and die because their parents choose prayer instead of medical treatment (see more facts below). I think I disagree with the article's defense of religious faith, but it is an interesting discussion.

Trials for Parents Who Chose Faith Over Medicine (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/21/us/21faith.html?_r=2&th=&adxnnl=1&emc=th&adxnnlx=1232542606-hojHq6sEeVhlb7JG60Quig)
By DIRK JOHNSON
New York Times, January 21, 2009
WESTON, Wis. — Kara Neumann, 11, had grown so weak that she could not walk or speak. Her parents, who believe that God alone has the ability to heal the sick, prayed for her recovery but did not take her to a doctor.

After an aunt from California called the sheriff’s department here, frantically pleading that the sick child be rescued, an ambulance arrived at the Neumann’s rural home on the outskirts of Wausau and rushed Kara to the hospital. She was pronounced dead on arrival.

The county coroner ruled that she had died from diabetic ketoacidosis resulting from undiagnosed and untreated juvenile diabetes. The condition occurs when the body fails to produce insulin, which leads to severe dehydration and impairment of muscle, lung and heart function.

“Basically everything stops,” said Dr. Louis Philipson, who directs the diabetes center at the University of Chicago Medical Center, explaining what occurs in patients who do not know or “are in denial that they have diabetes.”

About a month after Kara’s death last March, the Marathon County state attorney, Jill Falstad, brought charges of reckless endangerment against her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann. Despite the Neumanns’ claim that the charges violated their constitutional right to religious freedom, Judge Vincent Howard of Marathon County Circuit Court ordered Ms. Neumann to stand trial on May 14, and Mr. Neumann on June 23. If convicted, each faces up to 25 years in prison.

“The free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects religious belief,” the judge wrote in his ruling, “but not necessarily conduct.”

Wisconsin law, he noted, exempts a parent or guardian who treats a child with only prayer from being criminally charged with neglecting child welfare laws, but only “as long as a condition is not life threatening.” Kara’s parents, Judge Howard wrote, “were very well aware of her deteriorating medical condition.”

About 300 children have died in the United States in the last 25 years after medical care was withheld on religious grounds, said Rita Swan, executive director of Children’s Health Care Is a Legal Duty, a group based in Iowa that advocates punishment for parents who do not seek medical help when their children need it. Criminal codes in 30 states, including Wisconsin, provide some form of protection for practitioners of faith healing in cases of child neglect and other matters, protection that Ms. Swan’s group opposes.

Shawn Peters, the author of three books on religion and the law, including “When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children and the Law” (Oxford, 2007), said the outcome of the Neumann case was likely to set an important precedent.

“The laws around the country are pretty unsettled,” said Mr. Peters, who teaches religion at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and has been consulted by prosecutors and defense lawyers in the case.

In the last year, two other sets of parents, both in Oregon, were criminally charged because they had not sought medical care for their children on the ground that to do so would have violated their belief in faith healing. One couple were charged with manslaughter in the death of their 15-month-old daughter, who died of pneumonia last March. The other couple were charged with criminally negligent homicide in the death of their 16-year-old son, who died from complications of a urinary tract infection that was severely painful and easily treatable.

“Many types of abuses of children are motivated by rigid belief systems,” including severe corporal punishment, said Ms. Swan, a former Christian Scientist whose 16-month-old son, Matthew, died after she postponed taking him to a hospital for treatment of what proved to be meningitis. “We learned the hard way.”

All states give social service authorities the right to go into homes and petition for the removal of children, Ms. Swan said, but cases involving medical care often go unnoticed until too late. Parents who believe in faith healing, she said, may feel threatened by religious authorities who oppose medical treatment. Recalling her own experience, she said, “we knew that once we went to the doctor, we’d be cut off from God.”

The crux of the Neumanns’ case, Mr. Peters said, will be whether the parents could have known the seriousness of their daughter’s condition.

Investigators said the Neumanns last took Kara to a doctor when she was 3. According to a police report, the girl had lost the strength to speak the day before she died. “Kara laid down and was unable to move her mouth,” the report said, “and merely made moaning noises and moved her eyes back and forth.”

The courts have ordered regular medical checks for the couple’s other three children, ages 13 to 16, and Judge Howard ordered all the parties in the case not to speak to members of the news media. Neither Ms. Falstad nor the defense lawyers, Gene Linehan and Jay Kronenwetter, would agree to be interviewed.

The Neumanns, who had operated a coffee shop, Monkey Mo’s, in this middle-class suburb in the North Woods, are known locally as followers of an online faith outreach group called Unleavened Bread Ministries, run by a preacher, David Eells. The site shares stories of faith healing and talks about the end of the world.

An essay on the site signed Pastor Bob states that the Bible calls for healing by faith alone. “Jesus never sent anyone to a doctor or a hospital,” the essay says. “Jesus offered healing by one means only! Healing was by faith.”

A link from the site, helptheneumanns.com, asserts that the couple is being persecuted and “charged with the crime of praying.” The site also allows people to contribute to a legal fund for the Neumanns.

In the small town of Weston, many people shake their heads with dismay when Kara Neumann is mentioned. Tammy Klemp, 41, who works behind the counter at a convenience store here, said she disagreed with the Neumanns’ passive response to their daughter’s illness but said she was not sure they should go to prison.

“I’ve got mixed feelings,” Ms. Klemp said. “It’s just such a terribly sad case.”

Chris Goebel, 30, a shipping department worker for a window maker, said many people in the area felt strongly that the parents should be punished.

“That little girl wasn’t old enough to make the decision about going to a doctor,” Mr. Goebel said. “And now, because some religious extremists went too far, she’s gone.”

Another article with facts regarding Kara Neumann's death (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesResource/story?id=4536593).

Genuine tragedy there, maybe they can ask their god to testify at the trial? (Letting your kid die because of your interpretation of your imaginary friend is right disgusting.)

Now now, Ayn Rand. Be nice. I brought cookies.

I am being civil. And your cookies are excellent.

Having the police and courts investigate and prosecute child neglect, as well as deterring it by child welfare policy is fine.

But calling for the police and courts to "witness" religiously to those groups, expecting them to scripturally justify their beliefs (when it is sufficient to hold that their beliefs are not defense for their actions) is grossly disrepsectful of religious freedom.

To say that the courts and police, which are by definition the enforced weight of law, should try to effect doctrinal change based on what we, or Truly Blessed, thinks is "correct" religious belief is a total violation of the religious freedom, and would only make it EASIER for these people to hide behind the constitution.

So you are again ignoring where you advocated using the courts and police to not only question, but also "change" their beliefs. I repeatedly explained that that is what is arrogant.

You seem to be suggesting that I am in favor of beating them into the ground with a billy club. That is not the case I assure you. These people have already lost a child we need to a sensitive as possible.



You mean like it hasn't done in this case? Do you know how the judge has rules do far?

It has to stand on appeal, if there is one I am not saying there will be in this case.


The First Amendment has that much power to protect religions from people who advocate using courts and police to "change" beliefs, like you did, and then turn around and pretend they just meant "witnessing".

It is not "turning it around" it what I was suggesting in the first place when you unloaded on me. First find out what they believe and then try to work within their belief system to come to a compromise that works for all parties. Companies can use "binding arbitration" for labor disputes. It is not unheard of. It does not mean it has to be violent or forcing them into anything.


It was repeatedly explained that you as a private person can say whatever you want to them. It was already repeatedly explained that when you called for the police and government to doctrinally question and attempt to change their beliefs, that is completely different.

So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?

By the way for the record I like Ghost and I enjoy a challenge. At least he/she is true to his/her views.

You seem to be suggesting that I am in favor of beating them into the ground with a billy club. That is not the case I assure you. These people have already lost a child we need to a sensitive as possible.

Then you don't understand what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that YOU said that the courts and police should question and make "changes" to their beliefs. That is EXACTLY what you advocated.

I said NOTHING about a club. The police and courts enforce laws, and you are suggesting that make changes to people's religious beliefs. That is illegal and disrepsectful of religious belief.


It has to stand on appeal, if there is one I am not saying there will be in this case.

You think reckless homicide has to involve "a knife or something", and you're going to speculate on appeal?

If courts and police ask them to point to the scripture that they're following and then try to change their interpretation of it, precisely as you advocated, it will not survive the most basic appeal.


It is not "turning it around" it was I was suggesting in the first place when you unloaded on me. First find out what they believe and then try to work within their belief system to come to a compromise that works for all parties.

Using courts and police to impose your version of "compromise" on people's beliefs will not work for all parties, especially the Supreme Court.


Companies can use "binding arbitration" for labor disputes. It is not unheard of.

The fact that you don't see the difference between the Commerce Clause and the Establishment Clause explains a lot about your reasoning on this case.

Arbitration in labor disputes is hardly comparable to making "changes" to the religious beliefs of others using the courts and police.


It does not mean it has to be violent or forcing them into anything.

Then you again contradict yourself. If you aren't going to force them, then you don't need the courts and police, as you advocated.

The Courts and Police enforce the law, just as in this case they can enforce it without imposing your beliefs on anyone. They DO NOT "politely question" and then "make changes" to people's beliefs, or whatever Orwellian euphimism you prefer.


So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?

Because as soon as you have the Courts, and their armed enforcing mechanism (the police) questioning and changing their beliefs, it is no longer within their own belief system.

The government and police are, by Constitutional definition, external to their belief system.

They exist to regulate and prosecute actions, not beliefs. If your advice is followed and the government attempts to meddle in their beliefs or change their doctrine by government interference, the case would become instantly and utterly unconstitutional and become HARDER to prosecute.

By the way for the record I like Ghost and I enjoy a challenge. At least he/she is true to his/her views.

If you admire being true to one's own views, consider the following:

You claimed reckless endangerment required "a knife or something", yet can't own up to having a complete misunderstanding of one of the fulcrum legal principles of this case.

You first said you wanted the courts and police to make the "changes" to other's beliefs, but also said you wanted it voluntary. (Courts don't make "suggestions", particularly on people's religious beliefs. They make rulings and give orders on actions.)

You went on about what "God wants" and what you think the correct religious views are in this thread, yet pointed out your own religious beliefs are irrelevant. Right after you tried to apply them, and advocate that the Courts and police go set these people to the "correct" religious understanding of scripture.

You talk about earnestly looking for a way to successfully prosecute this case, yet many of your suggestions would make the case completely unconstitutional and make it easer for the defense to sheild themselves with the Constitution.

If you admire being true to one's beliefs, you should stop utterly contradicting yourself.

Then you don't understand what I'm suggesting. What I'm saying is that YOU said that the courts and police should question and make "changes" to their beliefs. That is EXACTLY what you advocated.

I said the police could be used in this case since they are already qualified in taking statements and what have. I am not using the police in this case for anything other than information gathering.



I said NOTHING about a club. The police and courts enforce laws, and you are suggesting that make changes to people's religious beliefs. That is illegal and disrespectful of religious belief.

Once the information is gathered by the police we appoint a committee to see what can be done. This should be one of the functions of law. Preventing those who might break the law from committing such offenses. You may argue that should go to the government. Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case. If the court wanted to it could appoint a commitee or some other entity.


You think reckless homicide has to involve "a knife or something", and you're going to speculate on appeal?

Speculating is what I do right or wrong. It came back as Willful Neglect which we will see if it stands. The knife thing was in regard to homicide.


If courts and police ask them to point to the scripture that they're following and then try to change their interpretation of it, precisely as you advocated, it will not survive the most basic appeal.


Using courts and police to impose your version of "compromise" on people's beliefs will not work for all parties, especially the Supreme Court.

That is what I am saying we need to take some of the weight away from that legislation. We would need brilliant legal mind for this. We may need to involve the government as well.


The fact that you don't see the difference between the Commerce Clause and the Establishment Clause explains a lot about your reasoning on this case.

Easy cowboy I was just using that as an example. The Goverment and law is not suppose to get involve in business either but they can and do.



Arbitration in labor disputes is hardly comparable to making "changes" to the religious beliefs of others using the courts and police.

We are not arbitrarily making changes we are working with them to change themselves.


Then you again contradict yourself. If you aren't going to force them, then you don't need the courts and police, as you advocated.

I am not saying we should force them. I am not sure who is best equipped to fill this role. I was proposing the legal system might be used in this capacity. Obviously you object and since you will soon be a lawyer I guess your opinion is stronger than mine. We need someone to fill this role.


The Courts and Police enforce the law, just as in this case they can enforce it without imposing your beliefs on anyone. They DO NOT "politely question" and then "make changes" to people's beliefs, or whatever Orwellian euphemism you prefer.


The legal system should also play a role in crime reduction and prevention. Make it easier for people to follow the law and they will.


Because as soon as you have the Courts, and their armed enforcing mechanism (the police) questioning and changing their beliefs, it is no longer within their own belief system.

I suggest we are helping them form their beliefs but not telling them what to believe.


The government and police are, by Constitutional definition, external to their belief system.

They exist to regulate and prosecute actions, not beliefs. If your advice is followed and the government attempts to meddle in their beliefs or change their doctrine by government interference, the case would become instantly and utterly unconstitutional and become HARDER to prosecute.

We do not have to use police then maybe social workers, someone needs to fill this role. Government does meddle in our affairs we ask them to. I was just using the police because we already have them out there and they are trained in investigation.

If you admire being true to one's own views, consider the following:

You claimed reckless endangerment required "a knife or something", yet can't own up to having a complete misunderstanding of one of the fulcrum legal principles of this case.

I understand the fulcrum but we need to change that fulcrum.


You first said you wanted the courts and police to make the "changes" to other's beliefs, but also said you wanted it voluntary. (Courts don't make "suggestions", particularly on people's religious beliefs. They make rulings and give orders on actions.)


I know that is their current mandate. I think we should change that.


You went on about what "God wants" and what you think the correct religious views are in this thread, yet pointed out your own religious beliefs are irrelevant. Right after you tried to apply them, and advocate that the Courts and police go set these people to the "correct" religious understanding of scripture.

Those were my own religious view but those were not pertinent to this case.


You talk about earnestly looking for a way to successfully prosecute this case, yet many of your suggestions would make the case completely unconstitutional and make it easier for the defense to shield themselves with the Constitution.

If you admire being true to one's beliefs, you should stop utterly contradicting yourself.

I am not contradicting myself. I think we should change the laws and maybe the legal system.

I understand the fulcrum but we need to change that fulcrum.
I know that is their current mandate. I think we should change that.

Those were my own religious view but those were not pertinent to this case.

I am not contradicting myself. I think we should change the laws and maybe the legal system.

No, you do not understand the fulcrum. The one I was referring to was the definition of Reckless Homicide. You claimed it required "a knife or something", which is totally incorrect. You thus do not understand.

Anyway I got to go to Long Island tomorrow so I have to go to bed. Once again thanks for knocking this around with me. I will talk to you tomorrow.

I said the police could be used in this case since they are already qualified in taking statements and what have. I am not using the police in this case for anything other than information gathering.

Gathering information about others beliefs so you can change them. Illegal, disrespectful, and arrogant.


Once the information is gathered by the police we appoint a committee to see what can be done. This should be one of the functions of law.

What can be done is prosecution and prevention through child welfare agencies, NOT changing people's beliefs.


Preventing those who might break the law from committing such offenses. You may argue that should go to the government.

I have said no fewer than 3 times that the law can and should address their offenses, by deterring their actions, not their beliefs. You still fail to understand what has been said.


Government is suppose to stay out of religion so we need someone else who is qualified in this regard. Since the courts do not per say have to stay out of religion they may work in this case.

Courts ARE part of the government. They are the third branch of government. The rule that government stay out of religion INCLUDES the courts, while still permitting them to hold that religion is not a defense. At this point, you don't even understand basic civics.


If the court wanted to it could appoint a commitee or some other entity.

See above.



Speculating is what I do right or wrong. It came back as Willful Neglect which we will see if it stands. The knife thing was in regard to homicide.

Then you continue to be wrong. Homicide does not require "a knife or something", and this case isn't about homicide in a general sense anyway.


That is what I am saying we need to take some of the weight away from that legislation. We would need brilliant legal mind for this. We may need to involve the government as well.

As several people have explained, the government (including its arms, the courts and the police) DO have a role in this, by prosecuting ACTIONS, by deterring future action by weight of law by holding religious beliefs as not a defense. They do NOT have a role in making "changes" in the beliefs of others.


Easy cowboy I was just using that as an example.

It is an extremely poor and distortive example, because the Commerce Clause permits the government to interefere in some business, but the Establishment and Free Excercise clauses FORBID it to interfere in religion.


The Goverment and law is not suppose to get involve in business either but they can and do.

So you have no idea what the commerce clause is or the substantial array of powers that the goverment has in regards to regulating business.


We are not arbitrarily making changes we are working with them to change themselves.

That's what people who want control say. That you would phrase it that way is again, monstrously Orwellian.

Have you considered you have no right to change them? The courts and police have power to prosecute their actions, and to not hold their beliefs as a defense, thus preventing this while still respecting their beliefs.


I am not saying we should force them. I am not sure who is best equipped to fill this role.

Then perhaps it was unwise and impractical for you assert that it should be the courts and police.


I was proposing the legal system might be used in this capacity. Obviously you object and since you will soon be a lawyer I guess your opinion is stronger than mine. We need someone to fill this role.

As a free citizen, you can go try to convince them yourselves. Go to the "top of their hierarchy", as you suggested, and tell them that their scriptural understanding is wrong. Based on your attempt at religious discourse with GnI and others (wherein observers likened you to a high school football team taking on the Steelers), we'll see how it comes out when you try to theologically "help" others see where they need to "change" their deeply held religious beliefs.


The legal system should also play a role in crime reduction and prevention. Make it easier for people to follow the law and they will.

Yes, that's why half a dozen times on this thread, people have explained that these people can and should be prosecuted and that child welfare services should have intervention powers that religion does not necessarily preclude. That's their role, not changing people's beliefs.


I suggest we are helping them form their beliefs but not telling them what to believe.

Softening the phraseology makes you all the more tyrannical. Having the courts and police or social workers or any force with weight of law to change their beliefs into something you approve of IS "telling them what to believe". Calling it "helping them" reveals a lot about your argument.


We do not have to use police then maybe social workers, someone needs to fill this role. Government does meddle in our affairs we ask them to.

Many religions do not ask the government to meddle in their affairs, or offer to "help" with their beliefs or scriptural interpretation. And if they did, the government would rightfully decline.


I was just using the police because we already have them out there and they are trained in investigation.

They are trained in investigated violations of the law, which they can and have done here. They can then use that information to prosecute and in the future prevent this by making it clear that religion is not a defense for some actions. THAT is a legal, constitutional way to prevent this in the future, and it can be strengthened by better defined laws, not by trying to change other people's religious beliefs.