NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Hopefully, the following can be knocked around with you:

Despite what you've claimed, neither reckless homicide nor homicide in a general sense require a weapon or its direct use.

Despite what you've claimed, the government is not "supposed to stay out of business". It has constitutional authority to regulate several aspects of business. If you think business is relevant enough to this situation to try to draw its regulation as a parallel, it should be relevant enough for you learn about the the many ways business is constitutionally subject to government.

Despite what you've claimed, the courts ARE a part of the government. When you say this:

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.

You draw some sort of distinction between the "courts" and "government". Courts are part of the government. The judiciary is one of the three branches of government.

At this point, you have demonstrated you don't have a rudimentary understanding of what goverment or the courts are, yet you want to effect broad constitutional changes, that will then be delivered to religious groups so that they can be "helped" to "change" their beliefs.

All of what you've proposed would make cases like this more difficult to prosecute.

These children can be protected by establishing that religion is not a defense for these kinds of things. Once you establish that, you can prevent these kinds of things without having to change everyone's religious beliefs so that they can be "helped" to understand Truly Blessed's version of "what God wants".

The changes you are suggesting would require wholesale change of one of the central tenets of the constitution, thus making it the most unfeasible change to possibly suggest in American law.

It doesn't take a "brilliant legal mind" to see why your suggestions would make it vastly harder to protect these children and prosecute these people.

So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?
I'm not going to get into the point-by-point of this argument because (a) the legal-eagles are already handling it far better than I ever could and (b) the combination of logical failure and relentless perseverence in your argument makes my brain bleed.

I just want to focus on the single question above because I see it as the key to everything that is wrong with what you have been saying.

"So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?"

Because THEIR doctrine is none of YOUR business. That's why.

As a private individual, you could engage them in theological discussion and try to, essentially, convert them from their religion to your religion, if you wanted to, but that would be rude and presumptuous of you. Furthermore, although you would have the freedom to do it, you would have no ability whatsoever to use the power of the state or any other kind of power to make them listen to you or play your little game.

We can judge, punish and correct their behavior towards others. We cannot do that with their personal beliefs. We do not have the right.

That's it. Those are the rules of the game. Deal with it.

I'm not going to get into the point-by-point of this argument because (a) the legal-eagles are already handling it far better than I ever could and (b) the combination of logical failure and relentless perseverence in your argument makes my brain bleed.

I just want to focus on the single question above because I see it as the key to everything that is wrong with what you have been saying.

"So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?"

Because THEIR doctrine is none of YOUR business. That's why.

As a private individual, you could engage them in theological discussion and try to, essentially, convert them from their religion to your religion, if you wanted to, but that would be rude and presumptuous of you. Furthermore, although you would have the freedom to do it, you would have no ability whatsoever to use the power of the state or any other kind of power to make them listen to you or play your little game.

We can judge, punish and correct their behavior towards others. We cannot do that with their personal beliefs. We do not have the right.

That's it. Those are the rules of the game. Deal with it.

Profoundly well put.

This case can be prosecuted, and similar events prevented, by holding religion to not be a defense for willful neglect, NOT by government attempting to change people's beliefs..

That way, the law can intervene to protect children while preserving the parent's right to believe whatever they want.

Truly Blessed's attempt to violate and change the founding principle of religious freedom would only serve to make the legal hurdles insurmountably difficult, while simultaneously setting a precedent that would be horrificly harmful to civil and religious rights.

Interesting, I'm not the only one suffering neural hemorrhage.

At least he/she is true to his/her views.
:eek:
*le gasp*
Moddamn sigline limit!

I'm not going to get into the point-by-point of this argument because (a) the legal-eagles are already handling it far better than I ever could and (b) the combination of logical failure and relentless perseverence in your argument makes my brain bleed.

I just want to focus on the single question above because I see it as the key to everything that is wrong with what you have been saying.

"So why can't their doctrine be questioned and attempt to change their beliefs from within their own belief system?"

Because THEIR doctrine is none of YOUR business. That's why.

As a private individual, you could engage them in theological discussion and try to, essentially, convert them from their religion to your religion, if you wanted to, but that would be rude and presumptuous of you. Furthermore, although you would have the freedom to do it, you would have no ability whatsoever to use the power of the state or any other kind of power to make them listen to you or play your little game.

We can judge, punish and correct their behavior towards others. We cannot do that with their personal beliefs. We do not have the right.

That's it. Those are the rules of the game. Deal with it.

I guess I will have to deal with it. Thank you all for discussing this with me. I will let this matter drop as we seem to be traveling in circles neither of us is getting anywhere. Peace, Out.

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?

What about minors who want to have a beer, or vote in the election?

Faith never justifies lack of responsibility, ever.