|
Author
|
Topic: Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?
|
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: 08-12-2009
|
|
Message 91 of 284 (577209)
08-27-2010 4:10 PM
|
|
|
Just thought I'd drop this little gem here....
Children abused, killed as witches in Nigeria Pastors in southeast Nigeria claim illness and poverty are caused by witches who bring terrible misfortune to those around them. And those denounced as witches must be cleansed through deliverance or cast out. Sam Ikpe-Itauma runs Child's Rights & Rehabilitation Network, or CRARN -- an orphanage that supports nearly 200 children. All of them were accused of witchcraft and cast out by their families, often after being tortured. The orphanage provides security, healthcare, nutrition and counseling. Also:
But, Helen Ukpabio, founder and senior pastor of Liberty Gospel Church in Calabar, the Cross River State capital says it is all a fraudulent attempt to rip off the region. The minister of God accused Sam Ikpe-Itauma, who claims to run the NGO at Eket that houses the alleged 150 children, to have started the problem. "There is a man in Eket who is creating this problem. He is Sam Ikpe-Itauma." Ukpabio equally accused Europeans of insincerity and pumping money to the wrong hands in the name of NGO. Ikpe-Itauma is said to have opened his house to a few homeless waifs he came across, and tries his best to look after them. "The neighbours were not happy with me and tell me 'you are supporting witches.' This project was an accident. I saw children being abandoned and it was very worrying. I started with three children, then every day it increased, so we had to open this new place. For every five children we see on the streets, we believe one has been killed, although it could be more as neighbours turn a blind eye when a witch child disappears. It is good we have this shelter, but it is under constant attack," Ikpe-Itauma said. So, this guy is trying to help the abandoned children, but the church is accusing him of starting the problem. Wonderful religion..... Oh, and as far as the pastor saying Mr. Ikpe-Itauma is ripping off the region?
"Religious leaders capitalize on the ignorance of some parents in the villages just to make some money off them," said Lucky Inyang, project coordinator for 'Stepping Stones Nigeria'. "They can say your child is a witch and if you bring the child to the church we can deliver the child but eventually they don't deliver the children... The parents go back to the pastor and say, 'why is it you have not been able to deliver the child' and the pastor says 'Oh - this one has gone past deliverance - they've eaten too much flesh so you have to throw the child out.'"
And most pastors charge a fee for deliverance -- anywhere from $300 to $2,000.
Your god believes in Unicorns
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 92 of 284 (577231)
08-27-2010 6:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 87 by Nij
08-27-2010 9:21 AM
|
|
I note that you similarly dodged Omnivorous' question too, despite clearly quoting it. All that is required of you there is a simple yes or no, once again without any decoration. #1 i didn't ignore it #2 it is not a simple yes or no question and you know that. you just want an answer that you can manipulate to fit your ideas and i will not do that.
Are these rights so limited that a child cannot be allowed to live if their parents refuse to allow reasonable treatment? Who is violating whose rights here; the parents denying the right to live, or the child their right to believe? You can ask pretty much any judge - any judge of any religion - and they'll say the same thing: your rights do not override theirs. you also know that when it comes to rights, some people get more than others. should teachers lose their rights so students can have more and so there is no discipline in the schools and no teaching either? you are getting too unrealistic simply because 1 child died. i would like to see you take the same attitude and put it on doctors and hospitals instead of targeting the religious who practice their faith. it is clear you only advocate a double standard not honesty.
'Freedom of' also includes 'freedom from', now you are just twisting the constitution to fit what you want it to say. NOTICE it says 'shall not prohibit the practice...' which means you all cannot top parents from practicing their faith and praying for the healing of their child. you also cannot argue against it, for as i have shown, because you cannot prove that taking the child to the hospital would have saved his or her life.. you argue out of assumption, hatred and emotionalism and not facts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by Nij, posted 08-27-2010 9:21 AM | | Nij has replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
Re: Suffer, little children
You weren't ignoring my questions, merely fearing them.
no. you assume when you shouldn't.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by Omnivorous, posted 08-27-2010 8:40 AM | | Omnivorous has seen this message but not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 94 of 284 (577234)
08-27-2010 6:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 86 by Coragyps
08-27-2010 9:06 AM
|
|
Re: Arch - a direct question
i have not been asked that question several times and this is the first time i have seen it.
you claim that it is acceptable for "Christian" parents to withhold medical care from their children and to pray instead. You've been asked multiple times now, and I want to know: is it acceptable for parents to rape their children? going to the absurd and unrealistic is not having a reasonable discussion. praying for healing is NOT a crime, nor is it wrong scripturally. the problem with some people when they pray for healing is that they are only looking for one answer--a supernatural miracle and do not see where God says to take them to a doctor. this is why it is a spiritual matter alone and only christians can handle it for the secular world just does not grasp the implications,the details and think in very limited, biased, emotional ways. they want to criminalize everything when things should not be criminalized. they want to ruin families when families do not need to be ruined. you do not apply wisdom nor understanding nor do you want to see the spiritual side of things thus you cannot be of any help and cause far too much damage. this is an issue that is off limits to you all. if you choose to go to the doctor then you have exercised your parental right and free choice; if a parent chooses prayer, theyhave exercised their parental right and free choice. you have no argument. all you show is that you are hypocritical, hold to double standards and cannot extend the same rights to others that you enjoy. so it is best to look at yourselves first before condemning others. remove the beam people.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by Coragyps, posted 08-27-2010 9:06 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
So if parents should be allowed to withhold medical treatment instead of prayer, are they allowed (either morally or legally) to ONLY pray when their child is being murdered in front of them?
Because I'm willing to bet if we put your pet theory to the test, you would lose heart and lose faith real quick. You would intervene. And what would that say about your faith in light of your declarations? another absurd and unrealistic post, though it proves me right when i say you are attacking things you do not understand. as i said in a previous post--remove the beam from your own eyes, before trying to remove the matchstick from someone else's eye. you people are not perfect thus you cannot condemn others for doing what they think they should be doing. nor can you force them to follow your way, they have chosen a path that is not the same as you, one which practices life differently than you. you have no argument. now thenext unrealistic and absurd post will be ignored.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 90 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-27-2010 10:36 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
Actually, no
NOTICE it says 'shall not prohibit the practice...'
You might think this is nitpicky, but that isn't the words in the Constitution. One would think that someone trying to make an argument like yours would at least know the words. The words are actually.
quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
archaeologist
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 284 (577255)
08-27-2010 7:18 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Theodoric
08-27-2010 6:46 PM
|
|
Re: Actually, no
now you are beng anal and nitpicky
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; in other words, you cannot outlaw faith healing, or criminalize parents for praying for the health of their child. the only reason atheists and other secularists are making a mountain out of a molehill is that they cannot attack christianity in other areas. they look for weak spots and then blow them out of proportion. you may not like faith healing but it is NOT your child and NOT your concern. it is a spiritual matter best left to the spiritually wise.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Theodoric, posted 08-27-2010 6:46 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Actually, no
archaeologist writes: in other words, you cannot outlaw faith healing, or criminalize parents for praying for the health of their child. We certainly can and should charge them with abuse when they choose prayer over medical treatment for children and murder if the children die because they did not get treatment. Edited by jar, : fix the sentence
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
hERICtic
Member (Idle past 4547 days) Posts: 371 Joined: 08-18-2009
|
Re: Actually, no
archaeologist, Do you ever go to the doctors? Do you have children? If so, do you take them?
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
because you cannot prove that taking the child to the hospital would have saved his or her life.... But I can damn sure show that treating, say, a diabetic child with insulin gives a better chance of the child reaching adulthood than treating her with prayer. Pray into one hand, and shit into the other, Arch. See which one fills up first.
"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.4
|
Nice to have actually quote
If you are going to put something into quote, you need to make sure you have it correct. Otherwise it is a paraphrase and not a quote. I realize you belong to a belief that intellectualism is bad. But what you are doing is intellectual laziness. Would you nitpick if someone altered a quote form the bible? If you are going to use the Constitution for an argument, get the words correct. By using the wrong words you look lazy and stupid. Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Nij
Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: 08-20-2010
|
Yes, it is a simple yes or no question. Either you believe that parents can do whatever they like to and with their children, or you believe that there are limits on what parents can do to and with their children. Either you allow everything, or you place limits. Either you allow prayer healing and rape and abuse, or you place limits preventing all three. If you cannot pick one, then yours is the double standard: you only wish to protect the silly belief that your invisible friend might do something, not that parents can do whatever they like. And you also failed utterly regarding the Constitution. Completely and wholly failed. "Free exercise" refers to the child just as much as the parent. One cannot override the other: parents cannot force their beliefs onto their children, nor can they deny the child their rights. And if you want to contest that point, I'll quote your very own words back at you. Something about " I do not have a problem with doctors and hospitals, because they succeed far more often than they fail. Prayer healing literally requires a miracle to cure even the basic common cold and is entirely unreliable. I have no problem with idiots like you dying from lack of medical care. But you have no rights whatsoever to kill anybody, let alone a child, for the sake of some naive ignorant belief.
you argue out of assumption, hatred and emotionalism and not facts
Says the one breaking every forum rule, making argument ad hom, and who never provides any evidence at all.
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Actually, no
in other words, you cannot outlaw faith healing, or criminalize parents for praying for the health of their child. But it is of course possible to criminalize using prayer as a substitute for doing something useful. Which is why the people in this case were in fact convicted of murder.
the only reason atheists and other secularists are making a mountain out of a molehill .. A dead child. "A molehill".
... is that they cannot attack christianity in other areas. they look for weak spots and then blow them out of proportion. Yeah, murder's not so much, is it? I mean it only breaks one of the Ten Commandments.
you may not like faith healing but it is NOT your child and NOT your concern. And for the sixth time of asking on this thread --- do you apply this same principle to parents who rape their children? Yes or no? Why can't you condemn incestuous rape? Is that another of the things you "demand" the "right" to "enjoy"?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
you people are not perfect thus you cannot condemn others for doing what they think they should be doing. Are you perfect? Only I've noticed that you condemn others quite a lot. I'm not sure I've seen you do anything else.
nor can you force them to follow your way We can convict them of murder when they don't.
|
Omnivorous
Member Posts: 3992 From: Adirondackia Joined: 07-21-2005 Member Rating: 7.5
|
Why Are You Here?
it is clear you only advocate a double standard not honesty.
'Freedom of' also includes 'freedom from' now you are just twisting the constitution to fit what you want it to say. NOTICE it says 'shall not prohibit the practice...' which means you all cannot top parents from practicing their faith and praying for the healing of their child. you also cannot argue against it, for as i have shown, because you cannot prove that taking the child to the hospital would have saved his or her life.. you argue out of assumption, hatred and emotionalism and not facts. archaeologist, I don't understand why you are here. You refuse to support your claims or answer hard questions, because, "you just want an answer that you can manipulate to fit your ideas and i will not do that." You stake claim to parental rights so extreme they constitute absolute property rights. When other posters point out the perverse consequences, you accuse them of dishonesty and inappropriate remarks--and refuse to defend your view or explain how you can completely shut society out of the individual family without the tragic consequences with which other posters confront you. I take you at your word that you are a Christian. So I might expect you to evangelize by sermon or deed, but no one could think that from your posts. You represent a religion of love and forgiveness with hatred and condemnation; claiming a faith of "turn the other cheek" and "a soft answer turneth away wrath," you instead relish trading blows. Perhaps you've achieved your goal. You've brought this thread to a white heat. But if you wanted to promote your faith by word and deed, you have failed. That's why I'm puzzled. What do you want to achieve here? Edited by Omnivorous, : +if
Have you ever been to an American wedding? Where's the vodka? Where's the marinated herring?!-Gogol Bordello
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by Coyote, posted 08-28-2010 12:31 AM | | Omnivorous has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
