Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Casualty of faith healing - Madeline Neumann
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 106 of 286 (461919)
03-28-2008 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 2:59 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
These have not been practiced openly and with acceptance by the larger American society lending them, these practices, historical sanction.
Now you're moving the goalposts.
You said, and I quote:
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent.
Tenet of an established religion?
Check.
Save its immortal soul?
Check.
Nothing about "acceptance by larger American society".
Nothing about "historical precedence" or "historical sanction".
So.
Given that I've satisfied your two "criteria" ... incest is OK?
After all, it is -- like the denial of medical treatment -- a religious conviction.
And once again, weather I personally accept or reject an idea is irrelevant. The rights of others should not be based on my whims.
You can waffle all you want, dear.
The right to life (of the child) is paramount.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 2:59 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 4:46 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 107 of 286 (461924)
03-28-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Silent H
03-28-2008 3:06 PM


Silent H writes:
If you want an example of why your earlier post was bad, recollect your question on beating your wife for burning dinner. If you cannot figure out why that would not be allowed under my position... what is the point in even answering you? But my guess is you really do know, yet are using emotion to make your case, no matter the cost.
Well...sorry to burst your bubble, but I honestly cannot see why you would consider me beating my wife as something different than these people letting their child die. I guess I don't see your argument. But then, you have never explained why you view the two examples so differently.
Silent H writes:
You have not understood the point of my comment. The argument has so far been that if the girl had been given X, she would be alive. Actually we cannot make that claim. While I can agree she would very well likely have, as far as I understand the case, there is no guarantee.)
But that is a ridiculous argument Silent H. It's completely and utterly meaningless. Why do we ever treat anyone then? It ignores the fact that we live in the 21st Century, Silent H. Can't you see that? In order for this argument to have any validity whatsoever, this family would have to have been living like someone out of the 16th or 17th centuries...with no contact or knowledge of the World around them. Now, if that was indeed the case, I could excuse their behavior and blame it on a true lack of knowledge. But I'm doubtful.
Silent H writes:
You may laugh at those beliefs, but you cannot prove that is not true. If they have a right to look after their child's well being according to their belief system, then applying prayer instead of medical treatment is valid.
True..if this were 1749.
Silent H writes:
I'm sorry, you brushed aside my argument to create your own once again. My point was that they have three other kids who they have successfully raised. Hence, arguments that this one tragedy suggests the other children are in danger, is deeply flawed. There is counter evidence to such a position, the other... some much older... children.
Man...you're good at shoving the "blame" into others. My argument is that their three surviving kids mean nothing to this argument. Who cares that they survived? Really Silent H, it means nothing. And you know that, so quit acting all high and mighty...like your arguments are superior and mine are meaningless. It's annoying as hell, and you do it all the time. But I'm remaining calm and not letting my anger get the better of me.
Silent H writes:
But in any case, are you suggesting that all their other children (and themselves) have never been ill in their lives? If they haven't then maybe there is something to this prayer stuff as that would be a near miracle. If they have, and they survived and are healthy, then they certainly did get evidence (for themselves) that prayer does work.
See, you're doing it again. I brought up this very issue in my last post and you address it yourself later in this one. So let's go right to that little exchange:
FliesOnly writes:
Admittedly however, if you can demonstrate that one of their other children did indeed, suffer a major, serious, fatal if left untreated, illness, and that the power of the parents prayer cured and saved this child...you might have a more valid argument.
Silent H writes:
How on earth would they or you distinguish such a thing? To them they would have likely viewed all illness as potentially life threatening, and prayer have been useful in solving such.
Arrrg. Remain calm...remain calm. OK, look, just above this you said that perhaps one of their kids did get sick, and perhaps prayer saved them. I mention virtually the same thing and you say..."How on earth would they or you distinguish such a thing? To them they would have likely viewed all illness as potentially life threatening, and prayer have been useful in solving such." Do you see why I get frustrated? Now I agree, in my example, the illness would have needed to be fatal if left untreated, and I could see where perhaps that would be your source of "How on earth would the distinguish that"...but my point still remains. If they catch a damned cold, and it doesn't kill them, that's hardly evidence that prayer works. And (and this is the important part) the family damned well knows that too...unless they're living in 1749.
Silent H writes:
Then let's be honest and outlaw religion.
Now who's acting childish?
Silent H writes:
That is not true. The argument here is that these people should be punished with jail time. My first question is how that would solve anything, as one might think they have already been punished enough.
How does it ever solve anything? This argument can be taken out Ad Infinitum. Personally, I do not think that they have been punished enough. But the unfortunate thing is that the legal system will not be allowed to make that judgement either. That gets to the heart of the problem. Religious freedom should not mean you can kill your kids.
Silent H writes:
My second was to point out that if care for children is our concern, then what good would tossing the remaining children into foster care be?
Then my argument stands. Thank you.
Silent H writes:
That sure is a worldview. Thankfully, my position on worldviews is that you do not get to impose them on others, via the state. I would hope that in one of these posts you would understand that, and so not attempt that rather errant reductio.
Yes, I understand that. And it's wrong. Society cannot function that way. It has never successfully functioned that way. There have always been limitations placed on society.
Silent H writes:
It is statistically true that people of faith (religious belief) have greater survival rates during illness/injury.
I assume you can support this? I have my doubts. But then, that doesn't really address this issue unless you can cite evidence that these people with higher survival rates did so only through the power of prayer. Making the leap from the specific case of this thread, to the example you just listed is a bit of a stretch.
Silent H writes:
Some religious communities choose to live without technology, including phones. which greatly increases the chance that their children will suffer and die due to lack of adequate medical response. Am I to assume that the State can then enter these communities, say the Amish, and install telephones or give them cars, so that their children can receive adequate medical care in emergencies?
No...but that's not what this is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 03-28-2008 3:06 PM Silent H has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 108 of 286 (461926)
03-28-2008 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by molbiogirl
03-28-2008 3:45 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
These . practiced openly::these . openly expressed tenets
with acceptance by the larger American society::we have been accepting of these practices
lending them, these practices, historical sanction::having allowed them standing in society
Goal post::home plate
They are even in the same order, for Pete's sake.
Not admitting to your characterization of my position is not waffling.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 3:45 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 4:53 PM lyx2no has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 109 of 286 (461927)
03-28-2008 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 4:46 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
Did you bother to read the link?
Both are ESTABLISHED religions. Their tenets are not SECRET. They are ACCEPTED by society.
Did you bother to read the link?
BTW.
You say nothing of "American society" ... only society. Nor do you say anything of "history" ... only "allowed them standing".
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent.
So.
Incest is OK by your standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 4:46 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 110 of 286 (461933)
03-28-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by molbiogirl
03-28-2008 4:53 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
I accept fault for not specifying that Wisconsin was in America.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 4:53 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 5:50 PM lyx2no has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 111 of 286 (461934)
03-28-2008 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
I accept fault for not specifying that Wisconsin was in America.
You can dodge the implications of your "standards" all you like.
The fact remains, you stated unequivocally that:
If you can show that any of these things are openly expressed tenets of an established religion, and were necessary for the child to get into heaven so that its immortal soul would not forever suffer in fire and brimstone, and that we have been accepting of these practices having allowed them standing in society, then they become pertinent. Until then they are blather.
Here is the question to which you were responding:
And I've asked you several times, where do you draw the line?
I suppose now is a good a time as any to assume that you agree with the following:
Parents should be allowed to neglect caring for their children to the point of death during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to break their child's arm during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to drop their child off in the middle of a forest so that God can save their immortal soul during their "good faith rearing".
Parents should be allowed to behead their children at any time during their "good faith rearing".
So, those are all included in “I don’t have the right to interfere in the good faith rearing of the children of others.”
When does this right stop? When the child turns 18?
Are you saying you want it to be legal for a parent to break the arm of their child every year up until they turn 18? After all, they only want to break their arm during their "good faith rearing".
Nothing of Wisconsin.
Nothing of America.
It was a question of "where to draw the line".
An established religion, with openly practiced tenets, which is accepted by society, promotes incest.
Using your "criteria", one has no right whatsoever to find that practice reprehensible, as it is religious.
Edited by molbiogirl, : punctuation

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 5:33 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 112 of 286 (461935)
03-28-2008 6:08 PM


Lyx2no,
What of exorcism?
BBC NEWS | Americas | US boy dies during 'exorcism'
An autistic eight-year-old boy has died during a prayer service held to supposedly cure him of the evil spirits blamed for causing his condition.
This is OK too?

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 113 of 286 (461939)
03-28-2008 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by molbiogirl
03-28-2008 5:50 PM


Re: Government is Not a Better Owner
Sorry 'bout that. I knew I was going to catch hell for that but couldn't muster the discipline to not say it.
Where it was my intent to be talking only of the United States, that that went unstated was short sighted of me. If you wish to accuse me of having been provincial in my thinking I would have to agree.
But in the larger picture you force me to, you are right: My standards do not grant me the right to enforce my will upon the Salti or the Baiga.
Can you please explain to me why this would demand that I cannot find their practice reprehensible? I find the drinking of alcohol objectionable without any sense of right to abolish the practice. But I still will not associate with people while they are drinking, and have no qualms telling them why.
AbE: I must protest your continued use of the term OK. As I have stated repeatedly; it is not OK.
Edited by lyx2no, : AbE.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 5:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 6:52 PM lyx2no has replied
 Message 116 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 7:25 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 114 of 286 (461941)
03-28-2008 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 6:47 PM


But in the larger picture you force me to, you are right: My standards do not grant me the right to enforce my will upon the Salti or the Baiga.
And if a member of said cult were to move to the U.S.?
The children are raised in little restraint. The attitude toward erotic play is generally indulgent, and sex experience begins in child-hood. The Baiga "have no fear of deflowering virgins, for there are no virgins. Each little girl has slowly . . . had her vagina enlarged, and by her wedding-night, she is already an experienced lover."
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles09/sexual-emotion-21.shtml

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:03 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 115 of 286 (461942)
03-28-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by molbiogirl
03-28-2008 6:52 PM


Where's my Cheese?
We do have the right to demand potential immigrants conform to our standards as a condition of entrance. Incest is not openly practiced here.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 6:52 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 7:35 PM lyx2no has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 116 of 286 (461943)
03-28-2008 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 6:47 PM


From your reply in Message 76:
To your earlier example of a vegan’s child being malnourished as a direct result of the parents beliefs. After it became apparent that the child was malnourished the parents were no longer acting in accordance with their duty to act in the best interest of their child. They were acting in the best interests of their belief.
Madeline's parents were well aware of her diabetes.
She had been ill for about a month, suffering symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, excessive thirst, loss of appetite and weakness.
They chose to deny medical treatment.
How is this different from a vegan parent's denial of proper nourishment?
FYI.
An exorcist who killed a Wisconsin child in a 2003 exorcism was prosecuted and convicted despite the "religious exemption" law.
Why do you suppose an exorcist is punished while these wingnuts walk free?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 6:47 PM lyx2no has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 117 of 286 (461944)
03-28-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by lyx2no
03-28-2008 7:03 PM


We do have the right to demand potential immigrants conform to our standards as a condition of entrance. Incest is not openly practiced here.
And yet, when it comes to respecting the religious convictions of a Jehovah Witness parent, our courts are more than ready to "violate" the religious "right" to withhold treatment.
In April 1999, Marcella Buckland was born prematurely at Tulsa's Hillcrest Medical Center to a Jehovah's Witness couple named Buckland. Marcella Buckland was born three months premature, and was severely anemic, and required blood transfusions to survive. However, the Bucklands refused to give their consent for the life-saving transfusions. The hospital sought and obtained court ordered guardianship and authorization to administer all needed medical care, including transfusions. Marcella also required surgery after birth.
2000s MINORS Blood Transfusion Court Cases
There are over 370 other cases with similar results -- the JW parents are taken to court; the children are given life-saving blood transfusions.
Why do you suppose JWs haven't the same sort of "rights" as xian wingnuts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:03 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by lyx2no, posted 03-28-2008 7:55 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 118 of 286 (461950)
03-28-2008 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by molbiogirl
03-28-2008 7:35 PM


Not Here.
It's part of the piecemeal effort to correct what is clearly a bigger problem then there is currently sufficient political will to fix in the legitimate fashion. The JW present an easy target.
Edited by lyx2no, : Mistype.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 03-28-2008 7:35 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
creative-evolutionist
Junior Member (Idle past 5723 days)
Posts: 7
Joined: 03-28-2008


Message 119 of 286 (461983)
03-29-2008 4:05 AM


Hello Everyone.
First off, I did not read EVERY post in this thread, sorry for that. I only found this forum yesterday and found it a bit long to follow every single posting duel.
Nevertheless, I would like to add my 2 cents:
Someone said something to the effect, that the parents are the Stewards (I would prefer Guardians) of their children. As Guardians, they are obliged to act in the best interest of the children. This means, they have to use ALL methods available, to improve a child's condition, in descending order of effectiveness. Even if they tried prayer first (although evidence suggests that modern medicine has a better chance of success), after at most a week of "not working" they should have started looking for other methods: maybe, if still shunning mm, homeopathy, herbalism which might even have led to a mm-practitioner finally seeing the girl.
Failing to do that, the parents failed in their guardianship and should be punished accordingly. Maybe not by prison, forcing the other children into foster care, but maybe enforced regular controls by authorities on the health status of the children.
Second, someone mentioned that it is proved that people of faith have better healing chances than people without faith. That would of course be, when they already are in medical care. Don't know though about the validity of that statement (Yeah, it's Wikipedia, I know
Lastly, since someone briefly touched on other religious beliefs, I would like to quote some scripture:
Surah 6, Verse 140 writes:
Those who kill their children foolishly without any knowledge and make what Allah has provided for them forbidden, inventing lies against Allah, such people are lost. They are misguided. They are not guided.
Surah 5, Verse 33 writes:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
says nothing there about the methods of killing or saving, just the outcome is judged.
and
Sura 81, Verses 8,9,14 writes:
When the female (infant), buried alive, is questioned - For what crime she was killed; /.../ (Then) shall each soul know what it has put forward.
This implies that a parent has no right to decide whether a child has to die or not. In extension (considering the other verses), parents have on the contrary the obligation to do everything to save their child.
So, Best regards, everyone.

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by lyx2no, posted 03-29-2008 11:51 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 120 of 286 (462014)
03-29-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by creative-evolutionist
03-29-2008 4:05 AM


Welcome
Good morning and welcome creative-evolutionist:
Talking about some generic set of parents whose belief is that while medicines will heal their child’s mortal suffering (something that going to Jesus also achieves) in two hours and cost $15.00 (I’ll give that), but will condemn said child’s immortal soul to an eternity of greater suffering, is it unreasonable to believe, given those postulates, that to treat the child with medicines is a course of action to be avoided?
As the basis of these parent’s beliefs is ”outside the realm of human reason’, or some such rubbish, are you not just substituting your understanding of reality for theirs? Or, in direct response to you, c-e, tit-bits from the holy books of others.
Would these people have the right to jurisdiction above you and yours if they were the controlling authority?
If these parents were in Bourneo (any similarity to an actual jurisdiction is unintended), where their actions were standard practice, do you still have the right to intervene?
Should we invade Bourneo, (”cause I’m down with that)?
Please keep in mind I only resolve:
  • The right of a child to have a steward (guardian applies specifically to a non-parental custodian) who faithfully carries out the assumed or stated will of the ward, without regard to the servicing of external agenda. This precludes pleasing God with a sacrifice to make the corn grow and stuff.
  • The presumption that (sane) parents are the primary guide (voice) for the ascertainment of the child’s will.
I make no enforceable judgment of the silly beliefs of the parents.

Kindly
When I was a child I’d slyly stick gum on the back of my little brothers head. Our horse, Brussels, would nip it off, usually getting a bit of skin along with it. As we grow old, fat and bald, particularly bald, the sins of my youth give me cause to giggle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by creative-evolutionist, posted 03-29-2008 4:05 AM creative-evolutionist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024