Murder by prayer: When is enough, enough?

I will gladly separate Archy from my own speculations. That is fine.From my own experiences in the christian community it is quite common to have people equivocate "Scripture says" with "God says" or "God commands". It is quite common for christians to claim that God speaks to them through scripture.With this said, does anyone really think that these parents are just going out on their own? Or do you think that they have a biblical justification, at least in their own eyes? Whether Archy agrees or disagrees with this justification is beside the point as it concerns the protection of religious beliefs. The Constitution does not state that only "true teachings" are protected under law, so any argument based on Constitutional law must apply euqally to both true and false teachings. I am sure Archy disagrees with Mormonism, and I would also assume that Archy supports the religious freedoms that Mormons enjoy (am I wrong Archy?).The only middle road I see through this is to take a very common sposition. Personal rights stop being personal rights when they violate the rights of others. The parents are free to believe that prayer is all you need when it comes to medical care. They are also free to deny medical care for THEMSELVES. They are also free to pray for their children's health. Praying for someone does not infringe on anyone's rights. However, when they deny their children the right to seek and receive medical care then they are violating those childrens' rights. Given that minors are not capable of consent as it relates to law then the state must step in, or at least have a court appointed guardian to help make medical decisions for that minor.

By all means. Can't say as I blame you. I do agree with you though. I particularly concur with your point about religious freedom and I find Archy's suggestion that we prosecute the pastor rather than the parents rather worrying. There might be a case for such actions in some extreme circumstances, but in general it would seem to infringe upon freedom of religion.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

I worry about that too. There seems to be two arguments butting heads on this one. The most obvious is religious freedom. The second, not so obvious, is the argument that those giving medical advice should either be licensed or at least have scientific support for that advice. We arrest people for practicing medicine without a license, so should we apply the same law to those who give medical advice that then results in the death of a child? That's a tough question.

No this is not a fine line. This is a large, tall and robust concrete wall.

Indeed. Imagine a clear case, where a preacher is unambiguously telling parents "Don't ever take your child to a secular doctor! Use only prayer to treat your sick child! Otherwise God will be mega-pissed at at you!". That preacher could perhaps conceivably be prosecuted for incitement to negligent homicide or something.The snag is that I very much doubt that many preachers are saying it in those terms. I suspect that usually the influence is more subtle. Faith healing is promoted as being effective and sacred, whereas "secular" medicine (AKA medicine) is scorned and treated as suspicious. Parents then draw their own conclusions. I don't see that much can be done to combat that sort of preaching without trampling on religious freedom. Sadly.Mutate and Survive

But couldn't you factor in the level of esteem these preachers are in their respective religious circles? I mean, their congregation sees them as their direct line to god. Disobeying the pastor (I assume, at least for those stupid enough to think faith healing actually works) is akin to disobeying god. They may not be saying exactly "NEVER use modern medicine", but they sure as hell are telling them faith is better.If I tell my friend he will be better off if he kills his neighbor, I am an accomplice, yes? The guy doesn't even need to respect me: he justs needs to be dumb enough to believe me.

---

Your god believes in Unicorns

keep in mind, i have not been talking about responsibility but their parental right. of course they are responsible for their decisions but i do not agree that it is a legal one where they are prosecuted for practicing their faith. that is called desperation and unless you believe that prayer works, it won't. belief is a key element in using prayer. so has faith healing {mpreon this later} read this: http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc1.htmlit would not be easy for the parents to do as you would like. see above. not everyone is strong enough to disagree with the church.

i am not following you here? {anddo i have to mention that mistakes can happen EVERY time i talk about medicine or isn't once enough to get the idea that it is part of all actions} given what i know about the church i highly doubt "God told them".

Hi Hooah, Well yeah, that's the kind of principle I'm talking about. As Huntard pointed out earlier, such things could be considered in mitigation on the parents' part. Also the abuse of influence might be relevant in the case of prosecuting the pastor. I don't think that the esteem in which a pastor is held makes it any more or less a case of incitement though. A person either incites others to a criminal act or he does not, surely. The esteem in which he is held is not directly relevant, except perhaps in sentencing.I share Taq's anxieties on this point. I would be loathe to risk stomping on someone's religious freedoms unless the matter was genuinely life and death and very clear-cut. But this is quite harmless, as long as the pastor makes it quite clear that parents must take their sick child to a mainstream doctor. They can believe that prayer is superior all they like. They can knock themselves out and have a big magic-hand-waving prayer party and think it the most important thing in the world if they like... so long as the child receives that medical care. The parents are free to view that medical care as an unnecessary adjunct if they like, they just have to provide it.In my view, saying "Faith healing is superior." doesn't quite cross the line. It's a bloody stupid thing to say, but it should never be criminalised. To say "Oh yeah... and doctors are evil!" though, that does cross a line and could be viewed as incitement. To say "Never take your kids to a doctor; use only prayer." is definitely incitement. Whether you could get a successful prosecution out of it though, I am very dubious.Mutate and Survive

first you do not care what i think then second you care and ask me. which is it please? i think i know more about this than most of you anditisn't just the false teaching but the restrictions placed upon the church's members. the churchhas a strict no doctors policy: Inside.com: News and Community For Professionals this is quite true and causes a problem for true christians. false religions are allowed to be active and not be afraid that they will be persecuted. i cannot legally take away anyone's constitutional rights without damaging my own. yet children's rights are limited and are under the care of the parent. if they weren't there would be NO emancipationof minors, an act that a couple celebrities have used in the past to free themselves from their parents oversight.How can a Child Become Emancipated from Her Parents?Emancipation of minors - laws | LII / Legal Information Instituteyou are applying a too broad of a brush when talking children's rights. this is just crap as the state has no authority to do so in these cases and you are arguing for a police state big brother where no family would be safe. you are begining to go down a very big slippery slope.faith healing is NOT denying medical care, it is practicing a different kind of treatment and is not neglect, abuse or whatever, noris it against the law. the state cannot interfere with parental rights.you create a very broad definition for the words neglect and abuse to fit your thinking not to act according ot the truth.

Faith Healing is very likely an oxymoron, but it is certainly not medical care.I do think though that in the US, such practices are criminally protected, even when it leads to the death of a child. There should be Civil Suits possible against the practitioner though under product liability and professional practices laws.Then there is also the very important tool of ridicule which should be used often and loudly. Parents that teach their kids that Faith Healing is a substitute for conventional medical care should be ridiculed just as parents that teach their children that there was a Biblical Flood.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

in this case there is NO preacher. he died 26 years ago approx.: http://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc1.htmlin this case i think the prosecutors are free to go after the church leaders and thepolicy. yet this church is saying those things inthose terms and the historyof the church adds to the prosecutors case: Inside.com: News and Community For Professionalshttp://www.rickross.com/reference/foc/foc1.html

tis is somethign that has to be factored in for insome people's minds thisis so and given the atmosphere at that parents' church the peer pressure, the leadership demands and rules play a very large part inthis child's death. which is why i can say the parents should not be prosecuted but the church leadership.

Hi Archy, Well yes, in this case clearly the current church leaders and the people currently preaching the "no-doctors" policy would be the ones potentially in the dock. For "preacher" or "pastor", read "whoever is passing on the no-doctors message". Again, I agree. This is the kind of material that I think would be needed to contemplate such a prosecution. I still think that clear-cut examples are going to be rare, even if this case provides one of those examples.Where we disagree is that you seem to be arguing that the duress which these people were under, as members of an oppressive cult, ought to somehow absolve them of legal responsibility. I completely disagree with that. I agree with the previous suggestion that such extenuating circumstances could be taken into consideration when considering sentencing; a lesser sentence might be appropriate. I don't see how it could be considered a legal defence."I was exercising my religious beliefs" cannot be a legal defence. It can never be allowed to excuse an otherwise criminal act. Doing so would set too dangerous a precedent and it could be too easily abused. The same reasoning could be used to excuse such horrors as female genital mutilation or even terrorist atrocities.Even speaking as an atheist, I consider freedom of religious practice to be a vitally important human right. I simply don't think that it can be allowed to trump a child's right to live their life.Mutate and Survive

tis argument fails just like the argument against the nazi defense of 'i was following orders' failed. {i may have said this in another post but the quote i placed here for some reason} the allied side did things that would have been considered crimes from the axis' perspective but they too were only following orders.the parents did nothing criminal, get that idea out of here as i posted a link that showed that federal law does not criminalize their behavior and the majority of states have exception clauses. you may think it is criminal but your opinion doe snot matter, it is subjective and is the result of bias.as i said, healing by faith takes many forms and God is NOT limited to only the miraculous use of His power in a manner that overwhelms people.yes He does and has done that BUT HE has also done things in a quiet manner, like Elijah in the cave, when Elijah was listening for God's voice he first thought it was in a strong wind, then a earthquake and so on but in the end God spoke in a small, still , quiet voice.it is unrealistic to always limit God to how we expect it to be done.one of the problems nations face is that laws cannot or are not worded to meet all circumstances. years ago i read a good book, 'the death of common sense' by philip k. howard. a very insightful book and demnostrates the weakness of laws as well as people who enforce them to the point of absurdity.this is what is happening in this issue. prosecutors and observers are going to the point of absurdity to force their beliefs upon others. you do not understand the issues involved and what may look easy to you is NOT easy for those who are involved. in football, such people are called arm chair quarterbacks and though they have never played a down they think they know better than the coach who has spent 30 years involved with the game.you people do not know the issue of faith healing because it is in a relam beyond yours and unless you get involved, instead of sitting onthe sidelines judging and condemning you will never understand whatis going on in peoples' minds or hearts.it is always easy to point the finger but it is another matter when you are the one involved.(if thepost seems disjointed it is because i lost a post or removed something when i shouldn't have, can't be sure}Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.